HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-06-22 Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee AgendaWednesday, July 6, 2022
6:00 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
Virtual Meeting
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
Regular Meeting Agenda
1
July 6, 2022Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee
Regular Meeting Agenda
WELCOME
If this is the first time you have been to a Committee meeting, please read the following procedures.
Under Public Comment at the beginning of the meeting, persons desiring to address the Committee on any
subject not on the Agenda will be given three (3) minutes to present their item. If you wish to speak, please fill
out a card (available from the Clerk) and return it as soon as possible to the Clerk with the required
information.Your name will be announced for the record when it is your turn.
Please note that due to the COVID-19 outbreak, this meeting is teleconference only, and will be conducted
pursuant to the provisions of the Governor’s Executive Order N29-20 issued on March 17, 2020 allowing for
deviation of teleconference rules required by the Brown Act and pursuant to the Order of the Health Officer of
San Mateo County dated March 31, 2020.
The public may view or comment during this meeting from a computer, laptop, tablet, or smartphone:
Join Zoom Meeting
https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/88323532863?pwd=N0RJNzJ6UU9sckZoZFhaNHVWc1owQT09
You can also join by phone by dialing (Toll Free) 1-888-475-4499 and entering the following when prompted
Meeting ID: 883 2353 2863 / Passcode: 344743
Please note that dialing in will only allow you to listen in on the meeting. Commissioners and essential City staff
will participate via Teleconference.
Members of the public may submit their comments on any agenda item or public comment via email to the
Planning Division, at 315 Maple Avenue, or by telephone at (650) 877-8535, e-mail at All-Planning@ssf.net.
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/6/2022
2
July 6, 2022Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee
Regular Meeting Agenda
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Members
Frank McAuley, Chairperson
Reno Bowen, Vice Chairperson
Tommy Chheng, Committee Member
Natalie Gore, Committee Member
Arian Guzman, Committee Member
Amir Thagavis, Committee Member
Darryl Yip, Committee Member
Staff
Christopher Espiritu, Secretary to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
Adena Friedman, Principal Planner
VACANT, Clerk to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
Please turn off Cellular Phones, Pagers and other electronic equipment.
American with Disabilities Act
Individuals with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services to attend and participate in this
meeting should contact the ADA Coordinator at (650) 829-3800, five working days in advance of the
meeting.
Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/6/2022
3
July 6, 2022Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee
Regular Meeting Agenda
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
AGENDA REVIEW
PUBLIC COMMENT
CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of the Regular Meeting Minutes for May 4, 20221.
Attachment 1_BPAC Meeting Minutes_05042022Attachments:
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Active South City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan2.
Attachment 1_SSF-ActiveSouthCity_Final
Attachment 2_07-07-22 Planning Commission Agenda
Attachments:
OBAG 3 Grant Application Martin Elementary SRTS3.
Martin Elementary Complete Streets Checklist
Martin elementary School Preliminary Design Exhibit - Attachment B
Attachments:
ITEMS FROM BPAC MEMBERS
ADJOURNMENT
Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/6/2022
4
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:22-546 Agenda Date:7/6/2022
Version:1 Item #:1.
Approval of the Regular Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2022
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/1/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™5
Page 1 of 3
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Meeting Minutes, Wednesday, May 4, 2022
Zoom Teleconference
South San Francisco
6:00 pm
Frank McAuley
Chair
Reno Bowen
Vice-Chair
Tommy Chheng
Committee
Member
Natalie Gore
Committee
Member
Arian Guzman
Committee
Member
Amir Thagavis
Committee
Member
Darryl Yip
Committee
Member
Christopher
Espiritu
Secretary to BPAC
Cristina Cruz
Clerk
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Present:
Reno Bowen, Vice Chair
Tommy Chheng
Natalie Gore
Arian Guzman
Darryl Yip
Absent:
Frank McAuley, Chair
Amir Thagavis
STAFF PRESENT:
Planning: Christopher Espiritu, Secretary to BPAC
Adena Friedman, Principal Planner
Billy Gross, Principal Planner
Cristina Cruz, Clerk
Members of the Public: Anthony Montes, Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
PROCEEDINGS:
Call to Order: 6:04 PM by Vice Chair Reno Bowen
Chair Comments: None
Agenda Review: Secretary Espiritu noted a change in the order of items to
be presented to BPAC. Agenda Item 3 Active South City –
Public Comment Review will proceed ahead of Agenda Item
2 Caltrain Access Study.
Public Participation: None
6
Page 2 of 3
Public Comments: Comment received from Anthony Montes, SVBC Regarding
for support of the Active South City Plan and developing at
21 miles of dedicated bikeways. Areas for additional
consideration include implementation and prioritization
and feasibility of bike improvements such as: 1) more
partitions along Grand Ave, at least between chestnut and
mission, 2) improved facilities on South Airport Boulevard,
3) better connections from Centennial Trail to Colma and
other neighboring cities, 4) improvements on oyster point
boulevard (currently lower on prioritization), 5) specific
concern for a bikeway along Orange and Canal, calling for a
bike Class III but should be a buffered bike lane
1. CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of Minutes: Approved 5-0-2 (April 6, 2022); Commissioner Thagavis, Chair McAuley
were absent
2. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
2.
3. Active South City - Public Comment Review (INFORMATIONAL)
1) Caltrain Access Study (INFORMATIONAL)
Principal Planner Billy Gross provided an overview of the completed Caltrain Access Study which analyzed potential
improvements for bike and pedestrian access in combination with the proposed density of development projects in the area.
The study included dedicated pedestrian walkways and bicycle paths separated by planting along East Grand Avenue. Full
traffic signal at the US101 off ramp and Poletti Way intersection. BPAC raised similar concerns with the speed of
movement from the existing ramps and additional considerations should be made when implementing traffic calming and
infrastructure changes. Ideally, considerations should include fully elevating pedestrians out of this point of conflict, for
example. Further BPAC members noted that efforts should also be made to making driving less attractive and making transit
and walking and biking and taking the shuttle more attractive. Also, this should include potential for SamTrans service and
bus-only lanes should be included in potential solutions to facilitate better transit access in this area.
ACTION: None taken, none required
2) Active South City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (INFORMATIONAL)
Secretary Espiritu reported back that since the Public Comment period started, comments were received from BPAC
Members, residents, employers, other City Commissions, and agencies on the Active South City Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan Update. Staff and Alta Planning are working on revising and publishing a “Final” Plan and seeking adoption of
a Resolution at Planning Commission and then City Council. Dates to be announced.
ACTION: None taken, none required
3) EMAILS FROM THE PUBLIC
- Email from Denise Ugarte regarding traffic calming improvements (stop lights, cross walk, and other
improvements) on Grand Avenue at Laurel Street. Comment was received by Staff and BPAC but referred to the
appropriate City Staff (Traffic Advisory Committee) to address at their next meeting.
- Email from BPAC Member Guzman reminded staff regarding an email from earlier in the month regarding
difficulties with street cleaning and lack of signage in the Member’s neighborhood, thus leading to confusion and
failure to move vehicles, which means streets are kept unclean. This concern shall be forwarded for the City’s
Traffic Advisory Committee for evaluation.
4) COMMITTEE COMMENTS
7
Page 3 of 3
• BPAC Members asked about the appropriate contact for an existing bench and trash can at a bus stop on
Linden/Armour which is blocking ADA access on the sidewalk/bus stop. Bianca Liu noted that SamTrans is the
responsible agency for maintenance issues.
• BPAC Members also noted maintenance issues related to street cleaning schedules and lack of signage posted as
to when street cleaning days are enforced. Immediate concerns should be sent to TAC@SSF.net.
5) STAFF COMMENTS
• None
MEETING ADJOURNED: 7:04 PM
8
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:22-547 Agenda Date:7/6/2022
Version:1 Item #:2.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/1/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™9
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO'S BICYCLE
AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
FINAL
JUNE 2022
10
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY2
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Acknowledgments
Prepared for Prepared by
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CITY
COUNCIL
Mark Nagales, Mayor
Buenaflor Nicolas, Vice Mayor
Mark Addiego, Councilmember
James Coleman, Councilmember
Eddie Flores, Councilmember
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN
ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BPAC)
Frank McAuley, Chair
Reno Bowen, Vice-Chair
Tommy Cheng, Member
Natalie Gore, Member
Arian Guzman, Member
Amir Thagavis, Member
Darryl Yip, Member
FORMER BPAC MEMBERS
Dan Sherman
Kristina Anderson
Megan Woodrich
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STAFF
Christopher Espiritu, Planning Division
Tony Rozzi, Planning Division
Matt Ruble, Engineering Division
Jason Hallare, Engineering Division
CONSULTANT TEAM
Alta Planning + Design
Fehr & Peers
EnviroIssues
11
3
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Contents
01
INTRODUCTION pg. 5
What is Active South City?
Benefits of Active Transportation
Plan Vision and Goals
02
THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY pg. 9
Community Characteristics
Walking and Biking in South City
Existing Programs and Policies
Connecting People to
Places in South City
03
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT pg. 35
Outreach Formats
Outreach Timeline
What Did We Hear?
04
RECOMMENDATIONS pg. 39
Network Recommendations
Catering to Various Trip Types
Programs and Policy Recommendations
05
IMPLEMENTATION
pg. 73
Project Prioritization
Project Funding
Project Cut Sheets
Implementation Monitoring
A
DESIGN GUIDELINES pg. 96
B
PEDESTRIAN SPOT IMPROVEMENT TYPES pg. 99
C
PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT
INTERSECTION TYPOLOGIES
pg. 103
D
FUNDING STRATEGIES
pg. 114
12
4
FINAL – JUNE 2022
01
Introduction
13
INTRODUCTION5
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Active South City is an update to the
City of South San Francisco’s Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plans. This new
plan integrates walking, bicycling, and
other active transportation modes into
a single plan that prioritizes project and
program recommendations that are
designed to increase safety and comfort
for people bicycling and walking in South
San Francisco, also commonly referred
to as South City. With a planning horizon
of 20 years, Active South City guides
current and future decision-makers
toward a seamless and integrated active
transportation network inclusive of all
citizens, needs, and destinations.
Benefits of Active
Transportation
PUBLIC HEALTH
Physical inactivity is now widely understood
to play a significant role in the most
common chronic diseases in the United
States, including heart disease, stroke,
and diabetes, and each year approximately
280,000 adults in the United States
die prematurely due to obesity-related
illnesses. A 2004 study published in the
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
by Frank et al. reported that for each
additional 60 minutes spent in a car daily,
there is a 6% increase in the chances
of being obese. Creating a physical
environment that encourages bicycling and
walking, and improves access to parks and
active recreation opportunities in other
neighborhoods, is a crucial strategy to fight
obesity and inactivity and has been shown
to have substantial impacts on health with a
relatively small public investment.
COLLISION REDUCTION
Conflicts between people walking,
bicycling, and driving can result from poor
behavior as well as insufficient or ineffective
design. Encouraging development and
redevelopment in which bicycling and
walking are supported can enhance
What Is Active
South City?
WHAT ARE ACTIVE MODES?
For the purposes of this plan, active
modes refers to walking, bicycling,
persons using mobility assistance
devices such as wheelchairs, fully
human-powered devices like
skateboards or kick scooters, and
electric-assist pedal bikes. While fully
electric-powered vehicles such as
e-scooters, e-skateboards, or throttle-
powered e-bikes are not technically
“active,” they do provide human-scaled
mobility options, and their speeds are
generally compatible with bicycles;
therefore, use of the bikeway network
by these devices is also considered by
this plan.
14
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY6
FINAL – JUNE 2022
safety and comfort levels for all users.
Designated bicycling and walking facilities,
well-designed crossings, and continued
education and enforcement can reduce
the risk of crashes and injuries. This Active
South City plan supports the city’s adopted
Vision Zero goals as well as ongoing safety
goals of the Local Road Safety Program
and other ongoing road safety initiatives.
QUALITY OF LIFE
Creating conditions where walking and
bicycling are accepted and encouraged
increases a community’s livability in ways
that are difficult to measure but should
not be overlooked. The design, land use
patterns, and transportation systems that
comprise the built environment have a
profound impact on quality of life issues.
The aesthetic quality of a community
improves when visual and noise pollution
caused by automobiles is reduced, and
when green space is reserved for facilities
that allow people of all ages to recreate and
travel in pleasant settings.
EQUITY
Bicycling and walking are inexpensive and
broadly accessible forms of transportation.
The average annual operating cost of a
bicycle is $308, compared to $8,220 for
the average car.1 Bicycling and walking are
affordable means of transportation for
low-income and disadvantaged residents.
Access to active transportation provides
added freedom and independence for
youth and parents (who may otherwise be
transporting their children) as well as for
some people who cannot drive and those
who have chosen not to drive.
ECONOMY
Active transportation programs and
projects encourage more bicycling and
walking, which leads to a better quality of
life. This higher quality of life can attract
more diverse and creative people, leading
to higher economic growth for a city and
1 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Pocket Guide
to Transportation 2009, January 2009.
region. Additionally, people who commute
using active modes of transportation save
money on annual automobile operating
costs and may see additional savings in
health care costs. On a community-wide
scale, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure
projects are generally far less expensive
than automobile-related infrastructure.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Replacing driving trips with bicycling or
walking trips has a measurable impact
on reducing greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere that contribute to climate
change. Fewer vehicle trips and vehicle
miles traveled translate into fewer
pollutants released into the air, including
carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and
hydrocarbons. This not only reduces our
contribution to climate change but also
improves the health and quality of life for
residents who are vulnerable to asthma or
other chronic respiratory diseases.
15
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Vision and Goals
Vision: The City of South San Francisco envisions an environment that supports walking,
bicycling, and active living that enables people of all ages and abilities to comfortably access
jobs, schools, recreation, shopping, and transit by foot or on a bicycle as part of daily life.
GOALS:
• Promote citywide and regional sustainability goals through investments in active
transportation that create a culture of walking and bicycling that enables them to
become an increasing part of everyday life
• Improve access and connectivity to major transit stops including Bay Area Rapid Transit
(BART) stations, Caltrain stations, and the ferry terminal
• Improve connectivity within and across neighborhoods with low-stress facilities
• Improve safety, eliminate traffic deaths and serious injury collisions, and lower the traffic
stress of people walking and biking in South City
• Advance equity with a focus on vulnerable and disadvantaged communities in project
recommendations, funding and implementation.
• Link community destinations (parks, schools, libraries, and community centers) together
through low-stress networks
• Improve connections across I-280, El Camino Real (SR-82), and US-101
16
8
FINAL – JUNE 2022
02
The South San Francisco
Community
17
FINAL – JUNE 2022
THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY9With a population of over 66,000
people, South City is the fourth largest
city in San Mateo County. South City’s
population is primarily concentrated west
of US-101. The downtown core has the
highest population density, followed by the
Westborough area. South City has a much
higher share of young adults (22—39) and
older adults (40—64) than the California
average (Stat Atlas); this could lead to
continued potential population growth
in the future as the young adults start
families. Additionally, the aging population
will present different transportation needs
in the medium-term future as they age.
The city currently has a smaller share of
children than the state average.
South San Francisco is a culturally rich
community with an ethnically diverse
population of residents. According to the
U.S. Census Bureau (2018 American
Community Survey data), the largest ethnic
group in South City is residents of Asian
descent (40%), followed by Hispanic or
Latino (34%), and white alone-non Hispanic
or Latino (18%). Other groups such as
Black or African American, Pacific Islander,
American Indian, and those of two or more
races make up less than 10% of the city’s
population. It is also reported that nearly
60% of residents over the age of five speak a
language other than English at home.
Grand Avenue has historically been South
City’s commercial spine and an important
connection east to the industrial areas.
South City’s development has been
constrained by natural barriers, bordered
by Sign Hill to the north, marshlands to
the south (in the area east of US-101),
and mountains to the west. The oldest
parts of the city were built on an east-
west orientation and used a directional
grid pattern with typical blocks of 950
by 300 feet. Beyond the original gridded
area, the development patterns took
on more suburban characteristics with
reduced connectivity. The area east of
US-101 transitioned from heavy industrial
uses to more research and development
uses beginning in the 1990s; there are still
railroad tracks and other remains from the
area’s industrial past.
Community
Characteristics
18
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY10
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Commuting Characteristics
The 2014 Climate Action Plan reported that
39,000 people commute into, 25,000 out
of, and 4,000 within South San Francisco
(2010 Census data). The private automobile
is the method the majority of South San
Francisco workers use to get to their jobs,
but over 13% of those workers carpool.
Additionally, over 14% of commuters
take public transportation to reach their
employment. Active modes currently
account for less than 5% of commute trips,
but these numbers do not include those who
walked or biked to transit or to their carpool
(Census Reporter). South City is well served
by transit, with SamTrans providing bus
service and BART and Caltrain providing
regional rail connections. About one-third
of South City workers commute to San
Francisco, and about 12% work within South
City. Other employment destinations that
account for at least 3% of the workforce
include Burlingame, San Mateo, Oakland,
and Daly City. This shows the importance of
improving connections both to neighboring
cities and to transit stations and stops across
the city. The figure on the following page
shows the commute mode split of South San
Francisco residents.
Population Density
Population density plays an important
role in whether or not people choose to
bike or walk in South San Francisco. The
neighborhoods in the city with the highest
density include downtown, Sign Hill, Sierra
Highlands, Baden/Avalon, and parts of the
Westborough area. Map 1 shows population
density across South San Francisco.
Equity
Data from the California Communities
Environmental Health Screen Tool 3.0
(CalEnviroScreen) and the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission’s (MTC’s)
Equity Priority Communities is used to
identify areas in South San Francisco
that are considered disadvantaged and
disproportionately burdened by multiple
sources of pollution. CalEnviroScreen
uses a set of 20 indicators grouped into
four categories—pollution exposure,
environmental effects, sensitive
populations, and socioeconomic factors—
to rate the environmental vulnerability
of communities in California. Similarly,
MTC uses eight tract-level socioeconomic
variables to identify Equity Priority
Communities in the Bay Area.
CalEnviroScreen and Equity Priority
Communities data for South San Francisco
identify vulnerable areas as downtown,
Lindenville, Orange Park, and the East
Side/Oyster Point region. Of these
identified areas, downtown, Orange
Park, and parts of Lindenville consist
of residential land uses and suggest a
need to invest in adequate bicycle and
pedestrian facilities within these areas
to serve this population of residents.
The CalEnviroScreen results can be
seen in Map 2, and the Equity Priority
Communities results can be seen in Map 3.
19
THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY11
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Commute Mode Split 2018
20
FINAL – JUNE 2022
MAp 1
21
FINAL – JUNE 2022
MAp 2
22
FINAL – JUNE 2022
MAp 3
23
THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY15
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Walking and Biking in
South City
EXISTING BICYCLE NETWORK
The California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) defines four classes of bicycle
facilities, detailed in this section.
Existing bikeways cover 31% of the city’s
roadways (154 total roadway miles). Map 4
presents the locations of existing bikeways
within South City.
Shared-Use Paths (Class I) – Paved
trails wholly separated from the street or
highway. They allow two-way travel for
people bicycling and walking, and are often
considered the most comfortable facilities
for children and inexperienced bicyclists
because there are few potential conflicts
between people bicycling and people
driving.
• Examples: Centennial Way Trail, Bay Trail
• Existing Facilities in South City: 10 miles
Bike Lane (Class II) – Striped preferential
lanes on the roadway, along with pavement
stencils and signs, for one-way bicycle
travel. Some bicycle lanes (defined as Class
IIB) include a striped buffer on one or both
sides to increase separation from the traffic
lane or from parked cars, where people may
open car doors into the bicycle lane.
• Examples: Sister Cities Boulevard,
Grand Avenue
• Existing Facilities in South City: 14 miles
Bike Route (Class III) – Signed routes
where people bicycling share a travel lane
with people driving. As shared facilities,
bicycle routes are typically appropriate
on quiet, low-speed streets with relatively
low traffic volumes. Class III bicycle routes
include shared lane markings or “sharrows”
that encourage proper bicyclist positioning
in the center of a travel lane and alert
drivers that bicyclists may be present.
• Examples: Chestnut Avenue, Spruce
Avenue
• Existing Facilities in South City: 22 miles
Separated Bikeways (Class IV) –
On-street bicycle facilities that are
physically separated from motor vehicle
traffic by a vertical element or barrier such
as a curb, bollard, or parking aisle. They can
allow for one- or two-way bicycle travel on
one or both sides of the roadway.
• Examples: N Access Road
• Existing Facilities in South City:
0.25 miles
24
FINAL – JUNE 2022
MAp 4
25
THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY17
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Existing Walking Network
The transportation system for pedestrians
in South City is made up of sidewalks,
roadway crossings, separated paths, and
a wide variety of amenities that improve
the comfort and convenience of walking.
