HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting 01-16-14 (Reso 2740-2014) - Attachment SSF-PedestrianMasterPlan
South San Francisco
Pedestrian
Master Plan
The work upon which this publication is based was funded in whole or in part through a grant awarded by the Strategic
Growth Council.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
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.
Table of Contents
CLIMATE ACTION PLA AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN i
Chapter 1: Planning Context ......................................................................................................................................................... I-1
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 ............................................................................................................................................................. V-1
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
Table of Contents
ii SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
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 ................................................................................. A-1
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 ...................................................................................................................................................... B-1
Appendix C: Detailed Cost Estimates ...................................................................................................................................... C-1
1 Planning Context
Chapter 1: Planning Context
This chapter summarizes the policies in existing planning documents related to pedestrian activity in
South San Francisco, and summarizes how future infrastructure investments will improve the City’s
pedestrian conditions. The existing plans have been grouped into City-wide plans, County Plans,
Regional Plans, State Plans and Federal Initiatives. Table 1 lists the existing planning and policy
documents that are addressed in this chapter.
Table I-1: Summary of Relevant Plans and Policies
City-wide
Plans County Plans Regional Plans
Statewide
Initiatives and
Plans
Federal
Initiatives
City of South San
Francisco General
Plan
San Mateo County
Comprehensive
Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan
San Francisco Bay
Trail
Caltrans’
Complete Streets
Policy
Department of
Transportation
Policy Statement on
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Accommodation
Regulations and
Recommendations
South San
Francisco El
Camino Real
Master Plan
South San
Francisco/San
Bruno Community-
Based
Transportation
Plan Draft
Grand Boulevard
Plan
California
Complete Streets
Act
El Camino Real /
Chestnut Avenue
Area Plan
MTC Complete
Streets and Routine
Accommodation
Policy
Assembly Bill 32
and State Bill 375
South San
Francisco Bicycle
Master Plan
Regional Ferry Plan Assembly Bill 1581
and Caltrans’
Policy Directive
09-06
Caltrain Station
Area Plan
(forthcoming)
High Speed Rail
Plan
East of 101 Area
Plan
Strategic Growth
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 pedestrian environment in South San
Francisco. This section discusses adopted plans and policies that relate to pedestrians in South San
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 1999)
Vision • Pedestrian facility improvements will improve safety for pedestrians and
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 service are of
clear, overall public benefit
• As part of redesign of South Linden Avenue, provide continuous
sidewalks on both sides of the street, extending through the entire
stretch of the street from San Bruno BART Station to Downtown.
• The General Plan recommends locations for traffic calming as part of
development in Lindenville or East of 101: require project proponents to
provide sidewalks and street trees as part of frontage improvements for
new development and redevelopment projects.
• The General Plan recommends improvements to pedestrian connections
between the rail stations and the surroundings: install handicapped
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 walking
distances across streets in Downtown, across El Camino Real and Mission
Road, and other high use areas; continue with the City’s current policy of
providing pedestrian facilities at all signalized intersections; and provide
landscaping that encourages pedestrian use.
I-2 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
1 Planning Context
South San Francisco El Camino Real Master Plan (ECRMP, July 2006)
Existing
conditions • Many El Camino Real intersections within the corridor are between 115
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 each
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 contiguous
Planned and
Proposed
Streetscape
improvements
• Arlington Drive to Hickey Blvd – streetscape improvements, improved
signage, pedestrian links to Hickey Blvd, and improved safety of crossing
at El Camino and Arlington Drive
• 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 crossing
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 where
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 south of
Spruce, add landscaping and gateway marking, address large setbacks
on private property with public art or other streetscape improvements
Design Goals and
Objectives • Improve streetscape aesthetics
• Increase pedestrian circulation and safety: provide accessible sidewalks
throughout the corridor; expand sidewalks at intersections to reduce
crossing length; install additional signaled crosswalks; provide shade and
bus shelters; install pedestrian barriers along medians to discourage
unsafe midblock crossing; buffer sidewalks with parking and vegetation
• Increase the use of the public transit system with more visibility and
pedestrian amenities
• Recapture vehicular right of way in areas in excess of current Caltrans
standards for pedestrian facilities and traffic calming
• Create an identifiable streetscape that focuses on South San Francisco’s
unique character
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN I-3
1 Planning Context
Design Concept
Descriptions • Throughout corridor – install street trees and remove billboards to
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 west side;
prune trees and remove billboard to improve visibility; provide lighting,
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; install
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 entrance of
Kaiser to install expanded sidewalks and street trees; encourage Kaiser to
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 bulb-
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, and
signage on both sides of street at city gateway; widen sidewalks on both
sides of gateway.
I-4 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
1 Planning Context
El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan (ECR/CAP, July 2011)
Vision for El
Camino corridor
from SSF BART
station to
Chestnut Ave
• Higher density residential development and additional retail, office and
public space
• Increase pedestrian focus
• Increase commercial activity for both destination and neighborhood
serving retail
• Add continuous green space along Centennial Way and along BART right
of way, to serve as a connector
• Create pedestrian connections along Mission Road and El Camino Real
Existing
conditions for El
Camino corridor
from SSF BART
station to
Chestnut Ave
• Pedestrians have access to BART station from El Camino Real
East of 101 Area Plan (July 1994)
The East of 101 Area Plan focuses on the unique character and economic resources located east of U.S.
101. The plan outlines circulation goals for future development in the East of 101 Area, which include
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 for a streetscape plan for several key
streets and encourages campus planning (e.g. Genentech Master Plan).
South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan (2011)
A detailed Bicycle Master Plan was adopted by the City Council in 2011. This plan prioritizes
improvements and will eventually be adopted as an amendment to the City 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 access and connectivity
between the station, the downtown area near Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard, and employment
centers east of U.S. 101.
Traffic Calming Plan
The City of South San Francisco has established an ongoing Traffic Calming program, accompanied by
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 excessive speeding, cut-through traffic, and
high vehicular volumes while maintaining pedestrian and vehicular safety. The Traffic Calming Plan
provides a toolkit for implementing solutions, however the City has no dedicated funding source for
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 (presented October 2010)
A series of trainings with a focus on improving the Pedestrian and Bicycle environments was
presented to practicing transportation, urban planning, engineering and design professionals from
South San Francisco and adjacent jurisdictions. The presentation focused on a number of planning
tools and design innovations that may increase pedestrian safety and mobility throughout the city.
These include: scramble treatments at intersections to allow for diagonal pedestrian crossing; leading
pedestrian signals to give pedestrians a head start on turning vehicles; advance yield and limit lines at
pedestrian crossings to improve visibility from approaching vehicles; flashing beacons and High
Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) to alert approaching vehicles when a pedestrian is in the
intersections; split pedestrian crossover to reduce crossing distance and improve visibility and wide or
confusing intersections; and ADA innovations and updates at push button crosswalks.
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 Avenue/ Westborough Boulevard near El
Camino Real. The project goal was to develop signal coordination plans for AM, mid-day and PM peak
periods to improve timing and reduce vehicle delay. Pedestrian signal timing at crosswalks was
adjusted to accommodate a slower walking speed, and the new signal timing reduces transit travel
time on the corridor.
1.2 County Plans
This section describes the plans and policies related to pedestrian activity within San Mateo County.
San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (SM CCBP, September
2011)
The San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (SM CCBP) was adopted by the
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) and the San Mateo County
Transportation Authority (SMCTA) in September 2011. This plan addresses the planning, design,
funding and implementation of bicycle and pedestrian projects of countywide significance 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.
I-6 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
1 Planning Context
Existing
Conditions for all
of San Mateo
County
• The largest population and employment densities in the county are
concentrated along the El Camino Real corridor
• A Class I path has been constructed between South San Francisco and
San Bruno BART as part of the Colma-Millbrae Bikeway Project
• Employment density around SSF Caltrain station is high on the east side
of the freeway
• Multi-use paths (Class I facilities) are in place along the bay shoreline and
between the South San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations, but there
is less coverage extending beyond the transit centers and limited
opportunity given the development pattern
Goals to improve
active
transportation
• Goal 1: A Comprehensive Countywide System of Facilities for Bicyclists
and Pedestrians
• 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 and
Pedestrians
• Goal 5: Strong Local Support for Non-Motorized Transportation
The vision most relevant to South San Francisco will be implemented through the countywide Grand
Boulevard Initiative, a regional collaboration dedicated to revitalizing the El Camino Real corridor
through San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties (see Regional Plans, below, for details).
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
Conditions in
South San
Francisco
• The east portion of South San Francisco is not well served by public
transit
• Several major employers are located east of Hwy 101; major retail is
mostly located along the El Camino Real and BART corridors
• Residents need increased sense of security while walking and more
pedestrian amenities and streetscape improvements
Transportation
Strategies
• Improve transit stops and amenities; and improve transit affordability for
low income users
• Implement improvements such as pedestrian count down signals,
additional crossing time, sidewalk and accessibility improvements, street
lighting, benches, and median refuges
• Link Caltrain station to Grand Avenue and downtown South San
Francisco with pedestrian connections
Specific locations
for Traffic
Calming
• Across U.S. Route 101 from downtown South San Francisco to the South
San Francisco Caltrain station and east of U.S. Route 101 (South San
Francisco)
• Westborough Boulevard between Camaritas Avenue and Junipero Serra
Boulevard
• El Camino Real from Hickey Boulevard to Serramonte Boulevard
Gaps in the
pedestrian
environment
• Across U.S. Route 101 from downtown South San Francisco to the South San
Francisco Caltrain station and east of U.S. Route 101 (South San Francisco)
• Westborough Boulevard between Camaritas Avenue and Junipero Serra
Boulevard
• El Camino Real from Hickey Boulevard to Serramonte Boulevard
I-8 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
1 Planning Context
1.3 Regional Plans
The Plans summarized in this section affect jurisdictions throughout the nine county Bay Area region,
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 itself. Planning for the Bay Trail is
coordinated by the nonprofit San Francisco Bay Trail Project, a project of the Association of Bay Area
Governments.
To date, approximately 290 miles of the Bay Trail alignment have been developed as either off-street
paths or on-street bicycling lanes or routes. South San Francisco’s bay waterfront is home to a Class I
section of the Bay Trail, running between San Bruno Point and Oyster Cove. The City of South San
Francisco has completed its portion of the Trail with the exception of a vacant parcel near North
Access Road. The City will review the Bay Trail within areas subject to sea level rise.
Grand Boulevard Initiative (ongoing)
The Grand Boulevard Initiative focuses on encouraging multimodal access
and a boulevard street environment along El Camino Real in both San
Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Street Design Guidelines for street
improvement projects promote the basic elements of the Grand Boulevard
vision, with common Design Issues and accompanying Recommendations.
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
Shorter blocks with median-obstructed
crossings are more common in San Mateo
County
• Signalized mid-block and/or median-
obstructed crossings in node areas should be
installed to provide for a maximum distance
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.
Pedestrian crossing distances on SR 82 are
relatively long
• At signalized crossings 80 feet long or
greater, or at un-signalized intersection
crossings, pedestrian refuge islands should
be installed as local conditions allow.
Existing sidewalks throughout the SR 82
corridor are generally too narrow to support
the “boulevard” street environment required to
promote investment in transit-oriented mixed-
use and infill residential development
• New and re-development projects along the
corridor frontage should provide a 10-foot or
greater setback as needed to create a
minimum 18-foot frontage sidewalk.
Sidewalks provide a linear through-circulation
route for pedestrians, “spillout” space, and area
for boulevard amenities
• Sidewalks should be configured to reflect the
three basic sidewalk functions note above,
with a 4-foot spillout zone adjacent to
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.
Lighting conditions do not encourage
pedestrian circulation, support investment in
frontage properties, or promote the boulevard
image desired for the corridor
• Pedestrian-oriented street lighting should be
installed throughout the corridor, with
supplemental highway-type lighting located
at intersections if required.
• 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 the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists
habitually in the planning, design, funding and construction of transportation projects. “Complete
streets” is a related concept that describes roadways designed and operated for safe and convenient
access by all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders.
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 region.
The policy states that projects funded all or in part with regional funds “shall consider the
accommodation of bicycling and walking facilities, as described in Caltrans Deputy Directive 64” (see
below) in the full project cost. The policy requires that sponsors of transportation projects—including
the City of South San Francisco—complete a project checklist for any project submitted for funding to
I-10 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
1 Planning Context
MTC that has the potential to impact bicycle or pedestrian use negatively. The checklist is meant to
ensure that project sponsors evaluate the need for bicycling and walking facilities as part of project
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 Bay, including improved mobility and
reduction on single occupancy vehicle dependence. A new ferry terminal is being constructed on the
South San Francisco waterfront at Oyster Point, and pedestrian access between the terminal and
employment destinations in the East of 101 Area will be very important. Ferry service to and from
South San Francsico is maintained by the Water Emergency Transporattion Agency (WETA). WETA
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 Real (CA Highway 82), US 101, Interstate
280, and Interstate 380. The following policies affect strategic planning decisions on those corridors. In
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) adopted a routine accommodation
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 opportunities to improve safety, access,
and mobility for all travelers in California and recognizes bicycling, pedestrian, and transit modes
as integral elements of the transportation system.
The Department develops integrated multimodal projects in balance with community goals, plans,
and values. Addressing the safety and mobility needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users in
all projects, regardless of funding, is implicit in these objectives. Bicycle, pedestrian and transit
travel is facilitated by creating “complete streets” beginning early in system planning and
continuing through project delivery and maintenance and operations….
The directive establishes Caltrans’ own responsibilities under this policy. Among the responsibilities
that Caltrans assigns to various staff positions under the policy are:
• Ensure bicycling, pedestrian, and transit interests are appropriately represented on
interdisciplinary planning and project delivery development teams.
• Ensure bicycle, pedestrian, and transit user needs are addressed and deficiencies identified during
system and corridor planning, project initiation, scoping, and programming.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN I-11
1 Planning Context
• Ensure incorporation of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travel elements in all Department
transportation plans and studies.
• Promote land uses that encourage bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travel.
• Research, develop, and implement multimodal performance measures.
California Complete Streets Act
Assembly Bill 1358, the “California Complete Streets Act of 2008,” requires “that the legislative body of
a city or county, upon any substantive revision of the circulation element of the general plan, modify
the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the
needs of all users [including] motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities,
seniors, movers of commercial goods, and users of public transportation….” This provision of the law
goes into effect on January 1, 2011. The law also directs the Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research to amend its guidelines for the development of circulation elements so as to assist cities and
counties in meeting the above requirement.
Assembly Bill 32 and State Bill 375
Senate Bill (SB) 375 is the implementation legislation for Assembly Bill (AB) 32. AB 32 requires the
reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG) by 28 percent by the year 2020 and by 50 percent by the year
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 and heat. SB 375 tasks
metropolitan and regional planning agencies with achieving GHG reductions through their Regional
or Metropolitan Transportation Plans. The reduction of the use the automobile for trip making is one
method for reducing GHG emissions. This can be achieved through the use of modes other than the
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 traffic signal construction and
modifications to existing traffic signals include the ability to detect bicycles and motorcycles. It also
calls for the timing of actuated traffic signals to account for bicycles. In response to AB 1581, Caltrans
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 Devices. The California Traffic Control
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 Francisco. The plan is undergoing
design changes involving a shared rail system. Studies are currently underway to examine access
across the tracks and potential local traffic impacts. Caltrain is developing a list of improvements. More
specific accommodations for the local pedestrian environment will be considered as plans for
implementation are developed.
I-12 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
1 Planning Context
Strategic Growth Council Health in All Initiative
California’s Health in All Policies Task Force was established in 2010, under the auspices of the
Strategic Growth Council (SGC). The Task Force was charged with identifying priority actions and
strategies for State agencies to improve community health while also advancing the other goals of the
SGC. The policy recommendations address two strategic directions, which both relate to the
Pedestrian Master Plan:
• Building healthy and safe communities with opportunities for active transportation; safe, healthy,
affordable housing; places to be active, including parks, green space, and healthy tree canopy; the
ability to be active without fear of violence or crime; and access to healthy, affordable foods.
• Finding opportunities to add a health lens in public policy and program development and
increase collaboration across agencies and with communities.
1.5 Federal Initiatives
The United States Department of Transportation has issued the following statement on pedestrian
and bicycling activity and planning.
Department of Transportation Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations,
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 transportation
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, rehabilitated, and limited access
bridges
• Collecting data on walking and biking trips
• Setting mode share for walking and bicycling and tracking them over time
• 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
I-14 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2 Existing Pedestrian
Environment
Chapter 2: Existing Pedestrian Environment
The City of South San Francisco, incorporated in 1908, is located on the west shore of the San
Francisco Bay, in northern San Mateo County. The City is built upon the Bay Plain and the northern
foothills of the Coastal Range, and the El Camino Real and Union Pacific Railroad helped to establish its
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, and both residential and industrial
areas developed. Now it is home to major transportation corridors and destinations, including U.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 located in South San Francisco. The City
encompasses 9.63 square miles and has a population of approximately 63,000 (2010 Census), which
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 environments. The downtown area is a
well connected street network complete with sidewalks, commercial activity, destinations, and public
amenities. Multi-use shared paths along the waterfront and connecting the San Bruno and South San
Francisco BART stations have already been built, and a number of new trail and on-road bikeway
projects were recommended in the South San Francisco Bicyle Master Plan. Some of these have
already been implemented, or are simply a conversion from a recommended route to a marked bike
lane. Long-term implementation of bikeway projects will depend on availability of funding and
opportunities presented by future development. The Caltrain station is adjacent to the downtown,
and the forthcoming Station Area Plan will identify key pedestrian connections and opportunities. The
Grand Boulevard Initiative provides guidelines and priorities to define El Camino Real as a destination
and human-scale street. All of these assets can contribute to a vibrant street environment and civic
life.
The City of South San Francisco has identified the impotrance of building walkable communities and
defines the Downtown, the City’s historic commercial center, as a primary focus area for revitalization.
The area includes City Hall, small commercial retail businesses, the Caltrain station, and a residential
area. Figure 2-1 illustrates these existing activity generators throughout South San Francisco, as well
as schools, major employers, other commercial districts, parks, and recreation centers.
South San Francisco includes a variety of land uses and walking environments. From the commercial
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 in South San Francisco, located primarily to
the west of U.S. 101, are well suited for walking, but some busy car-oriented streets such as El Camino
Real, Junipero Serra, South Spruce, South Linden Avenue, Westborough Boulevard and streets east of
U.S. 101 have gaps in the sidewalk network, and highways and some local arterials such as Junipero
Serra Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard create pedestrian barriers between residential and
employment destinations.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN II-1
""""""))))))")))#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*)#*"""®vSan Francisco Bay£¤101§¨¦802£¤101§¨¦802§¨¦803]V28]V28]V53]V1PacificaGenentechCampusEl Camino RealHigh SchoolS. San FranciscoHigh SchoolBARTB A R TCALTRAIN
C A L T R A IN
San BrunoStationSSFStationSSFStationSSpruceAveDaly CitySan BrunoBrisbaneSan Bruno Mountain ParkCaliforniaGolf ClubCountryClub ParkSan FranciscoInt'l AirportUninc.See's CandyHealth CenterSSF Public LibraryMunicipal Services BldgKaiser PermanenteMedical CenterLibraryRoyalLaundryColumbus Manufacturing, Inc.Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.South San FranciscoGrand AveE l C am in o R ea lForbesBlArroyoDrS Ai rp o rt B lv d
GatewayBlvdEGrandA veJ u nip e ro Serra B lv d Harbor WayCallanB lvdChestnut AveSisterCitiesBlvdEcclesAveWestboroughBlvdOysterPointBlvdGeller tBlvdHillsideBlvdWOrangeAve
HickeyBlvdSk ylineBlvd2nd Ln1st LnPark WayM ission RdNewm an DrCommercial AveN Canal StLarch AveShannon DrAvalon DrHolly AveMaple AveDel Monte AveSerra DrS Linden AveHazelwood DrEvergreen DrCamaritas AveRockwood DrRocca AveEucalyptus AveWexford AveGreendale DrWillow AveNoor AvePecks LnCostcoCostcoAmgen Inc.GenentechMatagrano Inc.Oroweat Foods Co.City HallSSF Historical MuseumMagnoliaSeniorCenterOyster Point Ferry TerminalSSF Conference CenterCounty Court HouseLEGEND"Major Employer#*Shopping Center )Other Ped Activity GeneratorBay Trail Within SSFMulti-Use PathEmployment AreaSchoolParkPriority Development AreaPEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY GENERATORSFigure 2-1SF11-0594\GISI11 mile
2 Existing Pedestrian
Environment
In recent years, there has been a focus on transit oriented development around the South San
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 park and Class I multi-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 Downtown Station Area,
and is completing a land use plan for the northern portion of the El Camino Real Corridor. The cities of
South San Francisco and San Bruno collaborated with the San Mateo County Transit District to
develop a Community Transportation Plan (CMP) for a portion of the southeastern area of South San
Francisco west of US 101 (along with northern San Bruno).
In addition to the commercial corridors and neighborhood serving retail, schools are a primary
walking destination. The South San Francisco Unified School District includes nine elementary schools,
three middle schools, and three high schools; South San Francisco is also home to six private
elementary schools and one private high school. All of these schools are important pedestrian
destinations.
Table II-1 shows the population age groups for South San Francisco compared to other nearby
jurisdictions. School age children make up a 22% of the local population.
Table II-1: Population Age Groups
Age Group San Francisco San Mateo
County
City of San
Mateo
City of South
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 South San Francisco develop
effective and targeted programs to better service residents and resident-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 transit, or driving, and is often used in
evaluating commuter alternatives such as walking, where the objective is to increase the percentage
of people selecting an alternative means of transportation to the single-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
Mode United
States California San Mateo
County
City of San
Mateo
City of
South San
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 in South San Francisco, though at a
slightly lower share compared to county, state, and national levels. Carpool and transit are also higher
than county, state, and national levels. However, bicycle and walk are as low as the regional and
national levels, representing only four percent of work trips in South San Francisco.
Journey-to-work mode share is not always an accurate indicator of overall walking activity, since
commute trips only represent a portion of all trips taken by residents. Residents also take walking trips
when traveling between their home and transit, or between their vehicle and transit. Additionally, the
journey-to-work data does not represent the trips South San Francisco residents take to go shopping,
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 than shopping,
school, recreation, and other trips, and therefore less compatible with active transportation.
• Journey-to-work data does not account for commuters with multiple modes of travel to and from
work, such as commuters who walk to a bus stop before transferring to transit for the remainder of
their journey to work.
• No separate accounting of shopping, school, or recreational trips is made in the Census; these trips
make up more than half of the person trips on a typical weekday and a significantly greater
portion on the weekend. These trips also tend to be short to medium in length and are therefore
very well suited to walking.
II-4 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2 Existing Pedestrian
Environment
• Journey-to-work reports information for adult work trips, but does not request data on school
trips, which are much more likely to be walking trips because school-aged individuals cannot drive
until the latter half of their high school years.
The Federal Highway Administration and U.S. Department of Transportation released in May 2010 the
National Bicycle & Walking Study: 15 Year Status Report. The agencies found that between the initial
report in 1995 and household survey data collected in 2009, walking activity grew from 7.2 percent of
all trips to 10.9 percent of all trips. Meanwhile, the total number of pedestrian fatalities has decreased
22.3 percent, from 5,638 1993 to 4,378 in 2008. Estimates of pedestrian 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 the availability of well-connected
facilities; appropriate education and promotion programs designed to encourage walking; and
location, density, and type of future land development. The 2010 National Bicycle & Walking Study: 15
Year Status Report found correlation between funding for bicycling and walking projects and the
number of walking and bicycling trips.
With appropriate walking facilities in place and implementation of employer trip reduction programs,
the number of people walking to work, school, or to shop could increase significantly in future years.
By setting aggressive goals and implementing the recommendations in this plan, South San Francisco
could substantially increase the number of daily walking trips, especially if this plan’s goals, policies
and recommendations are directed at people who would mostly likely switch to walking, including
those making trips that are under one mile, workers who work within five miles of South San
Francisco, school children, and transit riders.
Estimating and projecting how many people walk for all trips, including non-work trips, in a targeted
study area is difficult, but Bay Area Travel Survey (BATS) provides a baseline. According to the most
recent BATS data, walking represented 9.3 percent of all Bay Area trips in 2000. If South San Francisco
can achieve success similar to other cities and national goals, the 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 maintained by the Statewide Integrated
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 traffic
collisions can affect anyone, they have a disproportionate impact on pedestrians and bicyclists, 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 factors that influence collision rates are
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, in this data set, more pedestrian
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN II-5
2 Existing Pedestrian
Environment
collisions take place during p.m. peak travel hours (38 percent of all pedestrian collision take place
between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m.) than during a.m. peak (only 16 percent of all pedestrian collisions take
place between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m.). Furthermore, collisions that involve stationary objects do not
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 may not indicate much about a
specific location.
While the collision locations identified in this section help identify “hotspots,” they should not be
assumed to be the most hazardous or risky locations. For a more meaningful evaluation, the data
would need to be adjusted for the number of pedestrian or bicyclists to account for “exposure.” At
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. For example, El Camino Real (State
Route 82) has more pedestrian-involved collision reports than other areas of South San Francisco, but
it is a primary corridor for shopping, transit, school, and employment, with likely greater numbers of
walkers the more residential areas of the City. Absent a complete database of pedestrian and bicyclist
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, and does not necessarily identify a
certain location as unsafe.
Collision data includes the roadway where the incident occurred. “Corridors” 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 length of the
streets that are within the South San Francisco city boundaries.
II-6 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
®vlllllSan Francisco Bay£¤101§¨¦802£¤101§¨¦802§¨¦803]V28]V28]V53]V1San Bruno Mountain ParkCaliforniaGolf ClubCountryClub ParkSan FranciscoInt'l AirportPacificaGenentechCampusEl Camino RealHigh SchoolS. San FranciscoHigh SchoolBA R TB A R TCALTRAIN
C A LTR A IN
Uninc.San BrunoStationSSFStationSSFStationOysterPointBlvdOyster Point Ferry TerminalKaiser PermanenteMedical CenterSouth San FranciscoSan BrunoColmaBrisbaneDaly CityGrand AveE l C a m in o R e a lForbesBlvdArroyoDrS A irp o rt B lv d
GatewayBlvdEGrandAveSSpruceAveJ u ni pe ro Serra Blvd Harbor WayC allan B lvdChestnut AveSisterCitiesBlvdEcclesAveWestboroughBlvdGeller tBlvdHillsideBlvdWOrangeAveUtahAve
HickeyBlvdSkyline
B lvd2nd Ln1st LnPark WayM ission RdNewman DrCommercial AveN Canal StLarch AveShannon DrAvalon DrHolly AveMaple AveDel Monte AveSerra DrS Linden AveHazelwood DrEvergreen DrCamaritas AveRockwood DrRocca AveEucalyptus AveWexford AveGreendale DrWillow AveNoor AvePecks LnLEGENDlPedestrian Fatality4-6 Ped Collisions2-3 Ped Collisions1 Ped CollisionBay Trail Within SSFMulti-Use PathSchoolParkPriority Development AreaPEDESTRIAN COLLISION MAP 2005-2010Figure 2-2SF11-0594\GISI11 mile
2 Existing Pedestrian
Environment
Table II-3: Top 12 Pedestrian-Involved Collision Corridors – 2005 to 2010
Street Collisions
Reported Street Collisions
Reported
El Camino Real/ Rt 82 21 Miller Ave 7
Grand Ave 16 Baden Ave 7
Spruce Ave and South
Spruce Ave 12 West Orange Blvd 7
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 distance to the next nearest intersection will
be so assigned. Table II-4 summarizes the intersections that were reported most frequently in the 2005
to 2010 pedestrian-involved collision data.
