The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReso 81-2024 (24-547)Resolution No. _______ Attachment A Re: Request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Project Funding Findings Page 1 of 1 1. That the City of South San Francisco is not legally impeded from submitting a request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the allocation of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds, nor is the City of South San Francisco legally impeded from undertaking the project(s) described in “Attachment B” of this resolution. 2. That the City of South San Francisco has committed adequate staffing resources to complete the project(s) described in Attachment B. 3. A review of the project(s) described in Attachment B has resulted in the consideration of all pertinent matters, including those related to environmental and right-of-way permits and clearances, attendant to the successful completion of the project(s). 4. Issues attendant to securing environmental and right-of-way permits and clearances for the projects described in Attachment B have been reviewed and will be concluded in a manner and on a schedule that will not jeopardize the deadline for the use of the TDA funds being requested. 5. That the project(s) described in Attachment B comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.). 6. That as portrayed in the budgetary description(s) of the project(s) in Attachment B, the sources of funding other than TDA are assured and adequate for completion of the project(s). 7. That the project(s) described in Attachment B are for capital construction and/or final design and engineering or quick build project; and/or for the maintenance of a Class I bikeway which is closed to motorized traffic and/or Class IV separated bikeway; and/or for the purposes of restriping Class II bicycle lanes; and/or for the development or support of a bicycle safety education program; and/or for the development of a comprehensive bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities plan, and an allocation of TDA Article 3 funding for such a plan has not been received by the City of South San Francisco within the prior five fiscal years. 8. That the project(s) described in Attachment B which are bicycle projects have been included in a detailed bicycle circulation element included in an adopted general plan, or included in an adopted comprehensive bikeway plan (such as outlined in Section 2377 of the California Bikeways Act, Streets and Highways Code section 2370 et seq.) or responds to an immediate community need, such as a quick-build project. 9. That any project described in Attachment B bicycle project meets the mandatory minimum safety design criteria published in the California Highway Design Manual or is in a National Association of City and Transportation Officials (NACTO) guidance or similar best practices document. 10. That the project(s) described in Attachment B will be completed in the allocated time (fiscal year of allocation plus two additional fiscal years). 11. That the City of South San Francisco agrees to maintain, or provide for the maintenance of, the project(s) and facilities described in Attachment B, for the benefit of and use by the public. 2024-2025 Resolution No. _____ page 1 of 2 Attachment B dƌƚŝĐůĞϯWƌŽũĞĐƚƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ&Žƌŵ ϭ͘ ŐĞŶĐǇŝƚǇŽĨ^ŽƵƚŚ^ĂŶ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽ Ϯ͘ WƌŝŵĂƌǇŽŶƚĂĐƚ:ĞĨĨƌĞǇŚŽƵ ϯ͘ DĂŝůŝŶŐĚĚƌĞƐƐϯϭϱDĂƉůĞǀĞ͕^ŽƵƚŚ^ĂŶ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽ͕ϵϰϬϴϬ ϰ͘ ŵĂŝůĚĚƌĞƐƐ:ĞĨĨƌĞǇ͘ŚŽƵΛƐƐĨ͘ŶĞƚϱ͘ WŚŽŶĞEƵŵďĞƌϲϱϬͲϴϮϵͲϲϲϲϴ ϲ͘ ^ĞĐŽŶĚĂƌǇŽŶƚĂĐƚ;ŝŶ ƚŚĞĞǀĞŶƚƉƌŝŵĂƌǇŝƐ ŶŽƚĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞͿ DĂƚƚŚĞǁZƵďůĞ ϳ͘ DĂŝůŝŶŐĂĚĚƌĞƐƐ;ŝĨ ĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚͿEͬ☐ ϴ͘ ŵĂŝůĚĚƌĞƐƐDĂƚƚŚĞǁ͘ZƵďůĞΛƐƐĨ͘ŶĞƚϵ͘ WŚŽŶĞEƵŵďĞƌϲϱϬͲϴϮϵͲϲϲϳϭ ϭϬ͘ ^ĞŶĚĂůůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ ŝŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶƐƚŽ;ŝĨ ĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚĨƌŽŵĂďŽǀĞͿ͗ ϭϭ͘ WƌŽũĞĐƚdŝƚůĞ^^&ƵĨĨĞƌĞĚŝŬĞ>ĂŶĞŶŚĂŶĐĞŵĞŶƚWƌŽũĞĐƚ ϭϮ͘ ŵŽƵŶƚƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚΨϯϰϱ͕ϳϭϳ ϭϯ͘ &ŝƐĐĂůzĞĂƌŽĨ ůĂŝŵ ϮϬϮϯͲϮϬϮϰ ϭϰ͘ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶŽĨKǀĞƌĂůůWƌŽũĞĐƚ͗ ϭϱ͘ WƌŽũĞĐƚ^ĐŽƉĞWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĨŽƌ&ƵŶĚŝŶŐ͗;WƌŽũĞĐƚůĞǀĞůĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů͕ƉƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌǇƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚZKt ĂƌĞŝŶĞůŝŐŝďůĞƵƐĞƐŽĨdĨƵŶĚƐ͘Ϳ ϭϲ͘ WƌŽũĞĐƚ>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗ŵĂƉŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶŝƐĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚŽƌĂůŝŶŬƚŽĂŽŶůŝŶĞŵĂƉŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚďĞůŽǁ͗ WƌŽũĞĐƚZĞůĂƚŝŽŶƚŽZĞŐŝŽŶĂůWŽůŝĐŝĞƐ;ĨŽƌŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŽŶůǇͿ ϭϳ͘ /ƐƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝŶĂŶƋƵŝƚǇWƌŝŽƌŝƚǇŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ͍zĞƐ܆EŽ܈ ϭϴ͘ /ƐƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝŶĂWƌŝŽƌŝƚǇĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƌĞĂŽƌĂdƌĂŶƐŝƚͲKƌŝĞŶƚĞĚŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ͍ zĞƐ܆EŽ܈ The project is located along on 2.03 miles of Junipero Serra Boulevard in South San Francisco between Avalon Drive and Hickey Boulevard. The proposed upgrade includes the addition of K-71 bollards to transition the Class II bike lane to a Class IV physically separate facility. Design and Construction See attached map. 2024-2025 page 2 of 2 ϭϵ͘ WƌŽũĞĐƚƵĚŐĞƚĂŶĚ^ĐŚĞĚƵůĞ WƌŽũĞĐƚůŝŐŝďŝůŝƚǇ ͘ ,ĂƐƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚďĞĞŶƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚďǇƚŚĞŝĐǇĐůĞĂŶĚWĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶĚǀŝƐŽƌǇŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ͍ zĞƐ ܈EŽ☐ /Ĩ͞z^͕͟ŝĚĞŶƚŝĨǇƚŚĞĚĂƚĞĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĐŽƉǇŽƌůŝŶŬƚŽƚŚĞĂŐĞŶĚĂ͗DĂƌĐŚϮϴ͕ϮϬϮϰ͘ https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/BPAC-Packet-3-28-24-final.pdf . Item 5. /ĨΗEK͕ΗƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂŶĞǆƉůĂŶĂƚŝŽŶͿ͘ ͘ ,ĂƐƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚďĞĞŶĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚďǇƚŚĞĐůĂŝŵĂŶƚΖƐŐŽǀĞƌŶŝŶŐďŽĚǇ͍ zĞƐ ܈EŽ☐ /ĨΗEK͕ΗƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĞǆƉĞĐƚĞĚĚĂƚĞ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ͘ ,ĂƐƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐůǇƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚdƌƚŝĐůĞϯĨƵŶĚŝŶŐ͍ zĞƐ ☐ EŽ܈ ;/ĨΗz^͕ΗƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂŶĞǆƉůĂŶĂƚŝŽŶŽŶĂƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞƉĂŐĞͿ ͘ &ŽƌΗďŝŬĞǁĂǇƐ͕ΗĚŽĞƐƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚŵĞĞƚĂůƚƌĂŶƐŵŝŶŝŵƵŵƐĂĨĞƚǇĚĞƐŝŐŶĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂ zĞƐ܈EŽ☐ ƉƵƌƐƵĂŶƚƚŽŚĂƉƚĞƌϭϬϬϬŽĨƚŚĞĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ,ŝŐŚǁĂǇĞƐŝŐŶDĂŶƵĂů ͍ ͘ ϭ͘/ƐƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĐĂƚĞŐŽƌŝĐĂůůǇĞǆĞŵƉƚĨƌŽŵY͕ƉƵƌƐƵĂŶƚƚŽZ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϭϱϯϬϭ;ĐͿ͕ zĞƐ ܈EŽ☐ ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ&ĂĐŝůŝƚǇ͍ Ϯ͘/Ĩ͞EK͟ĂďŽǀĞ͕ŝƐƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĞǆĞŵƉƚĨƌŽŵYĨŽƌĂŶŽƚŚĞƌƌĞĂƐŽŶ͍ zĞƐ ☐ EŽ☐ ŝƚĞƚŚĞďĂƐŝƐĨŽƌƚŚĞĞǆĞŵƉƚŝŽŶ͘ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Eͬ☐ /ĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝƐŶŽƚĞǆĞŵƉƚ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞĐŚĞĐŬ͞EK͕͟ĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ĂƐĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞ͘ &͘ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚŽŵƉůĞƚŝŽŶĂƚĞŽĨƉƌŽũĞĐƚ;ŵŽŶƚŚĂŶĚǇĞĂƌͿ͗ EŽǀĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϰͺͺͺͺͺͺ '͘ ,ĂǀĞƉƌŽǀŝƐŝŽŶƐďĞĞŶŵĂĚĞďǇƚŚĞĐůĂŝŵĂŶƚƚŽŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚŽƌĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇ͕ŽƌŚĂƐ zĞƐ ܈EŽ☐ ƚŚĞĐůĂŝŵĂŶƚĂƌƌĂŶŐĞĚĨŽƌƐƵĐŚŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞďǇĂŶŽƚŚĞƌĂŐĞŶĐǇ͍;/ĨĂŶĂŐĞŶĐǇŽƚŚĞƌ ƚŚĂŶƚŚĞůĂŝŵĂŶƚŝƐƚŽŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶƚŚĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞŝĚĞŶƚŝĨǇďĞůŽǁĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƚŚĞĂŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚ͘ ,͘ /ƐĂŽŵƉůĞƚĞ^ƚƌĞĞƚƐŚĞĐŬůŝƐƚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĨŽƌƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͍ zĞƐ ܈EŽ☐ /ĨƚŚĞĂŵŽƵŶƚƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚŝƐŽǀĞƌΨϮϱϬ͕ϬϬϬŽƌŝĨƚŚĞƚŽƚĂůƉƌŽũĞĐƚƉŚĂƐĞŽƌĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ ƉŚĂƐĞŝƐŽǀĞƌΨϮϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ͕ĂŽŵƉůĞƚĞ^ƚƌĞĞƚƐĐŚĞĐŬůŝƐƚŝƐůŝŬĞůǇƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ͘WůĞĂƐĞĂƚƚĂĐŚ ƚŚĞŽŵƉůĞƚĞ^ƚƌĞĞƚƐĐŚĞĐŬůŝƐƚŽƌƌĞĐŽƌĚŽĨƌĞǀŝĞǁ͕ĂƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ͘DŽƌĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ ĂŶĚƚŚĞĨŽƌŵŵĂǇďĞĨŽƵŶĚŚĞƌĞ͗ŚƚƚƉƐ͗ͬͬŵƚĐ͘ĐĂ͘ŐŽǀͬƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐͬƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶͬĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞͲƐƚƌĞĞƚƐ Project Phase TDA 3 Other Funds Total Cost Estimated Completion (month/year) Bike/Ped Plan ENV PA&ED PS&E 32,560 3,618 36,178 8/24 ROW CON 313,157 34,795 347,952 11/24 Total Cost 345,717 38,413 384,130 Page 1 of 11 Complete Streets Checklist Implementation of MTC’s Complete Streets Policy, Resolution 4493, Adopted 3/25/22 Background Since 2006, MTC’s Complete Streets (CS) Policy has promoted the development of transportation facilities that can be used by all modes. In March 2022, MTC updated its CS policy (Resolution 4493) with the goal of ensuring that people biking, walking, rolling, and taking transit are safely accommodated within the transportation network. This policy works to advance Plan Bay Area 2050 objectives of achieving mode shift, safety, equity, and vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emission reductions, as well as state & local compliance with applicable CS-related laws, policies, and practices, specifically the California Complete Street Act of 2008 (Gov. Code Sections 65040.2 and 65302) and applicable local policies such as the CS resolutions adopted before January 16, 2016 (as part of MTC’s OBAG 2 requirements.) Requirements MTC’s CS Policy requires that all projects (with a total project cost of $250,000 or more) applying for regional discretionary transportation funding – or requesting regional endorsement or approval through MTC – must submit a Complete Streets Checklist (Checklist) to MTC. Please note that Projects claiming exceptions to CS Policy must complete the Exceptions section on the Checklist and provide a Department Director-level signature. Additional information and guidance for completing this Checklist can be found at the MTC Administrative Guidance: Complete Streets Policy Guidance for public agency staff implementing MTC Resolution 4493 at https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/complete-streets This form may be downloaded at https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/complete-streets. Submittal Completed Checklists must be emailed to [email protected]. PROJECT INFORMATION Project Name/Title: SSF Buffered Bike Lane Enhancement Project Project Area/Location(s): Junipero Serra Boulevard between Hickey Boulevard and Avalon Drive (City limit to City limit). Map attached in Attachment 2. Page 2 of 11 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (300-word limit) Please indicate project phase (Planning, PE, ENV, ROW, CON, O&M) The Quick-Build project is currently in Final Design or the PE phase. It is located along 2.03 miles of Junipero Serra Boulevard in South San Francisco between Avalon Drive and Hickey Boulevard (all within the City’s ROW) with a prevailing speed limit of 50 mph. The proposed upgrade includes the addition of K-71 bollards to transition the Class II bike lane to a Class IV physically separate facility. Please see attached for the draft project plan set. May attach additional project documents, cross sections, plan view, or other supporting materials. CONTACT INFORMATION Contact Name & Title: Jeffrey Chou, Senior Engineer Contact Email: [email protected] Contact Phone: 650-829-6668 Agency: City of South San Francisco Topic CS Policy Consideration YES NO Required Description 1. Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit Planning Does Project implement relevant Plans, or other locally adopted recommendations? Plan examples include: City/County General + Area Plans Bicycle, Pedestrian & Transit Plan Community-Based Transportation Plan ADA Transition Plan Station Access Plan Short-Range Transit Plan Vision Zero/Systematic Safety Plan Please provide detail on Plan recommendations affecting Project area, if any, with Plan adoption date. If Project is inconsistent with adopted Plans, please provide explanation. 