Pedestrian infrastructure elements include
the following:
Sidewalks – Sidewalks form the backbone
of the pedestrian transportation network,
forming the primary paths for people
walking from home to work, transit, school,
shopping, and other needs. The 2013
Pedestrian Master Plan identified sidewalk
gaps throughout the city, primarily east of
US-101. Other areas with sidewalk gaps
included El Camino Real, Westborough
Boulevard, Hickey Boulevard, Junipero
Serra Boulevard, Gellert Boulevard,
Chestnut Avenue, Hillside Boulevard, King
Drive, and Carter Drive. Missing sidewalks
can be seen in Map 5.
Curb Ramps – Curb ramps provide access
to sidewalks and paths for people who use
wheelchairs, and are helpful to people
pushing strollers or who may have difficulty
stepping onto a raised curb. The Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires the
installation of curb ramps with all new
sidewalk installations and retrofits. Curb
ramps may be placed at each end of the
crosswalk (perpendicular curb ramps), or
between crosswalks (diagonal curb ramps).
Detectable warnings (truncated domes)
must be used to assist sight-impaired
pedestrians in locating the curb ramp.
Crosswalks – Crosswalks are a legal
extension of the sidewalk and provide
guidance for pedestrians who are crossing
roadways by defining and delineating their
path of travel. Crosswalks are not required
to be marked. However, marked crosswalks
alert drivers of a pedestrian crossing point
and increase yielding.
Signals and Beacons – Traffic signals at
intersections are a critical element for
pedestrians, providing a clear indication
of the crossing. Pedestrian signal heads
provide an indication of appropriate
times to cross a signalized intersection.
Enhancements such as countdown timers,
leading pedestrian intervals, and audible
signals can help people cross more safely.
Recent pedestrian-focused signal
innovations include rectangular rapid
flashing beacons (RRFB), and other
26
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY18
FINAL – JUNE 2022
pedestrian-activated warning devices that
flash an alternating pattern, highlighting the
presence of pedestrians. These are typically
installed midblock or at uncontrolled minor
intersections.
Pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHB), also
known as high-intensity activated crosswalk
(HAWK) signals, provide an enhanced
pedestrian-activated signal that fully
stops traffic. These are typically used
for crossings of arterials and other major
roads. These signals provide a solid red stop
phase and a flashing phase, indicating that
drivers should stop before continuing again.
There are currently no PHBs in South San
Francisco, though Caltrans has installed
PHBs in a number of locations along El
Camino Real.
Pedestrian Support Facilities – Pedestrian
support facilities improve the comfort of
the walking environment. Examples include
pedestrian-scale lighting on sidewalks
and paths, bus stop amenities (e.g., shade
structures and benches), enclosure and
landscaping (e.g., trees and planters), and
trash receptacles. People are less likely to
walk to destinations or use public transit
without amenities that could provide
needed comfort to the walking experience.
The quality of pedestrian facilities across
the city varies greatly. Most of the city
has sidewalks or side paths adjacent to
streets, though there are some exceptions.
As noted previously, the 2013 Pedestrian
Master Plan compiled a list of missing
sidewalks (shown in Map 5). Some of these
have been addressed since the previous
plan.
Some areas, such as downtown, have
better quality pedestrian facilities, while
others like the East Side and Lindenville
have many instances of missing and broken
sidewalks. Much of the city also has rolled
curbs and faces challenges with vehicles
parking on the sidewalk as a result of the
rolled curbs.
27
FINAL – JUNE 2022
MAp 5
28
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY20
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Existing Programs and
Policies
The City currently offers a number of
programs to South City residents and
visitors, mainly through the Public Works
and Parks and Recreation departments.
VISION ZERO POLICY
On February 24, 2021, the City Council
of South San Francisco adopted Vision
Zero as a policy direction for South San
Francisco, to include the development
of a Vision Zero Action Plan aimed at
eliminating traffic deaths and severe injuries
on city streets through proven practices.
These practices include the four Es:
• Evaluating traffic crash data to identify
the most serious safety issues
• Engineering and delivering safety
improvement projects
• Enforcing traffic laws to reduce
unsafe behaviors like speeding, red-
light running, and driving under the
influence
• Educating the community on safe
practices for all modes of travel
(walking, bicycling, and driving)
As part of the development of a Vision
Zero Action Plan, an additional E for equity
would be involved to further address the
needs of diverse groups of people in South
San Francisco.
To a large extent, the City is already
implementing many of the best practices
identified in Vision Zero programs. For
example, recent capital improvement
projects included specific elements to
address safety for bicycles (installation of
protected bicycle lanes) and pedestrians
(bulb-outs or curb extensions to reduce
crossing distance at certain streets).
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN
The City of South San Francisco is
currently preparing a Local Road Safety
Plan with the following vision, goal, and
objectives:
• Vision: Support the California vision of
moving toward significantly reducing
fatalities and serious injuries for all road
users.
• Goal: Identify transportation safety
initiatives (projects and programs) and
partnerships under the 5 Es of traffic
safety to continue reducing fatalities
and serious injuries in South San
Francisco.
• Objectives:
»Identify major contributing factors
to crashes and define priority
locations for roadway safety
improvements including pedestrian,
bicycle, and vehicular modes of
travel.
»Identify cost-effective
countermeasures and safety
investments that can be applied
systemically (e.g., flashing yellow
arrows, retroreflective backplates,
and leading pedestrian intervals).
29
THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY21
FINAL – JUNE 2022
»Promote safe, equitable, and
multimodal mobility opportunities.
»Define safety projects that are data
driven for future Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) and
other program funding consideration
while providing potential grant
funding sources and opportunities.
»Document South San Francisco’s
procedures for ongoing crash data
monitoring.
During the Local Road Safety Plan process,
crash data will be used to identify citywide
safety trends, high-crash locations, and
locations with unusual crash patterns
or high crash severities, and to develop
recommendations to meet the goal of
reducing fatalities and severe injuries.
BART WALK AND BICYCLE
NETWORK GAP STUDY
The 2020 Walk and Bicycle Network
Gap Study conducted assessments of all
BART station areas and developed walking
and bicycling recommendations focused
on a quarter-mile radius from the station.
This Active South City plan supports
recommendations identified in the BART
study for both the South San Francisco and
San Bruno Stations.
HIKING AND WALKING PROGRAMS
The Parks and Recreation department hosts
hiking and walking programs at Sign Hill and
around the city to encourage community
members to learn about natural resources in
South City and incorporate movement and
physical activity into their daily lives.
STREETS ALIVE! PARKS ALIVE!
Streets Alive! Parks Alive! is an annual
event celebrating parks and public spaces.
Past events have occurred in Orange
Park and encouraged the use of parks and
public streets. The event offers a number
of activities, such as a youth bicycle course
and bicycle helmet giveaways.
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL
PROGRAM
Historically, the City has received grants
to support Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
programs in South City schools. While the
City does not currently have dedicated
funding, staff still support school safety
audits and walking school bus programs
with South San Francisco Unified School
District.
SHARED MOBILITY SERVICES
The city previously had a pilot bike share
program with Lime e-assist bikes in addition
to ongoing carpooling and shuttle services.
Lime is no longer offering bike share
services.
30
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY22
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Challenges and
Opportunities to Walking
and Biking in South City
This section reviews the challenges and
opportunities of the city’s bicycle and
pedestrian network by considering and
analyzing the city’s demographics, existing
bicycling and walking networks, and several
measures of the need for walking and
bicycling improvements.
Citywide Connectivity – One of the main
challenges is the lack of seamless and
direct bicycle connections across the street
network. Significant barriers like freeways
and surface highways, railroad tracks, and
the topography create gaps in the street
network that make travel difficult for
bicyclists and pedestrians alike. Bicycle
needs are compounded by the relative lack
of high-quality bicycle facilities. Increasing
the number of on- and off-street high-
quality bicycle routes, especially within
major transportation corridors, will help
bicyclists navigate through the city street
network with more ease and efficiency.
New and improved crossings of freeways,
major arterials, the Caltrain tracks, and
other major transportation facilities will
help knit the city together by providing
safer and more comfortable routes for
people walking and bicycling. Map 6 shows
access across major highway and rail
barriers in South City.
Neighborhood Accessibility – Many
neighborhoods lack low-stress bicycle
and pedestrian access routes to major
destinations such as transit, parks, schools,
and nearby neighborhoods. To gauge how
accessible pedestrian and bicycle networks
are to the general public, the Level of
Traffic Stress (LTS) analysis measures
the stress level of the city’s bikeways and
walkways. LTS is a vital indicator of the
nature of the user experience and perceived
comfort while traveling. Traffic stress is the
perceived sense of danger associated with
riding in or adjacent to vehicle traffic and
walking along and crossing streets. Studies
have shown that traffic stress is one of the
most significant deterrents to bicycling
and walking. The less stressful—and
therefore, more comfortable—a facility is,
the wider its appeal to a broader segment
of the population.1 Pedestrian and bicycle
networks will attract more significant
portions of the population if they are
designed to reduce the stress associated
with potential motor vehicle conflicts and if
they connect people walking and bicycling
where they want to go.
1 Roger Geller, City of Portland Bureau of
Transportation. Four Types of Cyclists. http://
www.portlandonline.com/transportation/ index.
cfm?&a=237507. 2009; 2 Dill, J., McNeil, N. Four
Types of Cyclists? Testing a Typology to Better
Understand Bicycling Behavior and Potential. 2012.
31
FINAL – JUNE 2022
MAp 6
32
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY24
FINAL – JUNE 2022
TYPES OF BICYCLISTS
Research indicates that the majority of
people in the United States (56–73%)
would be willing to consider using a bicycle
if dedicated bicycle facilities were provided.
However, only a small percentage of
Americans (1 –3%) are willing to ride if
no facilities are provided.2 This research
into how people perceive bicycling as a
transportation choice has indicated that
most people fall into one of four categories,
illustrated on the next page.
LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
OVERVIEW
To better meet the needs of the
“interested, but concerned” bicyclist,
2 Roger Geller, City of Portland Bureau of
Transportation. Four Types of Cyclists. http://
www.portlandonline.com/transportation/ index.
cfm?&a=237507. 2009; 2 Dill, J., McNeil, N. Four
Types of Cyclists? Testing a Typology to Better
Understand Bicycling Behavior and Potential. 2012.
planners developed the Bicycle Level
of Traffic Stress (Bicycle LTS) analysis
as an objective, data-driven evaluation
model to help identify streets with high
levels of traffic stress.3 The analysis uses
roadway network data (i.e., posted speed
limit, street width, number of travel lanes,
intersection conditions, presence and
character of bikeway facilities, and land use
context) to determine bicyclist comfort
levels.
The combination of these criteria creates
four levels of traffic stress for the existing
roadway network. Lower numbers indicate
less stress and higher levels of comfort for
people on bicycles. LTS 1 and 2 roads are
typically the roadways that appeal to the
“interested, but concerned” bicyclists.
3 The LTS analysis used for Santa Clara is from the
2018 VTA Countywide Bicycle Plan.
LTS 1: All Ages and Abilities
LTS 1 includes off-street shared-use paths
and some very low-stress roadways suitable
for all ages and abilities. On larger roads,
only Class IV separated bikeways that
physically separate bicyclists from traffic
are considered Bicycle LTS 1 facilities.
Quiet residential streets can also be
considered LTS 1 facilities.
LTS 2: Average Adult
LTS 2 includes roadways that are
comfortable enough for the mainstream
adult population to bike on. LTS 2 facilities
are typically roadways with lower traffic
volumes and slower vehicle speeds. Busier
residential streets and some collector
streets can be classified as LTS 2. Larger
streets that have bicycle facilities can also
be considered LTS 2.
33
THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY25
FINAL – JUNE 2022
LTS 3: Confident Adult
LTS 3 includes roadways that are likely to be comfortable for an experienced, confident bicyclist. LTS 3 streets have moderate traffic volumes
and higher speeds. Corridors with bicycle facilities that provide insufficient separation from traffic are commonly considered LTS 3.
LTS 4: Fearless Adult
LTS 4 includes roadways that are typically ridden by strong or fearless bicyclists. LTS 4 corridors have high volumes of traffic and fast vehicle
speeds. Even some corridors with moderate traffic volumes and speeds may be considered LTS 4 if there are no bicycle facilities present.
While this typology is typically applied to bicyclists, similar typologies can apply to pedestrians as they walk and travel along different types
and sizes of roadways. For pedestrians, roadways with multiple lanes, intersections with free-right turn lanes, highway interchanges, and
similar areas are some of the highest-stress pedestrian facility types.
The results of the LTS analysis are shown in Map 7.
34
FINAL – JUNE 2022
MAp 7
35
THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY27
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Roadways with high LTS ratings isolate
neighborhoods from each other in
South San Francisco. In addition, many
destinations are located on the fringes of
each neighborhood, along collector and
arterial roads with high LTS ratings. This
makes bicycle and pedestrian travel to
destinations undesirable for neighborhood
residents who may feel intimidated,
unsafe, and unwelcome beyond the
realm of low-stress residential streets.
In addition to integrating the needs of
bicyclists and pedestrians into major and
high-stress roads, an essential need is to
provide neighborhood traffic calming—
bicycle boulevards, street greening and
beautification tools, and wayfinding—to
improve access to destinations.
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN
COLLISION ANALYSIS
Enhancing roadway intersections
in pedestrian-focused areas such as
downtown, and at freeway crossings and
major roads, can help improve conditions
for bicyclists and pedestrians in South City.
Pedestrian- and bicycle-involved collisions
were analyzed between 2013 and 2017 (the
most recent set of complete data available
when this plan process started). In this
five-year analysis period, there were 200
collisions that involved either a pedestrian
(126) or a bicyclist (75). Roughly two-thirds
of these collisions involved pedestrians.
There were five fatalities during this period,
all pedestrians. Drivers failing to yield to
pedestrians were identified as the cause of
about 60% of pedestrian-related collisions.
Bicycle- and pedestrian-involved collisions
occurred throughout the city, but were
concentrated along several higher-stress
corridors:
• El Camino Real
• Grand Avenue
• Linden Avenue
• Spruce Avenue
• Airport/Bayshore Boulevards
LTS 1 off-street shared-use paths are suitable for all ages and abilities.
36
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY28
FINAL – JUNE 2022
The locations of pedestrian- and bicycle-
involved collisions and fatalities are shown
in Map 8. As part of the City’s Vision Zero
efforts, a High Injury Network (HIN) was
developed identifying roadway corridors in
the city that had the highest percentage of
serious and fatal crashes. The HIN map is
included in this plan in Map 9.
Many of the city’s bicycle and pedestrian
collisions occurred in high traffic volume
locations, such as those previously
mentioned. Providing additional safety
measures for bicyclists and pedestrians
at major conflict areas will help integrate
their needs in a network that is primarily
designed for vehicle traffic. Such safety
measures can include high-visibility
crosswalks, curb extensions and reduced
corner radii, traffic calming techniques,
pedestrian-level street lighting, reduced
street widths, leading pedestrian and
bicycle signal intervals, and more. Making
these types of safety improvements can
also bring driver awareness to the needs
of bicyclists and pedestrians and can help
change the perspective on what is needed
to better accommodate the needs of all
roadway users.
Growing Demand – New residential
development and continued growth of
biotechnology and other industries creates
a need to provide more numerous and
varied sustainable transportation options
to help residents and employees access
transit, work, and other destinations.
Most areas of South City are expected to
experience an increase in trips across all
modes for all trip purposes by 2040. The
area east of US-101 and the area south
of Railroad Avenue between El Camino
Real and US-101 are expected to have the
greatest increase in trips
High-visibility crosswalks are a safety measure that
can protect pedestrians crossing the street.
37
FINAL – JUNE 2022
MAp 8
38
FINAL – JUNE 2022
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!!!!!!!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!!
!!!Mission Rd
Orange AveRailroad Ave
Miller Ave
San Francisco Bay
FerryTerminal
San Bruno CreekColma Creek AirportB lvdChestnut AveE Grand Ave
Grand Ave
Oyster Point Blvd
SAir
port
Blvd
H ills i d e B lv d
ForbesBlvd
GatewayB lv d
DNAWaySisterCitiesBlvd
ElC
a
mino
Real
J
u
nip
e
r
o S
err
a Blv
dW es tb oroughBlvdCallan Blvd
Hickey Blvd
SpruceA v e
S Linden AveUtah AveSSpruceAveGellertBlvd
&'380
&'280
£¤35
£¤82
£¤101
0 ½¼Miles
Transportation Priority Layers
Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) collision data dated from 1/1/2015 to 12/31/2019
Complete Streets Opportunities
High Injury Network
1/8 mile school & community zone
1/5 mile transit zone !!!!City Limits
1/8 Mile School & Community Zone
City Limits
High Injury Network
Complete Streets Opportunities
HIGH INJURY NETWORK
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY
Source: Draft General Plan, November 2021. Collisions from Transportation Injury Mapping System 2015-2019
IMILES0.50.250
1/5 Mile Transit Zone
MAp 9
39
THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY31
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Connecting People to Places
in South City
South San Francisco is home to many
community destinations, including schools,
parks, transit stations, retail areas, and
trails. These destinations are spread
throughout the city but typically are
along larger collector or arterial streets.
Additionally, the area east of US-101 is
a significant employment hub attracting
workers from across the Bay Area and
beyond.
SUPPORTING NEIGHBORHOODS
The transportation landscape is unique
within each neighborhood as each has a
different layout, destinations, and barriers.
Barriers are important to understand at the
neighborhood level because they create
a unique transportation environment for
each area. These barriers can limit crossing
opportunities and discourage people from
making active trips, both internally and
across neighborhoods. Most of the existing
highway and rail crossings are not well
designed for pedestrians and bicyclists with
very limited or no dedicated facilities.
For example, an elderly resident may
hesitate to walk to downtown from Sign
Hill, not because the distance is too far,
but because they cannot walk back up
the hill easily. This same resident may be
comfortable using an e-bike, however.
Someone living in Westborough may
want to bike to the Caltrain station but
is not currently comfortable crossing
three highways (I-280, SR-82, and
US-101) to get there. Improvements
to key components of South City’s
infrastructure have the potential to unlock
inter-neighborhood trips for residents who
would otherwise be uncomfortable taking
such trips, creating access to community
destinations in other parts of the city that
were otherwise inaccessible or accessible
only by a vehicle trip.
Walking and bicycling improvements can
also transform trips within neighborhoods.
Important destinations, including parks,
schools, and libraries are community hubs
used by residents of all ages and cultures.
Ensuring that these destinations are highly
accessible for everyone will help create
a more vibrant, active, and healthier
community. Fostering comfortable
connections to local destinations can also
help transform short vehicle trips into
active trips.
Improved local and crosstown connections
create a network of enhanced pedestrian
and bicycle facilities that will improve
safety, generate additional active trips,
produce more active residents, and link
community destinations together across
barriers and neighborhoods.
40
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY32
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Considering Various Trip
Types
As major destinations and residential
neighborhoods are spread across South San
Francisco, residents, workers, and visitors
commonly travel across neighborhoods.
There are many common types of trips that
are made throughout the city:
• Trips to parks, trails, and community
centers
• Trips to transit (BART, Caltrain, and
Oyster Point Terminal)
• Trips to schools and libraries
• Trips to commercial centers
• Trips across freeways
People may have to travel across and along
higher-stress streets or use routes with
significant out-of-direction travel to avoid
higher-stress areas while traveling through
South San Francisco. Existing low-stress
bikeways can be seen in Map 10. The only
current low-stress bicycle facilities in South
City are existing trails.
While trails do connect to some of these
major destinations, low-stress access is
only available for residents who live close
to the trail. For other destinations, like the
library, schools, and downtown commercial
centers, there are no low-stress facilities
nearby. Chapter 4 further examines these
trip types.
41
FINAL – JUNE 2022
MAp 10
42
34
FINAL – JUNE 2022
03
Community Engagement
43
FINAL – JUNE 2022
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT35Engaging the South City community
has been a priority for the Active South
City’s current planning efforts. Since this
project kicked off in July 2018, a variety
of outreach opportunities have been
used to seek input from diverse South
San Francisco residents and community
members.
The project team used a variety of outreach
formats to inform community members
about the development of this bicycle and
pedestrian plan.
Pop-Up Events
Throughout the process, six mobile
workshops were held to share information
and receive comments and feedback.
Mobile workshops allowed the project team
to go out into the community to bring
plan updates and receive feedback from
community members at popular locations
and community events around the city.