II-8 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2 Existing Pedestrian
Environment
Table II-4: Top Pedestrian-Involved Collisions by Intersection – 2005 to 2010
Street Collisions
Reported Street Collisions
Reported
Rt 82/El Camino Real and
Arroyo Dr 6 Hickey Blvd and Junipero
Serra Blvd 3
Rt 82/El Camino Real and
Country Club Cr 2 Linden Ave and Miller Ave 3
Rt 82/El Camino Real and
Hickey Blvd 2 Linden Ave and California
Ave 2
Rt 82/El Camino Real and
Mc Lellan Dr 2 Myrtle Ave and Spruce or
South Spruce Ave 2
Rt 82/El Camino Real and
Noor Ave 2 Myrtle Ave and West Orange
Ave 2
Rt 82/El Camino Real and
Southwood Dr 2 Alida Way and Country Club
Dr 2
Rt 82/El Camino Real and
Spruce Ave 2 Antoinette Ln and Chestnut
Ave 2
Grand Ave and Spruce or
South Spruce Ave 3 Maple Ave and Miller Ave 2
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
Ave 2 Mission Rd and Evergreen Dr 2
Grand Ave and Maple Ave 2 East Grand Ave and
Dubuque Ave 2
Baden Ave and Maple Ave 4 Spruce Ave and Commercial
Ave 2
Baden Ave and Airport Blvd 2 Keoncrest Dr and San Felipe
Ave 2
Source: SWITRS, 2010
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN II-9
2 Existing Pedestrian
Environment
Locations with multiple pedestrian collisions indicate dangerous conditions; locations with fatalities
may not include multiple collisions, but indicate conditions that may lead to severe collisions. These
locations should be closely analyzed and considered for interventions. Six fatalities were recorded in
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 same block)
• Oyster Point and Eccles Avenue
• Commercial and Chestnut Avenues
Collisions are due to a wide variety of unsafe conditions and behavior. In approximately 41 percent of
reported pedestrian-involved collisions a motorist failed to yield to a pedestrian with the right of way.
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 right of way. Motorists starting, backing,
speeding, or turning unsafely were responsible for approximately 11.2 percent of these collisions, and
nearly 3 percent were due to a motorist driving under the influence. Location data and primary
collision factors are used to evaluate and prioritize improvements as part of the Implementation Plan.
2.3 Existing Programs, Policies and Practices Benchmarking
Analysis
The City of South San Francisco has already made significant investments in making its streets
friendlier to pedestrians. The following section summarizes the City’s pedestrian safety policies,
programs, and practices. The City’s current operations were reviewed with a benchmarking matrix1
that compares the City’s policies, programs, and practices with national best practices. The
benchmarking analysis categorized the City’s programs, practices, and policies into three groups:
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 this is due to limited
staff resources)
1 National Best Practices are defined in the California Pedestrian Safety Assessment Program:
http://www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu/pedsafety/psa_handbook.pdf
II-10 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2 Existing Pedestrian
Environment
Table II-5: Summary of Benchmarking Analysis
Category Key Strengths Enhancements Opportunities
Policies Climate Action Plan
Design Standards
Overcoming Institutional
Barriers
Speed Surveys/Speed
Limits
Transportation Demand
Management
ADA Transition Plan
Complete Streets Policy
Crosswalk Policy
General Plan
Safe Routes to Transit
Warrants for Traffic
Control Devices
Data
Collection
Collision History and
Reports
Trip and Fall Reports
Bicycle Facility Inventory
Sidewalk Inventory
Pedestrian Volumes
Trails and Paths Inventory
Programs Walking Audits
Safe Routes to School
Program
Traffic Calming Program
Pedestrian, Bicycle and
TDM Coordinator
Pedestrian Education
Enforcement Involving Enforcement in
Design
Pedestrian-Oriented
Enforcement
Shared Pedestrian
Enforcement
Traffic Safety Officers
Pedestrian Safety Course
Promotion
Coordination with Health
Agencies Promotional
Giveaways
Public Involvement
Economic Vitality
Signage and Wayfinding
Source: Survey Completed by City of South San Francisco staff, 2012; Prepared 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
Plan or Policy Benchmark South San Francisco
Response
Opportunities for
Improvements
Climate Action Plan
A Climate Action Plan is
comprised of policies and
measures that address
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.
Key Strength The City of South San Francisco
is currently developing a
Climate Action Plan.
Ensure that the
recommendations made in the
Climate Action Plan
complement those made in the
Pedestrian Master Plan
Design Standards
Design policies and
development standards
can improve the walking
experience, encourage
walking, enhance
economic vitality, and
offer funding
opportunities for walking
improvements.
Enhancement The City does not currently
have a Streetscape Master Plan,
but a set of streetscape
guidelines is included in the El
Camino Master Plan. The East
of 101 Area Plan identifies the
need for Streetscape Plans, but
the City has yet to develop any.
The City Council has adopted
the Grand Boulevard
Landscape Plan for El Camino
Real. Also, the City’s parking
ordinance designates the
number of driveway curb cuts
allowed in residential areas and
limits the amount of paving
allowed in front yards. Curb
cuts in commercial areas are
decided on a case by case
basis, but the City is sensitive to
pedestrian needs when making
decisions.
• Consider developing a
Streetscape and/or Landscape
Architecture Master Plan for the
City.
• Consider developing a street
trees policy for the City.
• Consider developing a parklets
program for the City. See San
Francisco’s program as a best
practice example:
http://sfpavementtoparks.sfplan
ning.org/
• During the next General Plan
update, include goals and
actions for new development
standards and guidelines for
walking friendly development.
II-12 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2 Existing Pedestrian
Environment
Plan or Policy Benchmark South San Francisco
Response
Opportunities for
Improvements
Overcoming
Institutional Barriers
Numerous agencies have
jurisdiction over
components of the South
San Francisco
transportation network,
including Caltrain, BART,
SamTrans, BCDC,
Caltrans, neighboring
communities, and SFIA.
Institutional coordination
associated with multiple
agencies is necessary
because of non-local
control of right-of-way
and differing policies
regarding walking
accommodation. For
example, Caltrans policies
have historically
discouraged proposals
for bulbouts, wider
sidewalks, and other
walking-oriented
improvements.
Enhancement
The City of South San
Francisco coordinates between
departments and external
agencies and is currently
coordinating with Caltrain,
C/CAG and other agencies on
High Speed Rail and on a
Caltrain Station Area Plan. The
City identified the following
obstacles to overcome:
• Challenges with state policies
(i.e., Caltrans standards)
• Challenges with other
agencies or jurisdictions
regarding high speed rail
coordination
• Challenges with SFIA in
developing better pedestrian
and bicycle access
• Shortage of trained staff (for
bicycling and walking issues)
• Lack of design standards for
pedestrian facilities
• Inadequate or non-uniform
traffic calming
• Lack of understanding of
economic benefits of increased
walking and reduced minimum
parking requirements by the
residents and business
community
• Inadequate funding
• Continue to seek opportunities
to collaborate with Caltrain,
SamTrans and BART to improve
personal and walking safety
around transit hubs.
• Proactively collaborate with
the Cities of San Bruno, Colma,
Daly City, Pacifica, Brisbane and
C/CAG on walking
improvements and safety
measures beneficial to the
jurisdictions.
• Proactively seek opportunities
to collaborate with Caltrans to
identify and improve walking
safety along El Camino Real,
freeway interchanges and other
Caltrans right-of-way.
Recent Context Sensitive
Solutions and Routine
Accommodations policies
within Caltrans (refer to the
revised Deputy Directive 64:
www.calbike.org/pdfs/DD-64-
R1.pdf ) now require the agency
to consider multimodal needs
and engage in collaborative
community planning. These
new policies may reduce
institutional challenges, and the
City should continue to work
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
Plan or Policy Benchmark South San Francisco
Response
Opportunities for
Improvements
Speed Surveys and
Speed Limits
Pedestrian fatality rates
increase exponentially
with vehicle speed. Thus,
reducing vehicle speeds
in walking zones may be
one of the most
important strategies for
enhancing walking
safety.
Enhancement In South San Francisco, speed
surveys are conducted every
five years by a registered civil
engineer, following MUTCD
guidelines. Speed limits are
occasionally reviewed in
response to citizen requests.
The default speed limit in the
city when no sign is posted is
25mph, even near schools.
Speed limit signs are not
posted in these areas unless
there is a demonstrated need
for a sign. The City has adopted
a Traffic Calming Policy that
justifies improvements on local
streets or residential collectors
where City-conducted speed
surveys show that the 85th
percentile speed is in excess of
the posted speed limit by more
than 10mph.
• Consider walking volumes
when setting speed limits and
employ traffic calming
strategies in locations where
speed surveys suggest traffic
speeds are too high for walking
areas.
• Consider establishing 15 MPH
school zones during school bell
times, as was recently
implemented in San Francisco:
http://www.sfmayor.org/index.a
spx?page=537
• Ensure design standards/
design speeds in walking areas
do not contribute to a routine
need for traffic calming.
II-14 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2 Existing Pedestrian
Environment
Plan or Policy Benchmark South San Francisco
Response
Opportunities for
Improvements
Transportation Demand
Management
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM)
programs encourage
multi-modal travel by
incentivizing non-auto
options. As new
development occurs, the
TDM program can be
expanded and
strengthened.
Key Strength The City has a citywide TDM
program. Any project
expected to generate greater
than 100 ADT over the previous
use is required to prepare a
TDM plan, implement the plan
for the life of the project, and
conduct on-going monitoring.
The city provides shower and
locker facilities and secure
bicycle parking at most
locations. Many employers
within the city provide TDM
programs. Genentech operates
a comprehensive TDM
program, including
complementary shuttle service
connecting to transit stations,
alternative commute
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.
• Implement Citywide TDM
policies (per SSFMC 20.400).
• Consider establishing a
Citywide TDM Coordinator
position and potentially
combine with a Pedestrian and
Bicycle Coordinator.
• Consider establishing a
Transportation Management
Association (TMA) for key
commercial and business areas
to coordinate parking, transit,
and other TDM strategies and
policies.
• The City provides free parking
to employees and does not
have a parking cash-out
program. Consider establishing
a parking cash-out program.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN II-15
2 Existing Pedestrian
Environment
Plan or Policy Benchmark South San Francisco
Response
Opportunities for
Improvements
ADA Plan
An ADA Transition Plan
sets forth the process for
bringing public facilities
into compliance with
ADA regulations. An ADA
Transition Plan addresses
public buildings,
sidewalks, ramps, and
other walking facilities.
An ADA Coordinator is
typically responsible for
administering a City’s
ADA Transition Plan.
Compliance with the
Americans with Disability
Act (ADA) guidelines is
important not only to
enhance community
accessibility, but also to
improve walking
conditions for all
pedestrians.
Opportunity The City does not currently
have an ADA Transition Plan for
Municipal Facilities. Such a plan
is required by Federal Law.
However, the City does provide
ADA upgrades such as curb
ramps in conjunction with
other projects such as road
resurfacing projects and some
new developments. These are
typically funded with gas tax
money.
• Develop an ADA Transition
Plan that includes public rights-
of-way (intersections and
sidewalks especially).
• Develop design guidelines for
items such as directional curb
ramps and audible pedestrian
signals. The San Francisco
Better Streets Plan can be seen
as a best practice example:
http://www.sf-
planning.org/ftp/BetterStreets/i
ndex.htm
• Ensure that the ADA Transition
Plan provides an inventory,
prioritization plan, and funding
source for improvements.
The Standard Drawings for the
City of Sacramento include best
practices for directional curb
ramp design (see drawing T-77
http://www.cityofsacramento.or
g/utilities/pubs/stdspecs/Transp
ortation.pdf).
II-16 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2 Existing Pedestrian
Environment
Plan or Policy Benchmark South San Francisco
Response
Opportunities for
Improvements
Complete Streets Policy
Routine
Accommodations or
Complete Streets Policies
accommodate all modes
of travel and travelers of
all ages and abilities.
Key Strength The City of South San Francisco
adopted a Complete Streets
Policy in October 2012.
Update the City’s Street Design
Ordinance (SSFMC Chapter
19.20) to reflect the adopted
Complete Streets Policy and
incorporate the design
recommendations included in
the Pedestrian Master Plan.
The following cities have
established practices for
“Complete Streets and Routine
Accommodations,” and may
serve as models for South San
Francisco:
• Sacramento Transportation
and Air Quality Collaborative
Best Practices for Complete
Streets:
www.completestreets.org/docu
ments/FinalReportII_BPComplet
eStreets.pdf
• San Francisco, California,
Department of Public Health’s
Pedestrian Quality Index:
www.sfphes.org/HIA_Tools/PEQ
I.pdf
• San Francisco County
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
Plan or Policy Benchmark South San Francisco
Response
Opportunities for
Improvements
Crosswalk Policy
A formal policy for
crosswalk installation,
removal, and
enhancement provides
transparency in decision-
making and adopts best
practices in pedestrian
safety and
accommodation.
Opportunity The City of South San Francisco
does not have a formal
crosswalk policy beyond
installing crosswalks on all
approaches of signalized
intersections. Decisions
regarding installation, removal
and enhancements for
uncontrolled crosswalks are
made on a case by case basis
and are generally complaint
driven. Crosswalk removal
requires a long process and is
extremely rare; only one
crosswalk has been removed in
the past several years. The
general practice is to not install
midblock crossings except
under extreme circumstances,
such as the one recently
installed near El Camino High
school across from the BART
station.
Consider creating a crosswalk
toolbox that reflects best
practices and recent research
with respect to the installation,
removal, and enhancement of
crosswalks, including criteria for
installing crosswalk
enhancements, such as flashing
beacons, in-roadway warning
lights, or in-roadway pedestrian
signs. Crosswalk policy
resources include:
• Sacramento Crosswalk Policy:
www.cityofsacramento.org/tra
nsportation/dot_media/engine
er_media/pdf/PedSafety.pdf
• Stockton Crosswalk Policy:
www.stocktongov.com/public
works/publications/PedGuideli
nes.pdf
• Federal Highway
Administration Study on
Marked versus Unmarked
Crosswalks:
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped
_bike/docs/cros.pdf
II-18 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2 Existing Pedestrian
Environment
Plan or Policy Benchmark South San Francisco
Response
Opportunities for
Improvements
General Plan
Planning principles
contained in a city’s
General Plan can provide
an important policy
context for developing
walking-oriented,
walkable areas. Transit-
oriented development,
higher densities, and
mixed uses are important
planning tools for
walking-oriented areas
A city’s General Plan is a
key opportunity to
establish the framework
for walking orientation.
The Circulation Element
of the Plan typically
assigns roadway
typologies, which can
include a layered network
approach with prioritized
corridors for transit,
pedestrian, bicycle, and
auto travel.
Opportunity The City of South San Francisco
General Plan: Circulation
Element (1999) describes the
existing bicycling, walking,
transit riding, and driving
facilities within the City and
establishes the goals and
policies for future
transportation needs. Transit-
oriented development (TOD) is
addressed in the General Plan.
A TOD currently exists around
the South San Francisco BART
station and a station area plan
is being developed for the
South San Francisco Caltrain
Station.
El Camino Real is considered an
important pedestrian corridor
and pedestrian
accommodation is considered
in the South San Francisco El
Camino Real Master Plan
(2006).
During the next General Plan
update, the City could consider
including the following items in
its Circulation Element, or other
sections, of the Plan:
• Identify existing and future
priority walking areas in the City
through specific plans, where
varied densities and mixed-uses
could accommodate or attract
pedestrian activity.
• Consider additional
opportunities for mixed-uses
with new development,
particularly in walking
districts/nodes and transit-rich
areas. Consider opportunities
for density bonuses in walking
friendly areas.
• Consider an overlay district for
walking districts with special
walking-oriented guidelines,
such as adopting multi-modal
level of service practices
(perhaps in combination with a
layered network approach), and
prioritizing sidewalk
improvement and completion
projects.
Safe Routes to Transit
Safe Routes to Transit is a
grant program that
awards funds to projects
that make it easier to
walk and bike to transit
throughout the Bay Area
Region.
Opportunity The City of South San Francisco
has not been awarded any Safe
Routes to Transit Grants.
Apply for grant funding,
particularly for projects
mentioned in the San
Bruno/South San Francisco
Community-Based
Transportation Plan (January
2011).
http://transformca.org/campaig
n/sr2t
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN II-19
2 Existing Pedestrian
Environment
Plan or Policy Benchmark South San Francisco
Response
Opportunities for
Improvements
Traffic Signal Warrants /
Traffic Control Devices
Best practices include:
• Requiring a crash history
of three instead of five
collisions based on
routine underreporting
• Reducing traffic volume
thresholds based on
latent demand
• Providing consideration
for school
children/pedestrians and
traffic speeds
Opportunity
The City of South San Francisco
follows Caltrans warrants for
traffic signals.
The new California Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(CA-MUTCD) was adopted by
the California Department of
Transportation in January 2012.
The most significant changes for
pedestrians are:
• Reduction of the pedestrian
walking speed (used to calculate
traffic signal pedestrian
clearance intervals) from four
feet per second to 3.5 feet per
second
• Provision that all new and
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.
• Include maintenance records
within a GIS database inventory
of signs, markings and signals.
• Develop a proactive
monitoring program for traffic
control devices.
Source: Survey Completed by City of South San Francisco staff, 2012; Prepared by Fehr & Peers 2012
II-20 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2 Existing Pedestrian
Environment
Table II-7: Existing Data Collection Practices Benchmarking Analysis
Plan or Policy Benchmark South San Francisco
Response
Opportunities for
Improvements
Collision History and
Reporting
Key Strength The Police Department has
access to collision data by
location. Injury accident reports
are routinely pulled. The police
department has the ability to
check if a collision involved a
pedestrian or bicycle, but this is
a manual process and this
information is not generally
accessed unless it’s asked for.
Statewide Integrated Traffic
Records System (SWITRS) data
on collisions will be analyzed in
the PMP to create a GIS
shapefile of pedestrian collision
locations throughout the city
between 2005-2010 as well as
an analysis of the locations with
the highest pedestrian collision
rates.
Geo-coding and comprehensive
monitoring using Crossroads
software would allow for more
proactive walking safety
projects and best practices
implementation, such as crash
typing for countermeasure
selection. A field inventory of
collision locations and walking
volume counts could enhance
comprehensive monitoring.
With sufficient walking volume
data, the City could prioritize
collision locations based on
collision rates (i.e.,
collisions/daily walking volume),
a practice that results in a more
complete safety needs
assessment. Treatments could
then be identified for each
location and programmatic
funding allocated in the City’s
Capital Improvements Program
(CIP).
Trip and Fall Reports Key Strength The Department of Public Works
maintains a database of trip
hazard removal projects
including the location of the
hazard, the project status and
the cost for repairs.
Include these records as a sub-
category within the sidewalk
inventory in order to better
prioritize improvement areas.
Bicycling Facility
Inventory
Enhancement The South San Francisco Bicycle
Master Plan includes a map of
existing and proposed bicycle
facilities, and these networks are
available in GIS format, however
parts of the layer may be out of
date.
Update current bicycle facility
GIS shapefile. Add signs,
markings and loop detectors to
inventory and create GIS
shapefiles of these features.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN II-21
2 Existing Pedestrian
Environment
Plan or Policy Benchmark South San Francisco
Response
Opportunities for
Improvements
Sidewalk Inventory
A GIS-based sidewalk
inventory enables project
identification and
prioritization, as well as
project coordination with
new development,
roadway resurfacing, etc.
Enhancement The City of South San Francisco
currently has an inventory of
missing sidewalks in list form.
Ensure that the current sidewalk
inventory includes both existing
and missing sidewalks and is
available in GIS format. Expand
the sidewalk inventory to
include informal pathways and
key pedestrian opportunity
areas in the City.
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.
Pedestrian Volumes
Pedestrian volume data is
important for prioritizing
projects, developing
collision rates, and
determining appropriate
infrastructure
Opportunity The City does not currently
conduct pedestrian volume
counts and new developments
are not required to take bicycle
or pedestrian counts. Some
bicycle counts are being
conducted as part of the bicycle
master plan.
• Consider routinely collecting
walking and bicycling volumes
by requiring them to be
conducted in conjunction with
manual intersection counts,
such as those conducted for
transportation impact analyses
and area plans and include in an
annual report.
• Geo-code walking volume data
with GIS software along with
other data such as pedestrian-
involved collisions.
Trails and Paths
Inventory
Opportunity The City does not currently
maintain an inventory of trails,
but does have an inventory of
bicycle facilities which includes
combined walking and biking
paths.
Update the existing inventory to
include all pedestrian paths and
trails and create a GIS-based
map of existing and proposed
off-street paths and trails within
the City.
Source: Survey Completed by City of South San Francisco staff, 2012; Prepared by Fehr & Peers 2012
II-22 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2 Existing Pedestrian
Environment
Table II-8: Existing Programs Benchmarking Analysis
Plan or Policy Benchmark South San Francisco
Response
Opportunities for
Improvements
Walking Audits
Walking audits provide
an interactive
opportunity to receive
feedback from key
stakeholders about the
study area as well as
discuss potential
solutions and their
feasibility. They can be
led by city staff, advocacy
groups, neighborhood
groups, or consultants.
Key Strength Sixteen walking audits were
conducted in 2012 as part of
the PMP. These audits focused
on positive practices, issues
and opportunity areas, and
possible recommendations to
address pedestrian safety
concerns.
Consider establishing a program
of conducting regular walking
audits and establishing a
Citywide pedestrian safety
program to include during
regular walking audits by City
staff and an annual reporting
program.
Safe Routes to School
Safe-Routes-to-School
programs encourage
children to safely walk or
bicycling to school. The
Marin County Bicycle
Coalition was an early-
adopter of the concept,
which has spread
nationally (refer to best
practices at
www.saferoutestoschools
.org). Safe-Routes-to-
School programs are
important both for
increasing physical
activity (and reducing
childhood obesity) and
for reducing morning
traffic associated with
school drop-off. Funding
for Safe-Routes-to-School
programs and/or projects
is available at the
regional, state, and
federal levels.
Enhancement The City recently won a Safe
Routes to School grant for
pedestrian infrastructure
investments on West Orange
Street and C Street. However,
the City and school district
(SSFUSD) do not have an
ongoing safe routes to school
program.
• Continue applying for grant
funding; apply for non-
infrastructure as well as
infrastructure projects.
• Consider developing a
citywide Safe-Routes-to-School
program that encourages
walking to school and highlights
preferred walking routes. Marin
County’s program is considered
a best practice example:
http://www.saferoutestoschools
.org/
• Form a steering committee for
the program (or each school)
comprised of City staff, BPAC,
SSFUSD staff, PTA leaders,
County Health Services and
other stakeholders. Consider
scheduling regular ongoing
meetings to maintain
stakeholder involvement,
determine level of interest, and
identify areas with the highest
need
• Consider developing a “Street
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
Plan or Policy Benchmark South San Francisco
Response
Opportunities for
Improvements
Traffic Calming
Program
Traffic Calming Programs
and Policies set forth a
consensus threshold on
neighborhood requests
and approvals, as well as
standard treatments and
criteria for traffic calming
Enhancement The City of South San Francisco
has a traffic calming program
and established policy for
addressing traffic calming
concerns; however, no funding
source is dedicated to this
program.
Identify a dedicated funding
source and implementation
plan for the traffic calming
program.
Pedestrian/Bicycle
Coordinator
In a sampling of walking-
oriented California cities,
a full-time
pedestrian/bicycle
coordinator is typically
provided at a ratio of one
per 100,000 population.
Opportunity The City does not have a full-
time Bicycle or Pedestrian
Coordinator on staff, though
several staff assist on bicycle or
pedestrian related projects. A
part- or full-time coordinator
could be tasked with
convening the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Advisory
Committee and implementing
many of the recommendations
included in this report.
With a population of
approximately 64,000, and over
45,000 jobs, South San Francisco
should consider employing a
City Pedestrian and Bicycle
Coordinator and combining the
position with TDM coordination
when resources become
available. Such a staff member
could be involved in activities
such as outreach,
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.
Pedestrian Education Opportunity The City does not offer any
classes or programs to provide
information or instructions
about pedestrian laws or
ordinances.
Consider creating an education
program to provide information
to residents and employers
about pedestrian laws and
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; Prepared by Fehr & Peers 2012
II-24 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2 Existing Pedestrian
Environment
Table II-9: Existing Enforcement Programs Benchmarking Analysis
Plan or Policy Benchmark South San Francisco
Response
Opportunities for
Improvements
Involving Law
Enforcement in
Design/Operation of
Facilities
Walking and bicycling
facility design is
constantly evolving.
Having officers
understand how specific
facilities operate is
essential knowledge for
them to know how to
enforce laws.
Key Strength The police department is
occasionally consulted on
facility design, usually through
the Traffic Advisory Committee.
The police department has a
liaison working closely with the
planning division on
development review, focused
primarily on security and traffic
safety concerns.
Maintain regular contact with
law enforcement during the
design of new facilities,
especially those that might not
include typical roadway design
features.
Pedestrian-Oriented
Enforcement Activities
(crosswalk stings, focused
school drop-off
enforcement, etc.)
Enforcement of
pedestrian right-of-way
laws and speed limits is
an important
complement to
engineering treatments
and education programs.
Enhancement The Community Assisted
Reactive (CARE) program can
include pedestrian issues.
Through the Traffic Accident
Reduction Plan (TARP), officers
review collision data in order to
determine high accident areas
and enforcement is increased
in these areas. The police
department participates in the
GRADE program, which
provides education in schools,
particularly kindergartens,
about “stranger danger.”
Implement sustained
enforcement efforts and involve
the media. Use enforcement as
an opportunity for education by
distributing walking safety
pamphlets in-lieu of, or in
addition to, citations.
The Miami-Dade Pedestrian
Safety Demonstration Project
provides a model for the role of
media in the sustained
effectiveness of enforcement.
Information is available at:
http://www.miamidade.gov/MP
O/docs/MPO_ped_safety_demo
_eval_report_200806.pdf.
Shared Pedestrian
Enforcement with Other
Jurisdictions
Sharing officers with
specific bicycling and
walking focus with other
jurisdictions can help the
Police Department
increase service without
needing to budget for a
new officer.
Enhancement The City currently shares
pedestrian related police
resources and data with
neighboring cities on request
for DUI enforcement as part of
the OTS grant process.
Consider working with the San
Bruno or Colma Police
Departments to organize
pedestrian related enforcement
activities.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN II-25
2 Existing Pedestrian
Environment
Plan or Policy Benchmark South San Francisco
Response
Opportunities for
Improvements
Traffic Safety Officers
These officers focus on
enforcing pedestrian-
involved violations.
Enhancement The City does not have a traffic
safety officer dedicated to
pedestrian issues. The
department has a responsive
approach: when a pedestrian
safety complaint is made, an
officer will go out to check the
complaint.
Identify a key traffic safety
officer that dedicates a
meaningful percentage of his
time to walking and bicycling
issues.
Work with Police Department
staff to identify particular
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
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
issues related to
pedestrian safety and
laws.
Opportunity Officers do not participate in a
course specific to pedestrian
issues.
Create a workshop for officers
that discusses the specific
pedestrian safety and right-of-
way issues. A sample guide
book for such a course was
prepared by the Florida Bicycle
Association:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety
/ped_bike/brochures/pdf/Pedes
trian%20LEGuide-08.pdf
Source: Survey Completed by City of South San Francisco staff, 2012; Prepared by Fehr & Peers 2012
II-26 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2 Existing Pedestrian
Environment
Table II-10: Existing Promotion Programs Benchmarking Analysis
Plan or Policy Benchmark South San Francisco
Response
Opportunities for
Improvements
Coordination Health
Agencies
Involving non-traditional
partners such as
Emergency Medical
Service personnel, public
health agencies,
pediatricians, in the
planning or design of
walking facilities may
create opportunities to
be more proactive with
walking safety, identify
walking safety challenges
and education venues,
and secure funding.
Under-reporting of
pedestrian-involved
collisions could be a
problem that may be
partially mitigated by
involving the medical
community in walking
safety planning.
Key Strength The City has a good
relationship with Kaiser
Permanente and the San
Mateo County Health Services
Agency, which provides public
health programs, and is looking
for opportunities to partner on
community or public health
programs. The City is also a
partner in the League of
California Cities’ HEAL Initiative
Campaign (Healthy Eating
Active Living)
Continue to seek opportunities
for technical collaboration and
funding with public health and
health care professionals. Work
proactively with the County
Health Services Agency to
ensure policies reflect good
health. Establish a Health
Agency liaison to facilitate
communication and
coordination efforts to improve
walking opportunities and
public information.
The Santa Clara County Public
Health Department has
organized the Traffic Safe
Communities Network (TSCN), a
collaborative of traffic safety
stakeholders aimed at reducing
motor vehicle crashes and
improving bicycle and
pedestrian safety:
http://www.sccgov.org/sites/scc
phd/en-
us/Partners/TrafficSafety/Pages/
default.aspx
The Pedestrian Plan
recommendations should
support the Strategic Growth
Council’s Health in All Initiative
Promotional Giveaways
(maps, pedometers, etc.)
Key Strength The City has partnered with the
Alliance on congestion relief
and Bike to Work Day and
partnered with Kaiser
Permanente to create a
walking and biking map for
South San Francisco which is
distributed to residents at
various locations and events.
Continue seeking partnerships
with local organizations willing
to sponsor safety item
giveaways to encourage
walking and other alternative
transportation modes.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN II-27
2 Existing Pedestrian
Environment
Plan or Policy Benchmark South San Francisco
Response
Opportunities for
Improvements
Public Involvement
Responding to public
concerns through public
feedback mechanisms
represents a more
proactive and inclusive
approach to bicycling
and walking safety
compared to a
conventional approach of
reacting to pedestrian-
involved collisions.
Advisory committees
serve as important
sounding boards for new
policies, programs, and
practices. A citizens’
bicycling and walking
advisory committee is
also a key component of
proactive public
involvement for
identifying bicycling and
walking safety issues and
opportunities
Key Strength The City as well as C/CAG
currently both have a Bicycle
and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee (BPAC).
Additionally, citizens can call
the public works department
with complaints. The
department has a system to
document complaints and
send an automatic response to
the person who made the
complaint when the issue is
resolved.
Coordinate outreach with
neighborhood advocacy
groups. Consider organizing
neighborhood groups that
identify street needs, including
greening and traffic calming.
Provide information and
conduct outreach in multiple
languages.
Proactively, work with schools
and employers, residents,
neighboring communities and
C/CAG to facilitate public
involvement and more closely
coordinate efforts to improve
pedestrian facilities.
Establish a BPAC webpage to
facilitate access to pedestrian
information.
Economic Vitality
Improving walking safety
and walkability can
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
Opportunity The City has an active Chamber
of Commerce.
The City has an on-going
façade improvement program.
• Encourage the creation of BIDs
in commercial areas of the City
and apply funds towards
walking-related improvements.
•
II-28 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2 Existing Pedestrian
Environment
Plan or Policy Benchmark South San Francisco
Response
Opportunities for
Improvements
Signage/Wayfinding Opportunity The City does not have specific
wayfinding signage. There are
some signs along Centennial
Way directing traffic to the
BART station and some Bay
Trail signage.
Develop wayfinding signage
with South San Francisco-
specific graphic design. The
signage program should be
consistent with other locally
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, 2012; Prepared by Fehr & Peers 2012
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN II-29
2 Existing Pedestrian
Environment
II-30 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3 Existing Conditions
Chapter 3: Existing Conditions
This chapter documents the existing pedestrian conditions, issues and opportunities for South San
Francisco.
3.1 Pedestrian Needs
A well-connected pedestrian network is a vital component to livable communities, which thrive on
multimodal travel for all roadway users, regardless of age or ability. A complete street should offer
equal accessibility for the young and old, disabled and not, and should consider the needs of
pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders. Designing streets for our most vulnerable
populations means that they are safe and accessible for everyone. For all pedestrians, the most
important aspects of good design include providing a pleasant and attractive pathway system, free of
obstructions and room for pedestrians to walk side-by-side. However, pedestrians with special needs
require additional considerations. By designing streets for the most vulnerable users, South San
Francisco can provide an environment that will be comfortable and accessible for all. The following
describes different pedestrian types and considerations for each.
Children
Children have special needs in the pedestrian realm and thus have
unique considerations to accommodate their sensitive demands.
This becomes apparent in school zones (particularly for the
Kindergarten through 6th grade population) where a safe
pedestrian environment is vital. Young children are often too small
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 may
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.
These special provisions include measures such as reducing vehicle
speeds and enhancing street crossings around schools. Reduced
speed zones near schools, using striping patterns and colors to communicate to drivers that they are
within a school zone, and traffic calming measures can facilitate slower vehicle speeds. Reducing
crossing lengths through bulb-outs, special crosswalk striping, and median refuges provide shorter
crossings for children. Technical assistance and funding to implement these enhancements can be
done through Safe Routes to School programs. Adequate sidewalk facilities and crosswalks are
particularly important to separate children from vehicle traffic around school neighborhoods where
children walk and ride their bicycles.
Source: Dan Burden
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN III-1
3 Existing Conditions
Source: Dan Burden
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
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.
Persons with Disabilities
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects the rights of people with disabilities, requiring
public entities to develop transition plans to bring existing public facilities up to ADA standards. A key
component to adequate ADA provision includes plans to improve curb ramps. It sets guidelines for
people with disabilities to access public accommodations and commercial facilities. Disconnected
sidewalks and unpaved surfaces can prove frustrating to disabled pedestrians. Additionally,
pedestrian crossings may not address the needs of those with poor vision without audible or vibro-
tactile enhancements. Creating a comfortable and well-connected pedestrian network is important
for addressing the needs of users with disabilities. A key recommednation of this Plan is the
development of an ADA Transition Plan, which will evaluate South San Francisco’s complaince with
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, pedestrians are often the most
vulnerable roadway users. Although a fundamental form of any transportation system, pedestrian
infrastructure has only recently been given much attention by transportation planners and engineers.
Source: Dan Burden
III-2 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3 Existing Conditions
In particular, walking to and from destinations less than ½ mile from home or work is often the
quickest and most efficient way for a person to travel in an urban community like South San Francisco.
For the purposes of this memo, the City has been divided into five areas for analysis. Each area has a
distinctive character, and pedestrian related themes are generally repeated throughout.
• 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
connection between the station and
Downtown has several issues, including
difficult crossings at Airport Boulevard and E. Grand Avenue, high-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.
Grand Avenue features many excellent pedestrian amenities
Walking audit in Lindenville
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN III-3
3 Existing Conditions
Multi-use path in east of 101 area
• East of Hwy 101: The area east of Hwy 101 is primarily comprised of industrial uses and office
parks. The area is home to several of the City’s major employers, including Genentech, Amgen Inc.,
Columbus Manufacturing Inc., Onyx Pharmaceuticals Inc., and a Costco retail store,. In addition,
the South San Francisco Conference Center, many large and medium sized hotels, and the Oyster
Point Ferry Terminal are located here, and the San Francisco International Airport is located
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 connections to the trail from
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
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 Pacific railroad tracks and
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.
Crossing distances are extremely wide, with
few pedestrian refuges. Since traffic speeds can be high along the corridor, this creates an
uncomfortable environment for pedestrians.
Florist shop on El Camino Real
III-4 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
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 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 throughout South San Francisco, 16
walking audits were conducted over the course of a week in May, 2012. The walking audit locations
were selected to cover a range of neighborhood and street types and 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 other stakeholders participated in a
number of the audits.
This section provides an overview of the citywide pedestrian network trends based on the audit
findings. Where appropriate, concerns specific to the five area types discussed above are discussed.
While there are many components that contribute to a great walking environment, this section
focuses on following key elements:
• Sidewalks and Pathways
• Intersection Crossing Treatments
• ADA Access
• High Speed Traffic
• Linear Barriers
Residential neighborhood in South San Francisco
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN III-5
San Francisco
Bay£¤101
§¨¦802
£¤101
§¨¦802
§¨¦803
28
28
53
1
Pacifica
SSFStation
S Spruce AveDaly City
San Bruno
BrisbaneSan Bruno Mountain Park
California
Golf Club
Country
Club Park
San Francisco
Int'l AirportUninc.
South San Francisco
Grand Ave
El
C
am
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
F orbes B l
Arroyo DrS
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
vdGateway Blvd
E Grand Ave
J
u
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
B
l
v
d
Harbor WayCallan Blv
d Chestnut AveSister Cities Blvd
Eccles AveWestborough B lv dOyster Point Blvd
Gellert BlvdH ills i de Blvd
W Oran g e A veHic key Blv d
Skyline Blvd
2nd Ln
1st Ln
Park Way
Mi
s
s
i
o
n
R
d
Ne
w
m
a
n
D
r
Commerci
a
l
A
v
e
N Canal St
Larch A
v
e
Sha
n
n
o
n
D
r Avalon Dr Holly AveMaple AveDel
M
o
n
t
e
A
v
e
Ser
r
a
D
r
S Linden AveHazelwoo
d
DrEvergreen DrCama
r
i
t
a
s
A
v
e
Rockwood DrRoc
c
a
A
v
eEucalyptus AveWexf
o
r
d
A
v
e
Greendale Dr Willow AveNoor Ave Pecks LnWALK AUDIT ROUTES
SF11-0594\GIS
I 1
1 mile
FIGURE 3-1
Downtown
El Camino Real
East of 101
Residential
Lindenville
16
14
15
758
6
3
2
1
4
12
10
9
13
11
San BrunoStation
SSFStation
Tamarack L
n Airport BlvdGull RdRainforest
A
v
e
S Maple StEl
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Cre
s
t
w
o
o
d
D
r
Mill
e
r
A
v
e
Bay
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
San Felipe AveAtura WayVictory Ave
Al
h
am
b
r
a
R
dPonderosa RdSan Mateo AveShaw Rd
Aspen Ave
Magnolia AveOrange AveProduce Ave
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
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
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
Missing sidewalk
Vehicles often park on sidewalks
The Centennial Way Trail is a great pedestrian amenity
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN III-7
3 Existing Conditions
where utility poles are located in the middle of the sidewalk, limiting the usable width of the sidewalk
and potentially prohibiting wheelchair users from passing. Furthermore, multiple neighborhoods
have issues with cars blocking the sidewalk either by parking in a driveway so that the back of the
vehicle blocks the sidewalk, or from cars parallel parking on the street with two wheels on the
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 increase pedestrian safety and comfort.
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 streets throughout the City.
• Striped bike lanes, which have been installed along sections of Airport Boulevard.
Sidewalks in several neighborhoods of the City could be further enhanced by buffering sidewalks from
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, and
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
California is to
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
Pedestrian actuated flashing beacon on Miller Avenue
Decorative brick crosswalk across Grand Avenue with in-pavement flashers
III-8 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3 Existing Conditions
crossings, however the City typically uses two parallel white lines to mark crosswalks. Decorative brick
treatments are used along the downtown commercial area of Grand Avenue to mark crosswalks, and
several crosswalks within school zones and other high activity areas use high visibility yellow or white
ladder design crosswalks.
Several intersections were observed with pedestrians crossing at unmarked locations, typically where
crosswalks were marked on some, but not all, legs of the intersection. In many cases these are legal
crossing locations (where drivers are required to yield to pedestrians), but the lack of a marked
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
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.
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
Diagonal curb ramp without tactile domes
Family crossing the street on Spruce Avenue at an
unmarked crossing location
Accessible bi-directional curb ramp with tactile domes
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN III-9
3 Existing Conditions
include clarifying the placement of detectable warnings, and limiting pedestrian signalization at
roundabouts and channelized turn lanes to crossings of two lanes of traffic or more. Both the Access
Board Guidelines and the 2009 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUCTD) recommend
setting pedestrian signals based on a maximum of 3.5 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, when any physical changes are made to an existing facility, the facility must be upgraded
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
impairments to navigate. Few curb ramps in the
City have truncated domes which alert those with visual impairments that they are about to enter the
street. Ideally, curb ramps should be bi-directional and guide pedestrians into the marked crossings,
rather than diagonally across an intersection. While the sidewalk corner area often limits the direction
of curb ramp, bi-directional ramps are the best practice and should be installed wherever feasible.
Audible pedestrian crossing signals also help those with visual impairments know when it is safe to
cross the street. South San Francisco has audible signals at a few intersections.
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 blocking sidewalk on a residential street
Cars parked on sidewalks with rolled curbs
III-10 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3 Existing Conditions
such as El Camino Real, Airport Boulevard, Westborough Boulevard, and East Grand Avenue were
designed for higher vehicle speeds. On streets such as these it is best to provide a buffer between the
sidewalk and moving traffic in order to protect pedestrians and maximize comfort. Buffers can include
landscaping or street trees, bike lanes, or parked cars. In addition, conflicts between vehicles and
pedestrians can occur at crossing locations. At these locations, vehicle speeds should be controlled
through design measures and signal timing to reduce the number and severity of concflicts.
Residential streets are not meant to accommodate vehicles at high speeds. However, high traffic
speeds were noted on several residential streets throughout the City, particularly on streets such as
Spruce Avenue and Del Monte Avenue, which have long stretches without speed reduction measures
or stop signs. These areas also have rolled curbs. In these locations, vehicles were frequently parked on
sidewalks, likely a result of wanting to avoid getting hit by speeding vehicles. The rolled curbs also
increase the ease of parking on sidewalks. However, this limits the accessibility of the sidewalks, which
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 connection on Grand Avenue under Hwy 101
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.
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:
• Curb ramp with tactile domes
• Curb ramp without tactile domes
• Missing curb ramp
Missing curb ramp in Lindenville neighborhood
Discontinuous sidewalk segment
III-12 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
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 have
curb ramps and some have tactile domes. The quality of curb ramps
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
neighborhoods. A more comprehensive inventory of missing curb
ramps is needed. Curb ramps and tactile domes should be installed
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 discourage
pedestrians from crossing. Figure 3-4 shows, for the intersections
inventoried, which intersections have no crosswalk gaps, and which
intersections have at least one leg missing a marked crosswalk.
Crosswalk gaps exist in all areas of the City. At some intersections the
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 pedestrian
right-of-way exists. At several locations throughout the walking
audits pedestrians were observed crossing the street at unmarked
crosswalk locations, despite uncomfortable conditions. Marking
crosswalks is important for improving safety of all roadway users.
Fencing barrier where pedestrian crossing is prohibited
Pedestrian walking at unmarked crossing location at
Chestnut Avenue and Mission Road
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN III-13
San FrancisBay£¤101§¨¦802£¤101§¨¦802§¨¦803]V28]V28]V53icaARTB A R T
CALTRAIN
R A IN
San BrunoStationSSFStationSSFStationSSpruceAvey CitySan BrunoBrisbaneSan Bruno Mountain ParkCaliforniaGolf ClubCountryClub ParkSan FranciscoIt'l Ai tSouth San FranciscoGrand AveE l C a m in o R e alForbesBlArroyoDrS A irp o rt B lv d
GatewayBlvdEGrandA veJ un ip e ro S er ra B lv d Harbor WayCallan B lvdChestnut AveSisterCitiesBlvdEcclesAveWestboroughBlvdOysterPointBlvdGeller tBlvdHillsideBlvdWOrangeAve
HickeyBlvdSkylineB lvd2nd Ln1st LnPark WayM ission RdNewm an DrCommercial AveN Canal StLarch AveShannon DrAvalon DrHolly AveMaple AveDel Monte AveSerra DrS Linden AveHazelwood DrEvergreen DrCamaritas AveRockwood DrRocca AveEucalyptus AveWexford AveGreendale DrWillow AveNoor AvePecks LnMISSING SIDEWALKS CITYWIDE INVENTORYSF11-0594\GISI0.851 mileFigure 3-2
San Francisco Bay£¤101§¨¦802£¤101§¨¦802§¨¦803]V28]V28]V53]V1PacificaBARTB A R TCALTRAIN
C A LT R A IN
San BrunoStationSSFStationSSFStationSSpruceAveDaly CitySan BrunoBrisbaneSan Bruno Mountain ParkCaliforniaGolf ClubCountryClub ParkSan FranciscoInt'l AirportUninc.South San FranciscoGrand AveE l C a m in o R e a lForbesBlArroyoDrS A irp o rt B lv d
GatewayBlvdEGrandA veJ u ni pe ro Serra B lv d Harbor WayCallanB lvdChestnut AveSisterCitiesBlvdEcclesAveWestboroughBlvdOysterPointBlvdGeller t BlvdHillsideBlvdWOrangeAve
HickeyBlvdSk yline Blvd2nd Ln1st LnPark WayMission RdNewm an DrCommercial AveN Canal StLarch AveShannon DrAvalon DrHolly AveMaple AveDel Monte AveSerra DrS Linden AveHazelwood DrEvergreen DrCamaritas AveRockwood DrRocca AveEucalyptus AveWexford AveGreendale DrWillow AveNoor AvePecks LnCURBRAMP INVENTORYSF11-0594\GISI11 mileNo Missing Curb RampCurb ramp without tactile domesMissing curb rampFigure 3-3
San Francisco Bay£¤101§¨¦802£¤101§¨¦802§¨¦803]V28]V28]V53]V1PacificaBARTB A R TCALTRAIN
C A L T R A IN
San BrunoStationSSFStationSSFStationSSpruceAveDaly CitySan BrunoBrisbaneSan Bruno Mountain ParkCaliforniaGolf ClubCountryClub ParkSan FranciscoInt'l AirportUninc.South San FranciscoGrand AveE l C am in o R ea lForbesBlArroyoDrS Ai rp o rt B lv d
GatewayBlvdEGrandA veJ u nip e ro Serra B lv d Harbor WayCallanB lvdChestnut AveSisterCitiesBlvdEcclesAveWestboroughBlvdOysterPointBlvdGeller tBlvdHillsideBlvdWOrangeAve
HickeyBlvdSk ylineBlvd2nd Ln1st LnPark WayM ission RdNewm an DrCommercial AveN Canal StLarch AveShannon DrAvalon DrHolly AveMaple AveDel Monte AveSerra DrS Linden AveHazelwood DrEvergreen DrCamaritas AveRockwood DrRocca AveEucalyptus AveWexford AveGreendale DrWillow AveNoor AvePecks LnCrosswalk InventorySF11-0594\GISI11 mileWalking Audit Intersection No mising crosswalksAt least one missing crosswalkFigure 3-4
3 Existing Conditions
3.5 Summary of Opportunities and Constraints
The following table summarizes the opportunities and constraints for addressing the issues discussed
in the previous sections.
OPPORTUNITIES CONSTRAINTS
Sidewalks
• Complete sidewalk gaps
• Provide buffers/barriers such as
landscaping or bike lanes
• Consider an encouragement or
enforcement program to reduce
parking on sidewalks in residential
neighborhoods
• The pedestrian right-of-way is
physically constrained in some areas,
limiting opportunities to provide new
sidewalks
• Sidewalk gap projects will require an
ongoing funding source, such as
private development and Capital
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
Pedestrian
Crossings
• Implement crossing
improvements such as marked
crossings on all intersection legs,
signal countdowns, and increase
pedestrian signal lengths at high-
priority intersection locations
• Develop a crosswalk policy to
guide the installation of marked
crosswalks
• Intersection crossing improvements
may affect auto vehicle operations in
high volume areas
• Crossing improvements may require
coordination with other agencies such
as Caltrans, Caltrain, City of Daly City
and City of San Bruno
ADA Access
• Develop an ADA Transition Plan
• Install curb ramps with detectable
warnings
• Review and revise driveway design
standards as needed
• Increase parking enforcement
• Improvements will require a dedicated
funding, ongoing funding source
• Parking enforcement requires
coordination with the Police
Department
High Speed
Traffic
• Fund Traffic Calming Program
• Perform enforcement activities at
high-priority locations
• Enforcement requires coordination
with the Police Department
• Traffic Calming Program will require an
ongoing, dedicated funding source
Linear
Barriers
• Enhance crossings at linear
barriers
• Crossing improvements may require
coordination with other agencies such
as Caltrans, Caltrain, City of Daly City
and City of San Bruno
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN III-17
3 Existing Conditions
III-18 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
4 Recommended Improvements
Chapter 4: Recommended Improvements
The pedestrian improvements recommended in this chapter are aimed to enhance pedestrian access,
safety and circulation within South San Francisco.
4.1 Introduction
This section documents the recommended pedestrian improvements throughout the City including
closing the key pedestrian network gaps, programmatic improvements, as well as specific site
improvements. Projects were selected based on review of previous plans, City and BPAC input and
findings from the walking audits.
4.2 Citywide Project Recommendations
The Existing Conditions chapter identified key issues and gaps in the pedestrian network. Certain
issues reoccur throughout the City. Recommended improvements for these citywide issues are
divided into five categories, each of which is identified and discussed below:
• 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, and
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 only
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
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 projects.
Grand Avenue sidewalk in Downtown South San Francisco
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
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. At locations where obstacles are blocking the
sidewalk, the obstacles should either be removed, or the sidewalk should be widened to provide
sufficient width for ADA access. In some cases, such as around utility poles and boxes, this may require
a curb extension or bulb out. Sidewalks along arterials should have buffers between pedestrians and
moving traffic. Buffers may include landscaping or street trees, parallel or angled parking, and striped
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
locations of crosswalk gaps at some intersections, as
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 at development and road improvement
sites. A citywide inventory can be used to identify priority locations for periodic upgrades.. Currently
the City provides crosswalks in the form of two whiteparallel lines at most intersections. This could be
Example of bulb out with curb ramp and tactile domes
Ladder crosswalk and ADA accessible curb ramp with
tactile domes
IV-2 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
4 Recommended Improvements
designated as the default treatment. At stop controlled intersections, is recommended to replace all
crossings marked with a stop bar and the word “STOP” and replace this with the uniform crosswalk
treatment identified by the City. At signalized intersections, all crossings are legal and should be
marked. If the City chooses not to mark a crosswalk, the crossing should be closed to pedestrians with
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 at
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).
In order to ensure that pedestrians are aware of the remaining
crossing time, pedestrian countdowns should be installed at all signalized intersections. California law
requires that countdown signals be installed whever signal control devices are being upgraded. At
pedestrian actuated crossings, one pedestrian push button should be located adjacent to the curb
ramp. Pedestrian push buttons for separate directions should not be located on the same pole. For
audible pedestrian signals at corners of signalized locations where two pedestrian pushbuttons are
provided, the pushbuttons should be separated by a distance of at least 10 feet in order to distinguish
between the audio sources.
Many arterial streets in South San Francisco have medians which terminate in the crosswalk, partially
blocking the crosswalk. These medians should be trimmed back so that they do not block the
crosswalk, and a median tip or “thumbnail” should be added on the outer edge of the crosswalk to
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
that the City develop an ADA Transition Plan that
Pedestrian countdown signal
A mobility assisted pedestrian waits to cross the street
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 ramps or the existing curb ramps are
missing truncated domes. The walking audits inventoried missing curb ramps at some intersections,
as shown in Figure 3-3 of Chapter 3, but a thorough curb ramp inventory of the entire City should be
conducted in order to identify priority locations for periodic curb ramp upgrades. Truncated domes
provide a tactile signal to the visually impaired as they transition between walking paths or sidewalks
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 crosswalk instead of diagonally into the
intersection. Curb ramps should be provided at all intersections where they are currently missing in
order to provide an accessible pedestrian network. This is important not just for people with
disabilities, but for people with strollers, children and seniors.
As mentioned in Chapter 3, both the Access Board Guidelines and the 2009 Manual of Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUCTD) recommend setting pedestrian signals based on a maximum of 3.5
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, when any physical changes are made to
an existing facility, the facility must be upgraded to the Access Board’s current standards. Long
crosswalks throughout the City at signalized intersections should include a pedestrian signal phase
based on a 3.5 feet/second walking speed to ensure that pedestrians have sufficient time to cross the
intersection.
Accessible pedestrian signals communicate information about crossings to pedestrians with visual
impairments with audible tones or vibrating systems. These accessible pedestrian signals should be
placed with guidance from the Accessibility Disability Commission.
Cars parked in driveways, or on rolled curbs, blocking the sidewalk is a common obstacle in residential
neighborhoods in South San Francisco. Education programs can help to make residents aware that the
sidewalk is public right-of-way and blocking it with a vehicle is illegal. Enforcement and
encouragement efforts should be implemented to help alleviate this problem. Enforcement could
start with “friendly” warnings to alert violators, followed by ticketing for repeat offenders. Additionally,
the City’s driveway standards should be reviewed and potentially updated to ensure that they meed
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
enforcement tools include neighborhood speed watch
programs, neighborhood pace car programs, and
An edgeline demarcates the parking lane & edge
of travel lane to reduce vehicle conflicts
IV-4 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
4 Recommended Improvements
targeted police enforcement. Speed reducing tools include high visibility crosswalks, textured
pavements, in-pavement flashers, signage, radar display units, edgeline striping, curb extensions,
traffic circles, raised crosswalks and raised intersections. Cut-through reduction tools include turn
restrictions, median barriers, and channelizing barriers. Refer to the South San Francisco Traffic
Calming Program for details about these measures and their implementation. Many residential
neighborhoods with high vehicle speeds also have rolled curbs. As a result, cars are frequently parked
on the sidewalk to avoid getting hit by oncoming vehicles, however this blocks the sidewalk for
pedestrians. One simple measure included in the traffic calming program is to stripe edgelines along
the roadway. Edgelines have the apparent effect of narrowing the roadway and therefore encourage
drivers to drive more slowly. Painting edgelines with sufficient space for vehicles to park outside the
sidewalk would also encourage vehicles to park on the street, rather than on the sidewalk. Education
and enforcement measures can also be cost effective solutions, especially when residents are willing
to volunteer for programs to address issues on their own streets.
Linear Barriers
Linear barriers physically separate different parts of the City and present obstacles to walking between
neighborhoods. Four major transportation routes create linear barriers in South San Francisco:
Highway 101, Interstate 280, El Camino Real, and the Caltrain railroad tracks. Colma Creek also
presents a linear barrier through part of the City. Crossings at linear barriers should be enhanced to
improve pedestrian comfort and safety. This can include bridges, pedestrian scale lighting, widening
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, including opportunities to fill specific
sidewalk, curb ramp and crosswalk gaps, particularly when these gaps coincide with other adjacent
pedestrian improvement opportunities. These recommendations were identified during the 16
walking audits and from input from the City and BPAC members. Therefore this project list is not a
comprehensive citywide list, but rather is focused on key pedestrian areas, which are located
throughout the city and represent a range of neighborhoods and issues.
The project table includes a project ID, which is the walking audit number and the project reference
number within that walking audit. The location column describes either the intersection or the street
segment. The issue column describes issues or opportunities noted at the location. The
recommendations column summarizes the recommended improvements for the location. The cost
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 of recommendations into grant ready
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 improvement funding opportunities.
Project prioritization and funding is discussed in detail in the Implementation chapter. The following
section outlines a set of eight conceptual plans, which provide a comprehensive description of
recommendations for eight geographic areas of the City. These concept plans can be used as project
sheets for the purpose of pursuing grants.
IV-6 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
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 during the walking audits. Concept
plans include corridors, large intersections, sections of neighborhoods and areas around activity
nodes. These plans can be applied to the specific locations described, and can be used as a general
guide for similar settings as the City finds opportunities for pedestrian improvements in additional
locations.