2021 San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan, 2021. Pages 39, 42, & 96 – identified as High Priority (Pg. 96) South San Francisco Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, June 2022, Page 78 identified as Low Priority (Pg. 78) Page 3 of 11 Topic CS Policy Consideration YES NO Required Description Bike Lanes for the Boulevards, 2023, Page 1 identified as High Priority (Pg. 1) 2. Active Transportati on Network Does the project area contain segments of the regional Active Transportation (AT) Network? [See AT Network map on the MTC Complete Streets webpage.] If yes, describe how project adheres to the NACTO All Ages and Abilities design principles. See Attachment 1. The project will construct a separated class IV bike lane along this 50- MPH corridor. A. Is the Project on a known High Injury Network (HIN) or has a local traffic safety analysis found a high incidence of bicyclist/ pedestrian-involved crashes within the project area? Please summarize the traffic safety conditions and describe Project’s traffic safety measures. The Bay Area Vision Zero System may be a resource. While not identified as HIN, the project corridor does cross two facilities on the HIN: Westborough and Hickey Boulevards 3. Safety and Comfort B. Does the project seek to improve bicyclist and/or pedestrian conditions? If the project includes a bikeway, was a Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), or similar user experience analyses conducted? Describe how project seeks to provide low- stress transportation facilities or reduce a facility’s LTS. The Junipero Serra Boulevard bike lane currently operates at a Page 4 of 11 Topic CS Policy Consideration YES NO Required Description BLTS of 4 which is the highest level of stress an individual can experience when using a bike facility. The 50-mph speed limit and class II bike lane currently on the corridor are insufficient for people riding on this road and are likely preventing individuals from using the facility. Speed study results showed that the facility has a higher accident rate than the national average (figure 22) with 85th percentile speeds ranging from 53- 56 mph and 50th percentile speeds of 48- 50 mph. The construction of this project will reduce the BLTS from 4 to 1, allowing individuals to feel safer riding on the street. This will be done through the physical separation of cyclists from vehicles using K-71 bollards. A. Are there existing public transit facilities (stop or station) in the project area? List transit facilities (stop, station, or route) and all affected agencies. B. Have all potentially affected transit agencies had the opportunity to review this project? N/A Please provide confirmation email from transit operator(s). 4. Transit Coordination C. Is there a MTC Mobility Hub within the project area?If yes, please describe outreach to mobility providers, and Project’s Hub-supportive elements. Page 5 of 11 Topic CS Policy Consideration YES NO Required Description 5.Design Does the project meet professional design standards or guidelines appropriate for bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities? Please provide Class designation for bikeways. Cite design standards used. Striping of the bicycle lanes is in accordance with the CAMUTCD, Part 9. Per the CAMUTCD Part 9, Section 9C.0.4 Paragraph 25, physical barriers may be used to convert a Class II Bikeway to a Class I or Class IV Bikeway. Section 9C.102 (CA) paragraph 04 defines the types of physical barriers that may be used for the design of Class IV Bikeways, "Vertical elements in the buffer area are critical to separated bikeway design. Forms of vertical separation include, but are not limited to grade separation, flexible delineator posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking." See also Figure 9C-110 (CA) from the CA MUTCD (2014 Revision 7). Project is also consistent with Caltrans Design Information Bulletin Number 89-02 (February 2022). Page 6 of 11 Topic CS Policy Consideration YES NO Required Description 6. Equity Will Project improve active transportation in an Equity Priority Community? Please list EPC(s) affected. Although the project does not directly abut an EPC, expanding the low stress network within South San Francisco will provide maximum connectivity and flexibility in accessing area destinations: Census tract 602100 Census tract 602200 Census tract 602300 7. BPAC Review Has a local (city or county) Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission (BPAC) reviewed this checklist (or for OBAG 3, this project)? Please provide meeting date(s) and a summary of comments, if any. The BPAC will receive the checklists at the March 28, 2024 BPAC meeting Page 7 of 11 Statement of Compliance YES The proposed Project complies with California Complete Street Act of 2008 (Gov. Code Sections 65040.2 and 65302, MTC Complete Streets Policy (Reso. 4493), and locally adopted Complete Streets resolutions (adopted as OBAG 2 (Reso. 4202) requirement, Resolution 4202). If no, complete Statement of Exception and obtain necessary signature. Statement of Exception YES Provide Documentation or Explanation 1. The affected roadway is legally prohibited for use by bicyclists and/or pedestrians. If yes, please cite language and agency citing prohibited use. 2. The costs of providing Complete Streets improvements are excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use (defined as more than 20 percent for Complete Streets elements of the total project cost). If claimed, the agency must include proportionate alternatives and still provide safe accommodation of people biking, walking and rolling. 3. There is a documented Alternative Plan to implement Complete Streets and/or on a nearby parallel route. Describe Alternative Plan/Project 4. Conditions exist in which policy requirements may not be able to be met, such as fire and safety specifications, spatial conflicts on the roadway with transit or environmental concerns, defined as abutting conservation land or severe topological constraints. Describe condition(s) that prohibit implementation of CS policy requirements Page 8 of 11 SIGNATURES / NOTIFICATIONS TRANSIT The project sponsor shall communicate and coordinate with all transit agencies with operations affected by the proposed project. If a project includes a transit stop/station, or is located along a transit route, the Checklist must include written documentation (e.g. email) with the affected transit agency(ies) to confirm transit agency coordination and acknowledgement of the project. A CS Checklist Transit Agency Contact List is available for reference. DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR-LEVEL SIGNATURE FOR EXCEPTIONS Exceptions must be signed by a Department Director-level agency representative, or their designee, and not the Project Manager. Insert electronic signature or sign below: Full Name: Jeffrey Chou Title: Senior Engineer Date: 2/20/2024 Signature: Page 9 of 11 ATTACHMENT 1 – All Ages and Abilities and Guidelines 1. All Ages and Abilities Designing for All Ages & Abilities, Contextual Guidance for High-Comfort Bicycle Facilities, National Association of Transportation Officials, December 2017 Projects on the AT Network shall incorporate design principles based on designing for “All Ages and Abilities,” contextual guidance provided by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), and consistent with state and national best practices. A facility that serves “all ages and abilities” is one that effectively serves the mobility needs of children, older adults, and people with disabilities and in doing so, works for everyone else. The all ages and abilities approach also strives to serve all users, regardless of age, ability, ethnicity, race, sex, income, or disability, by embodying national and international best practices related to traffic calming, speed reduction, and roadway design to increase user safety and comfort. This approach also includes the use of traffic calming elements or facilities separated from motor vehicle traffic, both of which can offer a greater feeling of safety and appeal to a wider spectrum of the public. Design best practices for safe street crossings, pedestrian facilities, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility at transit stops, and bicycle/micromobility facilities on the AT Network should be incorporated throughout the entirety of the project. The Proposed Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) by the U.S. Access Board should also be referenced during design. (See table on next page for guidelines) 2. Design Guidance Examples of applicable design guidance documents include (but are not limited to): American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) – A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Streets, Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities; Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guide (PROWAG); Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD); Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG); National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) – Urban Bikeway Design Guide. Page 10 of 11 - Figure 1 Designing for All Ages & Abilities, NACTO https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NACTO_Designing-for-All- Ages-Abilities.pdf ATTACHMENT 2 – Project Area Map Page 11 of 11