These mobile workshops aimed to reach
as many residents as possible by trying to
Community
Engagement
intercept them in their daily lives at places
such as festivals, transit stations, libraries,
and parks and festivals.
Online Engagement
South City residents could provide
feedback online at two points in the
process. Early in the process, South
City community members were asked
to identify barriers to walking and
biking on an online interactive map,
which collected over 250 comments.
After draft recommendations were
developed, community members could
provide feedback on the proposed
recommendations through a similar online
web tool that allowed people to comment
on, “like,” or “dislike” recommendations
and see the comments of fellow residents.
Committees and
Commissions
The project team brought project updates
to and solicited input from a number
of City committees and commissions,
informing important decision-makers
of progress and coordinating with other
ongoing projects. These groups included
the following:
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Commission
• General Plan Advisory Committee
• Planning Commission
• City Manager’s Office
• San Mateo County representatives
(Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
Coordination)
44
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Outreach Timeline
FALL 2018 SPRING 2019
EXISTING CONDITIONS
REVIEW
“Las Fiestas Patrias” (Sep 16, 2018)
Concert in the Park (Sep 22, 2018)
BPAC Meeting (Sep 2018)
South City BART Station (Nov 7, 2018)
Trivia Night at Armstrong Brewery (Nov 14, 2018)
City Council (February 13, 2019)
Library Week “Meet the BPAC” (April 10, 2019)
WINTER 2019 SUMMER 2021
RECOMMENDATION REVISIONS
AND PRIORITIZATION Santa Comes to Town (Dec 7, 2019) General Plan Community Advisory Committee (Dec 10, 2019) Planning Commission Meeting (Dec 19, 2019) BPAC Meeting (Jan 2020) San Mateo County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Meeting (Jan 31, 2020) BPAC Meeting (Feb 2020)
SUMMER 2019 FALL 2019
NEEDS ANALYSIS AND PLAN
RECOMMENDATIONS South City Health Fair (Nov 10, 2019)
BPAC Meeting (Nov 2019)
BPAC Meeting (June 2019)
JULY 2018
PROJECT KICKOFF
FALL 2021 SUMMER 2022
DRAFT AND FINAL PLAN BPAC Meeting (Feb 2022) BPAC Meeting (May 2022)
45
FINAL – JUNE 2022
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT37What Did We Hear?
Overall, this is what South City community
members want:
Better connections to the East-of-101
neighborhood. Currently, there are walking
and biking barriers to getting to the East-
of-101 area, with only three access points.
Community members want to be able to
access jobs and recreational opportunities
along the Bay Trail.
Improve trail access and connectivity.
Overall, community members were
interested in getting more transportation
opportunities away from busy streets.
Residents were interested in expanding the
Centennial Way Trail and improving access
to the Bay Trail.
Improved biking conditions, especially
on arterials. South San Francisco has a
number of large arterials that are barriers
to biking but offer the most direct route to
people’s destinations. Based on community
input, Sister Cities Boulevard, Grand
Avenue, and Airport Boulevard are some of
the most requested corridors for improved
bicycling conditions.
More biking and walking encouragement
activities. Community members were
interested in seeing more citywide
programming encouraging residents and
visitors to walk and bike for their local trips.
Some mentioned that programs should
focus on encouragement, rather than solely
on enforcement, as those enforcement
tactics are likely to most negatively impact
youth and other vulnerable communities.
Slow vehicle speeds around schools. Many
residents and families with school-age
children were concerned with high vehicle
speeds around schools. South City has
two high schools located near El Camino
Real, a major regional thoroughfare.
Community members were interested in
recommendations that provided traffic
calming effects and improved pedestrian
crossings near all South City schools.
Enhanced pedestrian comfort and
amenities. People in South City would
like to walk more than they do now.
Many asked for amenities that would
enhance pedestrian comfort, such as
placing benches and bus shelters near
community centers and libraries. Frequent
benches help seniors and others with
mobility limitations by providing more
frequent resting places during their walks.
Community members were also interested
in adding more green space into the
pedestrian experience, citing examples
like the existing parklets and other small
neighborhood parks.
46
38
FINAL – JUNE 2022
04
Recommendations
47
FINAL – JUNE 2022
RECOMMENDATIONS39Built on the needs analysis and public
outreach process, Chapter 4 presents
the recommended bicycle and pedestrian
networks for Active South City.
Recommendations
Bicycle Network
Recommendations
This plan aims to create a comfortable
and connected bicycle network that gets
people where they want to go. In order to
do this, the City will implement a number
of different bikeway types suitable to
different roadway characteristics found
throughout the city. This section outlines
the different types of bikeways and
supporting amenities that South City
could install. Dedicated bikeways also serve
low speed micromobility devices such as
scooters, and help ensure those devices are
not improperly ridden on sidewalks.
Bikeways Toolbox
Certain types of bikeways are better suited
to different roadways, based on many
considerations including how fast vehicles
travel and how many vehicles use the road,
roadway width, parking, and other types of
transportation modes using the space. The
following bikeways and bike amenities are
part of South City’s bikeway toolbox.
48
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY40
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Class I Shared-Use Path
(trails)
• Paths wholly separated from vehicle
traffic and used by people walking and
biking
• Comfortable for people of all ages and
abilities
• Typically located immediately adjacent
and parallel to a roadway or in its own
independent right-of-way, such as
within a park or along a body of water
Class II Bike Lane
• A dedicated lane for bicycle travel
adjacent to traffic
• Painted white lines and symbols
demarcate the bicycle lane
Class IIB Buffered Bike
Lane
• A dedicated lane for bicycle travel
separated from vehicle traffic by a
painted buffer
• The buffer (typically two to three feet
wide) provides more comfort for users
by providing additional separation from
moving vehicles and parked cars
49
RECOMMENDATIONS41
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Class III Bike Route
• A signed bike route that people biking
share with vehicles
• Can include pavement markings
(sharrows)
• Comfortable only for people who are
more confident biking
Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard
• Calm, local streets where bicyclists
have priority but share roadway space
with motor vehicles
• Shared roadway bicycle markings on
the pavement, signs, and traffic calming
features like speed humps and traffic
diverters that slow down or reroute
cars, keeping these streets more
comfortable for bicyclists with less cut-
through traffic
• Comfortable for people with a broader
range of comfort levels
Class IV Separated Bikeway
• An on-street bikeway physically
separated from motor vehicle traffic
by a curb, median, planters, parking,
elevation or other barriers
• Comfortable for people with a wider
range of comfort levels
50
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY42
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Proposed Bicycle Network
At full buildout, the proposed bicycle
network would nearly double the existing
mileage of bikeways, and add just over 20
miles of Class IV Separated Bikeways. Table
1 displays the existing and recommended
bikeway mileage. In addition, the table
shows the number of existing bikeways
that will be upgraded to more comfortable
and separated bikeways. Bicycle boulevard
projects were grouped together based on
proximity and network connectivity.
A full list of the proposed bikeway
segments can be found in Table 2 and Table
3. Map 11 shows the recommended bikeway
projects.
Existing Mileage
Recommended
Mileage
Upgraded
Mileage
Full Buildout
Mileage
Class I Shared-Use Path 10.4 6.4 -16.8
Class II Bike Lane 14 4.8 10.7 8.1
Class IIB Buffered Bike Lane 3.1 4.6 0.7 7
Class III Bike Route 23.5 0.9 17.2 7.2
Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard 0 11.9 -11.9
Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.2 21.6 -21.8
TOTAL 51.2 50.2 28.6 72.8
TAbLE 1 Recommended and Upgraded Bikeways
51
FINAL – JUNE 2022
MAp 11
52
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY44
FINAL – JUNE 2022
TAbLE 2 Recommended and Upgraded Bikeways
Street Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Bikeway Class Mileage
Airport Blvd Miller Ave Armour Ave IV 0.34
Airport Blvd Armour Ave Chapman Ave IV 0.23
Airport Blvd 2nd Ln S Airport Blvd IV 0.26
Airport Blvd 2nd Ln Miller Ave IV 0.17
Airport Blvd Chapman Ave Sister Cities Blvd IV 0.24
Airport Blvd Grand Ave Belle Aire Rd IV 1.03
Arroyo Dr Camaritas Ave El Camino Real IV 0.14
Bay Trail/Shaw/Tanforan Airport Blvd Huntington Ave I 0.91
Bayshore Blvd Sister Cities Blvd City limit IV 0.63
Bike/Ped Bridge Airport Blvd Poletti Way I 0.20
Centennial Way Trail Existing trail City limit I 0.21
Centennial Way Trail
Connections
Grand Ave El Camino Real I 0.15
Chestnut Ave El Camino Real Sunset Ave IV 0.66
Chestnut Ave Sunset Ave Hillside Blvd IV 0.28
Colma Creek Bay Trail Existing Bay Trail Utah Ave I 0.29
Colma Creek Service Road Harbor Way Colma Creek Trail III 0.09
Country Club Dr Alida Way El Camino Real IIB 0.13
DNA Way Existing facility Existing facility IIB 0.06
E Grand Ave Forbes Blvd End IV 1.18
E Grand Ave Trail Grand Ave Forbes Blvd IV 0.29
E Grand Ave Grand Ave Poletti Way I 0.20
Eccles Ave Forbes Blvd Oyster Point Blvd IIB 0.59
El Camino Real McLellan Dr Chestnut Ave IV 0.88
El Camino Real Westborough Blvd City limit IV 1.16
El Camino Real Lawndale Blvd City limit IV 0.70
Forbes Blvd E Grand Ave Allerton Ave IIB 0.68
Forbes Blvd DNA Way Allerton Ave IV 0.67
Gateway Trail E Grand Ave Oyster Point Blvd II 0.67
Gellert Blvd Westborough Blvd Shannon Dr IV 0.54
53
RECOMMENDATIONS45
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Street Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Bikeway Class Mileage
Gellert Blvd King Dr Westborough Blvd IV 0.56
Gellert-Chateau I 0.06
Grand Ave Chestnut Ave Mission Rd IV 0.41
Grand Ave Chestnut Ave Spruce Ave IV 0.81
Grand Ave Spruce Ave Airport Blvd II 0.47
Grand Ave Bayshore Blvd/Airport Blvd E Grand Ave II 0.04
Gull Dr Forbes Blvd Oyster Point Blvd IV 0.25
Harbor Way E Grand Ave Railroad tracks/proposed trail III 0.20
Harbor Way Railroad tracks/proposed trail Littlefield Ave III 0.53
Haskins Way E Grand Ave North Access Road I 1.08
Hickey Blvd City Limit El Camino Real IV 0.57
Hillside Blvd Linden Ave Spruce Ave II 0.12
Hillside Blvd Lawndale Blvd Spruce Ave E IIB 1.79
Huntington Ave Spruce Ave Noor Ave II 0.27
Junipero Serra Blvd Avalon Dr City limit IV 2.12
Linden Ave Tanforan Ave Grand Ave II 1.06
Littlefield Ave E Grand Ave Utah Ave IV 0.38
Littlefield Ave Harbor Way Proposed trail III 0.03
McLellan Dr El Camino Real Mission Rd IIB 0.17
Mission Rd Chestnut Ave Lawndale Blvd I 0.23
Mission Rd Chestnut Ave Lawndale Blvd IIB 0.94
Near Cabot Rd Allerton Ave E Grand Ave I 0.61
Near Eccles Ave & Gull Dr E Grand Ave Oyster Point Blvd I 0.79
Near Harbor Way E Grand Ave Littlefield Ave I 0.84
Oak Ave Mission Rd Grand Ave IV 0.13
Oak Ave Extension El Camino Real Oak Ave IV 0.21
Orange Ave Centennial Way Trail Railroad Ave IIB 0.26
Oyster Point Blvd Sister Cities Blvd Gateway Blvd II 0.27
Poletti Way Caltrain Station Tunnel Oyster Point Blvd IV 0.83
Poletti Way Oyster Point Blvd Bay Trail I 0.83
54
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY46
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Street Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Bikeway Class Mileage
Produce Ave/new road Airport Blvd/San Mateo Ave Utah Ave extension IV 0.38
Railroad Ave Orange Ave Linden Ave IV 0.74
S Spruce Ave N Canal St Railroad Ave IV 0.15
S Spruce Ave Centennial Way N Canal St IV 0.45
S Spruce Ave El Camino Real Centennial Way IV 0.31
San Mateo Ave Airport Blvd S Sirport Blvd II 0.78
Sister Cities Blvd Hillside Blvd Airport Blvd IV 0.89
Sneath Ln extension Huntington Ave S Linden Ave II 0.34
Sylvester Rd E Grand Ave End IV 0.19
Utah Ave US-101 Littlefield Ave IV 0.59
Utah Ave San Mateo Ave US-101 II 0.29
Victory Ave S Spruce Ave S Linden Ave II 0.34
W Orange Ave Westborough Blvd Library Driveway II 0.13
W Orange Ave Library Driveway Fairway Dr IV 0.03
W Orange Ave Library Driveway Fairway Dr III 0.03
Westborough Blvd Skyline Blvd Junipero Serra Blvd IV 1.19
Westborough Blvd Junipero Serra Blvd W Orange Ave IV 1.05
55
RECOMMENDATIONS47
FINAL – JUNE 2022
TAbLE 3 Proposed Bicycle Boulevards by Groups
Bicycle Boulevard Group Street Start Extent End Extent Mileage
Evergreen/Holly
Crestwood Dr Evergreen Dr Holly Ave 0.26
Evergreen Dr Mission Rd Miller Ave 0.63
Holly Avenue Mission Rd Hillside Blvd 0.72
Miller Ave Evergreen Dr Holly Ave 0.30
Alta Loma/Buri Buri
Alta Loma Dr Newman Dr Del Monte Ave 0.18
Arroyo Dr Junipero Serra Blvd Camaritas Ave 0.85
Camaritas Ave Westborough Blvd Arroyo Dr 0.10
Clay Ave Clay Park Junipero Serra Blvd 0.37
Clay Ave Junipero Serra Blvd Newman Dr 0.03
Del Monte Ave Arroyo Dr Alta Loma Dr 0.95
Newman Dr Clay Ave Alta Loma Dr 0.07
Orchid Dr Alta Loma Park McLellan Dr 0.09
San Felipe Ave Newman Dr Alta Loma Dr 0.47
Greendale Galway Dr Westborough Blvd Greendale Dr 0.33
Greendale Dr Callan Blvd Callan Blvd 1.00
Shannon Olympic Dr Westborough Blvd Shannon Dr 0.27
Shannon Dr Olympic Dr Gellert Blvd 0.64
Avalon
Avalon Dr City limit Alhambra Rd 0.58
Hazelwood Dr Rosewood Dr El Camino Real 0.52
Ponderosa Rd Alhambra Rd Fairway Dr 0.53
West Orange Fairway Dr Ponderosa Rd W Orange Ave 0.38
W Orange Ave Fairway Dr Centennial Way Trail 0.62
Orange/Canal
Magnolia Ave Park Way Railroad Ave 0.51
N Canal St Orange Ave Linden Ave 0.79
Orange Ave Railroad Ave Park Way 0.51
Spruce Spruce Ave Hillside Blvd Sister Cities Blvd 0.21
56
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY48
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Bicycle Support Facilities
Building a network of connected and
low-stress bikeways is the first step in
supporting existing bicyclists and attracting
more people to bicycle in South City. To
ensure an enjoyable trip from beginning to
end, supporting infrastructure is needed at
intersections to make crossing easier and
safer, wayfinding signs along the way to
help guide people to their destinations, and
appropriate and secure parking once you
reach your destination to park your bicycle.
BICYCLE-FRIENDLY
INTERSECTIONS
• Intersections designed to provide
additional separation, comfort, and
safety for people biking and walking.
• Treatments can include bike boxes,
signal priority, curb extensions, or
islands to separate bicyclists from
turning motorists.
• Ideal for locations with conflicts
between people driving, walking, and
biking.
WAYFINDING ELEMENTS
• Directional signage and distance
markers directing people to nearby
destinations on preferred routes.
• Can include customized signage and
public art that reflects the character of
different neighborhoods within South
San Francisco, adding placemaking
elements.
BIKE PARKING
• Includes curbside sidewalk racks,
in-street corrals, bike lockers, or bike
stations.
• Bicycle racks provide short-term
dedicated parking outdoors. Racks can
be custom shapes and colors to match
surrounding developments. Customized
racks should still meet minimum safety,
locking, and durability standards.
• Bicycle lockers provide long-term
secure parking at high-demand
locations like employment sites and
transit centers.
• Bicycle stations provide long-term
indoor or enclosed outdoor parking
typically near transit and can be staffed
or self-serve.
57
RECOMMENDATIONS49
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Bicycle-friendly intersection with additional bicycle separation.Bicycle-friendly intersection with bike box.
Bicycle racks provide short-term parking.Wayfinding directs people to nearby destinations.
58
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY50
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Pedestrian Network
Recommendations
The recommended pedestrian
improvements look to design pedestrian
environments that are comfortable
and accessible, and reduce the risk of
pedestrian-involved collisions. Moreover,
creating more comfortable walking
environments will help sustain a healthy
South City community.
PEDESTRIAN FOCUS AREAS
Identified Pedestrian Focus Areas
highlight important corridors in the city
that support walking and are currently
considered high stress. These areas are
identified in Map 12, which identifies areas
where the City should focus on sidewalk,
crossing, amenities, and other pedestrian
infrastructure improvements.
PEDESTRIAN SPOT
IMPROVEMENTS
This plan identifies spot improvements
for 40 intersection crossings and other
locations, primarily within the Pedestrian
Priority Areas. Each location has
recommendations that will improve the
comfort and safety of pedestrians. These
improvements are listed in Table 4.
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
59
RECOMMENDATIONS51
FINAL – JUNE 2022
TAbLE 4 Pedestrian Spot Improvements
Location Improvement
Mission and Lawndale/ McLellan Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Construct curb extensions at all four corners. Provide leading pedestrian intervals for all crossings. Construct sidewalks on the west side of McLellan south of Mission Rd.
El Camino Real and McLellan Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Install a high-visibility crosswalk at the western ECR approach. Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the ECR crossings. Construct curb extensions.
McLellan and BART Upgrade existing crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Install leading pedestrian intervals at all crossings. Build curb extensions at the eastern corners.
El Camino Real and BART Straighten the crosswalk across the northern approach. Upgrade both crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Provide a leading pedestrian interval.
Airport and Baden Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict markings & advance stop/yield markings, bicycle detection, and/or traffic circles.
Airport and Gateway Upgrade existing crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Construct median refuge islands at the west, east, and south approaches. Remove slip lane from southern approach.
Airport Blvd and San Mateo Ave Consider improvements such as curb extensions,no right turn on red, crosswalks & curb ramps, slip lane removal, leading pedestrian intervals, conflict markings, bicycle detection, signage & lighting, and/or traffic circles
Airport Blvd and Railroad Undercrossing Improve lighting and maintenance in existing sidewalk pedestrian tunnels beneath railroad.
Arroyo and Alta Loma Construct curb extensions on both sides of the crosswalk. Construct a median refuge island. Install an RRFB. Install a high visibility crosswalk across Alta Loma Drive.
Chestnut and Commercial Intersection design study - traffic signal or roundabout
Chestnut and Grand Consider improvements such as curb extensions,no right turn on red, crosswalks & curb ramps, slip lane removal, leading pedestrian intervals, conflict markings, bicycle detection, signage & lighting, and/or traffic circles
Chestnut and Hillside Consider improvements such as curb extensions,no right turn on red, crosswalks & curb ramps, slip lane removal, leading pedestrian intervals, conflict markings, bicycle detection, signage & lighting, and/or traffic circles
Chestnut and Mission Consider improvements such as curb extensions,no right turn on red, crosswalks & curb ramps, slip lane removal, leading pedestrian intervals, conflict markings, bicycle detection, signage & lighting, and/or traffic circles
Crestwood/Evergreen Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict markings & advance stop/yield markings, red curb, crossing guards/traffic control, leading pedestrian intervals, pedestrian-only phases, and extended crossing time
Crestwood/Ferndale Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict markings & advance stop/yield markings, red curb, crossing guards/traffic control, leading pedestrian intervals, pedestrian-only phases, and extended crossing time
E Grand/Sylvester Implement ped crossing
East Grand and Forbes Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Install curb extensions at the northwest, northeast, and southeast corners. Install a curb extension at the southwest corner. Install pedestrian refuge islands across E Grand Avenue.
El Camino Real and Arroyo & Arroyo and Del Paso Remove the crosswalk at Del Paso Drive across Arroyo Drive; close gap in median and remove yield paddle. Provide a leading pedestrian interval for ECR crossings. Consider curb extensions at the northern and southeast corners. 60
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY52
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Location Improvement
El Camino Real and Kaiser Construct sidewalks on the south side of ECR from the bus stop to the bend in Del Paso Drive. Build sidewalk between ECR and
Del Paso. Redesign the pedestrian refuge island in the western ECR crossing. Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the ECR
crossing.