5.1 Citywide Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
Missing sidewalks
Closure of sidewalk gaps throughout the City will provide basic pedestrian connectivity and create
opportunities for pedestrian trips between existing and future destinations. This is especially effective
in the near-term through areas with high pedestrian demand, as the investment will be immediately
relevant by providing pedestrian access between existing origins and destinations that may lead to a
switch to pedestrian mode.
Pedestrian demand was evaluated in the San Mateo County Pedestrian INDEX Walking Demand Score
analysis using a number of variables in a GIS model. The built environment, proximity to destinations,
demographics, and street design were all considered. The built environment factors include
population and employment density, as well as land use mix. The proximity factors include schools,
parks, transit, commercial centers, and employment, Demographics factors include age, income and
vehicle ownership, thereby incorporating need-based demand in the analysis. Street design factors
include intersection density and street connectivity. The factors were weighted and given points, so
each street segment in South San Francisco has a total Pedestrian INDEX Demand Walking Score.
These scores were grouped according to natural breaks to great three categories: high priority,
medium priority, and long-term sidewalk gap closures. Professional judgment and proximity to
recorded pedestrian collisions were taken into consideration where the scores were close to the cut-
off point. High priority sidewalk gaps, shown on the figure in red, are located on segments with the
highest demand scores, which are primarily streets near the downtown core, in the older, denser
residential neighborhoods and adjacent to major transit hubs. Medium priority sidewalk gaps, shown
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, and some that are located in areas
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. This evaluation may change
depending on future development and transportation patterns, and opportunities to close sidewalks
in conjunction with development, at a reduced cost to the City, should be taken into consideration.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN V-1
5 Concept Plans
Issues and Opportunities
• There are gaps in the sidewalk network throughout the
City, especially outside of Downtown
• Many of these sidewalk gaps overlap with areas of high
pedestrian demand, or intersections with recorded
pedestrian collisions
Proposed Improvements
• Develop a prioritization system to systematically close
sidewalk gaps and identify development opportunities
to close additional gaps
Cost • TBD
• Costs will vary depending on project
V-2 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
San Francisco Bay£¤101
§¨¦802
£¤101
§¨¦802
§¨¦803
]V28
]V28
]V53
]V1
Pacifica
B
A
R
T
BARTCALTRAINC
A
L
T
R
A
I
N
San BrunoStation
SSFStation
SSFStation
SSpruceAveDaly City
San Bruno
BrisbaneSan Bruno Mountain Park
CaliforniaGolf Club
CountryClub Park
San FranciscoInt'l AirportUninc.
South San Francisco
Grand A
v
e
El C
am
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
F orbes Bl
A rroy oDrS A
i
rpo
r
t
B
l
vdGateway B lv d
E Grand
Ave
Jun
ipe
ro
Se
r
ra
B
lvd
Harbor WayC
alla
n
B
lv
d Chestnut AveSisterCitiesBlvd
E c clesAveW estboroug h B lvd
Oyster Point Blvd
Gelle
rt
BlvdH ills ideBlvd
WOra n g e AveHi cke y B l v d
S
k
ylin
e
B
lv
d
2nd Ln
1st Ln
Park W
a
y
Mi
s
s
i
o
n
R
d
N
e
w
m
a
n
D
r
Comme
r
c
i
a
l
A
v
e
N Canal
S
t
Larch
A
v
e
Sha
n
n
o
n
D
r
Avalon
Dr Holly AveMaple AveDel
M
o
n
t
e
A
v
e
Se
r
r
a
D
r
S Linden AveHazelw
o
o
d
DrEvergreen DrCam
a
r
i
t
a
s
A
v
e
Rock
wood
Dr
Ro
c
c
a
A
v
eEucalyptus AveWe
x
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Greendale Dr Willow AveNoor Av
e Pecks LnCitywide Sidewalk Gap Closure ProjectMissing Sidewalks Citywide
SF11-0594\GIS
I 0.85
1 mile
Concept Plan One
Sidewalk Gap Priority
First Priority
Second Priority
Third Priority
School
Park
Priority Development Area
5 Concept Plans
5.2 Neighborhood Retail Corridor
Linden Avenue Improvements
Linden Avenue between Aspen Street and Grand Avenue in downtown South San Francisco is a
secondary commercial corridor connecting to the busier Grand Avenue corridor. This section of
Linden Avenue is a key transit corridor and presents opportunities for increased commercial activity
and pedestrian connections to nearby destinations, including small parks, schools, City buildings, local
businesses and the walkable residential neighborhoods of this part of South San Francisco.
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%)
V-4 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
LEGEND
Sidewalk Expansion
Landscaping
ADA Curb Ramps
Grand Ave
Miller Ave
Lux Ave
California Ave
Pine Ave
Linden AveCypress AveAirport BlvdMaple AveAspen Ave
Grand Ave
Miller Ave
Lux Ave
California Ave
Pine Ave
Linden AveCypress AveAirport BlvdMaple AveAspen Ave
Juniper AveJuniper Ave
9th Lane8th Lane
7th Lane7th Lane
6th Lane6th Lane
Tamarack LaneTamarack Lane
NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL CORRIDOR
LINDEN AVENUE IMPROVEMENTSNot to Scale
N
SF11-0594 South San Francisco Pedestrian and Climate Action Plan\Graphics CONCEPT PLAN TWO
Install bus bulb with seating, shelter, real-time transit information and other amenities at transit stop
Install bulb-outs and advanced stop bars
Relocate bus stops to far side of intersection
Install bulb-out at southwest intersection
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
Install bulb-out
Install crosswalks on east and west legs; install advanced stop bars on all approaches
Install bus bulbs; evaluate removal of right-turn lane on Miller Avenue to install bulb-out
Consider active uses and public space treatments such as “parklets”, murals, landscaping and green stormwater management along Linden Avenue and in alleyways. Install ADA accessible ramps at all pedestrian crossings
5 Concept Plans
5.3 BART Station and El Camino High School Access Improvements
Mission Road Corridor
Mission Road between El Camino High School and McLellan Drive at the north and Holly Avenue at
the south is a key transit access corridor with a variety of local connections. The South San Francisco
BART station, related transit oriented development, El Camino High School, the Centennial Way Trail,
scattered local-serving commercial uses and residential development are all located directly on
Mission Road. Side streets also connect to a neighborhood elementary school, additional TOD
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%)
V-6 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Sequoia Ave
Holly Ave
McLellan Dr
Sequoia Ave
Holly Ave
McLellan Dr
Evergreen DrEvergreen DrMisison RdMisison RdMisison RdMisison RdEl CaminoHigh SchoolEl CaminoHigh School
Match Line
Match Line
LEGEND
Sidewalk Expansion
Landscaping
ADA Curb Ramps
SOUTH SECTIONNORTH SECTION
Reduce Mission Road to one travel lane in each direction. Add
median with pedestrian refuges.
Install curb extension at crosswalk
Curb extensions andrealign crosswalk toreduce crossing distance
Install bulb-outs
Install advance stop bars onMission Road approaches
BART STATION AND EL CAMINO HIGH SCHOOL
ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS MISSION ROAD CORRIDORNot to Scale
N
SF11-0594 South San Francisco Pedestrian and Climate Action Plan\Graphics CONCEPT PLAN THREE
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 Evergreen Drive present key
opportunities to implement neighborhood traffic calming improvements. These local streets connect
schools and residential neighborhoods to the nearby BART station and the high volume Hillside
Boulevard, to the north. The current configuration allows for high speed vehicles with few stop
controlled intersections and some blocks stretching more than 900 feet long, three times longer than
typical downtown residential blocks. Traffic calming improvements implemented here at
intersections, key crossings and along the length of blocks can be replicated throughout similar
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%)
V-8 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Sunshine GardensElementary School
El Camino
High School
Sunshine GardensElementary School
El Camino
High School
Baywood Ave
Miller Ave
Mission RdEvergreen DrHolly AveSequoia AveGardenside AveBaywood Ave
Miller Ave
Mission RdEvergreen DrHolly AveSequoia AveGardenside AveMark high-visibility yellow ladder crosswalks on all legs
Mark high-visibility yellow crosswalks on all legs
Mark edgelinesMark edgelines
Evaluate intersection for stop sign warrant; otherwise install advanced yellow lines
Install traffic circles or other traffic
calming elements at key inter-sections to slow through-traffic
Consider reducing speed limit to 15 mph through school zone
LEGEND
Sidewalk Expansion
Edgelines
ADA Curb Ramps
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS
SUNSHINE GARDENS
CONCEPT PLAN FOUR
Not to Scale
N
SF11-0594 South San Francisco Pedestrian and Climate Action Plan\Graphics
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 section of South San Francisco. These
streets present opportunities for strong pedestrian connections to downtown , and the South San
Francisco Caltrain station is located within approximately one mile or less from most points along this
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%)
V-10 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Marin
ElementarySchool
Miller AveMiller Ave
Marin
ElementarySchool
Spruce Elementery
School
Spruce Elementery
School Maple AveOlive AveMaple AveOlive AveSpruce AveSpruce AveCalifornia Ave
Pine Ave
Lux Ave
California Ave
Pine Ave
Lux Ave
Walnut AveSpruce AveWalnut AveSpruce AveTelford Ave
Telford Ave
Diamond AveDiamond Ave
Beach A
v
e
Beach A
v
eHemlock AveHemlock AveSchool StSchool StPark
W
a
y
Park
W
a
y
LEGEND
Sidewalk Expansion
Landscaping
Edgelines
ADA Curb Ramps
*
Mark high visibility, yellow crosswalk on south leg
Install staggered sidewalk
bulbs on alternating sidesto reinforce edgeline
Install median refuge at wide intersection
Install high visibility crosswalktreatment with pedestrianactuated flashing beacon; or consider all-way stopcontrol
Install ADA accessible ramps at all crossings
Stripe edgline along corridor;preserve 10’-11’ for each travel lane
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS
SPRUCE AVENUE
CONCEPT PLAN FIVE
Not to Scale
N
SF11-0594 South San Francisco Pedestrian and Climate Action Plan\Graphics
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 Camino Real corridor
to Downtown South San Francisco through the industrial neighborhood south of downtown serves as
a primary gateway between El Camino Real and Downtown. It is also a busy industrial corridor, linking
El Camino Real with the industrial and office park uses south of Railroad Avenue. These corridors
represent part of the South San Francisco employment base, and create a significant amount of
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 Camino Real could generate
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
V-12 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
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 access issues;
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
Victory AveEl Camino Real
Myrtle A
v
e S Spruce
AveS
Sp
ru
c
e
Av
eVictory AveEl Camino Real
Huntington Ave
Terrace
Dr
Huntington Ave
Terrace
Dr
Myrtle A
v
e S Spruce
AveS
Sp
ru
c
e
Av
e
xx
Match Line
Match Line
Remove porkchop islandsfrom east corners and
relocate signal polesto corners.Add ADA compliant curbramps and crosswalks
Widen sidewalk ormove utilitiesunderground to provide ADA accessible path
Add crosswalk to north legwith ADA curbramps
Add median tips to crossings
at existing medians
Increase pedestrian crossing time at all signals for El Camino Real/ S Spruce Ave crossing
Widen sidwalk at corner
Buffered bike lanes and landscaped
median S Spruce Ave corridor
Install buffered bike lanes on S Spruce Ave corridor
Buffered bike lanes connect to Centennial Trail
Add ADA curb ramps
Add ADA curb ramps
SOUTH SECTION
Install median treatment on S Spruce Ave corridorby reducing the totalnumber of lanes
NORTH SECTION
Existing Centennial Way TrailLEGEND
Sidewalk ExpansionLandscapingBike LanesADA Curb Ramps
COMPLETE STREETS/GATEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
SOUTH SPRUCE AVENEUE
CONCEPT PLAN SIX
Not to ScaleN
SF11-0594 South San Francisco Pedestrian and Climate Action Plan\Graphics
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 of Antoinette Lane, approximately
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 restaurant and carwash, and a cluster
of strip development on El Camino Real. Beyond these blocks, the nearby land use is predominantly
residential on both sides of El Camino Real. The lot adjacent to the trail crossing on the north side of
Chestnut Avenue is currently being used as a construction staging area, and may present some
opportunities for realigning the current link between trail sections north and south of Chestnut
Avenue. Note that a traffic analysis will be necessary to evaluate the impact that these changes may
have on eastbound traffic at the Antoinette Lane/Chestnut Avenue intersection.
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
LEGEND
Sidewalk Expansion
ADA Curb Ramps
SF11-0594 South San Francisco Pedestrian and Climate Action Plan\GraphicsExisting Centennial Way TrailExisting Centennial Way Trail
Chestnut Ave.Chestnut Ave.El Camino RealEl Camino RealMi
s
s
ion
RoadMi
s
s
ion
RoadAntoinette Lane RoadAntoinette Lane RoadExisting Centennial Way TrailExisting Centennial Way Trail
Existing Centennial Way TrailExisting Centennial Way Trail
CENTENNIAL WAY ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS
CENTENNIAL WAY TRAIL AT CHESTNUT AVENUE CROSSINGNot to Scale
N
SF11-0594 South San Francisco Pedestrian and Climate Action Plan\Graphics CONCEPT PLAN SEVEN
Provide ADA accessible connection between Centennial Way Trail and Mission Road
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
Incorporate widened sidewalks at new development site to connect to existing Centennial Way Trail at north side of cul-de-sac
Install curb extension to align new west leg of crosswalk at 90 degree angle
Remove parallel parking from east side of street and shift travel lanes east to accommodate widened sidewalk. Provide diagonal parking on west side.
Install curb extension around utility pole to provide ADA access and realign crosswalk
5 Concept Plans
5.8 Prototypical Arterial intersection Improvements
Hickey Boulevard and Junipero Serra Boulevard
The intersection of Hickey Boulevard and Junipero Serra Boulevard, between Interstate 280 and El
Camino Real represents a number of arterial intersection challenges found throughout South San
Francisco. The signalized Junipero Serra Boulevard approach includes two through lanes and one left
turn lane in each direction, and a separated stop controlled right turn pocket in each direction. The
signalized Hickey Boulevard approach includes also includes two through lanes in each direction, one
left turn lane in the eastbound direction, and separated stop controlled right turn pockets in each
direction. This configuration creates long pedestrian crossing distances across multiple directions. This
intersection was selected for development of prototypical improvements because similar treatments
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 excess road 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
LEGEND
Sidewalk Expansion
LandscapingBike LanesADA Curb Ramps
Longford DrDuval DrHickey BlvdJunipero Serra BlvdJunipero Serra Blvd
Longford DrHickey BlvdDuval DrPROTOTYPICAL ARTERIAL INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS HICKEY BOULEVARD
AND JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARDNot to ScaleN
SF11-0594 South San Francisco Pedestrian and Climate Action Plan\Graphics CONCEPT PLAN EIGHT
Consider installing a physically separated bikeway or Class I shared use path along Junipero
Serra Blvd
Install advanced yield lines andhigh-visibility ladder crosswalk
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 landscaping to further improve sightlines at corner
Add crosswalk to east leg or closecrosswalk by installing signage
Realign north and west legs at
necessary to match up with new pork chop islands
Complete sidewalk gap to city limits
Advance pedestrian signage
Add median tips at all crosswalks and pull median islands back to provide accessible crosswalksInstall advanced yield line and
pedestrian signage at approach and “Yield to Pedestrians” signage at right turn
6 Policy Framework
Chapter 6: Policy Framework
This chapter lays out the policy framework for the South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan. The
framework provides a set of seven overarching goals designed to support implementation of the
long-term vision for walking in South San Francisco over the next 10 years. Each goal is accompanied
by an objective designed to gauge progress in achieving the goals. Goals are typically implemented
through policies and implementation measures dealing with more specific issues. Subsequent
chapters of the Pedestrian Master Plan include recommendations, implementation tasks and next steps
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 Francisco by 2023.
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 pedestrian projects annually.
Goal 4 Identify and Pursue Funding Sources to Construct and Maintain Pedestrian
Facilities
Objective: Identify and secure funds for pedestrian projects annually.
Goal 5 Maintain Pedestrian Facilities
Objective: Track and evaluate maintenance of pedestrian facilities annually.
Goal 6 Periodically Review the Pedestrian Master Plan and Keep It Relevant
Objective: Design and construct at least three priority pedestrian projects annually.
Goal 7 Encourage Public Participation and Stay Informed
Objective: Meet or exceed 75 percent of the BPAC Action Plan goals annually.
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 Francisco by 2023.
Policy 1.1: Integrate pedestrian facilities and planning into all of the City’s planning
review and construction activities, legitimizing walking as a transportation
mode.
Implementation Measures:
1.1-1 All development projects shall be required to conform to the
Pedestrian Master Plan goals, policies and implementation measures.
1.1-2 All public and private street projects shall incorporate pedestrian
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 maintain a
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 as
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 of
local TDM Plans in supporting walking as a transportation mode.
Policy 1.3: Encourage residents and employees to walk for journeys to work, shopping,
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 private
schools to implement programs and events to support walking
VI-2 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
6 Policy Framework
including regular contests, and challenging students to walk to
school.2
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 pedestrian safety.
Implementation Measures:
2.1-1 City staff, assigned to support the BPAC, shall establish and maintain a
current pedestrian data base. The data base shall include, but not be
limited to, an annual pedestrian volume count, analysis of pedestrian
collision rates and locations, and a review of facility conditions.
2.1-2 Focus pedestrian safety improvements measures at hot spot collision
locations, and around schools and senior facilities, as children and
seniors are disproportionately represented in pedestrian collisions.
2.1-3 Identify an annual funding source for the City’s Traffic Calming
Program.
2.1-4 City staff shall establish and maintain a BPAC webpage to disseminate
walking information and elicit community input.
2.1-5 The BPAC shall annually review efforts to improve pedestrian safety
and make recommendations for improving pedestrian safety,
maintaining existing pedestrian facilities, and constructing new
pedestrian facilities especially ADA accessible ramps.
2 Encouraging students to bicycle can be implemented and funded through Safe Routes to School programs.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VI-3
6 Policy Framework
Policy 2.2: Enforce pedestrian related traffic laws to maintain and improve traffic safety.
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
2.3-1 The city shall establish and maintain a security program for remote
paths including the Bay Trail, Centennial Path and future conversion of
former rail spur tracks.
2.3-2 Expand the Police Department Bike Patrol to include pedestrian paths
and evaluate other methods to improve security such as establishing a
Citizen Bike Patrol, installing cameras and lighting on pedestrian paths.
Goal 3: Improve Pedestrian Access
Objective: Design and construct at least three priority pedestrian projects annually.
Policy 3.1: The city shall expand the existing pedestrian network and improve access
throughout the community with a special emphasis on connections to places
of work, transit, commercial centers and community amenities and on ADA
accessibility.
Implementation Measure:
3.1-1 Construct pedestrian facilities in accordance with a prioritized list of
facilities.
3.1-2 Adopt a citywide ADA Transition Plan.
3.1-3 Update the City’s Street Design Ordinance (SSFMC Chapter 19.20) to
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 developments
VI-4 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
6 Policy Framework
including places of work, commercial shopping establishments, parks,
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 and
facilities within individual development projects and access to other
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 private
schools to provide and improve pedestrian facilities at schools and
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 hubs and
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 public
paths and require that privately sponsored path projects implement
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 city funding.
Implementation Measures:
4.1-1 City staff shall establish and maintain a data base of funding sources to
support planning, design, construction and maintenance of pedestrian
facilities.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VI-5
6 Policy Framework
4.1-2 Pedestrian improvement and maintenance projects shall be included in the
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 devices and
paths as a high priority.
Implementation Measures:
5.1-1 Establish a regular maintenance program including pavement, pedestrian
traffic control devices, marked crossings, signs and lighting to keep the
pedestrian facilities in good condition.
Policy 5.2 The BPAC shall conduct regular evaluations of the pedestrian facilities.
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 to include
pedestrian facilities, pavement marking, signage and lighting maintenance as
a high priority.
Goal 6: Periodically Review the Pedestrian Master Plan and Keep It Relevant
Objective: Design and construct at least three priority pedestrian projects annually.
Policy 6.1 Maintain the Pedestrian Master Plan and the implementation schedule and
keep the plan current and relevant.
Implementation Measure
6.1-1 BPAC shall conduct an annual review of the Pedestrian Master Plan, including
achievement of the goals and policies, effectiveness of the implementation
measures, the progress of implementation and the efficient use of local
resources.
VI-6 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
6 Policy Framework
6.1-2 The BPAC shall make recommendations to improve the plan, achievement of
the goals and policies, and its implementation.
6.1-3 As part of the annual review, the BPAC shall prioritize pedestrian
improvements and identify external funding sources.
6.1-4 Make recommendations to undertake periodic pedestrian planning studies to
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 to improve
walking and to focus on pedestrian issues, programs and projects, and the
progress of implementation.
6.2-4 Make recommendations to the City Council on all public and privately
sponsored pedestrian/development projects.
Goal 7: Encourage Public Participation and Stay Informed
Objective: Meet or exceed 75 percent of the BPAC Action Plan goals annually.
Policy 7.1 Promote public awareness of walking and increase public participation.
Implementation Measure:
7.1-1 Establish and maintain a BPAC webpage to disseminate information and elicit
community input.
7.1-2 Notify the community of BPAC meetings and encourage public attendance of
the meetings through various media including the city website.
Policy 7.2 Develop a BPAC Action Plan to establish goals and activities on an annual
basis.
Implementation Measures:
7.2-1 Establish and maintain a community data base of BPACs, interested residents,
and organizations.
7.2-2 Establish and maintain contact with BPACs within San Mateo County, bicycle
organizations, SamTrans, BART, Caltrain and FHWA, interested citizens and
businesses.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VI-7
6 Policy Framework
7.2-3 BPAC 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 connections
between bikeways and programs to improve walking, coordinating
improvements and co-sponsoring joint projects.
7.2-4 BPAC shall propose joint meetings with the C/CAG and all local community
BPACs within San Mateo County to discuss walking issues including
coordinating bicycle projects and have more voice in pedestrian issues.
7.2-5 Work with other City Boards and Commissions to coordinate efforts to
implement the plan and improve pedestrian facilities.
Policy 7.3 BPAC shall take a proactive approach to stay informed on best practices in
pedestrian and bicycle planning.
Implementation Measure
7.3-1 Participate in regional pedestrian conferences and increase awareness,
knowledge and technical pedestrian expertise. On an annual basis, attend at
least one public event including pedestrian fairs and/or conferences to
establish and maintain connections with the larger walking and transportation
planning communities. Attend regional and national walking related
conferences, such as the California Walks “Peds Count” Conference.
7.3-2 Take an active leadership role by directing the planning, implementation and
maintenance of pedestrian improvements and programs.
7.3-3 Monitor and review pedestrian demonstration and cutting edge projects and
programs in other communities.
7.3-4 BPAC shall keep current on advancements, walking information and new and
pending Federal and State pedestrian legislation.
VI-8 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
7 Funding and
Implementation
Chapter 7: Funding and Implementation
Implementation of the proposed pedestrian improvements included in this Plan will require funding
from local, state, and federal sources and coordination with multiple agencies. To facilitate this, this
chapter presents a method of prioritizing local pedestrian improvement projects, construction cost
estimates for the proposed improvements, a brief overview of funding strategies and sources, and
implementation strategies.
7.1 Planning Implementation
Prioritization
The proposed projects outlined in the Recommended Improvements chapter, would enhance the
pedestrian experience, safety and access throughout South San Francisco. Recommended projects
were scored and ranked in order to prioritize their implementation. While the City of South San
Francisco may find opportunities to implement a number of projects through resurfacing or in
conjunction with other street improvements regardless of project rank, this prioritization process
identifies projects with the greatest potential to impact the pedestrian environment by scoring each
project according to several factors.
The prioritization scoring method outlined below was developed specifically for the City of South San
Francisco with special consideration given to local priorities with input from other regional pedestrian
plans. Pedestrian demand, designated pedestrian focus areas, and pedestrian safety are identified as
priority factors in the C/CAG San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, and have
been included in the prioritization methodology for South San Francisco projects. In addition to these
county-wide priorities this prioritization considers gap closures and potential for funding.
All projects receive a score between 10 and 100 based on the following factors:
Existing pedestrian demand (10-30 points)
Each project was assessed according to its location and corresponding pedestrian demand. Pedestrian
demand is based on a number of geographically-based factors that are considered indicators for
pedestrian activity. These include housing and employment density, population density, incomes,
vehicle ownership, proximity to recreation, proximity to commercial districts, and proximity to
schools. During the development of the C/CAG Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, each street segment in
South San Francisco was assigned a pedestrian demand value, which is illustrated in Figure 7-1. The
following points were assigned to each pedestrian project:
• Projects located primarily within the red and orange street segments are high demand, and
received 30 points
• Projects located within the yellow street segments are considered to have medium demand and
received 20 points
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VII-1
San FrancisBay£¤101§¨¦802£¤101§¨¦802§¨¦803]V28]V28]V53icaARTB A R T
CALTRAIN
R A IN
San BrunoStationSSFStationSSFStationSSpruceAvey CitySan BrunoBrisbaneSan Bruno Mountain ParkCaliforniaGolf ClubCountryClub ParkSan FranciscoIt'l Ai tSouth San FranciscoGrand AveE l C a m in o R e alForbesBlArroyoDrS A irp o rt B lv d
GatewayBlvdEGrandA veJ un ip e ro S er ra B lv d Harbor WayCallan B lvdChestnut AveSisterCitiesBlvdEcclesAveWestboroughBlvdOysterPointBlvdGeller tBlvdHillsideBlvdWOrangeAve
HickeyBlvdSkylineB lvd2nd Ln1st LnPark WayM ission RdNewm an DrCommercial AveN Canal StLarch AveShannon DrAvalon DrHolly AveMaple AveDel Monte AveSerra DrS Linden AveHazelwood DrEvergreen DrCamaritas AveRockwood DrRocca AveEucalyptus AveWexford AveGreendale DrWillow AveNoor AvePecks LnPedestrian DemandPrioritizationSF11-0594\GISI0.851 mileFigure 7-1
7 Funding and
Implementation
• Projects located within the green street segments are considered to have low demand and
received 10 points
Access to key destinations (0-20 points)
Additional points were assigned to projects located within a Priority Development Area, or that
provide direct access with frontage on schools, parks, commercial centers, transit and other key
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 other physical barriers, and gaps in
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 pedestrian safety is a primary concern,
including proximity to recent pedestrian collisions and streets with high speed traffic or pedestrian
exposure to high volumes of traffic:
• 15-20 points for locations near pedestrian collisions AND high speed/high volume streets
• 5-10 point for locations near pedestrian collision OR high speed/high volume streets
• 0 points for locations where collisions and traffic speed/volume are not a concern
Overall feasibility (0-10 points)
Finally, additional points were assigned to projects with potential funding sources:
• 10 points for projects that are both feasible (in terms of engineering feasibility and/or strong
political support) and fundable (strong contenders for grant opportunities, could be built with
new development opportunities, or are relatively affordable and could be included in the City’s
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 (as outlined above)
• 0 points for projects with no support and not associated with funding opportunities
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
entirely within red street segments
30
Access to key destinations Linden and Grand is the center of Downtown, a
gateway between Downtown and East of 101 and
provides access to transit stops along the corridor
20
Closure of critical gap No critical gap at this location 0
Serves immediate safety need High incidence of pedestrian collisions at this
intersection; no high speed traffic noted
10
Feasibility Recommendations are not capital intensive (most
related to curb ramp and pavement markings) and
located within the Downtown Improvement District
10
Total 70
Each recommended project was scored according to these criteria, and highest scores indicate highest
priorities. Projects with the same score are ranked according to estimated cost (i.e., less expensive
projects are ranked higher.) The resulting ranked list is not intended to be a static document, as new
opportunities for funding and improved access will emerge. However, the list will provide a starting
point for determining project priorities and implementation. Unit costs are summarized in Table 2.
Table 3 provides a list of the top tier ranked pedestrian projects. A complete list of ranked projects is
included in Appendix B. More details about the recommended project list can be found in the
Recommended Improvements Chapter.
Cost of New Facilities
A list of unit costs was developed based on recent projects and cost estimates throughout the Bay
Area, and input from the South San Francisco Engineering Division. These unit costs provided the
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 facilities in South San Francisco.
VII-4 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
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
Sides)
Includes $2.50 LF striping, $150
marking (8 per mile), $250 sign
(8 per mile)
Mile $29,120
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
Countdown
Each $1,000
Pedestrian Push Buttons Each $2,000
Upgrade to Pedestrian Countdown Heads Each $1,000
Pedestrian Barricade and signs (close
crossing)
Each $1,000
ADA Curb Ramps Each $5,000
HAWK Beacon Each $120,000
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Includes installation Each $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
gutter, $8/SF for landscaping,
10 FT diameter and $700 sign
(4 per intersection)
Each $5,000
Lighting Each $10,000
Bus Shelter Each $6,500
Paint Curb Linear Foot $10
For the purposes of this Pedestrian Master Plan, construction cost estimates for the proposed
improvements were based on the following assumptions:
• Sidewalk paving does not include demolition costs and new sidewalks are 6 feet wide unless other
dimensions are required due to site specific constraints
• Relocation of utility poles and fire hydrants does not include design and engineering costs
Detailed cost estimates based on the unit costs and assumptions summarized above have been
developed for all recommended projects included in this Pedestrian Master Plan. A table summarizing
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, are considered short- 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 these projects per year (Goals/Objectives 3
and 6), then this Tier 1 project list could be completed within nine years. The Tier 1 list can be
completed much more rapidly if additional projects are constructed, support programs and funding
mechanisms are pursued more aggressively, or the City can commit more funds per year. Several Tier
1 projects are lower-cost improvements that could likely be implemented more immediately as
funding allows. For example, ten of the top 11 projects could be implemented in year one if $600,000
was secured for the improvement.
First Tier recommended projects, priority scores, and associated project cost estimates are
summarized in Table VII-3.
VII-6 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
7 Funding and
Implementation
Table VII-3: South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan First Tier Prioritized Projects
ID # Location Construction Cost Pedestrian Demand Access Gap Closure Safety Need Feasibility Total Points 1-2 McLellan Drive from Mission
Road to El Camino Real $154,900 30 20 10 10 5 75
11-1 Chestnut Avenue and
Antoinette Lane $228,300 20 20 10 15 5 70
12-1 Spruce Avenue between Lux
Avenue and Maple Avenue $15,300 30 15 0 15 5 65
9-1 Grand Avenue and Airport
Boulevard $19,500 30 10 0 15 10 65
13-1
Westborough Boulevard
from Callan Boulevard to
Gellert Boulevard
$368,400 20 15 10 15 5 65
9-4 East Grand Avenue and
Dubuque Avenue $13,800 30 15 0 15 1 61
10-3 Airport Boulevard and Miller
Avenue $500 30 15 0 10 5 60
14-3
E Grand Avenue between
Grand Avenue and Dubuque
Avenue
$1,400 30 10 0 15 5 60
1-1 McLellan Drive and Mission
Road $14,000 30 20 0 0 10 60
9-3
Pedestrian crossing under
Hwy 101 along East Grand
Avenue
$20,000 30 10 0 15 5 60
10-2 Airport Boulevard at Pine
Avenue $137,200 30 15 0 10 5 60
10-1 Linden Avenue from Grand
Avenue to Aspen Avenue $543,400 30 15 0 10 5 60
6-1
Del Monte Avenue from
Arroyo Drive to Alta Loma
Drive
$40,000 20 15 5 15 1 56
2-1 Mission Road from McLellan
Drive to Holly Avenue $197,900 30 20 0 5 1 56
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VII-7
7 Funding and
Implementation
ID # Location Construction Cost Pedestrian Demand Access Gap Closure Safety Need Feasibility Total Points 9-2
Grand Avenue between
Airport Boulevard and
Walnut Avenue
$275,900 30 15 0 10 1 56
12-3 School Street and Olive
Avenue $20,000 30 10 0 10 5 55
16-1
Oyster Point Boulevard from
Eccles Avenue to driveway
immediately east
$35,700 10 15 10 15 5 55
12-2 School Street and Maple
Avenue $39,100 30 10 0 10 5 55
2-2 Mission Road and BART
entrance $50,000 30 20 0 0 5 55
12-4 Grand Avenue and Spruce
Avenue $204,000 30 10 0 10 5 55
2-5 Holly from Mission Road to
Crestwood Drive $346,000 30 10 0 10 1 51
2-6 Crestwood Drive from Holly
Avenue to Evergreen Drive $10,000 30 10 0 10 1 51
1-3 El Camino Real and McLellan
Drive $900 20 20 0 10 1 51
15-3 S Airport Boulevard and
Highway 101 off-ramp $91,600 20 5 15 10 1 51
2-3 Mission Road and Sequoia
Avenue $209,700 30 20 0 0 1 51
8-1
El Camino Real from
Hazelwood Drive to
Ponderosa Road
$271,400 10 15 10 15 1 51
VII-8 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
7 Funding and
Implementation
Additional soft costs for design, environmental review, mobilization and contingency must also be
taken into consideration when developing practical cost estimates for recommended projects. The
following table summarizes these cost increases.
Table VII-4: Design and Construction Costs
Category Increase (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 budgets. As with all infrastructure,
pedestrian facilities require maintenance for long-term function, including cleaning, resurfacing, re-
striping, repair, drainage, trash removal, and landscaping. These efforts are most effective when
incorporated into larger infrastructure maintenance routines and budgets, and are best done
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 Management 10% $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 Management 10% $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 Management 10% $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 inventory of sidewalk gaps. Sidewalk
VII-10 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
7 Funding and
Implementation
gaps throughout the City were mapped, ranked according to priority, and designated as high-priority,
medium-priority and long-term sidewalk gap closures. The costs of each sidewalk gap closure will vary
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 Management 10% $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 Management 10% $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 been used for past
pedestrian expenditures. These include a variety of local and regional funds:
• Capital Improvement Program – The South San Francisco Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
outlines planned local infrastructure improvements for the upcoming fiscal year. The CIP is
reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. Several approved
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
VII-12 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
7 Funding and
Implementation
– Gateway Assessment Improvement Projects.
• Private Development – Current property owners and developers are required to include specific
upgrades and additional pedestrian infrastructure, such as sidewalks, for approval of development
projects.
• Grants – a variety of grant funding sources have been used in South San Francisco:
– San Mateo County’s Measure A Sales Tax – A local sales tax increase to fund for
transportation improvements designated in the Transportation Expenditure Plan. This is
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 ramp upgrades to
improve pedestrian accessibility.
– Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds have been pursued. These are
described in greater detail below.
• Gas tax revenue has been used as a funding source for curb ramp upgrades and as part of larger
overlay projects.
• Public Works Operating Budget – The South San Francisco Department of Public Works is
responsible for maintenance of the city’s streets, vehicles, infrastructure, and local water quality.
The Public Works Department creates and carries out the CIP.
Funding Sources
There are numerous funding sources at the federal, state, regional, county and local levels that are
potentially available to the City of South San Francisco to implement the projects and programs in the
Pedestrian Master Plan. Below is a description of the most promising funding programs available for
the proposed projects. Most of these sources are highly competitive and require the preparation of
extensive applications.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VII-13
7 Funding and
Implementation
Federal Funding Sources
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (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 transportation programs for fiscal years 2013
and 2014.
A new program, Transportation Alternatives (TA), consolidates pedestrian and bicycle programs
formerly funded under the Transportation Enhancements program (part of SAFETEA-LU, the previous
transportation bill authorized in 2005). Funding through TA is lower than in the previous bill, and
states may opt out of funding. There are six eligible categories for funding under Transportation
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 Program continued at current funding
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 eligible.
The TA program falls under the general provisions for federal share payable for non-interstate system
projects at 80%, with the remaining 20% being local match funding. Because states can opt out of
MAP-21 funds, available money may be lower than estimated based on formula calculations. MAP-21
is authorized for two years, and the specifics of the funding programs are likely to change by the end
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 eligible to compete for funding alongside
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 meet the requirements of the Clean Air
VII-14 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
7 Funding and
Implementation
Act. Funding is available to reduce congestion and improve air quality for areas that do not meet the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter
(nonattainment areas) and for former nonattainment areas that are now in compliance (maintenance
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 funding alongside other
programs, including the Transportation Enhancements program and Recreational Trails program, as
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). Eligible projects include walkways,
crosswalks, traffic signals, traffic-calming applications and other infrastructure projects that improve
the safety of walking and biking routes to elementary, middle and high schools, as well as “incidental”
education, enforcement and encouragement activities. Planning projects, on the other hand, are not
eligible. For funding Cycle 10, fiscal years 2011/12 and 2012/13, approximately $48.47 million was
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 local funding for pedestrian and bicycle
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 a population basis. Under TDA Article
3, two percent of each entity’s TDA allocation is set aside for pedestrian and bicycle projects; this
generates approximately $3 million in the Bay Area annually. Eligible projects include the design and
construction of walkways and safety education programs. According to MTC Resolution 875, these
projects must be included in an adopted general plan or bicycle plan and must have been reviewed
by the relevant city or county bicycle advisory committee.
• MTC’s Procedures and Project Evaluation Criteria for the TDA Article 3 program:
www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/STA-TDA/RES-0875.doc
Highway Safety Improvement Program
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) program was established as part of SAFETEA-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 agencies in the 2013 Federal Statewide
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) program in 1998. It provides technical
assistance and funding to cities, counties, transit agencies and nonprofit organizations for capital
projects and community-based planning that encourage multimodal travel and the revitalization of
town centers and other mixed-use neighborhoods. The program funds projects that improve bicycling
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 programs. It combines funding for
Transportation for Livable Communities, Bicycle, Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation, and Safe
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 achieving local land-use and housing
policies. Cities and counties can still use OBA funds for projects described under these 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, Bay Conservation Development
Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments, MTC is sponsoring a transportation-
oriented Climate Action Program, designed to reduce mobile emissions through various strategies,
including a grant program. The grant program will provide funding for bicycle projects through new
Safe Routes to School and Safe Routes to Transit programs, with total funding expected to be
approximately $400 million. This funding will be in addition to the state and federal Safe Routes to
School programs and MTC’s existing Safe Routes to Transit program.
Safe Routes to Transit (SR2T)
SR2T is a grant-funding program that emerged out of the Bay Area's Regional Measure 2, which
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 competitive basis to programs,
planning efforts and capital projects designed to reduce congestion on toll bridges by improving
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, TransForm and the East Bay Bicycle
Coalition, with MTC serving as the fiscal agent. Regional Measure 2 provides $20 million for the SR2S
VII-16 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
7 Funding and
Implementation
program, to be distributed over five funding cycles with $4 million available during each cycle. Fiscal
year 2011/12 was the fourth of five funding cycles. The final cycle will 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 Bay Trail. The
amount, and even availability, of Bay Trail grants vary from year to year, de-pending on whether the
Bay Trail Project has identified a source of funds for the program. In recent years, grants have been
made using funds from Proposition 84, the 2006 Clean Water, Parks and Coastal Protection Bond Act;
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 Management District (BAAQMD).
The purpose of the program, which is funded through a $4 surcharge on motor vehicles registered in
the Bay Area, is to fund projects and programs that will reduce air pollution from motor vehicles. Grant
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 county's congestion management
agency (CMA) for allocation (The City/County Association of Governments, or C/CAG, in San Mateo
County). Applications are made directly to the CMAs, but must also be approved by the BAAQMD.
• 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 funding for transportation projects,
including pedestrian projects. This program is administered by MTC, which can prioritize 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 designated in the Transportation
Expenditure Plan. This measure was reauthorized in 2004 to extend through 2033, is administered by
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 improvements; however, their use is
often dependent on political support.
New Construction
Future road repaving, widening and construction projects are methods of upgrading or installing new
pedestrian facilities. To ensure that roadway construction projects provide pedestrian facilities where
needed, it is important that the review process includes a review of the City’s proposed pedestrian
project list. Planned roadway improvements in South San Francisco should provide pedestrian
facilities consistent with the Pedestrian Master Plan in the City. Typically, new development projects
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 projects.
• MTC Routine Accommodations Checklist:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bicyclespedestrians/Routine_Accommodation_checklist.pdf
Capital Improvement Plan
The South San Francisco CIP outlines planned needed infrastructure improvements throughout the
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 shall be adopted and annually updated by
a resolution at a noticed public hearing. The City may use the CIP to formulate its budget, but it does
not preclude “opportunistic projects,” such as a street resurfacing or development project.
Opportunistic projects are unanticipated projects where the City may incorporate pedestrian facilities,
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 districts. Property owners in the districts
are assessed for the improvements, and can make payments immediately or over a number of years.
Street pavement, sidewalk repair, curb ramps and streetlights are commonly funded through
assessment districts. Business Improvement Districts in commercial centers are funded this way. The
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 fees, typically tied to trip generation
and traffic impacts as a result of proposed projects.
Open Space District
VII-18 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
7 Funding and
Implementation
Local Open Space Districts may float bonds that go to acquiring land or open space easements, which
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 pedestrian projects. For example, Kaiser
Permanente Community Health Initiatives grants are available to public agencies to support increased
physical activity in San Mateo County. Creation of these potential sources usually requires substantial
local support.
Funding Strategy
Grant funding is highly competitive and the following options should be considered by the City in
pursuing the funding necessary to complete the proposed improvements:
• For multi-agency and cross-jurisdictional projects, prepare joint applications with other local and
regional agencies, such as the Cities of Daily City, Colma and San Bruno, San Mateo County, and
local and regional park and open space organizations. Joint applications often increase the
competitiveness of projects for funding; however, coordination amongst the participating
jurisdictions is often challenging. The City should act as the lead agency, with a strong emphasis
on coordination between participating jurisdictions and agencies (including SamTrans, Caltrain,
BART and Public Health organizations) on important projects to ensure they are implemented as
quickly as possible.
• Use existing funding sources as matching funds for State and Federal funding.
• Include pedestrian projects in local traffic impact fee programs and assessment districts. When
traffic improvement mitigations are proposed to address level of service, potential impacts to
pedestrians at the intersection should be considered. If pedestrians will be impacted, this may be
reason to override traffic improvement mitigations.
• Continue to require construction of pedestrian facilities, such as sidewalks, street trees and
marked crossings, as part of new development.
• Continue to include proposed pedestrian improvements as part of roadway projects involving
widening, overlays, or other improvements.
The City should also take advantage of private contributions, if appropriate, in developing the
proposed system. This could include a variety of resources, such as volunteer labor during
construction, right-of-way donations, or monetary donations towards specific improvements
associated with improving pedestrian access near private developments.
Projects should be funded opportunistically. If funding becomes available for a Second or Third Tier
priority project before a First Tier priority project, the funding should be used. Easy “quick fix” projects
should be funded before larger construction projects, especially when they can be included with other
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VII-19
7 Funding and
Implementation
First Tier projects. All pedestrian project implementation moves South San Francisco closer to meeting
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 and
neighboring jurisdictions will be required. Recommended projects fall into two categories:
• Citywide recommendations
• Site-Specific recommendations
Citywide Recommendations
Citywide recommendations include basic pedestrian upgrades to ramps, marked crosswalks and
sidewalks throughout the City. All curb ramps should be upgraded to ADA compliant ramps, missing
crosswalks should be marked according to the criteria outlined in the Plan Design Guidelines, and
sidewalk gaps should be filled and sidewalks should be enhanced to meet the most current ADA
standards. These citywide improvements should be made as funding is available and when street
improvements and property development provide an opportunity to construct new curbs and
sidewalks.
Opportunities to implement sidewalk and street improvements included in the Recommended
Projects list should be included in street reconstruction projects identified by the City’s pavement
management model.
Pedestrian Master Plan recommendations and issues related to the pedestrian environment in South
San Francisco are part of the local planning fabric and can be addressed through zoning updates, local
land use plans, public health education and outreach efforts.
Site-specific Recommendations
Site-specific recommendations have been outlined in the Concept Plans and Recommended Projects
List. These have been evaluated according to the prioritization method described earlier in this
chapter and cost estimates are provided. Site-specific recommendations can be implemented
according to the three tiers of project priorities and as funds become available for project elements
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 medians
has presented challenges to building local support for past projects. This should be addressed early in
the planning process when site-specific recommendations are considered, and residents, merchants
VII-20 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
7 Funding and
Implementation
and property owners should be engaged and informed about design alternatives and potential
benefits as part of the process. Broad proactive public outreach empowers the community to identify
solutions and to be prepared for changes.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VII-21
7 Funding and
Implementation
VII-22 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
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 approach to improving pedestrian safety.
Education campaigns should include residents of all ages, especially emphasizing safe walking habits
to school children where habits may be instilled as lifelong lessons. South San Francisco participates
and/or coordinates the following walking education initiatives and programs:
• Safe Routes to School
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
• Involving Law Enforcement in Design/Operation of Facilities
• Promotional Giveaways, including a Citywide Walking & Bicycling Map, in collaboration with Kaiser
and the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (the Alliance), etc.
Safe Routes to School
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) programs promote safe walking or bicycling habits to school children
SRTS programs are important both for increasing physical activity (and reducing childhood obesity)
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. The South San Francisco Unified School
District Board has officially adopted a SRTS policy, and provides information about safe walking and
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 have an ongoing and funded program,
but the City often receives letters of support for SRTS projects from school principals. The City could
consider the following SRTS program enhancements as part of the pedestrian master plan:
• Consider developing a citywide SRTS program that encourages walking to school and highlights
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) comprised of City staff, BPAC, SSFUSD
staff, PTA leaders, County Health Services and other stakeholders. Consider scheduling regular
ongoing meetings to maintain stakeholder involvement, determine level of interest, and identify
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 developed by the City of San Jose or
Marin County: http://www.getstreetsmarts.org/.
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 walking advisory committee is a key
component of proactive public involvement for identifying walking safety issues and opportunities.
South San Francisco and C/CAG currently both have a Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
(BPAC).
A citywide Pedestrian Coordinator on the City staff would typically be responsible for implementing
and monitoring the status of this plan, as well as other pedestrian improvement projects and grants
that support the goals of this plan. Often, this position is a joint bicycle and pedestrian coordinator.
The City does not have a full-time Pedestrian Coordinator, though several staff within the City’s
Engineering and Planning Divisions assist with pedestrian-related projects. With 64,000 residents and
over 45,000 jobs, South San Francisco should consider employing a City Pedestrian and Bicycle
Coordinator.
A part- or full-time coordinator would be tasked with convening the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee and implementing many of the recommendations included in this report. . Such a staff
member could be involved in activities such as outreach, 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. This position could also be a joint TDM coordinator that oversees the City’s existing TDM-
related ordinances and assists projects developing TDM plans.
Involving Law Enforcement in Design/Operation of Facilities
Having officers understand how specific facilities operate is essential knowledge for them to know
how to enforce laws related to pedestrian and bicyclist movement. Oftentimes, laws related to
pedestrian right-of-way issues are misunderstood, or worse, not known. Walking and bicycling facility
design is constantly evolving beyond basic crosswalk and bicycle lane right-of-way. Maintaining
regular contact with law enforcement during the design of new facilities, especially those that might
not include typical roadway design features, will ensure more successful implementation and
adaptation to the new facilities.
The South San Francisco Police Department is occasionally consulted on facility design, usually
through the Traffic Advisory Committee. The Police Department has a liaison who works with the
Planning Division on development review, providing feedback about both personal safety for
pedestrians and potential compliance issues for motoristst. Pedestrian safety courses for law
enforcement are designed to educate officers about specific issues related to pedestrian safety and
laws so that the Police Department responds to changes in the pedestrian environment in a way that
supports personal safety and security.
VIII-2 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
8 Support Programs
Promotional Giveaways
The City has partnered with the Alliance to promote alternative transit, congestion relief and Bike to
Work Day.
The City has partnered with Kaiser Permanente to create a walking and biking map for South San
Francisco, which includes walking and biking trails, as well as locations of resources and public
transportation, public art sites and tips on safe bicycling and walking in both English and
Spanish. Maps are available at most City buildings, at various special events and online:
http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=481
• The City should continue to teamwith local organizations willing to sponsor safety item giveaways
that encourage walking and other active transportation modes.
8.2 Recommendations
Support programs are important tools for increasing the safety, utility and viability of capital
infrastructure projects, such as new crosswalks, bulbouts, and sidewalks. Municipalities can provide
support and administer a range of programs and activities related to pedestrian safety, education,
promotion and law enforcement as a way to complement their infrastructure improvements. Below is
a list of programs and activities that have been effective in other jurisdictions and which the City of
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 2002. Street Smarts was designed as
both a media and a community relations campaign. It uses education to raise awareness of certain
problem behaviors that contribute to traffic crashes and aims to change those behaviors over time.
Behaviors addressed by the campaign include: red-light running, speeding, stop sign violations,
school zone violations, and crosswalk violations. In addition to a media campaign, a community
relations campaign is conducted, working with schools, neighborhood associations, businesses, and
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 display safety messages at various
safety hot spots. Messages on the signs were changed regularly and boards were moved to different
locations routinely to increase their exposure to different drivers and maximize their impact. The
Street Smarts campaign in San Jose has received positive feedback from the public, and the program
is being copied in other jurisdictions throughout California, including the Bay Area’s City of San
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, including flyers, classroom kits for
elementary schools, lawn signs, safety presentations at the workplace and online games and
activities.
• The Street Smarts campaign materials are designed for use by any public agency for any
community and are available from the City of San Jose. Materials are available in English, Spanish
and Vietnamese.
• Graphic materials are available from the City of San José for $3,500
Although the Street Smarts campaign requires staff resources, the overall cost is low to implement.
VIII-4 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
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, AAA, and the National Highway
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 current information to the public via
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, education, and announcements. One
challenge is that PSAs can require great effort and may not reach the intended audience. This
approach may not be as effective as using a public relations firm and purchasing advertising time
targeted to a specific audience.
Perils for Pedestrians (http://www.pedestrians.org/), a monthly television series, promotes awareness
of issues affecting the safety of people who walk and bicycle. Many cities in California, including
Berkeley and Davis, are already taking part through cable stations and webcasts. A typical series
consists of interviews with walking and bicycling advocates, planners, engineers, and local and
international public officials. They talk about important issues affecting active transportation, such as:
walking hazards, infrastructure, bicycles, transit, and more. This program helps raise awareness of local
and international issues through a common form of interface.
Walking Mascot
Bellevue, Washington has a great example of an encouragement program in their walking mascot.
This elementary school campaign is conducted in conjunction with roadway improvements. The
mascot, called PedBee, is on school safety signs and makes personal appearances at school safety
days. Safety days include local staff from the City’s Transportation and Police Departments. Children
are taught bicycling, walking, and traffic safety basics, such as crossing 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 hands-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 button
housing to improve understanding of pedestrian signal indications. Signs improve public
understanding of pedestrian signal indications and encourage pedestrian compliance at the signals.
Signs should be considered where ten or more pedestrian crossings per hour are anticipated. In areas
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 pedestrians is growing. Walk Wise, Drive Smart
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 that holds educational workshops, walking
audits, and feedback surveys. Activities are aimed at senior citizens providing exercise at a pace and
location comfortable to the participants, but are open to all. More information about this how
Hendersonville, NC develops and implements this model is available at http://www.walk-wise.org/.
Trip Reduction Incentive Programs
South San Francisco, like many cities, has single occupancy vehicle trips as the primary mode of
transportation. In San Mateo County the Alliance sponsors a range of trip reduction incentive
programs, including the Carpool Incentive Program, the Vanpool Incentive Program, the Schoolpool
Incentive Program, free transit tickets for new transit riders, reduced price bike parking, and rebates
for new vanpool participants. These programs are provided at no cost to employers throughout San
Mateo County, and include gas card incentives for carpooling, employer incentive programs with cash
rewards, online guides to transit alternatives, rideshare matching and links to bike commute
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 trip is short and convenient. The
City of South San Francisco could develop wayfinding signage with City-specific graphic design and
consistent with other locally used design standards so that pedestrians and motorists are familiar with
different sign types. Typically, these wayfinding programs are most effective in areas where there are
multiple destinations within a reasonable walking distance, such as around transit stations, downtown
commercial districts, or job centers. This example shows a bilingual wayfinding sign in Oakland’s
Chinatown, providing pedestrians with directional information for nearby cultural and transportation
destinations.
VIII-6 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
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 people to specific destinations such
as the BART station and to corridor destinations such as El Camino Real. Signs should be placed within
walking distance of pedestrian destinations, and spaced out further afield along bicycle routes
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 the street.
Hand-held flags are located in containers at both sides of the crosswalk and can be carried by
pedestrians as they cross the street. The brightly colored flags can make pedestrians more visible to
drivers and alert drivers to the presence of pedestrians. Depending on the number of intersections
involved, start-up costs for this type of program are relatively low. This program has been
implemented at other cities in the U.S., including Kirkland, Washington, Berkeley, California, and Salt
Lake City, Utah.
Billboards and Electronic Message Boards
Billboards and electronic message boards promote safety in the community, inform the public about
bicycling and walking safety programs, and provide feedback on the program’s effects. StreetSmarts is
one example of a public education campaign targeted toward changing driver, pedestrian, and
bicyclist behavior to improve safety on city streets.
Law Enforcement
Enforcement tools have been demonstrated to be very effective in improving safety for road users.
However, some programs can require a significant investment from local agencies. Newer
enforcement tools like red-light running cameras and radar “wagons” can minimize the amount of
time required for local law enforcement agencies.
Increased Fines
An increase in traffic fines has been shown to discourage driver violations against pedestrians in
crosswalks. For example, in Salt Lake City, Utah, fines were increased from $34 to $70 for driver
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VIII-7
8 Support Programs
violations against pedestrians in crosswalks. A lowering of fines for jaywalking from $70 to $10 was
also implemented. Variations on this include double fines in school zones and construction zones.
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 pedestrian when the cars in the adjacent
(same direction of travel) lane have stopped on multi-lane roads. Such operations can also target
pedestrians who make unsafe crossings. Stings are most effective on roadways and intersections with
high walking volumes, such as on Grand Avenue or other Downtown South San Francisco streets.
Pedestrian stings increase drivers’ awareness of pedestrians at intersections; however, as the program
is not an ongoing operation, changes in motorist behavior can be short-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 issues related to pedestrian safety and
laws. Create a workshop for officers to discuss the specific pedestrian safety and right-of-way issues. A
sample guide book for such a course was prepared by the Florida Bicycle Association:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/ped_bike/brochures/pdf/Pedestrian%20LEGuide-08.pdf
Photo Red Light Enforcement Programs
Activated by loops in the pavement, red light cameras photograph the license plate and sometimes
the driver of any vehicle entering an intersection after the signal has turned red. Warnings or citations
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 deliberate
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 allows enforcement officers stationed
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 officers for enforcement.
VIII-8 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Appendix A: Design Guidelines
Appendix A: South San Francisco Pedestrian
Design Guidelines
A well-connected pedestrian network is a vital component to livable communities, which thrive on
multimodal travel for all roadway users, regardless of age or ability. Multimodal travel incorporates the
needs of not just motor vehicles in roadway design, but the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and
transit users as well. The primary goal of the Pedestrian Design Guidelines is to assist the City of South
San Francisco in creating streets that accommodate pedestrians through a set of recommended
practices that enhance the walkability of all streets within the City. These guidelines will help the City
make decisions about the preferred application of pedestrian treatments in the following areas:
• Streets and Sidewalks
• Uncontrolled Intersections / Mid-block Crossing Treatments
• Controlled Intersections
The pedestrian enhancements described throughout these guidelines provide street design best
practice guidance, which can enhance the safety, convenience, and mobility for pedestrians. In
particular, they provide guidance on appropriate treatments for the various “areas of focus”
throughout South San Francisco, including downtown districts, access to transit stations, bay front
areas, school zones, barrier crossings, and the El Camino Real corridor. Potential treatment types for
each of these areas include different design options for streets/sidewalks, pedestrian crossings,
multimodal connections and community vitality.