El Camino Real and Orange Straighten the southern crosswalk across ECR. Create pedestrian refuge islands for the ECR crossings. Upgrade all four crosswalks
to high visibility crosswalks. Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the ECR crossing.
El Camino Real and Spruce Upgrade all four crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Construct pedestrian refuge islands for the two ECR crossings. Provide a
leading pedestrian interval for the ECR crossings. Consider curb extensions at all four corners.
El Camino Real and Ponderosa Construct sidewalks on the eastern side of ECR between Country Club Drive and Ponderosa. Upgrade all three marked crosswalks
to high-visibility crosswalks. Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the ECR crossings. Construct median refuge islands for the
ECR crossings.
Evergreen/Baywood Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, red curb, crossing guards/traffic control, leading pedestrian intervals, pedestrian-only
phases, and extended crossing time
Forbes and Eccles Consider improvements such as curb extensions,no right turn on red, crosswalks & curb ramps, slip lane removal, leading
pedestrian intervals, conflict markings, bicycle detection, signage & lighting, and/or traffic circles
Forbes and Gull Consider improvements such as curb extensions,no right turn on red, crosswalks & curb ramps, slip lane removal, leading
pedestrian intervals, conflict markings, bicycle detection, signage & lighting, and/or traffic circles
Gellert and Westborough
Square access
Consider improvements such as curb extensions, crossing guards/traffic control, high-visibility crosswalks, leading pedestrian
intervals, pedestrian-only phases, and extended crossing times
Grand and Airport Blvd Remove free right turn lane. Upgrade two marked crossings to high-visibility. Consider pedestrian-only phase. Construct a
pedestrian refuge island at the Airport Boulevard approach.
Grand and Cypress Install advance yield markings and signs for the Grand Avenue crossings.
Grand and Gateway Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Remove free right turn lanes at northwest and southeast corners. Install
pedestrian refuge islands in all crossings. Install curb extensions at all four corners.
Grand and Linden Install advance stop markings at all approaches. Provide a leading pedestrian intervals for all crossings.
Grand and Magnolia Consider improvements such as curb extensions,no right turn on red, crosswalks & curb ramps, slip lane removal, leading
pedestrian intervals, conflict markings, bicycle detection, signage & lighting, crossing guards/traffic control, pedestrian-only
phasing, extended crossing times, and/or traffic circles
Grand and Maple Install advance stop markings at all approaches. Provide a leading pedestrian intervals for all crossings.
Grand and Mission Upgrade both crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Extend medians and create pedestrian refuge islands.
Grand and Orange Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Consider installing curb extensions at all four corners. Provide a leading
pedestrian interval for the crossings of Grand Avenue.
Grand and Roebling Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, bicycle detection, and/or traffic circles
Grand and Walnut Install advance yield pavement markings and signs.
Grand and Willow Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, and red curb
61
RECOMMENDATIONS53
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Location Improvement
Grand mid-block crossings between Linden and Maple Install advance yield pavement markings and signs.
Hickey and El Camino Real Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Straighten the northern ECR crosswalk. Install a high-visibility crosswalk across the southern ECR approach (push back the northbound stop bar and median to create a straight crossing). Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the ECR crossings.
Hickey and Hilton Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict markings & advance stop/yield markings, bicycle detection, and/or traffic circles
Holly Ave/ Westview/Villa Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict markings & advance stop/yield markings, and red curb
Junipero Serra and Arroyo Construct sidewalks on the western (highway) side of Junipero Serra Boulevard to Arroyo Drive. Install a HAWK beacon at JSB/
Arroyo Drive.
Junipero Serra and Avalon Mark high-visibility crosswalks across Valverde Drive. Construct sidewalks on the eastern (golf course) side of JSB to Avalon Drive.
Mark a high-visibility crosswalk across the eastern approach of Avalon Drive/JSB.
Junipero Serra and Hickey Remove the free right turn lane at the southeast, southwest, and northwest corner. Upgrade all crosswalks to high visibility
crosswalks. Provide leading pedestrian intervals for both crosswalks. Construct pedestrian refuge islands.
Junipero Serra and King Consider improvements such as curb extensions,no right turn on red, crosswalks & curb ramps, slip lane removal, leading
pedestrian intervals, conflict markings, bicycle detection, signage & lighting, and/or traffic circles
Linden and 6th Ln Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, and red curb
Linden and Airport Blvd Consider improvements such as curb extensions,no right turn on red, crosswalks & curb ramps, slip lane removal, leading
pedestrian intervals, conflict markings, bicycle detection, signage & lighting, and/or traffic circles
Linden and Armour Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, red curb, crossing guards/traffic control, leading pedestrian intervals, pedestrian-only
phases, and extended crossing time
Linden and California Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, and red curb
Linden and Commercial Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, and red curb
Linden and Lux Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, and red curb
Linden and Miller Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, and red curb
Linden and N Canal Construct sidewalks on one or both sides of the Colma Creek bridge. Install appropriate curb ramps. Mark a crosswalk across S
Canal street if sidewalks are present on the west side.
Linden and Tamarack Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, and red curb
Maple and School Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, and red curb 62
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY54
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Location Improvement
Miller and Holly Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, red curb, crossing guards/traffic control, leading pedestrian intervals, pedestrian-only
phases, and extended crossing time
Miller/Evergreen Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, red curb, crossing guards/traffic control, leading pedestrian intervals, pedestrian-only
phases, and extended crossing time
Miller/Ferndale Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, red curb, crossing guards/traffic control, leading pedestrian intervals, pedestrian-only
phases, and extended crossing time
Miller/Gardenside Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, red curb, crossing guards/traffic control, leading pedestrian intervals, pedestrian-only
phases, and extended crossing time
Mission and Sequoia Install a crosswalk on the northern approach. Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Construct curb extensions.
Neighborhood Path Create a stair channel along the existing stairs to improve bicycle access. Remove the gate at Alta Loma/Cymbidium to open
stair access to both neighborhoods. At ECR, upgrade crosswalk to high visibility and straighten the crosswalk. Provide a leading
pedestrian interval.
Neighborhood Path Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, bicycle
detection, and wayfinding
Orange and A Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, red curb, crossing guards/traffic control, leading pedestrian intervals, pedestrian-only
phases, and extended crossing time
Orange and B Consider crossing improvements such as high-visibility crosswalks, RRFB or HAWK signals, curb extensions, and/or pavement
markings
Orange and Baden Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, and red curb
Orange and C Consider crossing improvements such as high-visibility crosswalk, RRFB or HAWK signals, curb extensions, and/or pavement
markings
Orange and Railroad Upgrade the transverse crosswalk across Railroad Avenue to high-visibility and construct a curb extension at the southeast corner.
Orange and Tennis Dr Construct curb extensions for the crossings of Orange Avenue and Tennis Drive. Install a high-visibility crosswalk across Tennis
Drive.
Oyster Point and Airport Construct curb extensions at the north, west, and south corners. Upgrade two marked crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks and
realign to be straight. Implement a leading pedestrian interval for both crosswalks.
Oyster Point and Dubuque Consider improvements such as marked crosswalks, signs, pavement markings, sidewalk gap filling/repair, lighting, and slip lane
removal
63
RECOMMENDATIONS55
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Location Improvement
Oyster Point and Eccles Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, bicycle detection, and/or traffic circles
Oyster Point and Gateway Consider improvements such as curb extensions,no right turn on red, crosswalks & curb ramps, slip lane removal, leading
pedestrian intervals, conflict markings, bicycle detection, signage & lighting, and/or traffic circles
Oyster Point and Gull Consider improvements such as curb extensions,no right turn on red, crosswalks & curb ramps, slip lane removal, leading
pedestrian intervals, conflict markings, bicycle detection, signage & lighting, and/or traffic circles
S Airport and Marco Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, bicycle detection, and/or traffic circles
S Airport and Utah Consistent with proposed Utah overcrossing of 101, install high visibility crosswalks at all four approaches. Provide a leading
pedestrian interval.
S Airport and Wondercolor Consider improvements such as marked crosswalks, signs, pavement markings, sidewalk gap filling/repair, lighting, and slip lane
removal
S Airport/N Access Rd Consider improvements such as curb extensions,no right turn on red, crosswalks & curb ramps, slip lane removal, leading
pedestrian intervals, conflict markings, bicycle detection, signage & lighting, pedestrian crossing beacons, wayfinding, and/or traffic
circles
School and Olive Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, and red curb
Spruce and Baden Consider improvements such as curb extensions,no right turn on red, crosswalks & curb ramps, slip lane removal, leading
pedestrian intervals, conflict markings, bicycle detection, signage & lighting, and/or traffic circles
Spruce and Beech Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, and red curb
Spruce and Commercial Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, and red curb
Spruce and Grand Install yellow transverse markings around the decorative crosswalk. Upgrade three remaining crosswalks to high-visibility. Consider
installing curb extensions at all corners.
Spruce and Hemlock Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, and red curb
Spruce and Hillside Construct curb extensions at the two northern and southeastern corners.
Spruce and Huntington Consider improvements such as curb extensions,no right turn on red, crosswalks & curb ramps, slip lane removal, leading
pedestrian intervals, conflict markings, bicycle detection, signage & lighting, and/or traffic circles
Spruce and Lux Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, and red curb
Spruce and Mayfair Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, bicycle detection, wayfinding, and/or traffic circles
64
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY56
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Location Improvement
Spruce and Miller Consider improvements such as curb extensions,no right turn on red, crosswalks & curb ramps, slip lane removal, leading
pedestrian intervals, conflict markings, bicycle detection, signage & lighting, and/or traffic circles
Spruce and N Canal St Build curb extensions at the two northern corners. Straighten and upgrade all three marked crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks.
Spruce and Park Way Upgrade the two existing crosswalks across Park Way to high-visibility crosswalks. Install high-visibility crosswalks across both
Spruce approaches. Paint/refresh red curb at all corners.
Spruce and S Canal Way Straighten the crosswalk across S Canal Street. Upgrade both crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Construct a curb extension
at the southeast corner. Add trail wayfinding information. Consider leading pedestrian interval for Spruce Avenue crossing.
Spruce and Tamarack Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, and red curb
Sunnyside/Holly Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, and red curb
Utah and Corey Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, bicycle detection, and/or traffic circles
Utah and Harbor Way Consider improvements such as curb extensions, signage & lighting, crosswalks & curb ramps, pedestrian crossing beacons, conflict
markings & advance stop/yield markings, bicycle detection, and/or traffic circles
Utah Ave/San Mateo Ave Install a protected intersection with high visibility crosswalks.
Westborough and Callan Upgrade all four crosswalks to yellow high-visibility crosswalks. Construct pedestrian refuge islands on the Westborough and Callan
crossings. Update/add school zone signs.
Westborough and Galway Upgrade all four crosswalks to yellow high-visibility crosswalks. Construct pedestrian refuge islands on the Westborough crossings.
Construct curb ramps at all corners. Install curb extensions to tighten corner radii. Update/add school zone signs.
Westborough and Gellert Upgrade the three marked, and install on the fourth approach high-visibility crosswalks. Build out the necessary corners to
straighten all crosswalks. Construct pedestrian refuge islands at all crosswalks. Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the northern
Westborough crosswalk.
Westborough and Junipero
Serra Blvd
Construct sidewalks on the southern side of Westborough Boulevard through the interchange area to Junipero Serra. Install/
upgrade high visibility crosswalks at all interchange crossing locations. Install with appropriate signs and pavement markings.
Westborough and Skyline Consider improvements such as curb extensions,no right turn on red, crosswalks & curb ramps, slip lane removal, leading
pedestrian intervals, conflict markings, bicycle detection, signage & lighting, and/or traffic circles
65
RECOMMENDATIONS57
FINAL – JUNE 2022
66
FINAL – JUNE 2022
MAp 12
67
RECOMMENDATIONS59
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Pedestrian Crossing
Typologies
This plan could not provide specific
recommendations for every intersection
in the city. In addition to the 40 locations
mentioned previously, additional
intersections were identified as proposed
project sites. Map 12 shows the location of
all identified intersections. The following
pages describe a number of crossing
typologies that represent the types of
improvements to be implemented at
intersections, based on characteristics of
the intersecting streets. Improvements at
intersections of larger arterial roadways
with cars moving at faster speeds differ
from improvements on lower volume,
smaller residential streets.
These typologies are broken down by the
characteristics of the intersection and
include the appropriate infrastructure
improvements for each. The typologies
include the following:
1. Signalized intersection
2. Major street/minor street
3. Minor street/minor street
4. Midblock crossing
5. High-volume pedestrian area
6. Freeway interchange and highway
crossing
A full list of the spot improvements
delineated by these crossing typologies can
be found in Appendix C.
Catering to Various Trip
Types
As discussed in Chapter 2, many of
South City’s community destinations are
not easily accessible through low-stress
networks. In fact, unless a destination
is by either the Centennial Way Trail or
the Bay Trail, it is not accessible by low-
stress bikeways. Limited connections to
these trail facilities also limit destination
accessibility. Improving access to these
destinations for both pedestrians and
bicyclists is one of the primary objectives
of this plan. The common types of trips
discussed in Chapter 2 are examined under
the context of building out the proposed
recommendations in this plan; proximity
to low-stress bikeways and pedestrian
infrastructure improvements are the
main factors in creating improved travel
experiences.
The proposed low-stress bicycle network
can be seen in Map 13.
68
FINAL – JUNE 2022
COMMON CHALLENGES• High vehicle speeds
• High vehicle volumes
• Free right-turn lanes
• Left-turn pedestrian conflicts
• Cars stop too close to the crosswalk
TOOLS• Curb extensions
• No right on red
• Crosswalks and curb ramps
• Slip lane removal
• Leading pedestrian intervals
• Conflict markings
• Bicycle detection
• Signage and lighting
• Traffic circles
IDENTIFIED SPOT IMPROVEMENTS• Chestnut Avenue/Grand Avenue
• Forbes Boulevard/Gull Drive
• Junipero Serra Boulevard/King Drive
Signalized Intersection
Typically major street at major street
COMMON CHALLENGES• Failure to yield to pedestrians
• Unmarked crosswalks
• Lighting
• High vehicle speeds
• High vehicle volumes
• Long blocks without controlled crossings
TOOLS• Curb extensions
• Signage and lighting
• Crosswalks and curb ramps
• Pedestrian crossing beacons
• Conflict markings and advance stop/yield pavement markings
• Bicycle detection
• Traffic circles
IDENTIFIED SPOT IMPROVEMENTS• Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue
• S Airport Boulevard/Marco Way
• Utah Avenue/Harbor Way
Major Street/Minor Street
Major street uncontrolled
COMMON CHALLENGES• Failure to yield to pedestrians
• Unmarked crosswalks
• Parking too close to the corner (visibility)
• Incomplete stops (rolling stops)
TOOLS• Curb extensions
• Signage and lighting
• Crosswalks and curb ramps
• Pedestrian crossing beacons
• Conflict markings and advance stop/yield pavement markings
• Red curb
IDENTIFIED SPOT IMPROVEMENTS• Miller Avenue/Holly Avenue
• Evergreen Drive/Baywood Avenue
Minor Street/Minor Street
Controlled or uncontrolled intersection
69
FINAL – JUNE 2022
COMMON CHALLENGES• Uncontrolled crossings
• Vehicles have priority
• Lack of driver awareness
• Unmarked crosswalks
TOOLS• Curb extensions
• Signage and lighting
• Crosswalks and curb ramps
• Pedestrian crossing beacons
• Bicycle detection
• Wayfinding signs
IDENTIFIED SPOT IMPROVEMENTS• S Airport Boulevard/N Access Road
• Spruce Avenue/Mayfair Way
Midblock Crossing
Uncontrolled midblock crossings and trail crossings
COMMON CHALLENGES• Impatient and aggressive drivers
• Limited sidewalk space
• Competing curbside uses
• Limited pedestrian queuing space
TOOLS• Curb extensions
• Crossing guards or traffic control
• High-visibility crosswalks
• Leading pedestrian intervals
• Pedestrian-only signal phase
• Extended crossing time
IDENTIFIED SPOT IMPROVEMENTS• Gellert Boulevard/ Westborough Boulevard
• Crestwood Drive/Ferndale Avenue
• Evergreen Drive/Baywood Avenue
High-Volume Pedestrian Area
Schools, transit centers, and commercial centers
COMMON CHALLENGES• High vehicle speeds
• High vehicle volumes
• Drivers not expecting pedestrians
• Missing sidewalks
• Unmarked crossings
• Lighting
• Limited alternative routes
TOOLS• Marked crosswalks
• Signs
• Pavement markings
• Sidewalks
• Lighting
• Slip lane removal
IDENTIFIED SPOT IMPROVEMENTS• Oyster Point Boulevard/ Dubuque Avenue
• S Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane
• Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue
Freeway Interchange
Freeway interchanges, highway crossings, overpass connections
70
FINAL – JUNE 2022
MAp 13
71
RECOMMENDATIONS63
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Trips to Parks, Trails, and
Community Centers
Almost all residences and workplaces
are within a half mile of a park, trail, or
community center, well within reasonable
walking and biking distances. With the
exceptions of Orange Memorial Park
and Oyster Point Marina, no parks or
community centers are easily accessible
by bicycle on a designated low-stress
route. Under full-buildout conditions,
every park and all five recreation centers
have improved low-stress access for both
pedestrians and bicyclists. In addition to
existing trails, there will be a cross-city
network of low-stress bicycle facilities
to link all these destinations together.
Additionally, pedestrian recommendations
across the city will enhance crossings by
increasing pedestrian visibility and driver
awareness while making walking a lower-
stress, more comfortable experience.
Although many residents live within close
proximity of many of these destinations,
one of the most common themes
throughout the community outreach
process was that people currently drive to
many of these destinations because they do
not feel comfortable traveling using other
modes. These low-stress improvements can
shift trips to active modes and promote
additional trips. With these improvements
implemented, some guardians may feel
more comfortable allowing children to walk
or bike to the park. The recommendations
also address two of the three US-101
crossings, improving access to the Bay
Trail. The Centennial Way Trail will have at
least five connections with other low-stress
facilities, further expanding the amount of
and types of trips that can take advantage
of this corridor. In addition to typically
lower-stress residential streets, the
proposed network provides a cross-town
network linking neighborhoods to multiple
parks.
72
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY64
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Trips to Transit (BART,
Caltrain, and Oyster Point
Terminal)
Closing the first-last mile gap around the
BART stations, Caltrain stations, and ferry
terminal can expand the number of trips
that can be made using transit, encouraging
more people to use those services for
both commute and utilitarian trips. Under
current conditions, both the South San
Francisco and San Bruno BART Stations
are well connected to the Centennial
Way Trail, and the ferry terminal is well
connected to the Bay Trail. The South
San Francisco Caltrain Station is not well
connected for bicyclists and pedestrians.
The proposed improvements will greatly
enhance access to the South San Francisco
BART Station. The Sunshine Gardens
neighborhood will be directly linked to
the station with bicycle boulevards, the
El Camino Real corridor provides additional
north-south crosstown connectivity, and
improved connections from Grand Avenue
and Mission Road will enhance access
from more easterly parts of the city. This
plan also proposes a suite of pedestrian
recommendations at four intersections
around the BART to enhance pedestrian
connectivity to the station. Improved
connections to the Bay Trail and other
corridors will also enhance access to San
Bruno BART and Caltrain stations.
South City’s Caltrain station will benefit
from bicycle and pedestrian improvements
along Grand and E Grand Avenues, in
addition to the station relocation plan.
Workers in the East-of-101 area and
station users traveling via the Bay Trail
could use many of the proposed trails and
separated bikeways proposed in that area.
This network of facilities links many of the
offices and other workplaces in this dense
employment area together, to the Bay Trail,
and to mass transit. These trail and in-road
improvements also greatly improve the
accessibility of the ferry terminal, which
was otherwise dependent on the Bay Trail
for low-stress access. Improvements to the
Sister Cities Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
intersection can also improve access to the
ferry and Bay Trail, as the northernmost
direct link across US-101.
Trips to Schools and Libraries
These recommendations improve
connectivity to both South City libraries.
The Grand Branch is directly served by a
separated bikeway on Grand Avenue and
is better connected to the neighborhoods
to the north by pedestrian improvements
and bicycle boulevards. The one-way road
network around the Main Library can be
limiting, especially for bicycle traffic. These
recommendations provide for bidirectional
bicycle access and connections to
Westborough Boulevard (not on low-stress
facilities, however). The future library at the
Civic Campus will also be served by these
recommendations.