Complete Streets
The pedestrian enhancements described throughout these guidelines provide street design best
practice guidance, which can enhance the safety, convenience, and mobility for pedestrians. In
particular, they provide guidance on appropriate treatments for the various locations identified for
pedestrian improvements throughout South San Francisco. Potential treatment types for each of
these areas include different design options for streets/sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, multimodal
connections and community vitality.
Complete streets practices improve the pedestrian realm because they encourage the design of
streets with well-connected and comfortable sidewalks, traffic calming measures to manage vehicle
speeds and enhanced pedestrian crossings. Streets without accomodations for transit, pedestrians
and cyclists can be a barrier, particularly for people with disabilities, older adults, and children, 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 pedestrian levels along the street. Streets
should be well-connected to ensure that destinations are within walking distance. Sidewalks should
be wide enough to support the expected pedestrian volumes. South San Francisco’s Municipal Code
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 specified sidewalk widths. This Plan
recommends a minimum width of six feet for the pedestrian pathway section of a sidewalk, which is
wide enough for two people to walk side by side, and can be navigated by persons with mobility
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 for
Different Walking Oriented Activities
Source: Creating Livable Streets, Portland Metro
A-2 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Appendix A: Design Guidelines
Table A-1: Street Connectivity
Discussion
A well-connected street network has seamless connections for pedestrians through
continuous sidewalks and pedestrian crossings. A grid-like street network is easy for
pedestrians to navigate and distributes traffic evenly. In such a network, frequent crossings
and short block lengths result in high connectivity. Travel times and distances for
pedestrians decrease with connected streets because there are more opportunities for
direct paths of travel.
Design Example
Design Summary
Internal street connectivity provides connections between streets within a particular area,
while external connectivity provides connections to other neighborhoods. New road and
pedestrian paths can increase pedestrian activity by creating better connections. If
possible, cul-de-sacs should be avoided. However, if dead ends are unavoidable, there are
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 buildings. An intersection
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 injury severity in collisions.
Controlling speeds is a critical element to ensure the pedestrian feels comfortable walking
in a sidewalk or within a crosswalk. Traffic calming treatments are physical elements that
alter the streetscape to manage vehicle speeds. As a result, driver awareness of pedestrians
increases, and the improvements may have an effect on slowing speeds.
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 a short crossing distance.
Traffic Circles - Traffic circles are located in the middle of an intersection to slow traffic.
Generally 10-20 feet in diameter, they typically have landscaping in the middle that
reduces sight length down the street to slow vehicles. Traffic circles also manage speeds
by forcing vehicles to drive around them. Traffic circles are typically placed within an
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 on the
approaches. Pedestrians cross at the intersection in the same way they would at a typical
A-4 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
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 pedestrian path of travel,
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 intersections. More detail may
be found in the Intersections Section.
Refuge Islands - Provide a space in the middle of an intersection for pedestrian to
comfortably wait until traffic clears and they can finish crossing the intersection. More
detail may be found in Intersections Section.
Image Source: (Speed Table and Chicane): Valley Transportation Authority Pedestrian Technical Guidelines; (Traffic Circle) San
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 serve different organizational
purposes (see below for more detail about how these apply to different settings).
Design Example
Edge Furnishings Throughway Frontage
Design Summary
These designs are recommended minimums, and ideally sidewalks with high pedestrian
volumes should be 16 to 18 feet wide, and could include wider landscaped buffers, a seven
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, there
should be a 6-inch wide curb. Other areas, such as downtowns, should have at least an
extra foot to accommodate car doors to not conflict with the sidewalk.
• Furnishing/Landscape Zone - This area acts as a buffer between the curb and
throughway zone. This is the areas where trees should be planted and benches should
A-6 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Appendix A: Design Guidelines
be located. Any sidewalk amenities should be located within this area and should not
interfere with the throughway zone. Streets with higher speeds should have larger
furnishing zones.
• Throughway zone - The minimum width of this zone should be at least 6 feet or wider
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 purpose of
this zone is to create a buffer between pedestrians walking in the throughway zone
from people entering and exiting buildings. It provides opportunities for shops to
place signs, planters, or chairs that do not encroach into the throughway zone.
Some zones are more important in specific settings; for example, most residential streets
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 have minimum widths
specified, so there are no implications for residential areas.
Image Sources: Valley Transportation Authority Pedestrian Technical Guidelines; Chula Vista Pedestrian Master Plan; Fehr & Peers
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 a more enjoyable and
comfortable walking experience, thus encouraging more walking. They are an essential
aspect of street infrastructure which makes pedestrians a priority within the streetscape.
These elements serve as functional aspects for walkers while enhancing the character of
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 destinations are key to providing
adequate way finding for pedestrians.
• Street Furniture - Street furniture is normally placed on a sidewalk in the Frontage
Zone to provide additional comfort for pedestrians and enhance place making within
the pedestrian realm. Street furniture makes pedestrians feel welcome, but it is
important that they do not conflict with the pedestrian travel path. Street furniture can
include benches, specially designed newspaper racks, fountains, special
garbage/recycling containers, etc.
• Street Trees - Street trees are an important aspect of the pedestrian realm as they
increase the comfort for pedestrians, providing shade and a buffer from vehicles,
ultimately enhancing the streetscape. Stormwater practices such as applying
vegetated swales, planters, rain gardens, pervious paving, stormwater curb extensions,
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 frequent nighttime pedestrian
activity should have pedestrian lighting. Pedestrians tend to observe more details of
A-8 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
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 shorter spacing between
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 understanding pedestrian desire lines (i.e., the
places people would like to walk). A person’s decision to walk is affected by local land uses (homes,
schools, parks, commercial establishments, etc.) and the location of transit stops and parking facilities.
This information forms a basis for identifying pedestrian crossing improvement areas and prioritizing
such improvements, thereby creating a convenient, connected, and continuous walking environment.
Once candidate crosswalk locations are identified, the second step is identifying the locations safest
for people to cross. Of all road users, pedestrians have the highest risk because they are the least
protected. National statistics indicate that pedestrians represent 14 percent of all traffic incident
fatalities while walking accounts for only three percent of total trips. Pedestrian collisions occur most
often when a pedestrian is attempting to cross the street at an uncontrolled intersection or mid-block
location.3
Uncontrolled Intersections and Mid-block Crossing
Treatments
Uncontrolled intersections are locations without a stop sign or signal. Mid-block crossings are
locations where there is marked crosswalk in between intersections. Without a formal signal to control
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. Well-marked pedestrian crossings prepare
drivers for the likelihood of encountering a pedestrian, and create an atmosphere of pedestrian
walkability and accessibility. Marked crossings reinforce the location and legitimacy of a crossing.
However, the California Vehicle Code requires vehicles to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians at any
intersection where crossing is not prohibited (regardless of markings).4 Crossing between adjacent,
signalized intersections or anywhere crossing is prohibited, is considered jaywalking.
Pedestrians tend to walk in the path that provides the shortest distance. If intersection crossings are
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 most appropriate place to direct
the pedestrian to find their way across the street. However, crosswalks need to be marked properly
and placed in a location with proper sight lines. In order to identify the need to mark a crosswalk at an
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 occurred during the early 1990’s. Crashes were evenly selected from small, medium, and large communities within six states: California, Florida, Maryland,
Minnesota, North Carolina, and Utah. http://drusilla.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/PedCrashTypes1997.pdf
4 More information on the California Vehicle Code sections related to pedestrian right-of-way is available at
http://www.walksf.org/vehicleCodes.html.
A-10 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Appendix A: Design Guidelines
Multiple Threat Risk on a Multi-lane Street
Source: FHWA
• Sufficient demand exists to justify the installation of a crosswalk
• The location has sufficient sight distance (as measured by stopping sight distance calculations)
and/or sight distance will be improved prior to crosswalk marking
• 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 “multiple
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 crossing
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
Avenue, and multi-lane arterials, like Airport Boulevard.
Street design should minimize conflict points with pedestrians. A highly visible marked crosswalk can
reduce these conflicts by warning drivers that they are within a pedestrian realm. Advance yield lines
(described within the Intersections Section) can create a buffer between the areas where the vehicle
has to wait and the pedestrian crossing area. Other design strategies at uncontrolled locations include
pedestrian bulb outs and restricting parking at corners, such as a 30 foot minimum, to improve
visibility between motorists and pedestrians. The Federal Highway Administration has conducted
research on the safety effects of marking crosswalks at uncontrolled locations (summarized in the
following table). This research provides a framework for local jurisdictions seeking to establish
guidelines for installing new crosswalks to facilitate pedestrian connectivity.
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 school crossings. A two-
way center turn lane is not considered a median. Crosswalks should not be installed at
locations that could pose an increased safety risk to pedestrians, such as where there is
poor sight distance, complex or confusing designs, a substantial volume of heavy trucks, or
other dangers, without first providing adequate design features and/or traffic control
devices. Adding crosswalks alone will not make crossing safer, nor will they necessarily
result in more vehicles stopping for pedestrians. Whether or not marked crosswalks are
installed, it is important to consider other pedestrian facility enhancements (e.g., raised
median, traffic signal, roadway narrowing, enhanced overhead lighting, traffic-calming
measures, curb extensions), as needed to improve the safety of the crossing. These are
general recommendations; good engineering judgment should be used in individual cases
for deciding where to install crosswalks. ** Where the speed limit exceeds 40 m/h (64.4
km/h) marked crosswalks alone should not be used at unsignalized locations.
C= Candidate sites for marked crosswalks. Marked crosswalks must be installed carefully
and selectively. Before installing new marked crosswalks, an engineering study is needed
to determine whether the location is suitable for a marked crosswalk. For an engineering
study, a site review may be sufficient at some locations, while a more in-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 (or 15 or
more elderly and/or child pedestrians) exist at a location before placing a high priority on
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 be closely monitored and
enhanced with other pedestrian crossing improvements, if necessary, before adding a
marked crosswalk.
N= Marked crosswalks alone are insufficient, since pedestrian crash risk may be increased
A-12 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Appendix A: Design Guidelines
due to providing marked crosswalks alone. Consider using other treatments, such as
traffic-calming treatments, traffic signals with pedestrian signals where warranted, or other
substantial crossing improvement to improve crossing safety for pedestrians.
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 depending on the area of focus
(e.g. 300 – 600 ft in high/medium demand areas and rural town centers; at key crossing
locations elsewhere). Providing a more direct path of travel may improve pedestrian
accommodation and decrease jaywalking. Areas with low street network connectivity may
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 consider when installing a
mid-block crossing. If speeds are more than 40 mph or volumes higher than 20,000
vehicles per day, mid-block crossings may not be the most suitable treatment. The two
charts below provide guidance for the feasibility of crosswalks at uncontrolled and mid-
block locations.
Design Summary
Potential Selection Process for Uncontrolled and Mid-Block Crosswalk Locations
A-14 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Appendix A: Design Guidelines
Design Examples
The City of Sacramento currently has adopted Pedestrian Safety Guidelines document that
incorporates the framework described in the flow charts. It can be accessed at:
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/transportation/dot_media/engineer_media/pdf/PedSaf
ety.pdf
The City of San Mateo is also currently in the process of developing its own Pedestrian
Master Plan, part of which will include Crosswalk Installation Guidelines.
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Feasibility Analysis for Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations
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 crosswalk to allow
pedestrians to wait halfway between crossings. Refuge islands are raised islands in the
center of a roadway that separate opposing lanes of traffic with a cutout or ramp for an
accessible pedestrian path. They reduce pedestrian exposure to motor vehicles, and allow
a pedestrian to cross a roadway in two stages. Their application is most pertinent in higher
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 accommodates
bicyclists. In different contexts, the refuge island can be extended if there are higher
amounts of pedestrian activity or additional travel lanes.
A-16 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Appendix A: Design Guidelines
Recommended Median Widths
Speed Width
• 25-30 MPH • 5 Feet
• 30-35 MPH • 6 Feet
• 35-45 MPH • 8 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 then is directed to walk
towards the direction of traffic to reach the second half of the crosswalk. This
channelization effect, typically described as a split-pedestrian cross-over, allows for the
pedestrian to easily view traffic while completing the second part of the crossing.
• 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 buildings. An intersection
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 generate significant
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 combination with other design
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 uncontrolled crossing locations, and
other locations as traffic volumes, speeds, and vehicle-pedestrian conflicts require. There
are several treatments for high visibility markings, including the ladder, continental, and
zebra designs. Continental, zebra and ladder striping are often chosen to communicate
sensitive pedestrian crossing areas as the designated high visibility tool. Communities
should choose a preferred style to use in these circumstances so it is consistently applied.
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
A-18 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Appendix A: Design Guidelines
Table A-9: In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs
Discussion
This tool involves placing regulatory pedestrian signage in the middle of the roadway
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 unsignalized pedestrian
crossings.
Design Example
Design Summary
Signs may be placed on the roadway centerline directly, as in the picture below. Careful
placement is necessary to avoid maintenance issues with vehicles knocking down the sign.
One option is to temporarily place the sign during specific time periods, such as when
school is in session. Another option is to put the sign within a raised median or place in-
pavement raised markers around the sign. They can be placed either at mid-block
locations or intersections with significant pedestrian activity, such as near transit stations
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 and signing may be
needed for candidate marked crosswalk locations under the following conditions:
• Multi-lane streets (three or more lanes); or
• Two-lane streets with daily traffic volumes (ADT) greater than 12,000; or
• Posted speed limit exceeding 30 miles per hour
Design Example
In-Pavement Flashers Overhead Flashing Beacon
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon HAWK Signal
Mid-Block Pedestrian Signal
A-20 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
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 pedestrians at uncontrolled
crosswalks. In-pavement markers are lined on both sides of a crosswalk, often containing
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 installing flashing amber lights
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. The lights can be
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 within the pedestrian crossing
sign.
High- Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK)
This enhanced signal treatment is used in circumstances where there are high vehicle
speeds as well as a high demand for pedestrian crossings. It combines the beacon flasher
with a traffic control signal to generate a higher driver yield rate. They are pedestrian
activated and will display a yellow indication to warn vehicles, then a solid red light. While
pedestrians are crossing, the driver sees a flashing red light in a “wig wag” pattern until the
pedestrian clearance phase has ended, then returns to a dark signal. The HAWK is now
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 the MUTCD (a new warrant
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 pedestrians from
vehicles through a pedestrian-only overpass or underpass (generally bicycles are
permitted as well). Grade separations are a tool to help overcome barriers and help
pedestrians connect to sidewalks, off-road trails and paths. It should be used where
topography is supportive and no other pedestrian facility is available.
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 are visible so pedestrians
feel safe and not isolated from others.
Because they can be costly (typically from $2M to $8M or more), it is recommended that
grade separated crossings be used in instances where there are unsafe vehicle speeds and
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
A-22 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Appendix A: Design Guidelines
Controlled Crossing Treatments / Intersection Design
Pedestrian treatments at signalized locations throughout South San Francisco may be used to:
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 disabilities, children, and seniors
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 pedestrian crossing distances. Shorter
crossing distances ultimately reduce the exposure time of pedestrians within the roadway and are
easier to navigate. Consequently, compact intersections are more comfortable for pedestrians and
improve visibility between motorists and pedestrians.
Reducing turning radii is one tool to foster compact intersection design and improve sight distance, in
which dimensions of the curb at the intersection directly affects the speed of the approaching vehicle.
A large turning radius (generally 30 feet or greater) allows vehicles to turn at high speeds. Reducing
the radius forces approaching vehicles to slow down while still accommodating larger vehicles, thus
reducing the frequency and severity of pedestrian collisions at intersections. As shown below, on-
street parking and bicycle lanes can allow for smaller curb radii while maintaining the same effective
curb radius. Note that on-street parking should be restricted in advance of crosswalks, to improve
visibility for pedestrians.
Free right turns should be restricted whenever possible as they encourage fast turning movements
and present a challenging uncontrolled crossing for pedestrians. When they are necessary, design
strategies can enhance the pedestrian crossing and improve visibility of bicyclists on intersecting
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 visibility by removing barriers to sight
distance, including parked cars, roadway geometry, terrain, vegetation, sun glare, insufficient building
setbacks, inadequate roadway lighting, poor signal visibility, signal controller cabinets/poles, and
cluttered signage. Improving sight distances gives motorists a clear view of pedestrians, while
allowing the pedestrian to observe and react to any hazards. Free vehicle right turns and permitted
lefts are two situations that often create conflicts with pedestrians. Ensuring proper sight distances
between pedestrians and vehicles can decrease the rate and severity of turning related pedestrian-
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
A-24 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
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 to wait before crossing an
intersection and prevent cars from parking near the crosswalk. Bulb-outs are highly
beneficial in downtown or transit station areas, which generate significant pedestrian
activity. They may also be beneficial in school zones or neighborhood districts, which have
vulnerable pedestrians, such as children or older adults that would benefit from an
enhanced treatment that reduces crossing distances.
Design Example
Design Summary
Bulb-outs involve extending the curb space into the street to create a shorter pedestrian
crossing. They should not extend into the bicyclist line of travel to avoid impeding
bicyclists and motorists. This can be achieved by designing the bulb-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 and
comfort of the pedestrian realm. Bulb-outs may also create space for pedestrian amenities
or bicycle parking. Bulbouts typically range in cost from between $10,000-50,000 per
corner.
Image Source: Dan Burden (top left), Fehr & Peers (top right and bottom)
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 the character of the overall
pedestrian environment. The rougher roadway surface may also slow vehicles and draw
more attention to the pedestrian realm.
Design Example
Brick Pattern Streetprint Design Brick, Pavers and Concrete
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 and cause problems for
people with disabilities. Surfaces should be adapted to accommodate people using
wheelchairs. A standard white stripe is recommended on either side of the crosswalk even
when special paving treatments are used to enhance the contrast between the crossing
and the roadway.
Image Source: Fehr & Peers (top left and top right), http://www.visualtexture.net/page/2/ (bottom)
A-26 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Appendix A: Design Guidelines
Table A-13: Standard Crosswalk Striping
Discussion
Crosswalks should be marked on all approaches where feasible to delineate space for
pedestrians to cross. While heavy vehicle volumes may present an exception, they are
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 sidewalk; if the sidewalk
extends to the intersection, proper striping should continue to direct the pedestrian to the
other side of the intersection.
Advanced stop bars are another standard crosswalk treatment to discourage vehicles from
encroaching into the crosswalk. They may be useful at signalized intersections and stop
controlled intersections with multiple lanes. A yield line should be used as a replacement
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 from curb ramp to curb
ramp.
Advanced stop or yield limit lines solid white lines extending through the traffic lane to
communicate to drivers where they should stop. MUTCD requires they be placed at least 4
feet before the crosswalk, although placement at greater distances can enhance
pedestrian visibility and vehicle reaction times.
Image Source: Fehr & Peers (above), Sacramento City Pedestrian Plan (below)
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 wheelchairs or those with
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 below. As depicted in
the illustration, directional ramps are preferred over diagonal ramps as they provide direct
access to each crosswalk. Curb ramps should be ADA compliant to accommodate mobility
and visually impaired pedestrians. Detectable warnings are required by the ADA
Accessibility Guidelines with any new curb ramp or reconstruction. These guidelines call
for raised truncated domes of 23 mm diameter and 5mm height. Curb ramps should align
in the direction of the crosswalk and have enough clear space beyond the curb line so the
pedestrian is not drawn right into the line of traffic.
Image Source: Valley Transportation Authority Technical Pedestrian Guidelines, Fehr & Peers
A-28 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Appendix A: Design Guidelines
Table A-15: Pedestrian Friendly Signal Treatments
Discussion
There are several innovative treatments that enhance the visibility and convenience of
pedestrian crossings at traffic signals. These treatments can be applied in a variety of
contexts depending on the pedestrian demand and vehicle movement within the
streetscape.
Design Example
Leading Pedestrian Interval Countdown Signal
Scramble Phasing
Design Summary
Leading Pedestrian Intervals
• An enhanced pedestrian treatment that gives pedestrians a walk indication while
other approaches are red to prevent advancing. Crossing with this “head start” allows
pedestrians to be more visible to motorists approaching an intersection.
• Should be used at locations with heavy right turn vehicle volumes as well as frequent
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 the pedestrian
crossing interval.
• Information about the amount of time left to cross is particularly helpful when crossing
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 all directions while all
vehicle approaches have a red phase. Pedestrians may cross the street orthogonally or
diagonally, providing a direct and efficient walking route.
Audible Signal
• Pedestrian phases are typically difficult to recognize for those with visual impairments.
• MUTCD 2003, Section 4A.01 specifies that signals that communicate to pedestrians in a
non-visual way can include verbal messages or vibrating surfaces.
• Should be implemented on a separate pole close to the crosswalk line. If two are
placed on the same corner, they should be 10 feet apart to distinguish between
directions.
• Speaker on top of the signal can give a bell, buzzer, speech message during walk
interval or vibrate when walk signal is on, or a personal individual receiver can
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
A-30 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Appendix A: Design Guidelines
Table A-16: Pedestrian Friendly Signal Timing
Discussion
Signal timing typically favors vehicle travel. However, in areas with high pedestrian activity,
there are methods to alter signals to better meet the needs of pedestrians. The walk
interval of a pedestrian phase is, at a minimum, four to seven seconds, followed by a
pedestrian clearance interval, called the “flash don’t walk” (FDW) phase. The FDW phase
uses a standard rate to determine the amount of time provided for the pedestrian to clear
an intersection. It is determined by dividing the width of an intersection by the pedestrian
walking speed. The solid “Don’t Walk” sign typically coincides with the yellow vehicle
signal. The pedestrian timing is an important element to traffic signals since the green
time for cars might not be sufficient for pedestrians to cross an intersection.
Design Example
Design Summary
The standard for walking speeds at signalized intersections has changed from 4 feet per
second to 3.5 feet per second to more accurately reflect the average pedestrian walking
speed and aging population. The 2009 Federal MUTCD requires this reduction, although
the change has not yet been adopted in California.
A slower walking rate of 2.8 feet per second (MUTCD 4E.10(CA)) is recommended in areas
with a high number of children, older adults, or disabled pedestrians crossing. Pre-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 traffic engineer.
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 crossing intervals differently:
• Protected left turns allow vehicles turning left an exclusive phase, ultimately
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 dedicated phase
Pedestrian phases for parallel crosswalks will be activated at different times. This
phasing can reduce intersection capacity.
• Permitted left turn phasing, where vehicles turning must yield to through traffic and
pedestrians, can reduce pedestrian delay and improve traffic operational efficiency by
minimizing the impact of pedestrian timing through allowing two pedestrian crossings
at once.
Other types of pedestrian signal phasing, including “scramble” phasing and leading
pedestrian intervals, are described in the “Pedestrian Friendly Signal Treatments” guideline
above.
Design Example
Example of a Pedestrian Signal Head Mounted on a Signal Pole
A-32 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Appendix A: Design Guidelines
Design Summary
In urban or downtown settings where pedestrian volumes are high, using permitted signal
phasing is generally preferred because it reduces pedestrian delay. In less urban settings,
providing protected left-turn phasing to eliminate pedestrian-vehicle conflicts is
recommended where feasible.
At intersections with heavy vehicle traffic volumes, providing convenient and comfortable
pedestrian crossings must be balanced with the need to maintain intersection capacity
and operations for automobiles. In these instances, it is important to incorporate
additional treatments to enhance pedestrian visibility, such as special striping or signage. If
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 attract driver’s attention.
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN A-33
Appendix A: Design Guidelines
Resource Documents
Federal Standards and Resource Documents:
Guide to the Development of Pedestrian Facilities, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, 2000
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Federal Highways Administration, December 2009.
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, 2004.
Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). United States Access Board.
California Standards and Resource Documents:
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, January 2010.
Highway Design Manual, California Department of Transportation.
Other Guidelines and Resource Documents:
TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. Washington
D.C.: TCRP and NCHRP, 2006.
Pedestrian Technical Guideilnes: A Guide to Planning and Design for Local Agencies in Santa Clara City,
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, October 2003.
Routine Accommodations of Pedestrians and Bicyclists in the Bay Area, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, Available:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bicyclespedestrians/routine_accommodations.htm, 2006.
Pedestrian Safety Resource Guide, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Regional Pedestrian
Committee, Available:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bicyclespedestrians/PEDSAFETYRESOURCEGUIDE.doc, 2004.
San Mateo County Sustainable Green Streets and Parking Lots Design Guidebook, San Mateo Countywide
Water Pollution Prevention Program, First Edition: January 2009, Available:
http://www.flowstobay.org/ms_sustainable_guidebook.php
A-34 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Appendix B: Ranked Projects
Appendix B: Ranked Projects
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN B-1
ID # Location Cost
Pedestrian
Demand
(30/20/10)
Access to Key
Destinations
(20/15/10/5/0)
Closure of
Critical Gap
(20/15/10/5/0)
Serves Safety
Need
(20/15/10/5/0)
Feasibility (0-
10)Total Points
First Tier: Short-Term Projects (51-100 Points)
1-2
McLellan Drive from
Mission Road to El Camino
Real
$154,961 30 20 10 10 5 75
11-1 Chestnut Avenue and
Antoinette Lane $228,334 20 20 10 15 5 70
12-1
Spruce Avenue between
Lux Avenue and Maple
Avenue
$15,312 30 15 0 15 5 65
9-1 Grand Avenue and Airport
Boulevard $19,517 30 10 0 15 10 65
13-1
Westborough Boulevard
from Callan Boulevard to
Gellert Boulevard
$368,360 20 15 10 15 5 65
9-4 East Grand Avenue and
Dubuque Avenue $13,750 30 15 0 15 1 61
10-3 Airport Boulevard and
Miller Avenue $500 30 15 0 10 5 60
14-3
E Grand Avenue between
Grand Avenue and
Dubuque Avenue
$1,400 30 10 0 15 5 60
1-1 McLellan Drive and
Mission Road $14,042 30 20 0 0 10 60
9-3
Pedestrian crossing under
Hwy 101 along East Grand
Avenue
$20,000 30 10 0 15 5 60
10-2 Airport Boulevard at Pine
Avenue $137,232 30 15 0 10 5 60
10-1
Linden Avenue from
Grand Avenue to Aspen
Avenue
$543,440 30 15 0 10 5 60
6-1
Del Monte Avenue from
Arroyo Drive to Alta Loma
Drive
$40,000 20 15 5 15 1 56
2-1
Mission Road from
McLellan Drive to Holly
Avenue
$197,923 30 20 0 5 1 56
9-2
Grand Avenue between
Airport Boulevard and
Walnut Avenue
$275,850 30 15 0 10 1 56
12-3 School Street and Olive
Avenue $20,000 30 10 0 10 5 55
16-1
Oyster Point Boulevard
from Eccles Avenue to
driveway immediately east
$35,695 10 15 10 15 5 55
12-2 School Street and Maple
Avenue $39,135 30 10 0 10 5 55
2-2 Mission Road and BART
entrance $50,000 30 20 0 0 5 55
12-4 Grand Avenue and Spruce
Avenue $204,000 30 10 0 10 5 55
2-5 Holly from Mission Road to
Crestwood Drive $34,600 30 10 0 10 1 51
2-6
Crestwood Drive from
Holly Avenue to Evergreen
Drive
$10,000 30 10 0 10 1 51
1-3 El Camino Real and
McLellan Drive $875 20 20 0 10 1 51
15-3 S Airport Boulevard and
Highway 101 off-ramp $91,558 20 5 15 10 1 51
2-3 Mission Road and Sequoia
Avenue $209,665 30 20 0 0 1 51
South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan: Prioritized Projects
ID # Location Cost
Pedestrian
Demand
(30/20/10)
Access to Key
Destinations
(20/15/10/5/0)
Closure of
Critical Gap
(20/15/10/5/0)
Serves Safety
Need
(20/15/10/5/0)
Feasibility (0-
10)Total Points
South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan: Prioritized Projects
8-1
El Camino Real from
Hazelwood Drive to
Ponderosa Road
$271,404 10 15 10 15 1 51
Second Tier: Medium-Term Projects (41-50 points)
10-4
Cypress Avenue from
California Avenue to
Grand Avenue
$17,280 30 15 0 0 5 50
5-5
Hazelwood Drive from El
Camino Real to Pinehurst
Way
$24,140 20 10 5 10 5 50
15-1 Produce Avenue and S
Airport Boulevard $45,012 30 0 0 10 10 50
14-2
E Grand Avenue from
Forbes Boulevard to
Gateway Boulevard
$66,850 20 10 0 10 10 50
11-4 Mission Road and Oak
Avenue $93,610 20 10 0 15 5 50
2-4 Mission Road and Holly
Avenue $102,170 30 15 0 0 5 50
5-7
El Camino Real from
Brentwood Drive to Noor
Avenue
$213,300 20 10 0 15 5 50
11-2 Westborough Avenue and
Camaritas Avenue $258,708 20 10 0 15 5 50
3-4 Hickey Boulevard and El
Camino Real $4,886 20 5 0 20 1 46
4-4
Chestnut Avenue from
Miller Avenue to Sunset
Avenue
$161,724 30 5 0 10 1 46
1-4 El Camino Real and Kaiser
entrance $577 20 10 0 5 10 45
15-2 S Airport Blvd btwn Airport
Blvd and Gateway Blvd $6,816 30 0 0 10 5 45
1-8
Arroyo Drive between
Camaritas Avenue and El
Camino Real
$54,400 20 10 0 10 5 45
4-2 Grand Avenue and Oak
Avenue/ Aldenglen Drive $122,340 30 0 0 10 5 45
4-3 Chestnut Avenue and
Miller Avenue $131,013 30 0 0 10 5 45
11-3 Mission Road and
Chestnut Avenue $348,462 20 10 0 10 5 45
2-7
Evergreen Drive from
Crestwood Drive to
Mission Road
$19,680 20 10 0 10 1 41
5-2 Victory Avenue and South
Spruce Avenue $503,981 20 0 0 20 1 41
Third Tier: Long-Term & Opportunistic Projects (0-40 points)
1-5 El Camino Real and Arroyo
Drive $1,214 20 10 0 5 5 40
1-6 El Camino Real and
Chestnut Avenue $2,068 20 10 0 5 5 40
7-1 South Linden Ave and
Railroad Ave $7,320 20 0 15 0 5 40
4-1 Mission Road and Grand
Avenue $53,136 20 10 0 5 5 40
14-1
Forbes Boulevard from
Corporate Drive to E Grand
Avenue
$62,575 20 10 0 0 10 40
1-7 El Camino Real from
Mission to Chestnut $229,680 20 10 0 5 5 40
7-3
South Linden Ave from
South Canal St to Tanforan
Ave
$256,200 20 0 15 0 5 40
ID # Location Cost
Pedestrian
Demand
(30/20/10)
Access to Key
Destinations
(20/15/10/5/0)
Closure of
Critical Gap
(20/15/10/5/0)
Serves Safety
Need
(20/15/10/5/0)
Feasibility (0-
10)Total Points
South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan: Prioritized Projects
3-1 Hickey Boulevard at
Junipero Serra Boulevard $261,133 20 0 5 10 5 40
8-2
Ponderosa Road from El
Camino Real to Alhambra
Road
$557,890 10 15 10 0 5 40
5-4 South Spruce Avenue and
El Camino Real $1,034 10 10 0 15 1 36
5-6
Brentwood Dr from
Pinehurst Way to El
Camino Real
$1,400 20 10 0 0 5 35
13-2
Gellert Boulevard from
Westborough Boulevard
to Marbella Drive
$3,834 20 0 0 10 5 35
15-4 S Airport Boulevard and
Marco Way $33,727 20 0 0 10 5 35
3-5 El Camino Real and Costco
Warehouse driveway $42,640 20 505535
3-3 Hickey Boulevard and
Hilton Avenue $158,885 20 505535
5-3
South Spruce Avenue
from Victory Avenue to El
Camino Real
$444,570 10 10 0 10 5 35
7-2
South Linden Avenue at
North Canal Street and
South Canal Street
$26,880 20 15 5 15 1 56
16-2 Oyster Point Boulevard at
Oyster Point Park $3,278 10 15 0 0 5 30
3-2 Junipero Serra, south of
Hickey Boulevard $640,000 20 000525
5-1 Victory Avenue and South
Maple Avenue $5,532 10 000515
7-4
South Linden Avenue and
San Mateo Avenue/
Tanforan Avenue
$62,579 10 000515
Appendix C: Detailed Cost
Estimates
Appendix C: Detailed Cost Estimates
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN C-1
ID #Location Recommendations Detailed Recs Unit Cost Total Total Calculation Unit Construction Cost
per Rec
Maintenance Cost
per Rec Notes
1-1 McLellan Drive and
Mission Road Vertical Median $22 48 (3' tip + 7' extension to xwalk)*(2 sides)+(7'
existing width)*(4 sides)Linear Foot $1,056 Assumes median tip = 3'
1-1 Concrete Surface $11 70 (3' tip + 7' extension to xwalk)*(7' existing
width)Square Foot $770
1-1 Remove Thermoplastic Lane Striping $1 636 (66'+96'+62'+94' existing standard
striping)*(2 sides)Linear Foot $636
1-1 High Visibility Crosswalk Restriping $5 1436
(66'+96'+62'+94' new standard striping)*(2
sides)+(10' new perpendicular
striping)*(80'/4')*(4 legs)
Linear Foot $7,180 Assumes high visibility crosswalk restriping includes two standard parallel
lines with 10' perpendicular lines spaced every 4'
1-1 New Signage $700 4 Each $2,800
1-1 Advance Stop Bars $400 4 Each $1,600
1-2
McLellan Drive from
Mission Road to El
Camino Real
Sidewalk $30 1728 (288' sidewalk length)*(6' new sidewalk
width)Square Foot $51,840 Assumes new sidewalk width = 6'
1-2 Curb and Gutter $52 288 288' sidewalk length Linear Foot $14,976
1-2
· Install bulb out on northeast corner of El Camino or
provide medians and pedestrian refuge to shorten crossing
distance
Neckdowns/ Bulb-Out $50,000 1 Each $50,000 Bulb out installation cost estimation
1-2 · Install advanced stop bars at east and west legs of
McLellan Drive crossing at BART entrance Advance Stop Bars $400 2 Each $800
1-2 Vertical Median $22 760 (375' total length+5' available width b/t
striping)*(2 sides)Linear Foot $16,720
1-2 Concrete Surface $11 1875 (375' total length)*(5' available width b/t
striping)Square Foot $20,625
1-3 El Camino Real and
McLellan Drive · Install crosswalk on north leg Crosswalk Striping $7 125 Linear Foot $875
1-4 El Camino Real and
Kaiser entrance Remove concrete sidewalk $3 20 (4' pull-back)*(5' existing width)Square Foot $60 Assumes cost of median pull-back = cost of removing concrete sidewalk
1-4 Vertical Median $22 16 (3' tip+(5' existing width)*(2 sides)Linear Foot $352 Assumes median tip = 3'
1-4 Concrete Surface $11 15 (3' tip)*(5' existing width)Square Foot $165
1-5 El Camino Real and
Arroyo Drive Remove concrete sidewalk $3 60 (6' pull-back)*(5' existing width)*(2 legs)Square Foot $180 Assumes cost of median pull-back = cost of removing concrete sidewalk
1-5 Vertical Median $22 32 (3' tip+5' existing width)*(2 sides)*(2 legs)Linear Foot $704 Assumes median tip = 3'
1-5 Concrete Surface $11 30 (3' tip)*(5' existing width)*(2 legs)Square Foot $330
1-6 El Camino Real and
Chestnut Avenue Vertical Median $22 64 (3' tip+5' existing width)*(2 sides)*(4 legs)Linear Foot $1,408 Assumes median tip = 3'
1-6 Concrete Surface $11 60 (3' tip)*(5' existing width)*(4 legs)Square Foot $660
1-7 El Camino Real from
Mission to Chestnut Sidewalk $30 5940 (990' sidewalk length)*(6' new sidewalk
width)Square Foot $178,200 Assumes new sidewalk width = 6'
1-7 Curb and Gutter $52 990 990' sidewalk length Linear Foot $51,480
1-8
Arroyo Drive between
Camaritas Avenue and El
Camino Real
· Install bus bulbs/curb extension on north side of Arroyo
Drive, or add center-running median Neckdowns/ Bulb-Out $50,000 1 Each $50,000
1-8 Advance Yield Lines $400 4 Each $1,600
1-8 New Signage $700 4 Each $2,800
2-1
Mission Road from
McLellan Drive to Holly
Avenue
Vertical Median $22 4004 (1997' total length+5' assumed width)*(2
sides)Linear Foot $88,088
2-1 Concrete Surface $11 9985 (375' total length)*(5' assumed width)Square Foot $109,835
2-2 Mission Road and BART
entrance
· Install curb extensions, especially at northeast and
southeast corners to reduce the turning radii and pedestrian
crossing distances
Neckdowns/ Bulb-Out $50,000 1 Each $50,000
South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan: Estimated Construction Costs
· Extend median and add a median tip on the east leg of the
crossing
· Improve existing median island between BART/Trader Joe
driveways and El Camino Real
· Pull back median at north leg and install median tip for
protection
· Pull back median at north and south legs and install
median tip for protection
· Add median tips at all legs (medians with push buttons are
already in place)
· Add school zone features at all four legs of the intersection;
include high visibility yellow crosswalks, advance pedestrian
crossing signs, and advance stop bars at all legs (El Camino
HS is located at the southeast corner)
· Install sidewalk on north side of McLellan Drive between
Mission Road and BART station entrance
· Add sidewalk along the west side of El Camino Real
between Kaiser entrance and Arroyo
· Install sharks teeth and advance pedestrian signage at
crosswalks at midblock crossing and access road in front of
· Consider median treatment on the entire corridor to calm
traffic and narrow crossing
ID #Location Recommendations Detailed Recs Unit Cost Total Total Calculation Unit Construction Cost
per Rec
Maintenance Cost
per Rec Notes
South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan: Estimated Construction Costs
2-3 Mission Road and
Sequoia Avenue
· Install curb extension, especially at northeast and
southeast corners to reduce the turning radii and pedestrian
crossing distance
Neckdowns/ Bulb-Out $50,000 3 Each $150,000
2-3 Remove Thermoplastic Lane Striping $1 1010 (505 ft long)*2 sides Linear Foot $1,010 Lane restriping and median installation cost estimation
2-3 Solid Edge Line $4 1010 (505 ft long)*2 sides Linear Foot $4,040
2-3 Vertical Median $22 1020 (505' total length+5' assumed width)*(2
sides)Linear Foot $22,440
2-3 Concrete Surface $11 2525 (505' total length)8(5' assumed width)Square Foot $27,775
2-3
· 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.
Advance Yield Lines $400 4 Each $1,600
2-3 New Signage $700 4 Each $2,800
2-4 Mission Road and Holly
Avenue Remove Thermoplastic Lane Striping $1 110 50' + 60' existing standard striping Linear Foot $110
2-4 Crosswalk Striping $7 80 (40' new standard striping)*(2 sides)Linear Foot $560
2-4 · Consider adding curb extensions to northeast and
southeast corners Neckdowns/ Bulb-Out $50,000 2 Each $100,000
2-4 · Add crosswalk to south leg Crosswalk Striping $7 100 (50' new standard striping)*(2 sides)Linear Foot $700
2-4 · Install advance stop bars at north and south legs Advance Stop Bars $400 2 Each $800
2-5 Holly from Mission Road
to Crestwood Drive
· Install traffic calming treatments along collector streets;
consider traffic circles, edge lines to visually narrow roadway,
speed humps, or other speed reduction measures
Traffic Circle $5,000 3 Each $15,000
2-5 Advance Yield Lines $400 4 Each $1,600
2-5 Solid Edge Line $4 4500 2,250' total length* two sides Linear Foot $18,000
2-6
Crestwood Drive from
Holly Avenue to
Evergreen Drive
· Install traffic calming treatments along collector streets;
consider traffic circles, edge lines to visually narrow roadway,
speed humps, or other speed reduction measures
Traffic Circle $5,000 2 Each $10,000
2-7
Evergreen Drive from
Crestwood Drive to
Mission Road
· Install traffic calming treatments at all collector street
intersections; consider traffic circles, speed humps, or other
speed reduction measures
Solid Edge Line $4 4500 2,250' total length* two sides Linear Foot $18,000
2-7 · Mark crosswalk at Baywood/entrance to El Camino HS Crosswalk Striping $7 40 Linear Foot $280
2-7
· Install stop sign/advance pedestrian crossing signage or
sharks teeth/advance pedestrian crossing signage (check
stop sign warrant)
New Signage $700 2 Each $1,400 Stop sign and advance pedestrian crossing signage cost estimate
3-1 Hickey Boulevard at
Junipero Serra Boulevard Neckdowns/ Bulb-Out $50,000 1 Each $50,000
3-1 Remove Thermoplastic Lane Striping $1 46 22' + 24' existing standard striping Linear Foot $46
3-1 Crosswalk Striping $7 40 (20' new standard striping)*(2 sides)Linear Foot $280
3-1 · Install advanced pedestrian crossing signage at north leg
of intersections New Signage $700 1 Each $700
3-1 Remove concrete sidewalk $3 30 (6' pull-back)*(5' existing width)Square Foot $90 Assumes cost of median pull-back = cost of removing concrete sidewalk
3-1 Vertical Median $22 16 (3' tip+5' existing width)*(2 sides)Linear Foot $352 Assumes median tip = 3'
3-1 Concrete Surface $11 15 (3' tip)*(5' existing width)Square Foot $165
3-1 · Install “close crosswalk” signage at east leg New Signage $700 1 Each $700
3-1 Sidewalk $30 5400 (900' sidewalk length)*(6' new sidewalk
width)Square Foot $162,000 Assumes new sidewalk width = 6'
3-1 Curb and Gutter $52 900 900' sidewalk length Linear Foot $46,800
3-2 Junipero Serra, south of
Hickey Boulevard
· Consider physically separated bikeway and/or Class I
shared use pathway Standard Class I Path $800,000 0.8 Mile $640,000 Path length estimated between Hickey Blvd and King St (exclude Daly City)
· Install remaining sidewalk to Colma City limits
· Straighten crosswalk at east leg to shorten crossing
distance
· Extend curb and move crosswalk back at pork chop on
north leg of intersection (northwest corner)
· Install median tip and pull median back (out of crosswalk)
at west leg
· 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
ID #Location Recommendations Detailed Recs Unit Cost Total Total Calculation Unit Construction Cost
per Rec
Maintenance Cost
per Rec Notes
South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan: Estimated Construction Costs
3-3 Hickey Boulevard and
Hilton Avenue · Consider curb extension to straighten crosswalk at east leg Neckdowns/ Bulb-Out $50,000 1 Each $50,000
3-3 Sidewalk $30 240 (80' existing length)*(3' width extension)Square Foot $7,200 Assumes sidewalk width extension = 3'
3-3 Curb and Gutter $52 80 80' existing length Linear Foot $4,160
3-3 · Close crosswalk if no pedestrian signal or striped crosswalk
is provided at west leg New Signage $700 2 Each $1,400 New signage for closed xwalk cost estimate
3-3
· Formalize desired pedestrian path with trail or stairs and
erosion control on north side and at southwest corner to
improve neighborhood access to shopping center
-#N/A TBD
3-3 Advance Yield Lines $400 2 Each $800
3-3 High Visibility Crosswalk Restriping $5 225 (50' new standard striping)*(2 sides)+(10'
new perpendicular striping)*(50'/4')Linear Foot $1,125
3-3 New Signage $700 2 Each $1,400
3-3 Sidewalk $30 2400 (400' sidewalk length)*(6' new sidewalk
width)Square Foot $72,000 Assumes new sidewalk width = 6'
3-3 Curb and Gutter $52 400 400' sidewalk length Linear Foot $20,800
3-4 Hickey Boulevard and El
Camino Real Vertical Median $22 48 (3' tip + 7' extension to xwalk)*(2 sides)+(7'
existing width)*(4 sides)Linear Foot $1,056 Assumes median tip = 3'
3-4 Concrete Surface $11 70 (3' tip + 7' extension to xwalk)*(7' existing
width)Square Foot $770
3-4 · Maintain landscaping at southwest corner to improve
visibility and access to sidewalk Landscaping $8 1000 Square Foot $0 $8,000 Unit cost might be lower, since cost reflects new instead of maintenance
landscaping
3-4 · Install advanced stop bars at east leg Advance Stop Bars $400 1 Each $400
3-4 Crosswalk Striping $7 180 (90' new standard striping)*(2 sides)Linear Foot $1,260
3-4 New Signage $700 2 Each $1,400
3-5
El Camino Real and
Costco Warehouse
driveway
Crosswalk Striping $7 50 (25' new standard striping)*(2 sides)Linear Foot $350
3-5 Advance Stop Bars $400 1 Each $400
3-5 Sidewalk $30 885 (145' + 150' existing length)*(3' width
extension)Square Foot $26,550 Assumes sidewalk width extension = 3'
3-5 Curb and Gutter $52 295 145' + 150' existing length Linear Foot $15,340
4-1 Mission Road and Grand
Avenue Vertical Median $22 36 (3' tip + 7' extension to xwalk)*(2 sides)+(4'
existing width)*(4 sides)Linear Foot $792 Assumes median tip = 3'
4-1 Concrete Surface $11 40 (3' tip + 7' extension to xwalk)*(4' existing
width)Square Foot $440
4-1 Neckdowns/ Bulb-Out $50,000 1 Each $50,000
4-1 Remove Thermoplastic Lane Striping $1 140 60' + 80' existing standard striping Linear Foot $140
4-1 Crosswalk Striping $7 120 (60' new standard striping)*(2 sides)Linear Foot $840
4-1 · Install median refuge at south leg crosswalk Vertical Median $22 24 6' * 4 sides Linear Foot $528 Assumes median refuge dimensions 6' x 6'
4-1 Concrete Surface $11 36 6' * 6' sides Square Foot $396 Assumes median refuge dimensions 6' x 6'
4-2 Grand Avenue and Oak
Avenue/ Aldenglen Drive HAWK Beacon $120,000 1 Each $120,000
4-2 Crosswalk Striping $7 220 (50' + 60' new standard striping)*(2 sides)Linear Foot $1,540
4-2 Advance Stop Bars $400 2 Each $800
4-3 Chestnut Avenue and
Miller Avenue HAWK Beacon $120,000 1 Each $120,000
4-3 High Visibility Crosswalk Restriping $5 202.5 (45' new standard striping)*(2 sides)+(10'
new perpendicular striping)*(45'/4')Linear Foot $1,013 Assumes high visibility crosswalk restriping includes two standard parallel
lines with 10' perpendicular lines spaced every 4'
4-3 · Update ramps at northeast and southeast corners (at
culverts)ADA Curb Ramps $5,000 2 Each $10,000
· Extend median up to crosswalk at west leg and add
median tip
· Extend median at north leg to crosswalk and add tip
· Extend curb to straighten crosswalk alignment on north
and east legs
· Install HAWK or Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon and
crosswalk with advance stop bars at west and east legs
crossing Grand Avenue, Consider closing right-turn lane on
NB Oak Avenue to reduce pedestrian exposure and improve
sightlines at crossing locations.
· Install HAWK or Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon with
high visibility striped crosswalk crossing south leg of
Chestnut Avenue. As an alternative, install a yield-controlled
marked ladder crosswalk, with pedestrian refuge island,
sharks’ teeth and advanced pedestrian signage. Channelize
· Widen sidewalk at southwest corner where utility poles
block right of way
· Install missing sidewalk on north side of Hickey between
Hilton and JSB.
· Extend sidewalks at north corner to provide pedestrian
access from crossing at El Camino Real to Costco entrance
· Add crosswalk and stop bar to southwest leg where
pedestrian signal is already in place
· There is a new crosswalk at the shopping center driveway
south of Hickey – add sharks teeth, a high visibility ladder
crosswalk and advanced pedestrian crossing signage
· Mark crosswalk and add signage or close crossing at south
leg
ID #Location Recommendations Detailed Recs Unit Cost Total Total Calculation Unit Construction Cost
per Rec
Maintenance Cost
per Rec Notes
South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan: Estimated Construction Costs
4-4
Chestnut Avenue from
Miller Avenue to Sunset
Avenue
Vertical Median $22 2250 (1120' total length+5' assumed width)*(2
sides)Linear Foot $49,500
4-4 Concrete Surface $11 5600 (1120' total length)*(5' assumed width)Square Foot $61,600 Assumes median width = 5'
4-4 Class II Bike Lanes (Both Roadway Sides)$29,120 0.2 (.2 mi total length)Mile $5,824
4-4 Landscaping $8 5600 (1120' total length)*(5' assumed width)Square Foot $44,800 Assumes landscaping width = 5'
4-4
· Road diet to calm traffic and reduce pedestrian crossing
distances (southbound Chestnut Avenue is a single lane;
reduce northbound Chestnut Avenue from two to one lane
and removing dedicated turn lanes.) Note that no on-street
parking would be removed as part of this recommendation.
(this is just additional description, not another
element)#N/A $0
5-1 Victory Avenue and
South Maple Avenue · Mark crosswalks on south and east legs Crosswalk Striping $7 180 (90' new standard striping)*(2 sides)Linear Foot $1,260
5-1 · Re-stripe pork chops or add curbs at south leg, pending
analysis for turning radii Remove Thermoplastic Lane Striping $1 284 (120' + 34') + (85' + 45') existing striped
striping Linear Foot $284 Porkchop restriping cost estimate
5-1 Crosswalk Striping $7 284 (120' + 34') + (85' + 45') new striped
striping Linear Foot $1,988
5-1 Advance Stop Bars $400 4 Each $1,600
5-1 Advance Yield Lines $400 1 Each $400
5-2 Victory Avenue and
South Spruce Avenue Remove concrete sidewalk $3 175 Square Foot $525
5-2 Signal Modification/New Signal $250,000 2 Each $500,000 Unit cost might be lower, since cost reflects "signal modification/new
signal"
5-2 Remove Thermoplastic Lane Striping $1 446 (82'+64')+(68'+84')+(80'+68') existing
standard striping Linear Foot $446
5-2 Crosswalk Striping $7 430 (85'+85'+45' new standard striping)*(2
sides)Linear Foot $3,010
5-3
South Spruce Avenue
from Victory Avenue to
El Camino Real
Vertical Median $22 3386 (1688' total length+5' assumed width)*(2
sides)Linear Foot $74,492
5-3 Concrete Surface $11 1688 (1688' total length)*(5' assumed width)Square Foot $18,568 Assumes median width = 5'
5-3 Sidewalk $30 7095 (350'+345'+670'+1000' existing length)*(3'
width extension)Square Foot $212,850 Assumes sidewalk width extension = 3'
5-3 Curb and Gutter $52 2365 350'+345'+670'+1000' existing length Linear Foot $122,980
5-3 · Consider striping crosswalk at northeast leg at Huntington
or close crosswalk Crosswalk Striping $7 160 (80' new standard striping)*(2 sides)Linear Foot $1,120 Striping new xwalk cost estimate
5-3 · Install bike lanes, buffered when possible, on Spruce, to
establish bikeway and connect to Centennial Trail Class II Bike Lanes (Both Roadway Sides)$29,120 0.5 (.5 mi total length)Mile $14,560
5-4 South Spruce Avenue
and El Camino Real · Increase pedestrian crossing time at all signals -#N/A $0
5-4 Vertical Median $22 32 (3' tip+5' existing width)*(2 sides)*(2 legs)Linear Foot $704 Assumes median tip = 3'
5-4 Concrete Surface $11 30 (3' tip)*(5' existing width)*(2 legs)Square Foot $330
5-5
Hazelwood Drive from El
Camino Real to Pinehurst
Way
· Consider sidewalk extension or non-rolled curbs to prevent
cars parking -#N/A TBD
5-5 Sidewalk $30 510 (170' existing length)*(3' width extension)Square Foot $15,300 Assumes sidewalk width extension = 3'
5-5 Curb and Gutter $52 170 170' existing length Linear Foot $8,840
5-6
Brentwood Dr from
Pinehurst Way to El
Camino Real
· Add yield to pedestrian signs at crossing of Brentwood at
lot entrance New Signage $700 2 Each $1,400
· Widen sidewalk on southeast side or underground utilities
to address utility pole and ADA access issues
· Widen sidewalk to address clear path issues adjacent to lot
· Consider buffered bike lane, landscaping, and median or
wider sidewalks to narrow the travel lanes
· Remove pork chops and relocate signals to corners
· Add stop bar at stop-controlled intersection, and sharks
teeth at yield controlled lane on south leg
· Update crosswalk alignment accordingly
· Consider median treatment on the entire corridor to calm
traffic and narrow pedestrian crossing
· Install median tips
ID #Location Recommendations Detailed Recs Unit Cost Total Total Calculation Unit Construction Cost
per Rec
Maintenance Cost
per Rec Notes
South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan: Estimated Construction Costs
5-7
El Camino Real from
Brentwood Drive to Noor
Avenue
Sidewalk $30 3450 (575' existing length)*(3' width
extension)*(2 sides)Square Foot $103,500 Assumes sidewalk width extension = 3'
5-7 Curb and Gutter $52 1150 (575' existing length)*(2 sides)Linear Foot $59,800
5-7
· Update ramps and curb cuts to current design standards –
both at intersection corners and along sidewalk where
driveways are steep
ADA Curb Ramps $5,000 10 Each $50,000
6-1
Del Monte Avenue from
Arroyo Drive to Alta
Loma Drive
· Install traffic calming treatments; consider edge lines,
traffic circles, speed humps, or other speed reduction
measures
-#N/A TBD
6-1
· Consider enforcement of vehicles violating pedestrian
right-of-way. Encouraging vehicles to park legally on the
roadway would narrow the two travel lanes to approximately
22’ total, which will encourage slower speeds along Del
Monte Avenue. Consider striping edge lines to define parking
lane.