Enhancing SRTS programs was another
priority of this plan. Most schools across
73
RECOMMENDATIONS65
FINAL – JUNE 2022
the city have at least one nearby pedestrian
crossing improvement. Upon full buildout,
every school except for Hillside Academy
will have direct access to a low-stress
bikeway; a separated facility is not far away
on Chestnut Avenue for Hillside families.
The connected network of facilities enables
continuous lower-stress travel for middle and
high schoolers who typically have further
distances to travel to reach their school.
Trips to Commercial Centers
The proposed improvements serve
commercial and retail uses across South
City. In addition to providing direct lower-
stress access to most major commercial
locations, crosstown connections
via the Centennial Way Trail, Grand
Avenue, Mission Road, El Camino Real,
Westborough Boulevard, and others will
link residents to destinations across the
city. The low-stress connections from
BART, Caltrain, and the ferry also provide
access to these centers for workers and
visitors. Especially within the downtown
area, crossing improvement along and
near Grand Avenue will significantly
increase the walkability of the area, further
supporting local business. Improved
connections across US-101 from the
Grand Avenue/Caltrain station relocation
project will enhance connectivity between
these two areas. Recommendations also
include sidewalk creation along Junipero
Serra Boulevard, which can provide new
access to commercial destinations along
Westborough Boulevard for residents who
live east of I-280.
Trips Across Freeways
The Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point
Boulevard and Grand Avenue crossings
have pedestrian crossing recommendations
on both sides of the freeway. Separated
bikeways are proposed on both sides of the
freeway at both of these crossings. Both
Grand Avenue and Sister Cities/Oyster
Point Boulevards have bicycle lanes on
the overpasses. There is also an additional
pedestrian and bicycle bridge planned near
the site of the Lowe’s store should that
parcel redevelop in the future.
Further south, both the Airport Boulevard
crossing and the proposed Utah Avenue
overcrossing will also have dedicated
bicycle facilities (not low-stress facilities,
however). Near the southern city limit,
there is a proposed trail that would link the
Centennial Way Trail to Bay Trail under
US-101. This would create a southern
low-stress crossing of US-101 and a direct
trail connection between South City’s two
primary trail facilities.
The low-stress facilities in the rest of the
city are now well connected to the East-
of-101 neighborhood through a few key
corridors: Westborough Boulevard, El
Camino Real, Centennial Way Trail, Spruce
Avenue, Sister Cities Boulevard, and Grand
Avenue.
74
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY66
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Programs, Policies, and
Supporting Infrastructure
Recommendations
This section outlines the recommended
bicycle and pedestrian-related programs
and policies for the City of South San
Francisco.
Expand Safe Routes to School
Programming
Families in South City are interested in
seeing more SRTS programming at their
children’s schools. While the City does not
currently have a dedicated SRTS funding
source, staff can partner with the San
Mateo County Office of Education, which
offers training, resources, and support to
cities and school districts in implementing
SRTS programming. To build support
across multiple schools, City staff should
work to build partnerships with the South
San Francisco Unified School District.
One example of a successful partnership
between San Mateo County Office of
Education and the South San Francisco
Unified School District is Ruby Bridges
Walk to School Day held in November
each year. Initiated by students at Martin
Elementary in South San Francisco,
it has become an annual event in San
Mateo County, and expanded to an event
celebrated nationally.
Senior Walking Programs
Senior walking programs can encourage
older residents to walk together on safer
walking routes, and to build relationships at
the same time. This program may be best
piloted at Magnolia Community Center,
which focuses on senior programming.
Online Bicycling Map
Some residents may want to bike more
than they do now but may not know the
best routes to take to reach their desired
destinations. The City should develop
a refreshed biking map that highlights
comfortable routes to libraries, schools,
parks, shopping, and other community
destinations. An online map can be easily
updated as new projects are built and
provide additional safe routes.
Printed maps may be preferred by some
bicyclists and can be distributed at bike
shops, libraries, and other destinations.
75
RECOMMENDATIONS67
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Open Street Events
Open street events celebrate walking and
biking by closing key streets to vehicle
traffic for a set amount of time. These
events can create opportunities for people
to try walking or biking without the
stress of adjacent vehicle traffic. These
events require a high level of coordination
between various city departments and local
stakeholders. It is recommended that the
City find a partner nonprofit organization
to lead the event planning and logistics
work.
Bicycle Friendly Community
The League of American Bicyclists
recognizes communities that improve
bicycling conditions through education,
encouragement, enforcement, and
evaluation programs. Communities can
achieve diamond, platinum, gold, silver, or
bronze status, or an honorary mention.
Bicycle friendliness can indicate that a
community is healthy and vibrant. Like
good schools and attractive downtowns,
bicycle-friendliness can increase property
values, spur business growth, and increase
tourism. South City is currently a Bronze-
level Bicycle Friendly Community. The
City should reapply for an elevated
Bicycle Friendly Community status after
implementation of the priority projects
and many of the recommended programs
identified in this plan.
Shared Mobility Policy Framework
Building a network of high-quality,
connected, and safe bicycle facilities also
benefits people on small-wheeled devices
such as mobility scooters, skateboards,
electric and non-electric scooters, roller
skates, and tricycles. South City previously
participated in a dockless e-bike system
with Lime bike. This pilot ended in 2019
as Lime transitioned out of the bike share
business to focus on scooters. Establishing
a Shared Mobility Policy Framework will
ensure the city is prepared to participate
in future programs, and that any future
shared mobility services operate within
a framework of equity, affordability, and
broad geographic distribution.
76
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY68
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Quick Build Projects
Quick Build projects use low-cost materials
to install temporary improvements to pilot
new techniques or introduce concepts to
the community. The City can pilot priority
bicycle and pedestrian projects through
these projects. Quick build projects involve
using materials like paint and flexible
delineators to designate curb extensions
or median islands and can provide more
semipermanent, low-cost solutions until
funding can be found for permanent
facilities. Tactical urbanism projects can
involve temporary bike lanes, road diets,
and other roadway changes. Community-
driven aspects like roadway murals or
other art and placemaking elements can
be integrated into both short-term and
long-term designs. These projects can last
anywhere from one day to several weeks.
Bicycle Parking
As noted earlier, knowing you have a
secure and convenient place to put your
bike at the end of the trip makes it more
likely that you will consider bicycling for
that trip. The City has recently installed
a number of bicycle racks across the city.
To continue this work, the City should
inventory the locations of all public and
private bicycle parking locations in contrast
to key biking destinations such as shopping
areas, community centers, and large transit
centers and fill in necessary gaps. This
analysis will help the City take stock of
additional areas in need of bicycle parking,
and work with the appropriate parties to
coordinate installation and maintenance.
The City should coordinate with BART
to ensure that appropriate secure bicycle
facilities (e.g., bike lockers) are provided.
Green Infrastructure and Urban Cooling
Incorporating green infrastructure
and urban cooling components into
bikeway and pedestrian projects allows
streets to become a vital, functional
component of the natural ecosystem.
Green infrastructure is a catchall term
that describes sustainable stormwater
management practices and infrastructure
and can include components such as
bioswales, planter boxes, and green
parking. The South San Francisco
Green Infrastructure Plan provides a
blueprint for these recommendations,
and the San Mateo County Sustainable
Streets Master Plan offers ways to
integrate green infrastructure and active
transportation improvements. Urban
cooling recommendations include looking
for opportunities to plant shade trees along
bikeway and pedestrian routes, as well as
using paving materials that reflect rather
than absorb heat. Tree planting must ensure
that sidewalk widths include an adequate
buffer zone for tree wells.
77
RECOMMENDATIONS69
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Walking and Biking Supportive Amenities
Supporting amenities such as benches,
drinking fountains, and bicycle repair
stations can help improve comfort and
convenience along the active transportation
network. The City should consider these
amenities in the design of new projects,
particularly off-street trails.
Vision Zero Policy
The City should regularly measure progress
toward its adopted Vision Zero policy, with
the goal of eliminating all serious injuries
and deaths on its transportation system.
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
The City should develop Transportation
Impact Analysis Guidelines to standardize
its approach to incorporating bicycle
and pedestrian improvements into the
development review process.
78
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY70
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Transportation Demand Management
Ordinance Update
The City should periodically update its
Transportation Demand Management
Ordinance to ensure that trip reduction
measures, monitoring, and enforcement
align with the pedestrian and bicycle
network, follow the connectivity and design
goals of this plan, and account for evolving
technologies such as e-bikes.
Developer Impact Fee Updates
The City should periodically update its
citywide Transportation Impact Fee to
ensure that developers pay a fair share
toward building active transportation
projects.
Crosswalk and Pedestrian Signal Policies
The City should develop internal policy
guidance for the striping of marked
crosswalks and the use of actuated
pedestrian signals.
Repaving Policy
The City should develop internal policy
guidance to incorporate planned bicycle
and pedestrian improvements into all
repaving efforts.
Bikeway and Pedestrian Facility
Maintenance
The City has a street sweeping/clean team
that helps keep streets and public facilities
as clean as possible, including bikeways,
sidewalks, and City-maintained trails. The
City coordinates sweeping routes with
posted on-street parking restrictions.
The City should continue to ensure that
on-street bikeway routes are adequately
maintained, as curbside bikeways in
particular tend to collect road debris.
Buildout of additional Class IV separated
bikeways may require investment in smaller
sweeper vehicles that can fit into separated
bikeway widths.
No Parking On Sidewalks
In areas of the city with rolled curbs, drivers
frequently park with their wheels up on
the curb and may partially or fully block
the sidewalk. The City should ensure that
no parking occurs on sidewalks through a
combination of clear signage and parking
enforcement (including a phone number
for residents to call if the sidewalk is
blocked by a parked vehicle). Additionally
a “Don’t Block the Walk” type of good
neighbor campaign could help foster a
local driving culture where parking in the
sidewalk is not acceptable behavior.
Speed Management
Speeding increases crash risk and
crash severity, and makes streets less
comfortable for people walking or
bicycling. While many of the identified
bicycle and pedestrian projects would
address speed through improved roadway
design (roadway or crossing narrowings,
traffic calming), the city should seek
to implement a comprehensive speed
management program that looks holistically
at setting / confirming appropriate speed
limits, lowering speed through good
roadway design, and seeking appropriate
enforcement opportunities. Speed
management aligns with the cities Vision
Zero goals as well as safety goals of the
Local Road Safety Plan.
79
RECOMMENDATIONS71
FINAL – JUNE 2022
80
72
FINAL – JUNE 2022
05
Implementation
81
FINAL – JUNE 2022
IMPLEMENTATION73Implementation of the nearly 50 miles
of bikeways and over 40 pedestrian spot
improvements recommended in this plan
will occur through a combination of ongoing
development and upgrade/maintenance of
the roadway network, as well as through
targeted implementation of specific
projects. Funding for active transportation
projects is limited and often competitive,
and it is important for the City to prioritize
projects based on need and benefit, as well
as on how those projects align with the key
criteria from major funding sources such
as the Active Transportation Program. The
following prioritization strategy reflects
an approach that scores each project’s
community benefit, as well as assesses
the feasibility and complexity of project
construction. Projects are sorted into
four implementation categories based on
the combined results of two evaluations:
project priority and project feasibility.
Each evaluation scores projects on specific
criteria.
Implementation
Project Priority Criteria
The project priority evaluation places
projects into one of two categories—
low priority or high priority—based
on the following three criteria: safety,
connectivity, and accessibility. A maximum
of seven points is possible; projects that
score five or more points will be rated high,
and projects that score four or fewer points
will be rated low.
Project Feasibility Criteria
The project feasibility evaluation
categorizes projects based on their
complexity and high-level costs. Generally
speaking, projects that only require signage
and striping changes are considered highly
feasible. Projects that require interagency
coordination or that require hardscape
changes or potential road diets (including
parking removal) are considered low-
feasibility projects. A maximum of two
points are available for project feasibility.
The criteria and scoring metrics are
described in Table 5.
82
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY74
FINAL – JUNE 2022
TAbLE 5 Project Priority Methodology
Criteria Description Scoring Metrics
Enhanced Safety
Proposed bikeways and pedestrian improvements on corridors with bicycle or pedestrian collisions help reduce the likelihood of additional collisions at these locations. Additionally, this considers multiple locations throughout the City, where members of the public expressed safety concerns; these have also generated recommendations and also contribute to safer pedestrian and bicycle networks.
Projects score one point if located near a bicycle-involved or pedestrian-involved collision (2013-2017)
Projects score one point if located on a street classified with an LTS 3 or 4
Bikeway projects score an additional point if the project is a Class I, Class IIB, Class IIIB, or Class IV recommendation
Pedestrian projects score an additional point if the project includes enhancements other than signage and striping (beacons, curb extensions, etc.)
Connectivity
Projects that close gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle networks
benefit network connectivity. There are also proposed facilities
that enhance connectivity over I-280, SR-82, and US-101, all
major connectivity barriers within South City
Projects score one point if it improves connectivity across
I-280, SR-82, and US-101
Projects score one point if it closes a gap in the bicycle or
pedestrian network
Projects score one point if it addresses connectivity to major
transit routes (i.e., BART, Caltrain)
Accessibility Proposed facilities that improve access to community destinations or enhance accessibility at major crossings/barriers
Projects will score one point if it improves access to important
community destinations (parks, schools, and trails)
Pedestrian projects that include crossing enhancements near
these destinations will score one additional point
Bikeway projects that provide new access to destinations (not
upgraded facilities) will receive one additional point
Scoring Breakdown
Projects earning two points are considered highly feasible.
Projects with zero or one point are considered low-feasibility
projects.
Cost - Projects that only require signage and striping (Class
II, Class IIB, Class III, Class IIIB, and some pedestrian
crossing improvements) score one point
Complexity - Projects that will not require interagency
coordination (i.e., Caltrans rights-of-way) or will not require a
potential road diet score one point
83
FINAL – JUNE 2022
IMPLEMENTATION75Implementation Categories
Based on the priority and feasibility
scoring, projects are placed into four
implementation categories: long-term
improvements, short-term improvements,
opportunity improvements, and low-priority
improvements, as shown in this graphic:
Short-term improvement projects are
rated high priority and high feasibility, and
represent projects that could be pursued
for implementation within the first three to
five years.
Long-term improvement projects are rated
high priority and low feasibility. They may
require more study or analysis than short-
term projects, more significant interagency
coordination, or additional funding for
construction.
Opportunity improvements are those
projects rated low priority and high
feasibility and may be pursued when nearby
development or an overlapping project
creates an opportunity to include these
easy-to-implement projects.
Low-priority improvements are those
projects rated low priority and low
feasibility. They represent challenging
projects that may not add significant value
for a greater portion of the community
walking or bicycling network on their own,
but remain part of a long-term vision for
active transportation.
BICYCLE PROJECTS
Out of 12 possible points, bicycle projects
scored between 2 and 9 points. The
average project score was 5.1 points;
16 projects scored 7, 8, or 9 points and
have been classified as the top bicycle
recommendations. Prioritized bicycle
projects can be seen in Table 6.
84
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY76
FINAL – JUNE 2022
TAbLE 6 Prioritized Bicycle Projects with Planning-Level Costs
Street Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2 Existing Class Proposed Class Mileage Total Points Implementation Category
Total Project Cost with Contingency (30%)
Oak Ave El Camino Real Oak Ave IV 0.21 9 Long-Term Improvement $631,449
Orange/Canal Bicycle Boulevard Group III IIIB 2.54 9 Short-Term $3,368,040
Airport Blvd 2nd Ln Miller Ave IV 0.17 8 Long-Term Improvement $524,888
El Camino Real City limit City limit IV 2.75 8 Long-Term Improvement $8,260,694
W Orange Bicycle Boulevard Group
III IIIB 1.00 8 Short-Term $1,326,000
Airport Blvd Miller Ave Armour Ave II IV 0.34 7 Short-Term $170,957
Alta Loma/Buri Buri Bicycle Boulevard Group
III IIIB 3.11 7 Short-Term $4,123,860
Arroyo Dr Camaritas Ave El Camino Real
III IV 0.14 7 Opportunity Project $414,440
Avalon Bicycle Boulevard Group
III IIIB 1.64 7 Short-Term $2,174,640
Bike/Ped Bridge Study Airport Blvd Poletti Way I 0.20 7 Long-Term Improvement $19,500,000
Centennial Way Trail Connections Grand Ave El Camino Real I 0.03 7 Long-Term Improvement $49,375
Chestnut Ave El Camino Real Sunset Ave III IV 0.65 7 Long-Term Improvement $1,954,485
Grand Ave Bayshore Blvd Airport Blvd E Grand Ave II 0.04 7 Long-Term Improvement $6,864
Hickey Blvd City limit El Camino Real IV 0.57 7 Long-Term Improvement $1,712,809
Westborough Blvd Junipero Serra Blvd El Camino Real
II & III IV 1.05 7 Long-Term Improvement $3,157,245
Green indicates an existing facility that is recommended for upgrade.
85
IMPLEMENTATION77
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Street Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2
Existing
Class
Proposed
Class Mileage
Total
Points
Implementation
Category
Total Project
Cost with
Contingency
(30%)
Westborough Blvd Skyline Blvd Junipero Serra
Blvd
II & III IV 1.86 7 Long-Term
Improvement
$5,592,834
Airport Blvd 2nd Ln S Airport Blvd IV 0.26 6 Long-Term
Improvement
$773,307
Bayshore Blvd Sister Cities Blvd City limit II IV 0.63 6 Long-Term
Improvement
$1,903,075
Centennial Way Trail Existing trail City limit I 0.21 6 Long-Term
Improvement
$401,030
E Grand Ave Forbes Blvd Haskins Ave II IV 0.76 6 Long-Term
Improvement
$2,294,336
E Grand Ave Grand Ave Poletti Way I 0.20 6 Long-Term
Improvement
$390,000
E Grand Ave Trail Grand Avenue Forbes Blvd I 0.29 6 Long-Term
Improvement
$557,798
Evergreen/Holly Bicycle
Boulevard Group
IIIB 1.91 6 Opportunity Project $2,532,660
Forbes Blvd Eccles Ave Allerton Ave IV 0.68 6 Long-Term
Improvement
$2,052,979
Grand Ave Spruce Ave Airport Blvd IV 0.47 6 Long-Term
Improvement
$1,402,711
Harbor Bicycle Boulevard
Group
IIIB 0.20 6 Opportunity Project $265,200
Linden Bicycle Boulevard
Group
III IIIB 0.98 6 Opportunity Project $1,299,480
McLellan Dr El Camino Real Mission Rd IIB 0.17 6 Opportunity Project $86,397
Mission Rd Chestnut Ave Lawndale Blvd II IIB 0.94 6 Long-Term
Improvement
$472,258
Mission Rd Chestnut Ave Lawndale Blvd I 0.23 6 Long-Term
Improvement
$440,786
Green indicates an existing facility that is recommended for upgrade.
86
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY78
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Street Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2
Existing
Class
Proposed
Class Mileage
Total
Points
Implementation
Category
Total Project
Cost with
Contingency
(30%)
N Access Rd Bay Trail S Airport Blvd IV 0.19 6 Long-Term
Improvement
$571,311
Poletti Way Caltrain Station Tunnel Oyster Point
Blvd
I 0.69 6 Long-Term
Improvement
$1,340,830
S Spruce Ave El Camino Real N Canal St III IV 0.75 6 Low Priority $2,268,438
Sneath Ln extension Huntington Ave S Linden Ave IV 0.34 6 Low Priority $1,022,346
Oyster Point Blvd Gateway Blvd End of street II IV 0.85 6 Opportunity Project $2,555,865
Bay Trail/Shaw/ Tanforan Airport Blvd Huntington
Ave
I 0.91 5 Long-Term
Improvement
$1,782,091
Colma Creek Bay Trail Existing Bay Trail Utah Ave I 0.29 5 Long-Term
Improvement
$565,500
Colma Creek Service Road Harbor Way Colma Creek
Trail
III 0.09 5 Low Priority $4,095
E Grand Ave Existing facility End of street III 0.23 5 Opportunity Project $10,626
E Grand Ave Existing facility Gateway Blvd II 0.12 5 Opportunity Project $20,592
Gellert Blvd Westborough Blvd Shannon Dr III IV 0.54 5 Low Priority $1,635,096
Gellert Blvd King Dr Westborough
Blvd
II IV 0.56 5 Low Priority $1,669,717
Grand Ave Chestnut Ave Spruce Ave II IV 0.81 5 Opportunity Project $2,420,810
Greendale Bicycle Boulevard
Group
III IIIB 1.33 5 Opportunity Project $1,763,580
Harbor Way RR tracks/proposed
trail
Littlefield Ave III 0.53 5 Opportunity Project $24,115
Huntington Ave Spruce Ave Noor Ave IV 0.27 5 Low Priority $811,863
Junipero Serra Blvd Avalon Dr City limit II IV 2.12 5 Low Priority $6,389,555
Oyster Point Blvd Marina Blvd Parking lot II 0.08 5 Opportunity Project $13,295
Oyster Point Blvd Sister Cities Blvd Gateway Blvd II 0.27 5 Low Priority $45,669
Produce Ave/ new road Airport Blvd/San
Mateo Ave
Utah Ave
extension
IV 0.38 5 Long-Term
Improvement
$1,142,622
Green indicates an existing facility that is recommended for upgrade.
87
IMPLEMENTATION79
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Street Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2
Existing
Class
Proposed
Class Mileage
Total
Points
Implementation
Category
Total Project
Cost with
Contingency
(30%)
Shannon Bicycle Boulevard
Group
III IIIB 0.91 5 Opportunity Project $1,206,660
Airport Blvd Armour Ave Sister Cities
Blvd
II IIB 0.24 4 Opportunity Project $120,728
Airport Blvd Armour Ave Chapman Ave II IIB 0.23 4 Opportunity Project $114,258
Airport Blvd Gateway Blvd Belle Aire Rd IV 0.64 4 Low Priority $1,924,416
Country Club Dr Alida Way El Camino
Real
IIB 0.13 4 Opportunity Project $63,407
Gateway Trail E Grand Ave Oyster Point
Blvd
I 0.67 4 Low Priority $1,303,385
Gellert-Chateau NP 0.06 4 Low Priority $119,981
Haskins Way E Grand Ave Sister Cities
Blvd
II IIB 0.24 4 Opportunity Project $120,728
E Grand Ave North Access Road I 1.08 4 L o w
Priority
$2,099,636 $114,258
Hillside Blvd Linden Ave Spruce Ave III II 0.12 4 Opportunity Project $20,703
Hillside Blvd Sister Cities Blvd Ridgeview
Court
III II 0.71 4 Opportunity Project $121,371
Littlefield Ave Harbor Way Proposed trail III 0.03 4 Opportunity Project $1,365
Near Eccles Ave & Oyster
Point Blvd
E Grand Ave Oyster Point
Blvd
I 0.80 4 Low Priority $1,554,126
Oak Ave Mission Rd Grand Ave IV 0.13 4 Low Priority $390,897
Orange Ave Centennial Way Trail Railroad Ave II IIB 0.26 4 Opportunity Project $132,192
S Spruce N Canal St Railroad Ave III IV 0.15 4 Low Priority $458,904
San Mateo Avenue Airport Blvd S Airport Blvd III II 0.78 4 Low Priority $133,848
Sister Cities Blvd Hillside Blvd Airport Blvd II IV 0.89 4 Low Priority $2,686,082
Utah Ave San Mateo Ave US-101 III II 0.29 4 Long-Term
Improvement
$49,764
Green indicates an existing facility that is recommended for upgrade.
88
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY80
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Street Cross Street 1 Cross Street 2
Existing
Class
Proposed
Class Mileage
Total
Points
Implementation
Category
Total Project
Cost with
Contingency
(30%)
W Orange Ave Library Driveway Fairway Dr III IV 0.26 4 Low Priority $781,794
Chestnut Ave Sunset Ave Hillside Blvd III IV 0.28 3 Low Priority $831,945
Grand Ave Chestnut Ave Mission Rd III IV 0.41 3 Long-Term
Improvement
$1,232,035
Linden Ave Tanforan Ave Baden Ave III II 0.98 3 Low Priority $168,847
Littlefield Ave E Grand Ave Utah Ave III IV 0.38 3 Low Priority $1,139,761
Mitchell Ave Harbor Way Airport Blvd II 0.31 3 Opportunity Project $53,196
Near Harbor Way E Grand Ave Littlefield Ave I 0.84 3 Low Priority $1,643,124
Utah Ave US-101 Littlefield Ave III IV 0.60 3 Low Priority $1,804,140
Forbes Blvd Allerton Ave Gull Dr IIB IV 0.25 3 Low Priority $751,725
Gull Drive Forbes Blvd Oyster Point Blvd
II I 0.25 3 Low Priority $487,500
DNA Way Existing facility Existing facility IIB 0.06 2 Low Priority $32,338
Near Cabot Rd Allerton Ave E Grand Ave I 0.61 2 Low Priority $1,192,484
W Orange Ave Library Driveway Westborough Blvd
III II 0.13 2 Low Priority $21,486
W Orange Ave Library Driveway Fairway Dr III III 0.26 2 Low Priority $11,830
Green indicates an existing facility that is recommended for upgrade.
89
FINAL – JUNE 2022
IMPLEMENTATION81The top 16 projects include the following
projects:
• Class IV separated bikeways on Oak
Avenue, Airport Boulevard, El Camino
Real, Arroyo Drive, Hickey Boulevard,
and Westborough Boulevard
• Class IIIB bicycle boulevards in the
Orange/Canal, W Orange, Alta
Loma/Buri Buri, and Avalon Bicycle
Boulevard Groups
• Class II bike lanes on the Grand
Avenue overcrossing project
• Class I shared-use paths including the
proposed new bicycle/pedestrian bridge
over US-101 and improved connections
between the Centennial Way Trail near
Kaiser between El Camino Real and
Grand Avenue
Twenty-nine bicycle projects were
categorized as low-priority projects, 22
were categorized as opportunity projects,
26 were categorized as long-term projects,
and 5 were categorized as short-term
projects.
PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS
Out of 12 possible points, pedestrian
projects scored between 3 and 9 points.
The average project score was 5.4 points;
11 projects scored 7, 8, or 9 points and
have been classified as the top pedestrian
recommendations. Prioritized pedestrian
projects can be seen in Table 7.
90
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY82
FINAL – JUNE 2022
TAbLE 7 Prioritized Pedestrian Projects with Planning-Level Costs
Location Improvement Total Points Implementation Category Project Total with Contingency (30%)
Mission and Lawndale/McLellan Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Construct curb extensions at all four corners. Provide leading pedestrian intervals for all crossings. Construct sidewalks on the west side of McLellan south of Mission Rd.
9 Long-Term Improvement $1,250,340
El Camino Real and McLellan Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Install a high-visibility crosswalk at the western ECR approach. Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the ECR crossings. Construct curb extensions.
Long-Term Improvement $1,352,000
McLellan and BART Upgrade existing crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Install leading pedestrian intervals at all crossings. Build curb extensions at the eastern corners.
Long-Term Improvement $422,500
El Camino Real and BART Straighten the crosswalk across the northern approach. Upgrade both crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Provide a leading pedestrian interval.
Long-Term Improvement $139,750
Grand and Airport Blvd Remove free right turn lane. Upgrade two marked crossings to high-visibility. Consider pedestrian-only phase. Construct a pedestrian refuge island at the Airport Boulevard approach.
8 Long-Term Improvement $334,750
El Camino Real and Ponderosa Construct sidewalks on the eastern side of ECR between Country Club Drive and Ponderosa. Upgrade all three marked crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the ECR crossings. Construct median refuge islands for the ECR crossings.
7 Long-Term Improvement $459,875
Grand Avenue and E Grand Avenue Upgrade two existing crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Remove free right turn lane at the southeast corner. Install pedestrian refuge island in the E Grand Avenue crossing. Install curb extensions at the northeast, southwest, and southeast corners. Add a leading pedestrian interval for the E Grand Avenue crossing.
7 Long-Term Improvement $919,750
91
IMPLEMENTATION83
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Location Improvement
Total
Points Implementation Category
Project Total with
Contingency (30%)
Mission and Sequoia Install a crosswalk on the northern approach. Upgrade
all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Construct
curb extensions.
7 Long-Term Improvement $1,062,750
Orange and Railroad Upgrade the transverse crosswalk across Railroad
Avenue to high-visibility and construct a curb
extension at the southeast corner.
7 Long-Term Improvement $68,250
Orange and Tennis Dr Construct curb extensions for the crossings of Orange
Avenue and Tennis Drive. Install a high-visibility
crosswalk across Tennis Drive.
7 Long-Term Improvement $263,250
Westborough and Galway Upgrade all four crosswalks to yellow high-visibility
crosswalks. Construct pedestrian refuge islands on the
Westborough crossings. Construct curb ramps at all
corners. Install curb extensions to tighten corner radii.
Update/add school zone signs.
7 Long-Term Improvement $1,453,400
Westborough and Junipero
Serra Blvd
Construct sidewalks on the southern side of
Westborough Boulevard through the interchange
area to Junipero Serra. Install/upgrade high visibility
crosswalks at all interchange crossing locations. Install
with appropriate signs and pavement markings.
7 Long-Term Improvement $191,165
Spruce and Grand Install yellow transverse markings around the
decorative crosswalk. Upgrade three remaining
crosswalks to high-visibility. Consider installing curb
extensions at all corners.
7 Opportunity Improvement $1,073,150
Oyster Point/Sister Cities and
Airport
Construct curb extensions at the north, west, and
south corners. Upgrade two marked crosswalks to
high-visibility crosswalks and realign to be straight.
Implement a leading pedestrian interval for both
crosswalks.
7 Long-Term Improvement $741,000
Arroyo and Alta Loma Construct curb extensions on both sides of the
crosswalk. Construct a median refuge island. Install
an RRFB. Install a high visibility crosswalk across Alta
Loma Drive.
6 Long-Term Improvement $406,250
92
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY84
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Location Improvement
Total
Points Implementation Category
Project Total with
Contingency (30%)
E Grand and Poletti Way Mark crosswalks across E Grand Avenue and Industrial
Way to enhance Caltrain and Grand Avenue access.
Tighten corner radii to square-up intersection
approaches. Provide the proposed trail with an
enhanced crossing.
6 Long-Term Improvement $289,250
El Camino Real and Kaiser Construct sidewalks on the south side of ECR from
the bus stop to the bend in Del Paso Drive. Build
sidewalk between ECR and Del Paso. At the Kaiser
driveway, upgrade all crosswalks to high visibility
crosswalks. Redesign the pedestrian refuge island
in the western ECR crossing. Provide a leading
pedestrian interval for the ECR crossing.
6 Long-Term Improvement $215,735
El Camino Real and S Spruce Upgrade all four crosswalks to high-visibility
crosswalks. Construct pedestrian refuge islands for
the two ECR crossings. Provide a leading pedestrian
interval for the ECR crossings. Consider curb
extensions at all four corners.
6 Long-Term Improvement $1,475,500
Grand and Linden Install advance stop markings at all approaches.
Provide a leading pedestrian interval for all crossings.
6 Opportunity Improvement $171,600
Grand and Maple Install advance stop markings at all approaches.
Provide a leading pedestrian interval for all crossings.
6 Opportunity Improvement $171,600
Hickey and El Camino Real Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks.
Straighten the northern ECR crosswalk. Install a high-
visibility crosswalk across the southern ECR approach
(push back the northbound stop bar and median to
create a straight crossing). Provide a leading pedestrian
interval for the ECR crossings.
6 Long-Term Improvement $160,875
Miller and Oakcrest Construct curb extensions at the southeast,
southwest, and northwest corners. Install advance
stop/yield pavement markings. Consider installing an
RRFB.
6 Long-Term Improvement $686,400
93
IMPLEMENTATION85
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Location Improvement
Total
Points Implementation Category
Project Total with
Contingency (30%)
BART/Cymbidium Circle
Neighborhood Path
Create a stair channel along the existing stairs to
improve bicycle access. Remove the gate at Alta
Loma/Cymbidium to open stair access to both
neighborhoods. At ECR, upgrade crosswalk to high
visibility and straighten the crosswalk. Provide a leading
pedestrian interval.
6 Long-Term Improvement $136,500
Spruce and S Canal Way Straighten the crosswalk across S Canal Street.
Upgrade both crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks.
Construct a curb extension at the southeast corner.
Add trail wayfinding information. Consider leading
pedestrian intervals for Spruce Avenue crossing.
6 Long-Term Improvement $242,125
Westborough and Gellert Upgrade the three marked, and install on the fourth
approach high-visibility crosswalks. Build out the
necessary corners to straighten all crosswalks.
Construct pedestrian refuge islands at all crosswalks.
Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the northern
Westborough crosswalk.
6 Long-Term Improvement $2,314,000
Westborough/Chestnut and El
Camino Real
Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks.
Straighten the northern crosswalk across Chestnut.
Provide a leading pedestrian interval for all crossings.
Consider installing curb extensions at all corners.
Extend all four medians to create pedestrian refuge
islands.
6 Long-Term Improvement $2,314,000
Crestwood/Gardenside Install a neighborhood traffic circle. Upgrade all
crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks.
5 Low Priority $247,000
El Camino Real and Arroyo &
Arroyo and Del Paso
Remove the crosswalk at Del Paso Drive across Arroyo
Drive; close gap in the median, and remove yield
paddle. At ECR, upgrade all crosswalks to high visibility
crosswalks. Provide a leading pedestrian interval for
ECR crossings. Consider curb extensions at all four
corners
5 Low Priority $1,266,525
Grand and Cypress Install advance yield markings and signs for the Grand
Avenue crossings.
5 Opportunity Improvement $13,000
94
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY86
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Location Improvement
Total
Points Implementation Category
Project Total with
Contingency (30%)
Grand midblock crossings
between Linden and Maple
Install advance yield pavement markings and signs.5 Opportunity Improvement $16,250
Hillside and Arden Refresh the two existing high-visibility crosswalks.
Construct curb extensions at the two eastern corners.
Install advance stop/yield markings.
5 Low Priority $296,400
Hillside and Belmont Shift the crossing of Hillside Boulevard to the western
approach to improve site lines. Install curb extensions
at all three corners with a crosswalk. Install an RRFB
for the Hillside crosswalk. Install advance yield
markings.
5 Low Priority $677,300
Linden and N Canal Widen on or both of the existing paths on the
Colma Creek bridge to ADA complaint width. Install
appropriate curb ramps. Mark a crosswalk across S
Canal street if sidewalks are present on the west side.
5 Low Priority $108,290
Miller and Westview Construct curb extensions at the southeast,
southwest, and northwest corners. Straighten the
crosswalk across Miller. Install advance stop/yield
pavement markings. Consider installing an RRFB.
5 Low Priority $689,650
S Airport and Utah Consistent with proposed Utah overcrossing of 101,
install high visibility crosswalks at all four approaches.
Provide a leading pedestrian interval.
5 Opportunity Improvement $191,750
Spruce and Hillside Construct curb extensions at the two northern and
southeastern corners. Mark high-visibility crosswalks
across Spruce Avenue and School Street.
5 Low Priority $598,000
Spruce and Park Way Upgrade the two existing crosswalks across Park
Way to high-visibility crosswalks. Install high-visibility
crosswalks across both Spruce approaches. Install
advance stop markings. Paint/refresh red curb at all
corners.
5 Opportunity Improvement $93,686
Utah Ave/ San Mateo Ave Install a protected intersection with high visibility
crosswalks.
5 Long-Term Improvement $650,000
95
IMPLEMENTATION87
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Location Improvement
Total
Points Implementation Category
Project Total with
Contingency (30%)
Westborough and Callan Upgrade all four crosswalks to yellow high-visibility
crosswalks. Construct pedestrian refuge islands on the
Westborough and Callan crossings. Update/add school
zone signs
5 Long-Term Improvement $629,525
Airport and Gateway Upgrade existing crosswalks to high-visibility
crosswalks. Construct median refuge islands at the
west, east, and south approaches. Remove slip lane
from the southern approach.
4 Low Priority $793,000
Chestnut and Commercial Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility. Remove the
slip lane from the southeast corner and construct a
curb extension; straighten both crosswalks from this
corner.
4 Low Priority $247,000
Grand and Gateway Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks.
Remove free right turn lanes at northwest and
southeast corners. Install pedestrian refuge islands in
all crossings. Install curb extensions at all four corners.
4 Low Priority $2,645,500
Grand and Walnut Install advance yield pavement markings and signs.4 Opportunity Improvement $29,250
Holly/Crestwood Upgrade all crossings to high-visibility crosswalks.
Consider installing a neighborhood traffic circle.
4 Opportunity Improvement $247,000
Junipero Serra and Arroyo Construct sidewalks on the western (highway) side
of Junipero Serra Boulevard from the interchange to
Arroyo Drive. Install a HAWK beacon at JSB/Arroyo
Drive.
4 Low Priority $546,000
Junipero Serra and Avalon &
Avalon and Valverde
Mark high-visibility crosswalks across Valverde Drive.
Construct sidewalks on the eastern (golf course) side
of JSB to Westborough Boulevard from Avalon Drive.
Mark a high-visibility crosswalk across the eastern
approach of Avalon Drive/JSB.
4 Low Priority $256,750
Junipero Serra and Hickey Remove the free right turn lane at the southeast,
southwest, and northwest corner. Upgrade all
crosswalks to high visibility crosswalks. Provide leading
pedestrian intervals for both crosswalks. Construct
pedestrian refuge islands.
4 Low Priority $1,579,500
96
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY88
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Location Improvement
Total
Points Implementation Category
Project Total with
Contingency (30%)
Spruce and N. Canal St Build curb extensions at the two northern corners.
Straighten and upgrade all three marked crosswalks to
high-visibility crosswalks.
4 Low Priority $277,875
East Grand and Forbes Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks.
Install curb extensions at all four corners. Install
pedestrian refuge islands across E Grand Avenue.
3 Low Priority $1,329,250
El Camino Real and W Orange Straighten the southern crosswalk across ECR. Create
pedestrian refuge islands for the ECR crossings.
Upgrade all four crosswalks to high visibility crosswalks.
Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the ECR
crossing.
3 Low Priority $429,000
Grand and Mission Upgrade both crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks.
Extend medians and create pedestrian refuge islands.
3 Low Priority $279,500
Grand and Orange Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks.
Consider installing curb extensions at all four corners.
Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the crossings
of Grand Avenue.
3 Opportunity Improvement $1,222,000
97
IMPLEMENTATION89
FINAL – JUNE 2022
The top 11 pedestrian projects are at the
following locations:
• BART Station-area recommendations
(four locations)
• Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard
• Grand Avenue/E Grand Avenue
• Grand Avenue/Spruce Avenue
• El Camino Real/Ponderosa Road
• Mission Road/Sequoia Avenue
• Orange Avenue/Railroad Avenue
• Orange Avenue/Tennis Drive
• Westborough Boulevard/Galway Drive
• Westborough Boulevard/Junipero Serra
Boulevard
• Oyster Point Boulevard/Sister Cities
Boulevard/Airport Boulevard
Eighteen pedestrian projects were
categorized as low-priority projects, 10
were categorized as opportunity projects,
21 were categorized as long-term projects,
and none were categorized as short-term
projects. Some pedestrian projects (or
components of some projects), however,
can be implemented with shorter-term
materials (paint-and-post curb extensions,
for example) and can later be converted to
more permanent materials (concrete) when
funding becomes available.
The top priority bicycle and pedestrian
projects are shown on the Map 14.
98
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY90
FINAL – JUNE 2022
MAp 14
99
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Implementation
Considerations
While some of the projects outlined within
this plan may be implemented more
quickly, other projects require further
community involvement, additional study
of trade-offs, or multi-jurisdictional
coordination. These pieces require
additional time and resources that add
complexity to the project.
PROJECT DELIVERY
The City may use a combination of staff
and consultant resources for project
delivery phases that include Planning
(conceptual project development and
funding); Preliminary Engineering
(environmental clearance and design); Final
Design; and Construction Management
(contractor oversight, inspection, and
invoicing). In addition, many projects will be
constructed by developers as part of their
development agreements.
PROJECT STUDIES AND PHASING
A number of the projects outlined in this
plan will require additional study prior to
implementation. We have identified many
of the major arterial segments as Study
Corridors on the recommended project
map (Map 14) to indicate the need for
further outreach and consideration of
feasibility.
Study Corridors denote major multimodal
road segments where implementation
of recommended bikeways or
pedestrian improvements may impact
roadway capacity, parking, freight, or
transit operations. Implementation of
improvements on these segments will
require additional studies that may include
traffic analysis, environmental analysis,
public process, and coordination with State,
County, or local transit agencies. Project
designs will be informed by feasibility
outcomes of the studies mentioned
previously and general feasibility as
determined by the City, and all projects will
be considered in the context of the modal
priorities established by the South San
Francisco General Plan.
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
Specific proposed projects require the
City of South San Francisco to coordinate
with other agencies and stakeholders
to coordinate design, implementation,
and funding. For example, extending
the Centennial Way Trail will require
coordination with BART and the San
Mateo County Flood Control District.