Solid Edge Line $4 10000 (5000' existing length)*(2 sides)Linear Foot $40,000 Striped edge lines cost estimate
7-1 South Linden Ave and
Railroad Ave Sidewalk $30 240 (40' sidewalk length)*(6' new sidewalk
width)Square Foot $7,200 Assumes new sidewalk width = 6'
7-1 Remove concrete sidewalk $3 40 40' sidewalk length Square Foot $120
7-2
South Linden Avenue at
North Canal Street and
South Canal Street
· Move pedestrian push button from current location to
pedestrian ramp at west leg of North Canal crossing Pedestrian Push Buttons $2,000 1 Each $2,000
7-2 Sidewalk $30 480 (80' existing length)*(3' width
extension)*(2 sides)Square Foot $14,400 Assumes sidewalk width extension = 3'; Costs will need to be refined after
further design
7-2 Remove concrete sidewalk $3 160 (80' existing length)*(2 sides)Square Foot $480
7-2 · Install ADA compliant ramps on west side of bridge ADA Curb Ramps $5,000 2 Each $10,000
7-3
South Linden Ave from
South Canal St to
Tanforan Ave
Sidewalk $30 8400 (200'+400'+800' sidewalk length)*(6' new
sidewalk width)Square Foot $252,000 Assumes new sidewalk width = 6'
7-3 Remove concrete sidewalk $3 1400 200'+400'+800' sidewalk length Square Foot $4,200
7-4
South Linden Avenue
and San Mateo Avenue/
Tanforan Avenue
· Update all curbs and install cuts in pork chops for ADA
access ADA Curb Ramps $5,000 12 Each $60,000
7-4 · Re-stripe/install crossings where not visible, especially at
the west crosswalks Crosswalk Striping $7 197 Linear Foot $1,379
7-4 · Install advance sharks teeth at yield approaches on west
side Advance Yield Lines $400 3 Each $1,200
8-1
El Camino Real from
Hazelwood Drive to
Ponderosa Road
· Provide longer pedestrian signal times on all El Camino
crossings -#N/A $0
8-1 Vertical Median $22 24 6' * 4 sides Linear Foot $528 Assumes pedestrian refuge dimensions 6' x 6'
8-1 Concrete Surface $11 36 6' * 6' sides Square Foot $396 Assumes pedestrian refuge dimensions 6' x 6'
8-1 Pedestrian Push Buttons $2,000 2 Each $4,000
8-1 · Install advance stop bars Advance Stop Bars $400 5 Each $2,000
8-1 Sidewalk $30 6840 (1140' sidewalk length)*(6' new sidewalk
width)Square Foot $205,200 Assumes new sidewalk width = 6'
8-1 Curb and Gutter $52 1140 1140' sidewalk length Linear Foot $59,280
· Widen sidewalks on El Camino
· Install sidewalk to fill gap on east side of Railroad Ave
· Expand sidewalk on bridge to be ADA compliant
· Complete sidewalk gaps
· Complete sidewalk on east side
· Install pedestrian refuge or median tips at El Camino
crossings with push buttons
ID #Location Recommendations Detailed Recs Unit Cost Total Total Calculation Unit Construction Cost
per Rec
Maintenance Cost
per Rec Notes
South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan: Estimated Construction Costs
8-2
Ponderosa Road from El
Camino Real to
Alhambra Road
Sidewalk $30 510 (170' existing length)*(3' width extension)Square Foot $15,300 Assumes sidewalk width extension = 3'
8-2 Curb and Gutter $52 170 170' existing length Linear Foot $8,840
8-2 Sidewalk $30 3300 (1100' existing length)*(3' width extension)Square Foot $99,000 Assumes sidewalk width extension = 3'
8-2 Curb and Gutter $52 1100 1100' existing length Linear Foot $57,200
8-2 Sidewalk $30 6900 (1150' sidewalk length)*(6' new sidewalk
width)Square Foot $207,000 Assumes new sidewalk width = 6'
8-2 Curb and Gutter $52 1150 1150' sidewalk length Linear Foot $59,800
8-2 · Install bulb out at southwest corner of Fairway to align
crosswalk with curb (or widen west leg to trapezoid shape)Neckdowns/ Bulb-Out $50,000 1 Each $50,000
8-2 Neckdowns/ Bulb-Out $50,000 1 Each $50,000
8-2 Remove Thermoplastic Lane Striping $1 270 (45' existing standard striping)*(2 sides)*(3
legs)Linear Foot $270
8-2 High Visibility Crosswalk Restriping $5 810
((45' new standard striping)*(2 sides)+(10'
new perpendicular striping)*(45'/4'))*(4
legs)
Linear Foot $4,050 Assumes high visibility crosswalk restriping includes two standard parallel
lines with 10' perpendicular lines spaced every 4'
8-2 New Signage $700 4 Each $2,800
8-2 Advance Stop Bars $400 4 Each $1,600
8-2 New Signage $700 2 Each $1,400
8-2 · Install crosswalk at west leg of Alhambra Crosswalk Striping $7 90 (45' new standard striping)*(2 sides)Linear Foot $630
8-2 · Trim landscaping and maintain sidewalk access at north
sidewalk leading to Alhambra Landscaping $8 100 Square Foot $0 $800 Unit cost might be lower, since cost reflects new instead of maintenance
landscaping
9-1 Grand Avenue and
Airport Boulevard Vertical Median $22 16 (3' tip+5' existing width)*(2 sides)Linear Foot $352 Assumes median tip = 3'
9-1 Concrete Surface $11 15 (3' tip)*(5' existing width)Square Foot $165
9-1 · Update curb ramps ADA Curb Ramps $5,000 3 Each $15,000
9-1 · Lengthen pedestrian signal time crossing Airport
Boulevard -#N/A $0
9-1
· Install South SF gateway treatment, signage and
wayfinding to nearby destinations, such as Caltrain Station
and Miller St garage.
Wayfinding/Destination Sign $500 8 Each $4,000
9-2
Grand Avenue between
Airport Boulevard and
Walnut Avenue
· Mark all crosswalks as high visibility High Visibility Crosswalk Restriping $5 3810 20 crosswalks + perpendicular stripes for
average 45' long crosswalk * 20 crosswalks Linear Foot $19,050
9-2 Advance Yield Lines $400 24 Each $9,600
9-2 New Signage $700 16 Each $11,200
9-2 · Install countdowns at all signalized intersections Upgrade to Pedestrian Countdown Heads $1,000 8 Each $8,000
9-2 · Replace non-functioning in-pavement flashers with rapid
flashing beacons Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon $27,000 4 Each $108,000
9-2 · Update curb ramps ADA Curb Ramps $5,000 24 Each $120,000
9-2 · Police enforcement of failure to yield, illegal parking and u-
turns -#N/A $0
9-3
Pedestrian crossing
under Hwy 101 along
East Grand Avenue
· Add pedestrian scale lighting Lighting $10,000 2 Each $20,000
9-3 · Trim landscaping to improve sightlines and visibility Landscaping $8 6500 Square Foot $0 $52,000 Unit cost might be lower, since cost reflects new instead of maintenance
landscaping
· Install curb extension and crossing improvements at
school entrance on Lassen; include high visibility yellow
crosswalks, advance pedestrian crossing signs, and advance
stop bars at all legs, and in-street paddles at center line on
concrete median tip at east and west legs
· Replace stop bars at unsignalized crossings with sharks
teeth, and install advanced pedestrian signage
· Widen south sidewalk on Ponderosa Drive at southwest
corner of El Camino Real
· Widen narrow sidewalk across from golf club property,
especially at locations where utility poles block right of way
· Install sidewalk on north side of Ponderosa adjacent to
country club property
· Add median tip on south leg of Airport Boulevard – to
provide pedestrian refuge and improve safety
ID #Location Recommendations Detailed Recs Unit Cost Total Total Calculation Unit Construction Cost
per Rec
Maintenance Cost
per Rec Notes
South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan: Estimated Construction Costs
9-4 East Grand Avenue and
Dubuque Avenue · Install high visibility crosswalk High Visibility Crosswalk Restriping $5 450 (100' new standard striping)*(2 sides)+(10'
new perpendicular striping)*(100'/4')Linear Foot $2,250 Assumes high visibility crosswalk restriping includes two standard parallel
lines with 10' perpendicular lines spaced every 4'
9-4 · Update curb ramps ADA Curb Ramps $5,000 2 Each $10,000
9-4 · Improve ADA access Caltrain Station -#N/A TBD
9-4 · Lengthen pedestrian signal time crossing E. Grand Avenue -#N/A $0
9-4
· Install wayfinding signage for motorists in advance of
intersection to indicate lane positioning, rationalize traffic
patterns, and improve safety.
Wayfinding/Destination Sign $500 3 Each $1,500
10-1
Linden Avenue from
Grand Avenue to Aspen
Avenue
· Relocate bus stops to far side of intersection Relocate Sign and Post $400 2 Each $800
10-1 · Add bus stop shelters Bus Shelter $6,500 2 Each $13,000
10-1 · Install bus bulbs at bus stops Neckdowns/ Bulb-Out $50,000 2 Each $100,000
10-1
· Install traffic calming treatments; consider traffic circles,
edge lines to visually narrow roadway, speed tables, or other
speed reduction measures that are appropriate for buses
Neckdowns/ Bulb-Out $50,000 6 Each $300,000
10-1 · Update curb ramps ADA Curb Ramps $5,000 20 Each $100,000
10-1 Remove Thermoplastic Lane Striping $1 1440
((40' existing standard striping * 12
xwalks)+(30' existing standard striping * 8
xwalks))*(2 sides)
Linear Foot $1,440
10-1 High Visibility Crosswalk Restriping $5 3240
((40' new standard striping * 12
xwalks)+(30' new standard striping * 8
xwalks))*(2 sides)+(10' new perpendicular
striping)*(40'/4')*(12 xwalks)+(10' new
perpendicular striping)*(30'/4')*(8 xwalks)
Linear Foot $16,200 Assumes high visibility crosswalk restriping includes two standard parallel
lines with 10' perpendicular lines spaced every 4'
10-1 Advance Yield Lines $400 2 Each $800
10-1 Advance Stop Bars $400 14 Each $5,600
10-1 New Signage $700 8 Each $5,600
10-2 Airport Boulevard at Pine
Avenue
· Consider installing pedestrian actuated HAWK or rapid
flashing beacon HAWK Beacon $120,000 1 Each $120,000 HAWK beacon cost estimate
10-2 Vertical Median $22 16 (3' tip+5' existing width)*(2 sides)Linear Foot $352
10-2 Concrete Surface $11 15 (3' tip)*(5' existing width)Square Foot $165
10-2 · Update curb ramps ADA Curb Ramps $5,000 3 Each $15,000
10-2 Remove Thermoplastic Lane Striping $1 140 (70' existing standard striping)*(2 sides)Linear Foot $140
10-2 High Visibility Crosswalk Restriping $5 315 (70' new standard striping)*(2 sides)+(10'
new perpendicular striping)*(70'/4')Linear Foot $1,575 Assumes high visibility crosswalk restriping includes two standard parallel
lines with 10' perpendicular lines spaced every 4'
10-2 · Consider closing crosswalk if enhancements are
undesirable -#N/A $0
10-3 Airport Boulevard and
Miller Avenue
· Install wayfinding signage at freeway off-ramp directing
thru-traffic down Miller Avenue and local traffic down Grand
Avenue, signage should also include directions to the Miller
Street Garage
Wayfinding/Destination Sign $500 1 Each $500
10-4
Cypress Avenue from
California Avenue to
Grand Avenue
· Remove parking on one side of Cypress Avenue Paint Curb $10 1000 Linear Foot $10,000
10-4 · Install bike lane where parking is removed Class II Bike Lanes (Both Roadway Sides)$29,120 0.25 (.25 mi total length)Mile $7,280
· Install high visibility crosswalks
· Replace crosswalk across north leg of Airport Boulevard
with high visibility crosswalk to improve visibility of crossing
· Add median tip on north leg of Airport Boulevard to
provide pedestrian refuge and improve safety
· Install sharks’ teeth and ladder crosswalks at yield
controlled crossings, and advanced stop bars at stop-
controlled crossings. Install advanced pedestrian signage at
ID #Location Recommendations Detailed Recs Unit Cost Total Total Calculation Unit Construction Cost
per Rec
Maintenance Cost
per Rec Notes
South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan: Estimated Construction Costs
11-1 Chestnut Avenue and
Antoinette Lane Sidewalk $30 3900 (650' sidewalk length)*(6' new sidewalk
width)Square Foot $117,000 Assumes new sidewalk width = 6'
11-1 Curb and Gutter $52 650 650' sidewalk length Linear Foot $33,800
11-1 Paint Curb $10 650 Linear Foot $6,500
11-1 New Signage $700 2 Each $1,400
11-1 · Install a staggered crosswalk across western leg of
Chestnut Avenue to connect Centennial Trail.Crosswalk Striping $7 90 Linear Foot $630
11-1 Vertical Median $22 92
((3' tip+5' existing width)*(2 legs) + 20' +
10' extension to xwalk + 5' + 5' existing
width)*(2 sides)
Linear Foot $2,024 Assumes median tip = 3'
11-1 Concrete Surface $11 180 ((3' tip)*(2 legs) + 20' + 10' extension to
xwalk)*(5' existing width)Square Foot $1,980
11-1 · Install bulb-out on southeastern corner to provide access
around utility pole Neckdowns/ Bulb-Out $50,000 1 Each $50,000
11-1
· 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)
-#N/A $0
11-1 · Update curb ramps ADA Curb Ramps $5,000 3 Each $15,000
11-2 Westborough Avenue
and Camaritas Avenue Sidewalk $30 6600 30'x220' new concrete Square Foot $198,000
11-2 Curb and Gutter $52 200 200' new curb Linear Foot $10,400
11-2 Vertical Median $22 36 (3' tip+6' existing width)*(2 sides)*(2 legs)Linear Foot $792 Assumes median tip = 3'
11-2 Concrete Surface $11 36 (3' tip)*(6' existing width)*(2 legs)Square Foot $396
11-2 · Consider adding a bike lane on the northern side of
Westborough Avenue Class II Bike Lanes (Both Roadway Sides)$29,120 1 Mile $29,120
11-2 · Update curb ramps ADA Curb Ramps $5,000 4 Each $20,000
11-3 Mission Road and
Chestnut Avenue Sidewalk $30 1620 (540' existing length)*(3' width extension)Square Foot $48,600 Assumes sidewalk width extension = 3'
11-3 Curb and Gutter $52 540 540' existing length Linear Foot $28,080
11-3 · Add overlay right turn signal phase and preclude
conflicting u-turn Signal Modification/New Signal $250,000 1 Each $250,000
11-3 Vertical Median $22 54 (3' tip+6' existing width)*(2 sides)*(3 legs)Linear Foot $1,188 Assumes median tip = 3'
11-3 Concrete Surface $11 54 (3' tip)*(6' existing width)*(3 legs)Square Foot $594
11-3 · Update curb ramps ADA Curb Ramps $5,000 4 Each $20,000
11-4 Mission Road and Oak
Avenue Vertical Median $22 30 (10' + 5')*(2 sides)Linear Foot $660 Assumes pedestrian island dimensions 10' x 5'
11-4 Concrete Surface $11 50 10' * 5' sides Square Foot $550 Assumes pedestrian island dimensions 10' x 5'
11-4 · Install flashing beacon Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon $27,000 1 Each $27,000
11-4 · Install advanced stop bar Advance Stop Bars $400 1 Each $400
11-4 · Install bulb-out at northwest corner Neckdowns/ Bulb-Out $50,000 1 Each $50,000
11-4 · Update curb ramps ADA Curb Ramps $5,000 3 Each $15,000
12-1
Spruce Avenue between
Lux Avenue and Maple
Avenue
· Install edge line striping to reduce traffic speeds and
encourage vehicles to park on the street rather than the
sidewalk
Solid Edge Line $4 2260 Linear Foot $9,040
12-1 Curb and Gutter $52 80 (4 bulbs)*[(6'wide)*(2 sides)+(8'long)]Linear Foot $4,160 Median with curb/gutter instead of vertical median
12-1 Concrete Surface $11 192 (4 bulbs)*(6'wide* 8' long)Square Foot $2,112
· Install pedestrian island at crosswalk on northwest leg of
Mission Road
· 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.
· Extend median islands on both legs of Chestnut Avenue
and include median tips to provide pedestrian refuge and
improve safety
· Add median tips on both legs of Westborough Avenue – to
provide pedestrian refuge and improve safety
· Install median tips at all legs of the intersection to provide
pedestrian refuge and improve safety
· Remove the WB right turn lane on to Camaritas Ave and
convert pork chop island to extend curb, reduce pedestrian
crossing distances, and expand open space
· Eliminate second right turn lane on Mission Road and
extend sidewalk
· Consider adding staggered landscaped bulbs on
alternating sides of the street (chicanes)
ID #Location Recommendations Detailed Recs Unit Cost Total Total Calculation Unit Construction Cost
per Rec
Maintenance Cost
per Rec Notes
South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan: Estimated Construction Costs
12-2 School Street and Maple
Avenue · Install flashing beacon to improve visibility of pedestrians Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon $27,000 1 Each $27,000
12-2 Remove Thermoplastic Lane Striping $1 60 (30' existing standard striping)*(2 sides)Linear Foot $60
12-2 High Visibility Crosswalk Restriping $5 135 (30' new standard striping)*(2 sides)+(10'
new perpendicular striping)*(30'/4')Linear Foot $675 Assumes high visibility crosswalk restriping includes two standard parallel
lines with 10' perpendicular lines spaced every 4'
12-2 New Signage $700 2 Each $1,400
12-2 · Update curb ramps ADA Curb Ramps $5,000 2 Each $10,000
12-3 School Street and Olive
Avenue · Consider installing a traffic circle Traffic Circle $5,000 1 Each $5,000
12-3 · Update curb ramps ADA Curb Ramps $5,000 3 Each $15,000
12-4 Grand Avenue and
Spruce Avenue
· Install corner bulb-outs with ADA accessible curb ramps at
all corners Neckdowns/ Bulb-Out $50,000 4 Each $200,000
12-4 · Add pedestrian scramble phase to reduce time to cross
two legs New Pedestrian Signal $1,000 4 Each $4,000
13-1
Westborough Boulevard
from Callan Boulevard to
Gellert Boulevard
· Upgrade ramps at northwest and northeast corners of
Callan Boulevard and Galway Drive intersections ADA Curb Ramps $5,000 4 Each $20,000
13-1 Vertical Median $22 96 (3' tip+5' existing width)*(2 sides)*(3
legs)*(2 sites)Linear Foot $2,112 Assumes median tip = 3'
13-1 Concrete Surface $11 90 (3' tip)*(5' existing width)*(3 legs)*(2 sites)Square Foot $990
13-1 Advance Stop Bars $400 8 Each $3,200
13-1 Remove Thermoplastic Lane Striping $1 1240
((90' existing standard striping * 4
xwalks)+(80'+70'+60'+50' existing
standard striping))*(2 sides)
Linear Foot $1,240
13-1 High Visibility Crosswalk Restriping $5 2790
((90' new standard striping * 4
xwalks)+(80'+70'+60'+50' new standard
striping))*(2 sides)+(10' new perpendicular
striping)*(90'/4')*(4 xwalks)+(10' new
perpendicular striping)*(65'/4')*(4 xwalks)
Linear Foot $13,950 Assumes high visibility crosswalk restriping includes two standard parallel
lines with 10' perpendicular lines spaced every 4'
13-1 Vertical Median $22 64 (3' tip+5' existing width)*(2 sides)*(4 legs)Linear Foot $1,408 Assumes median tip = 3'
13-1 Concrete Surface $11 60 (3' tip)*(5' existing width)*(4 legs)Square Foot $660
13-1 Sidewalk $30 8400 (1140' sidewalk length)*(6' new sidewalk
width)Square Foot $252,000 Assumes new sidewalk width = 6'
13-1 Curb and Gutter $52 1400 1140' sidewalk length Linear Foot $72,800
13-2
Gellert Boulevard from
Westborough Boulevard
to Marbella Drive
Vertical Median $22 32 (3' tip+5' existing width)*(2 sides)*(2 legs)Linear Foot $704 Assumes median tip = 3'
13-2 Concrete Surface $11 30 (3' tip)*(5' existing width)*(2 legs)Square Foot $330
13-2 Advance Stop Bars $400 7 Each $2,800
14-1
Forbes Boulevard from
Corporate Drive to E
Grand Avenue
Wayfinding/Destination Sign $500 2 Each $1,000
14-1 Lighting $10,000 6 Each $60,000
14-1 · Install high visibility, color-treated intersection crossings High Visibility Crosswalk Restriping $5 315 (70' new standard striping)*(2 sides)+(10'
new perpendicular striping)*(70'/4')Linear Foot $1,575 Assumes high visibility crosswalk restriping includes two standard parallel
lines with 10' perpendicular lines spaced every 4'
14-1 · Perform regular maintenance on segregated pathway -#N/A $0
· Install wayfinding signage & pedestrian scaled lighting
· Install median tips and advanced stop bars at Gellert
Boulevard crossings at Marbella Drive intersection and at
shopping center/ residential development access and
crossing between Marbella Drive and Westborough
Boulevard
· Add school zone features to crossing treatments
· Install median tips at west, north, and east legs of Callan
Boulevard and Galway Drive intersections
· Install median tips at all four legs of Gellert Boulevard
intersection
· Install advanced stop bars and restripe high visibility
yellow crosswalks for school zones at Callan Boulevard and
Galway Drive
· Install sidewalks on south side from Callan Boulevard to
Galway Drive
ID #Location Recommendations Detailed Recs Unit Cost Total Total Calculation Unit Construction Cost
per Rec
Maintenance Cost
per Rec Notes
South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan: Estimated Construction Costs
14-2
E Grand Avenue from
Forbes Boulevard to
Gateway Boulevard
Wayfinding/Destination Sign $500 2 Each $1,000
14-2 Lighting $10,000 6 Each $60,000
14-2 · Install high visibility, color-treated intersection crossings High Visibility Crosswalk Restriping $5 1170
(140' + 120' new standard striping)*(2
sides)+(10' new perpendicular
striping)*(140'/4' + 120'/4')
Linear Foot $5,850 Assumes high visibility crosswalk restriping includes two standard parallel
lines with 10' perpendicular lines spaced every 4'
14-2 · Perform regular maintenance on segregated pathway -#N/A $0
14-3
E Grand Avenue
between Grand Avenue
and Dubuque Avenue
· Provide advanced signage for drivers indicating lane
positions to rationalize operations and improve safety New Signage $700 2 Each $1,400
14-3 · Allow left turns from Grand Ave to Dubuque Ave
concurrent with pedestrian phase.-#N/A $0
15-1 Produce Avenue and S
Airport Boulevard Vertical Median $22 176 est ((40'long)+(2' wide extension*2
sides))*(4 pork chops)Linear Foot $3,872
Concrete Surface $11 320 est (40'long)*(2' wide extension)*(4 pork
chops)Square Foot $3,520
15-1 Advance Yield Lines $400 3 Each $1,200
15-1 Advance Stop Bars $400 4 Each $1,600
15-1 · Upgrade curb ramps ADA Curb Ramps $5,000 4 Each $20,000
15-1 · Install yield to pedestrian signs on all approaches with
sidewalk connections New Signage $700 3 Each $2,100
15-1 Sidewalk $30 420 (70' sidewalk length)*(6' new sidewalk
width)Square Foot $12,600 Assumes new sidewalk width = 6'
15-1 Curb and Gutter $52 70 70' sidewalk length Linear Foot $3,640
15-2
S Airport Blvd btwn
Airport Blvd and
Gateway Blvd
Sidewalk $30 144 (48' existing length)*(3' width extension)Square Foot $4,320 Assumes sidewalk width extension = 3'
15-2 Curb and Gutter $52 48 48' existing length Linear Foot $2,496
15-3 S Airport Boulevard and
Highway 101 off-ramp High Visibility Crosswalk Restriping $5 12894.5 (125'wide)*(2sides)*+(125/4 perpendicular
stripes)*(10')Linear Foot $64,473
15-3 Remove Thermoplastic Lane Striping $1 75 75'wide Linear Foot $75
15-3 Advance Stop Bars $400 2 Each $800
15-3 Upgrade to Pedestrian Countdown Heads $1,000 1 Each $1,000
15-3 Pedestrian Push Buttons $2,000 2 Each $4,000
15-3 ADA Curb Ramps $5,000 4 Each $20,000
15-3 · Consider restricting right turn on red or leading pedestrian
interval at both off- and on-ramp -#N/A $0
15-3 Vertical Median $22 42 (10'wide)+(16'long * 2sides)Linear Foot $924
15-3 Concrete Surface $11 26 (10' wide)*(16' long)Square Foot $286
15-4 S Airport Boulevard and
Marco Way · Install rectangular rapid flashing beacon or HAWK beacon Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon $27,000 1 Each $27,000
15-4 Remove Thermoplastic Lane Striping $1 154 (77' existing standard striping)*(2 sides)Linear Foot $154
15-4 High Visibility Crosswalk Restriping $5 346.5 (77' new standard striping)*(2 sides)+(10'
new perpendicular striping)*(77'/4')Linear Foot $1,733 Assumes high visibility crosswalk restriping includes two standard parallel
lines with 10' perpendicular lines spaced every 4'
15-4 Advance Yield Lines $400 2 Each $800
15-4 · Install median refuge island to reduce pedestrian exposure Concrete Surface $11 240 Square Foot $2,640
15-4 · Install advanced pedestrian crossing signage New Signage $700 2 Each $1,400
· Install wayfinding signage & pedestrian scaled lighting
· Install high visibility crosswalks across the west side of
Airport Boulevard; pull off-ramp stop bars back to create
space for crossing.
· Install pedestrian actuated countdown signal , push
buttons and ADA accessible ramps
· Upgrade crosswalk across south leg of S Airport Boulevard
to high visibility ladder crosswalk; install sharks’ teeth
· Extend median between ramps for additional pedestrian
refuge
· Work with property owner to narrow driveway entrance
just north of the intersection, to reduce pedestrian exposure
to vehicles
· Widen sidewalks by narrowing travel lanes
· Install sharks’ teeth at uncontrolled slip lanes, and
advanced stop bars on all signalized legs
· Extend pork chops at all four corners
ID #Location Recommendations Detailed Recs Unit Cost Total Total Calculation Unit Construction Cost
per Rec
Maintenance Cost
per Rec Notes
South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan: Estimated Construction Costs
16-1
Oyster Point Boulevard
from Eccles Avenue to
driveway immediately
east
Sidewalk $30 240 (40' sidewalk length)*(6' new sidewalk
width)Square Foot $7,200 Assumes new sidewalk width = 6'
16-1 Curb and Gutter $52 40 40' sidewalk length Linear Foot $2,080
16-1 Remove Thermoplastic Lane Striping $1 280 (70' existing standard striping)*(2 sides)*(2
legs)Linear Foot $280
16-1 Crosswalk Striping $7 280 (70' new standard striping)*(2 sides)*(2
legs)Linear Foot $1,960
16-1 Vertical Median $22 32 (3' tip+5' existing width)*(2 sides)*(2 legs)Linear Foot $704 Assumes median tip = 3'
16-1 Concrete Surface $11 30 (3' tip)*(5' existing width)*(2 legs)Square Foot $330
16-1 Vertical Median $22 24 6' * 4 sides Linear Foot $528 Assumes pedestrian island dimensions 6' x 6'
16-1 Concrete Surface $11 36 6' * 6' sides Square Foot $396 Assumes pedestrian island dimensions 6' x 6'
16-1 · Add ADA accessible curb ramps at crossings, where they
do not already exist ADA Curb Ramps $5,000 4 Each $20,000
16-1 Remove and Salvage Sign and Post $150 2 Each $300
16-1 New Signage $700 2 Each $1,400
16-1 Vertical Median $22 16 (3' tip+5' existing width)*(2 sides)Linear Foot $352 Assumes median tip = 3'
16-1 Concrete Surface $11 15 (3' tip)*(5' existing width)Square Foot $165
16-2 Oyster Point Boulevard
at Oyster Point Park Remove Thermoplastic Lane Striping $1 88 (44' existing standard striping)*(2 sides)Linear Foot $88
16-2 High Visibility Crosswalk Restriping $5 198 (44' new standard striping)*(2 sides)+(10'
new perpendicular striping)*(44'/4')Linear Foot $990 Assumes high visibility crosswalk restriping includes two standard parallel
lines with 10' perpendicular lines spaced every 4'
16-2 Advance Yield Lines $400 2 Each $800
16-2 New Signage $700 2 Each $1,400
· Remove pedestrian push buttons on Oyster Point Drive at
west side of driveway entrance to bioscience buildings
(immediately east of Eccles Avenue), and close crossing to
pedestrians. Improve the marked crosswalk on the east side
of the driveway entrance by adding a median tip.
· Restripe mid-block crossing with high visibility markings;
install sharks teeth and advanced pedestrian signage
· Restripe existing crosswalks across Oyster Point Boulevard
· Add pedestrian islands and/or median tips at all crosswalks
· Complete sidewalk gap on Eccles Avenue