Likewise, the proposed additions to the
Bay Trail will require coordination with
agencies such as the Association of Bay
Area Governments and the Coastal
Conservancy. Improvements at and along
El Camino Real and highway crossings and
interchanges will require coordination with
Caltrans Bay Area.
100
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY92
FINAL – JUNE 2022
IMPLEMENTATION92Project Funding
Appendix D provides a detailed overview
of some funding sources available to help
South San Francisco fund the proposed
active transportation improvements.
Table 8 provides a summary of the types
of projects each listed funding source is
eligible to fund.
Implementation Monitoring
Continuing to monitor how proposed
projects and programs are implemented
will help the City evaluate community
benefits and impacts and hold themselves
accountable for implementation. The
following set of recommendations can
help the City and its partners monitor
progress and evaluate the effectiveness of
implementation, respectively.
MONITOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
PROGRESS
• Bring Active South City progress
updates to the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Commission at least
biannually. Identify what progress has
been made in the past six months, and
where the City will focus efforts in the
upcoming six months.
• Create and frequently update an
online web map or dashboard of
active projects so that residents
and community members can see
the progress of bike and pedestrian
projects. For example, the Interactive
Projects Map maintained by the San
Francisco Metropolitan Transportation
Authority shows active transportation
projects in San Francisco.
PROJECT AND PROGRAM
EVALUATION
• Conduct pre- and post-implementation
evaluation of all large bike and pedestrian
infrastructure projects to understand
outcomes such as mode shift, increased
biking and walking safety, other
community benefits, and any unintended
impacts. For example, the City of
Oakland’s Telegraph Avenue Progress
Report examines safety and mode shift
outcomes after the implementation of a
parking-protected bikeway.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of program
investments every two years. This
program evaluation can help the City
understand if programs are a good
return on investment and measure
outcomes and results in the near,
medium, and long term. For example,
the Alameda County Transportation
Commission’s evaluation of their Safe
Routes to School program analyzes
how the intended goals were reached.
101
IMPLEMENTATION93
FINAL – JUNE 2022
TAbLE 8 Prioritized Bicycle Projects with Planning-Level Costs
Funding Source
On-Street
Bikeways Trails
Safe Routes
to School
Safe Routes
to Transit Crossings Programs Studies
Local and Regional Programs
Local Sources (Impact Fees,
Developer Agreements,
Repaving)
••••••
Measure A •••••
Measure M •••
Measure W •••••
Transportation Funds for Clean
Air (C/CAG & BAAQMD)•••••
Bicycle Facilities Program
(BAAQMD)••••
One Bay Area (MTC & C/
CAG)••••
Transportation Development
Act, Article 3 (C/CAG)•••••
Regional Measure 3 (MTC)•
Competitive Grant Programs
Active Transportation Program
(CTC)••••••
Sustainable Transportation
Planning Grants (Caltrans)•
Highway Safety Improvement
Program (Caltrans)••••
Solutions for Congested
Corridors (CTC)•••
Office of Traffic Safety (CA
OTS)•
102
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY94
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Funding Source
On-Street
Bikeways Trails
Safe Routes
to School
Safe Routes
to Transit Crossings Programs Studies
Recreational Trails Program
(CA DPR)•
Affordable Housing &
Sustainable Communities (CA
HCD)
•••
Cultural, Community, and
Natural Resources (CA NRA)•
Urban Greening Grants (CA
NRA)••••
Other State Funds
Local Partnership Program
(CTC)••••
Road Maintenance and
Rehabilitation Program
(Controller’s Office)
•••
103
THIS pAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT bLANK
104
96
FINAL – JUNE 2022
A
Appendix A: Design Guidelines
105
DAVIS COUNTY
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION DESIGN GUIDE
Bicycle
&
Pedestrian
Design Guide
106
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-3
Context
107
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-4
Guidance Basis
The sections that follow serve as an inventory of pedestrian and bicycle design treatments and provide
guidelines for their development. These treatments and design guidelines are important because they
represent the tools for creating a bicycle-friendly, safe, accessible community. The guidelines are not,
however, a substitute for a more thorough evaluation by a professional engineer. The following standards
and guidelines are referred to in this guide:
National Guidance
A blueprint for designing 21st century streets, the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013) unveils the toolbox and tactics cities use to make streets safer, more livable, and more economically vibrant. The Guide outlines both a clear vision for complete streets and a basic road map for how to bring them to fruition. The document charts the principles and practices of the nation’s foremost engineers, planners, and designers working in cities.
The National Association of City Transportation Officials’ (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2012) provides cities with state-of-the-practice solutions that can help create complete streets that are safe and enjoyable for bicyclists. The designs were developed by cities for cities, since unique urban streets require innovative solutions. In August 2013, the Federal Highway Administration issued a memorandum officially supporting use of the document.
Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (2015) provides national guidance on the planning and design of separated bike lane facilities. Released by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), this guide documents best practices as demonstrated around the U.S., and offers ideas on future areas of research, evaluation, and design flexibility.
NCHRP’s Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings Report recommends engineering treatments to improve pedestrian safety at unsignalized locations with high speeds and traffic volumes.
108
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-5
The California Highway Design Manual (HDM) (Updated 2015) establishes uniform policies and procedures to carry out highway design functions for the California Department of Transportation.
Complete Intersections: A Guide
to Reconstructing Intersections
and Interchanges for Bicyclists
and Pedestrians (2010) is a
reference guide that presents
information and concepts related
to improving conditions for
bicyclists and pedestrians at major
intersections and interchanges.
The guide can be used to inform
minor signage and striping
changes to intersections, as well
as major changes and designs for
new intersections.
Main Street, California: A Guide
for Improving Community and
Transportation Vitality (2013)
reflects California’s current
manuals and policies that improve
multi-modal access, livability
and sustainability within the
transportation system. The guide
recognizes the overlapping and
sometimes competing needs of
main streets.
The Caltrans Memo: Design Flexibility in Multimodal Design (2014) encourages flexibility in highway design. The memo stated that “Publications such as the NACTO “Urban Street Design Guide” and “Urban Bikeway Design Guide,” ... are resources that Caltrans and local entities can reference when making planning and design decisions on the State highway system and local streets and roads.”
The Caltrans resource Class IV
Bikeway Guidance (2018) provides
enhanced guidance for two-way
separated bikeways, with added
information on transit stops and
separated bikeways adjacent to
street parking. It also provides a
discussion of maintenance using
Caltrans equipment.
The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) (2014) is an amended version of the FHWA MUTCD 2009 edition modified for use in California. While standards presented in the CA MUTCD substantially conform to the FHWA MUTCD, the state of California follows local practices, laws and requirements with regards to signing, striping and other traffic control devices.
California Guidance
109
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-6
Bicycle as a Design Vehicle
Similar to motor vehicles, bicyclists and their bicycles
exist in a variety of sizes and configurations. These
variations occur in the types of vehicle (such as
a conventional bicycle, a recumbent bicycle or a
tricycle), and behavioral characteristics (such as the
comfort level of the bicyclist). The design of a bikeway
should consider reasonably expected bicycle types on
the facility and utilize the appropriate dimensions.
The figure to the right illustrates the operating space
and physical dimensions of a typical adult bicyclist,
which are the basis for typical facility design. Bicyclists
require clear space to operate within a facility. This is
why the minimum operating width is greater than the
physical dimensions of the bicyclist. Bicyclists prefer
five feet or more operating width, although four feet
may be minimally acceptable.
In addition to the design dimensions of a typical
bicycle, there are many other commonly used pedal-
driven cycles and accessories to consider when
planning and designing bicycle facilities. The most
common types include tandem bicycles, recumbent
bicycles, and trailer accessories. The figure to the left
summarizes the typical dimensions for bicycle types.
Bicycle Rider - Typical Dimensions
Operating
Envelope
8’ 4”
Eye Level
5’
Handlebar
Height
3’8”
Preferred Operating Width
5’
Minimum Operating
Width
4’
Physical Operating
Width
2’6”
User Design Dimensions
The purpose of this section is to provide the facility designer with an understanding of how
bicyclists operate and how their bicycle influences that operation. Bicyclists, by nature, are
much more affected by poor facility design, construction, and maintenance practices than
motor vehicle drivers.
Bicyclists lack the protection from the elements and roadway hazards provided by an
automobile’s structure and safety features. By understanding the unique characteristics and
needs of bicyclists, a facility designer can provide quality facilities and minimize user risk.
110
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-7
Source: AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition
Bicycle as Design Vehicle - Design Speed Expectations
* Typical speed for causal riders per AASHTO
2013.
Bicycle Type Feature
Typical
Speed
Upright Adult Bicyclist Paved level surfacing 8-12 mph*
Crossing Intersections 10 mph
Downhill 30 mph
Uphill 5 -12 mph
Recumbent Bicyclist Paved level surfacing 18 mph
3’ 11” 2’ 6”3’ 9”
8’
5’ 10”
6’10”
The expected speed that different types of bicyclists
can maintain under various conditions also influences
the design of facilities such as shared use paths. The
table to the right provides typical bicyclist speeds for a
variety of conditions.
111
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-8
Pedestrian Design Needs
Types of Pedestrians
Pedestrians have a variety of characteristics and
the transportation network should accommodate a
variety of needs, abilities, and possible impairments.
Age is one major factor that affects pedestrians’
physical characteristics, walking speed, and
environmental perception. Children have low eye
height and walk at slower speeds than adults. They
also perceive the environment differently at various
stages of their cognitive development. Older adults
walk more slowly and may require assistive devices for
walking stability, sight, and hearing. The table below
summarizes common pedestrian characteristics for
various age groups.
Pedestrian Characteristics by Age
Age Characteristics
0-4 Learning to walk
Requires constant adult supervision
Developing peripheral vision and depth perception
5-8 Increasing independence, but still requires supervision
Poor depth perception
9-13 Susceptible to “darting out” in roadways
Insufficient judgment
Sense of invulnerability
14-18 Improved awareness of traffic environment
Insufficient judgment
19-40 Active, aware of traffic environment
41-65 Slowing of reflexes
65+Difficulty crossing street
Vision loss
Difficulty hearing vehicles approaching from behind
Walking
2’ 6” (0.75 m)
Preferred Operating Space
5’ (1.5 m)
Eye Level
4’ 6” - 5’ 10”
(1.3 m - 1.7 m)
Shoulders
1’ 10” (0.5 m)
The MUTCD recommends a normal walking speed of
3.5 feet per second when calculating the pedestrian
clearance interval at traffic signals. The walking
speed can drop to 3 feet per second for areas
with older populations and persons with mobility
impairments. While the type and degree of mobility
impairment varies greatly across the population, the
transportation system should accommodate these
users to the greatest reasonable extent.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, Exhibit
2-1. 2004.
112
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-9
Design Needs of Dog Walkers
Dog walking is a common and anticipated use on
shared use paths. Dog sizes vary largely, as does leash
length and walking style, leading to wide variation in
possible design dimensions.
Shared use paths designed to accommodate
wheelchair users are likely to provide the necessary
dimensions for the average dog walker. Amenities
such as dog waste stations may enhance conditions
for dog walkers.
Preferred Operating Space
5’ (1.5 m)
Shoulders
1’ 10” (0.5 m)
Sweep Width
4.3’ (1.3 m)
Sweep Width
Varies
Eye Level
4’ 6” - 5’ 10”
(1.3 m - 1.7 m)
Runner Typical Speed
User Typical Speed
Runner 6.2 mph
Physical Length
Up to 5’ (1.5 m)
Design Needs of Runners
Running is an important recreation and fitness activity
commonly performed on shared use paths. Many
runners prefer softer surfaces (such as rubber, bare
earth or crushed rock) to reduce impact. Runners
can change their speed and direction frequently. If
high volumes are expected, controlled interaction
or separation of different types of users should be
considered.
Additional References and Guidelines
FHWA. Characteristics of Emerging Road and Trail Users and Their Safety. (2004).
113
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-10
Design Needs of Wheelchair Users
As the American population ages, the number of
people using mobility assistive devices (such as manual
wheelchairs, powered wheelchairs) increases.
Manual wheelchairs are self-propelled devices. Users
propel themselves using push rims attached to the
rear wheels. Braking is done through resisting wheel
movement with the hands or arm. Alternatively, a
second individual can control the wheelchair using
handles attached to the back of the chair.
Power wheelchairs user battery power to move the
wheelchair. The size and weight of power wheelchairs
Minimum Operating Width
3’ (0.9 m)
Minimum Operating Width
3’ (0.9 m)
Minimum to Make a 180 Degree Turn
5’ (1.5 m)
Minimum to Make a 180 Degree Turn
5’ (1.5 m)
Physical Width
2’6” (0.75 m)
Physical Width
2’2” (0.7 m)
Armrest
2’5” (0.75 m)
Handle
2’9” (0.9 m)
Eye Height
3’8” (1.1 m)
Wheelchair User Typical Speed
User
Typical
Speed
Manual Wheelchair 3.6 mph
Power Wheelchair 6.8 mph
Wheelchair User Design Considerations
Effect on Mobility Design Solution
Difficulty propelling over
uneven or soft surfaces.
Firm, stable surfaces and
structures, including ramps or beveled edges.
Cross-slopes cause wheel-
chairs to veer downhill.
Cross-slopes of less than two
percent.
Require wider path of travel.Sufficient width and maneuver-ing space.
limit their ability to negotiate obstacles without a
ramp. Various control units are available that enable
users to control the wheelchair movement, based on
their ability (e.g., joystick control, breath controlled,
etc).
Maneuvering around a turn requires additional space
for wheelchair devices. Providing adequate space
for 180 degree turns at appropriate locations is an
important element for accessible design.
Additional References and Guidelines
FHWA. Characteristics of Emerging Road and Trail Users and Their Safety. 2004. USDOJ.
2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. 2010.
114
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-11
Strong and Fearless – Characterized by bicyclists
that will typically ride anywhere regardless of roadway
conditions or weather. These bicyclists can ride faster
than other user types, prefer direct routes and will
typically choose roadway connections (even if shared
with vehicles) over separate bicycle facilities such as
shared-use paths.
Enthused and Confident - This user group
encompasses bicyclists who are fairly comfortable
riding on all types of bikeways but usually choose low
traffic streets or shared-use paths when available.
These bicyclists may deviate from a more direct
route in favor of a preferred facility type. This group
includes all kinds of bicyclists such as commuters,
recreationalists, racers and utilitarian bicyclists.
Interested but Concerned – This user type
comprises the bulk of the cycling population and
represents bicyclists who typically only ride a bicycle
on low traffic streets or shared-use paths under
favorable weather conditions. These bicyclists
perceive significant barriers to their increased use
of cycling, specifically traffic and other safety issues.
These people may become “Enthused & Confident”
with encouragement, education and experience.
No Way, No How – Persons in this category are
not bicyclists, and perceive severe safety issues
with riding in traffic. Some people in this group may
eventually become more regular cyclists with time and
education. A significant portion of these people will
not ride a bicycle under any circumstances.
1%
5-10%
60%
30%
Interested but
Concerned
No Way, No How
Enthused and
Confident
Strong and
Fearless
Typical Distribution of Bicyclist Types
Bicyclist User Type
The 2012 AASHTO Guide to the Development of Bicycle Facilities encourages designers to
identify their rider type based on the trip purpose (Recreational vs Transportation) and on
the level of comfort and skill of the rider (Causal vs Experienced). A user-type framework for
understanding a potential rider’s willingness to bike is illustrated in the figure below. Developed
by planners in Portland, OR and supported by research, this classification identifies four distinct
types of bicyclists.
115
DAVIS COUNTY
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION DESIGN GUIDE
Pedestrian Facilities
DAVIS COUNTY
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION DESIGN GUIDE
116
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-13
Midblock Crossings
Midblock crossings are an important street design
element for pedestrians. They can provide a legal
crossing at locations where pedestrians want to
travel, and can be safer than crossings at intersections
because traffic is only moving in two directions.
Locations where midblock crossings should be
considered include:
• Long blocks (longer than 600 feet) with
destinations on both sides of the street.
• Locations with heavy pedestrian traffic, such as
schools, shopping centers.
• At midblock transit stops, where transit riders
must cross the street on one leg of their journey.
FACILITY TYPE
PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGCONTEXTUAL GUIDANCE
LEGEND
At unsignalized locations
2 lane 3 lane 2 lane
2 lane with median refuge 3 lane 2 lane
2 lane with median refuge 3 lane 4 lane
4 lane with median refuge 5 lane 6 lane
6 lane with median refuge
Crosswalk Only (high visibility)EJ EJ X EJ EJ X X X X X X
Crosswalk with warning signage and yield lines EJ EJ EJ EJ X X X X X
Active Warning Beacon (RRFB)X EJ X X X X
Hybrid Beacon X X EJ EJ EJ EJ
Full Tra c Signal X X EJ EJ EJ EJ EJ EJ
Grade separation X X EJ EJ EJ X EJ EJ EJ EJ EJ
Most Desirable
Engineering Judgement EJ
Not Recommended X
Local Streets
15-25 mph
Collector Streets
25-30 mph
Arterial Streets
30-45 mph
1 Marked Crosswalks
4 Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon
3 Active Warning Beacon (RRFB)
6 Grade Separation5 Full Traffic Signal
2 Crosswalk with Warning
Signage
1
2
3
4
5
6
Crossing Treatment Selection
The specific type of treatment at a crossing may range
from a simple marked crosswalk to full traffic signals
or grade separated crossings. Crosswalk lines should
not typically be used by themselves, and appropriate
selection of crossing enhancements should be
evaluated in an engineering study. The engineering
study should consider the number of lanes, the
presence of a median, the distance from adjacent
signalized intersections, the pedestrian volumes and
delays, the average daily traffic (ADT), the posted or
statutory speed limit or 85th-percentile speed, the
geometry of the location, the possible consolidation
of multiple crossing points, the availability of street
lighting, and other appropriate factors.
Pedestrian Crossing Location and
Facility Selection
117
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-14
Frontage ZonePedestrian Through ZoneBuffer ZoneCurbside Lane
The through zone is the area intended for pedestrian travel.
This zone should be entirely free
of permanent and temporary objects.
Wide through zones are needed in downtown areas or where
pedestrian flows are high.
The frontage zone allows pedestrians a comfortable
“shy” distance from the
building fronts. It provides opportunities for window
shopping, to place signs, planters, or chairs.
The buffer zone, also called the furnishing or
landscaping zone, buffers
pedestrians from the adjacent roadway, and
is also the area where elements such as street
trees, signal poles, signs,
and other street furniture are properly located.
The curbside lane can act as a flexible
space to further
buffer the sidewalk from moving traffic.,
and may be used for a bike lane. Curb
extensions and bike
corrals may occupy this space where
appropriate.
In the edge zone
there should be a 6 inch wide curb.
Sidewalk Zones & Widths
Sidewalks are the most fundamental element of the walking network, as they provide an area
for pedestrian travel separated from vehicle traffic. Providing adequate and accessible facilities
can lead to increased numbers of people walking, improved accessibility, and the creation of
social space.
118
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-15
Street Classification Parking Lane/En-
hancement Zone
Buffer
Zone
Pedestrian
Through Zone
Frontage
Zone
Local Streets Varies 4 - 6 ft 6 ft N/A
Downtown and PedestrianPriority Areas Varies 4 - 6 ft 12 ft 2.5 - 10 ft
Arterials and Collectors Varies 4 - 6 ft 6 - 8 ft 2.5 - 5 ft
Typical Application
• Wider sidewalks should be installed near schools, at transit stops, in downtown areas, or anywhere high
concentrations of pedestrians exist.
• At transit stops, an 8 ft by 5 ft clear space is required for accessible passenger boarding/alighting at the front
door location per ADA requirements.
• Sidewalks should be continuous on both sides of urban commercial streets, and should be required in areas
of moderate residential density.
• When retrofitting gaps in the sidewalk network, locations near transit stops, schools, parks, public buildings,
and other areas with high concentrations of pedestrians should be the highest priority.
Approximate Cost
Cost of standard sidewalks range from about $25
per square foot for concrete sidewalk. This cost can
increase with additional right-of-way acquisition or
addition of landscaping, lighting or other aesthetic
features. As an interim measure, an asphalt concrete
path can be placed until such time that a standard
sidewalk can be built. The cost of asphalt path can be
less than half the cost of a standard sidewalk.
Materials and Maintenance
Sidewalks are typically constructed out of concrete
and are separated from the roadway by a curb or
gutter and sometimes a landscaped boulevard. Less
expensive walkways constructed of asphalt, crushed
stone, or other stabilized surfaces may be appropriate.
Ensure accessibility and properly maintain all surfaces
regularly. Surfaces must be firm, stable, and slip
resistant. Colored, patterned, or stamped concrete
can add distinctive visual appeal.
119
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-16
A
Neighborhood Pathways
Neighborhood accessways provide residential areas with direct bicycle and pedestrian access
to parks, trails, greenspaces, and other recreational areas. They most often serve as small trail
connections to and from the larger trail network, typically having their own rights-of-way and
easements.
Typical Application
• Neighborhood accessways should be designed
into new subdivisions at every opportunity and
should be required by City/County subdivision
regulations.
• For existing subdivisions, neighborhood and
homeowner association groups are encouraged
to identify locations where such connects would
be desirable. Nearby residents and adjacent
property owners should be invited to provide
landscape design input.
Design Features
• Neighborhood accessways should remain open
to the public.
• Trail pavement shall be at least 8 feet wide to
accommodate emergency and maintenance
vehicles, meet ADA requirements and be
considered suitable for multi-use.
• Trail widths should be designed to be less than
8 feet wide only when necessary to protect
large mature native trees over 18 inches in
caliper, wetlands or other ecologically sensitive
areas.
• Access trails should slightly meander whenever
possible the bicycle crossing time for standing
bicycles.
A
120
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-18
Green Infrastructure
Green infrastructure treats and slows runoff from impervious surface areas, such as roadways,
sidewalks, and buildings. Sustainable stormwater strategies may include bioretention swales,
rain gardens, tree box filters, and pervious pavements (pervious concrete, asphalt and pavers).
Bioswales are natural landscape elements that manage water runoff from a paved surface,
reducing the risks of erosion or flooding of local streams and creeks, which can threaten natural
habitats. Plants in the swale trap pollutants and silt from entering a river system.
Typical Application
• Install in areas without conventional stormwater
systems that are prone to flooding to improve
drainage and reduce costs compared to installing
traditional gutter and drainage systems.
• Use green infrastructure to provide an ecological
and aesthetic enhancement of traditional traffic
speed and volume control measures, such as
along a bicycle boulevard corridor.
• Bioswales and rain gardens are appropriate at
curb extensions and along planting strips.
• Street trees and plantings can be placed in
medians, chicanes, and other locations.
• Pervious pavers can be used along sidewalks,
street furniture zones, parking lanes, gutter
strips, or entire roadways. They are not likely
to provide traffic calming benefit on bicycle
boulevards.
Design Features
• Bioswales are shallow depressions with
vegetation designed to capture, treat, and
infiltrate stormwater runoff by reducing velocity
and purifying the water while recharging the
underlying groundwater table. In order to meet
the minimum criteria for infiltration rates,
bioswales are designed to pass 5-10 inches of
rain water per hour. The overflow/bypass drain
system should be approximately 6 inches above
the soil surface to manage heavier rainfall.
Bioswales have a typical side slope of 4:1
(maximum 3:1) to allow water to move along the
surface and settles out sediments and pollutants.
• Pervious pavement in areas where landscaping
such as swales are less desired or feasible,
pervious pavement can effectively capture and
treat stormwater runoff. The desired storage
volume and intended drain time is determined
by the depth of the pervious layer, void space,
A
A
B
B
121
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-19
Further Considerations
Pervious Pavement
• Engineering judgment and surrounding street
context should be used when selecting the
permeable surface, whether it is pavers,
concrete or asphalt. Some decorative pavers
may be more appropriate for bicycle and/or
pedestrians areas due to the potential for shifting
under heavy loads.
Bioswales
• The edge of the swale should be flush with the
grade to accommodate sheetflow runoff, with a
minimum 2-inch drop between the street grade
and the finished grade of the facility. Where
there are curbs, cut-outs at least 18 inches wide
should be provided intermittently (3-15 feet
apart) to allow runoff to enter and be treated.
Low curbs, barriers, and/or hardy vegetative
ground covers can be used to discourage
pedestrian trampling.
Approximate Cost
Bioswales range from $5.50-$24/square foot
depending on the type of facility, with $15/square foot
representing a typical rate.1Permeable pavers can
range from $5.30/square foot for pavers on the low
end to $11.60/square foot for concrete on the high
end. The average cost tends to be around $6-7/square
foot.
and the infiltration rate of underlying soils. An
under drain system must be used to treat the
stormwater.
• Design overflow or drain excess runoff to the
municipal sewer system, and allow the facility to
drain within 48 hours.
Green Infrastructure
Materials and Maintenance
Green infrastructure must be regularly maintained to
ensure it is working properly.
122
DAVIS COUNTY
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION DESIGN GUIDE
Pedestrian Facilities at Intersections
123
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-22
Design Features
• Because the effectiveness of marked crossings
depends entirely on their visibility, maintaining
marked crossings should be a high priority.
• Thermoplastic markings offer increased
durability than conventional paint.
Continental markings provide
additional visibility
The crosswalk should be located
to align as closely as possible with
the through pedestrian zone of the
sidewalk corridor
Transverse markings are the
most basic crosswalk marking
type
Typical Application
At signalized intersections, all crosswalks should be
marked. At unsignalized intersections, crosswalks may
be marked under the following conditions:
• At a complex intersection, to orient pedestrians
in finding their way across.
• At an offset intersection, to show pedestrians
the shortest route across traffic with the least
exposure to vehicular traffic and traffic conflicts.
• At an intersection with visibility constraints, to
position pedestrians where they can best be
seen by oncoming traffic.
• At an intersection within a school zone on a
walking route.
Marked Crosswalks
A marked crosswalk signals to motorists that they must stop for pedestrians and encourages
pedestrians to cross at designated locations. Installing crosswalks alone will not necessarily
make crossings safer; especially on multi-lane roadways.
At mid-block locations, crosswalks must be marked to establish a legal crossing.
124
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-23
Marked Crosswalks
Marked crosswalks at Stony Point Road and Stony Circle
Further Considerations
Pedestrians are sensitive to out-of-direction travel, and reasonable accommodations should be made to make
crossings both convenient at locations with adequate visibility.
Continental crosswalk markings should be used at crossings with high pedestrian use or where vulnerable
pedestrians are expected, including: school crossings, across arterial streets for pedestrian-only signals, at
mid-block crosswalks, and at intersections where there is expected high pedestrian use and the crossing is not
controlled by signals or stop signs. High-visibility crosswalks are not appropriate for all locations. Other crosswalk
marking patterns are provided for in the CA MUTCD.
Some cities prohibit omitting or removing a marked crosswalk at intersections in order to require a three-stage
pedestrian crossing. Intersections with three-stage crossings lead to arduous and increased crossing distances,
pedestrian frustration, encourages jaywalking, and exhibits modal bias favoring motor vehicle level-of-service
over other modes. There are circumstances when only three crosswalks are utilized and typically occur at or near
interchanges and freeway ramps.
Materials and Maintenance
Because the effectiveness of marked crossings
depends entirely on their visibility, maintaining marked
crossings should be a high priority. Thermoplastic
markings offer increased durability than conventional
paint.
Approximate Cost
Depending on the type of material used, width of
the crossing and width of the roadway, approximate
installation costs are $500 for a regular striped
crosswalk, $1,000 for a ladder crosswalk, and $8,000
for a patterned concrete crosswalk. In addition, the
cost of a curb ramp is about $5,000-$10,000 per
ramp.
Due to various number of crosswalk styles in use,
signing standards, color and aesthetics, other factors
will affect the final cost.
Maintenance of markings should also be considered.
125
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-24
Typical Application
• Can be applied on any roadway with a left turn
center lane or median that is at least 6 feet wide.
• Appropriate at signalized or unsignalized
crosswalks.
• On multi-lane roadways, consider configuration
with active warning beacons for improved
yielding compliance.
Cut-through median refuge
islands are preferred over curb
ramps to better accommodate
wheel chairs users.
Median Refuge Island
W11-2,
W16-7P
Median refuge islands are located at the mid-point of a marked crossing and help improve
pedestrian safety by allowing pedestrians to cross one direction of traffic at a time. Refuge
islands minimize pedestrian exposure by shortening crossing distance and increasing the
number of available gaps for crossing.
Design Features
• The refuge island must be accessible, preferably
with an at-grade passage through the island
rather than ramps and landings.
• The island should be at least 6 feet wide to be a
legal refuge and be wider to accommodate cargo
bikes or bikes with child trailers.
• The island should be at least 20 feet long.
• On streets with speeds higher than 25 mph
there should also be double centerline marking,
reflectors, and “KEEP RIGHT” signage (CA MUTCD
R4-7a).
• If a refuge island is landscaped, the landscaping
should not compromise the visibility of
pedestrians crossing in the crosswalk. Shrubs and
ground plantings should be no higher than 1 and
a half feet.
Materials and Maintenance
Refuge islands may require frequent maintenance
of road debris. Trees and plantings in a landscaped
median must be maintained so as not to impair
visibility, and should be no higher than 1 foot 6 inches.
Approximate Cost
The approximate cost to install a median refuge island
ranges from $500 to $1,100 per foot, or about $3,500
to $4,000, depending on the design, site conditions,
landscaping, and whether the median can be added as
a part of a larger street reconstruction project or utility
upgrade.
126
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-25
Median Refuge Island
Curb extension length can be
adjusted to accommodate bus
stops or street furniture.
1‘ buffer from edge of
parking lane preferred
(Curb radii not to scale. For illustration purposes only)
Crossing
distance is
shortened
Curb Extensions
Curb extensions minimize pedestrian exposure during crossing by shortening crossing distance
and giving pedestrians a better chance to see and be seen before committing to crossing. They
are appropriate for any crosswalk where it is desirable to shorten the crossing distance and
there is a parking lane adjacent to the curb.
Design Features
• In most cases, the curb extensions should be
designed to transition between the extended
curb and the running curb in the shortest
practicable distance.
• For purposes of efficient street sweeping, the
minimum radius for the reverse curves of the
transition is 10 feet and the two radii should be
balanced to be nearly equal.
Typical Application
• At signalized intersections with marked
crosswalks should be marked.
• At unsignalized intersections with marked
crosswalks.
• At an intersection with visibility constraints, to
position pedestrians where they can best be
seen by oncoming traffic.
• At an intersection within a school zone on a
walking route.
• Curb extensions should terminate one foot short
of the parking lane to maximize bicyclist safety.
• Planted curb extensions may be designed as a
bioswale, a vegetated system for stormwater
management.
• Turning performance of larger vehicles including
buses may be impacted by curb extensions
Materials and Maintenance
Planted curb extensions may be designed as a
bioswale, a vegetated system for stormwater
management. To maintain proper stormwater
drainage, curb extensions can be constructed as
refuge islands offset by a drainage channel or feature
a covered trench drain.
Approximate Cost
The cost of a curb extension can range from $2,000 to
$20,000 depending on the design and site condition, with
the typical cost approximately $12,000. Green/vegetated
curb extensions cost between $10,000 to $40,000.
127
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-26
Providing secondary installations of
RRFBs on median islands improves
visibility and driver yielding behavior.
W11-2,
W16-7P
Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons
(RRFB) dramatically increase
compliance over conventional
warning beacons.
Active Warning Beacons (RRFBs)
Active warning beacons are user actuated illuminated devices designed to increase motor
vehicle yielding compliance at crossings of multi lane or high volume roadways. Types of active
warning beacons include conventional circular yellow flashing beacons, in-roadway warning
lights, or Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB).
Design Features
• Warning beacons shall not be used at crosswalks
controlled by YIELD signs, STOP signs, or traffic
signals.
• Warning beacons shall initiate operation based
on pedestrian or bicyclist actuation and shall
cease operation at a predetermined time after
actuation or, with passive detection, after the
pedestrian or bicyclist clears the crosswalk.
Typical Application
• At marked crosswalks where increased
pedestrian visibility is needed.
• RRFBs have the most increased compliance of
all the warning beacon enhancement options.
A study of the effectiveness of going from a
no-beacon arrangement to a two-beacon RRFB
installation increased yielding from 18 percent to
81 percent.
• RRFBs are recommended as the preferred
beacon treatment.Approximate Cost
RRFBs vary in cost, depending on site conditions, but
generally cost between $10,000 to $25,000 for two
units.
128
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-27
Active Warning Beacons (RRFBs)
Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon
W11-2
Should be installed at least 100 feet
from side streets or driveways that
are controlled by STOP or YIELD
signs
Push button
actuation
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons
Hybrid beacons are used to improve non-motorized crossings of major streets. A hybrid beacon
consists of a signal-head with two red lenses over a single yellow lens on the major street, and a
pedestrian signal head for the crosswalk.
Design Features
• Hybrid beacons have less stringent warrants than
full signals.
• If installed within a signal system, signal
engineers should evaluate the need for the
hybrid signal to be coordinated with other
signals.
• Parking and other sight obstructions should be
prohibited for at least 100 feet in advance of and
Typical Application
• At unsignalized intersections with high volumes
of pedestrians.
• At an intersection within a school zone on a
walking route.
• Each crossing, regardless of traffic speed
or volume, requires additional review by a
registered engineer to identify sight lines,
potential impacts on traffic progression, timing
with adjacent signals, capacity, and safety.
at least 20 feet beyond the marked crosswalk to
provide adequate sight distance.
• Hybrid beacon signals are normally activated
by push buttons, but may also be triggered by
infrared, microwave or video detectors. The
maximum delay for activation of the signal
should be two minutes, with minimum crossing
times determined by the width of the street
• HAWK beacons should be installed at least 100
feet from side streets or driveways that are
controlled by STOP or YIELD signs. Parking and
other sight obstructions should be prohibited
for at least 100 feet in advance of and at least
20 feet beyond the marked crosswalk to provide
adequate sight distance. (CA MUTCD 4F)
Approximate Cost
Hybrid beacons are more expensive than other
beacons, ranging in costs from $50,000 to $150,000,
but are generally less expensive than full signals.
129
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-28
Raised Pedestrian Crossings
A raised crosswalk or intersection can eliminate grade changes from the pedestrian path and give
pedestrians greater prominence as they cross the street. Raised crosswalks also functions as speed
tables, and encourage motorists to slow down. As such, they should be used only in cases where a
special emphasis on pedestrians is desired.
Raised crosswalks are typically implemented on low-speed streets, Bike Boulevards and other areas of
very high pedestrian activity. They are often paired with other treatments such as curb extensions for
greater traffic calming effect.
Typical Use
Like a speed hump/table, raised crosswalks have a
traffic slowing effect which may be unsuitable on
high-speed streets, roadways with sharp curves,
designated transit or freight routes, and in locations
that would reduce access for emergency responders.
Use detectable warnings at the curb edges to alert
vision-impaired pedestrians that they are entering
the roadway.
Approaches to the raised crosswalk may be designed
to be similar to speed humps/tables.
Design Features
• Use detectable warnings at the curb edges to
alert vision-impaired pedestrians that they are
entering the roadway.
• Approaches to the raised crosswalk may be
designed to be similar to speed humps.
• Drainage improvements may be required
depending on the grade of the roadway.
• Special paving materials can be used to increase
conspicuity of the crossing, and alert drivers to
the presence of pedestrians.
130
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-29
Materials and Maintenance
Because the effectiveness of marked crossings
depends entirely on their visibility, maintaining
marked crossings should be a high priority. Ensure
drainage pipes used to channel stormwater past the
raised intersection are kept free of debris, to prevent
stormwater from backing up and pooling.
Raised pedestrian crossing on Thomas Lake Harris Drive
Approximate Cost
Raised crosswalks are approximately $2,000 to
$15,000, depending on drainage conditions and
material used.
Further Considerations
• The noise of vehicles traveling over raised crosswalks may be of concern to nearby residents and
businesses.
• Refer to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California Building Code (CBC) for additional
requirements.
131
DAVIS COUNTY
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION DESIGN GUIDE
Bicycle Facilities
132
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-31
AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC (1,000 veh/day or 100 veh/peak hr)
BICYCLE
BOULEVARD
BIKE ROUTE
BIKE LANE
SHARED USE PATH
BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE
SEPARATED BICYCLE
LANE
FACILITY TYPE
POSTED TRAVEL SPEED (mph)
20 30 40 50253545 5515 60+
1062 15+25+4 80 20+30+STREET CLASS
LOCAL
COLLECTOR
ARTERIAL
COLLECTOR
ARTERIAL
COLLECTOR
ARTERIAL
COLLECTOR
ARTERIAL
LOCAL
SPEED
max
max
min
min
VOLUME
Desired AcceptableAcceptable
Facility Selection
Selecting the best bikeway facility type for a given roadway can be challenging, due to the
range of factors that influence bicycle users’ comfort and safety. There is a significant impact
on bicycling comfort when the speed differential between bicyclists and motor vehicle traffic is
high and motor vehicle traffic volumes are high.
Facility Selection Table
As a starting point to identify a preferred facility, the chart below can be used to determine the recommended
type of bikeway to be provided in particular roadway speed and volume situations. To use this chart, identify the
appropriate daily traffic volume and travel speed on or the existing or proposed roadway, and locate the facility
types indicated by those key variables.
Other factors beyond speed and volume which affect facility selection include traffic mix of automobiles and
heavy vehicles, the presence of on-street parking, intersection density, surrounding land use, and roadway sight
distance. These factors are not included in the facility selection chart below, but should always be considered in
the facility selection and design process.
133
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-32
Design Features
• 8 feet is the absolute minimum width (with 2 foot
shoulders) allowed for a two-way bicycle path and
is only recommended for constrained situations
(Caltrans Design Manual).
• 10 feet is recommended in most situations and
will be adequate for moderate to heavy use.
• 12 feet is recommended for heavy use situations
with high concentrations of multiple users. A
separate track (5 foot minimum) can be provided
for pedestrian use.
Shared Use Path (Class I)
Shared use paths (Class I) are off-street facilities that can provide a desirable transportation and
recreation connection for users of all skill levels who prefer separation from traffic. They often
provide low-stress connections to local and regional attractions that may be difficult, or not be
possible on the street network.
Typical Use
• In abandoned rail corridors (commonly referred
to as Rails-to-Trails or Rail-Trails.
• In active rail corridors, trails can be built adjacent
to active railroads (referred to as Rails-with-Trails.
• In utility corridors, such as powerline and sewer
corridors.
• In waterway corridors, such as along canals,
drainage ditches, rivers, and creeks.
• Along roadways.
A
A
134
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-33
Overhead Clearance
• Clearance to overhead obstructions should be an
8 foot minimum, with 10 feet recommended.
Lateral Clearance
• A 2 foot or greater shoulder on both sides of
the path should be provided. An additional foot
of lateral clearance (total of 3 feet) is required
by the MUTCD for the installation of signage or
other furnishings.
• If bollards are used at intersections and access
points, they should be colored brightly and/or
supplemented with reflective materials to be
visible at night.
Striping
• When striping is required, use a 4 inch dashed
yellow centerline stripe with 4 inch solid white
edge lines.
• Solid centerlines can be provided on tight or
blind corners, and on the approaches to roadway
crossings.
Materials and Maintenance
Shared use paths must be regularly maintained so
that they are free of potholes, cracks, root lift, and
debris. Signage and lighting should also be regularly
maintained to ensure shared use path users feel
comfortable, especially where visibility is limited.
Adjacent landscaping should be regularly pruned, to
allow adequate sightlines, daylight, and pedestrian-
scale lighting, and so as not to obstruct the path of
travel of trail users.
Approximate Cost
The cost of a shared use path can vary, but typical
costs are between $65,000 per mile to $4 million per
mile. These costs vary with materials, such as asphalt,
concrete, boardwalk and other paving materials,
lighting, and ROW acquisition.
Prince Memorial Greenway connects users to
downtown Santa Rosa, CA. Source: Peter Stetson.
135
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-34
On-Street Bicycle Lanes (Class II)
On-street bike lanes (Class II) designate an exclusive space for bicyclists through the use of
pavement markings and signs. The bike lane is located directly adjacent to motor vehicle travel
lanes and is used in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic. Bike lanes are typically on the right
side of the street, between the adjacent travel lane and curb, road edge or parking lane.
Typical Application
• Bike lanes may be used on any street with
adequate space, but are most effective on
streets with moderate traffic volumes greater
than or equal to 6,000 ADT (with a greater than
3,000 ADT min.).
• Bike lanes are most appropriate on streets with
low to moderate speeds of 25 mph.
• Appropriate for skilled adult riders on most
streets.
• May be appropriate for children when configured
as 6+ feet wide lanes on lower-speed, lower-
volume streets with one lane in each direction.
Design Features
• Mark inside line with 6” stripe. Mark 4“ parking
lane line or “Ts”.
• Include a bicycle lane marking (MUTCD Figure
9C-3) at the beginning of blocks and at regular
intervals along the route (MUTCD 9C.04).
• 6 feet width preferred adjacent to on-street
parking (5 feet min.).
• 5–6 feet preferred adjacent to curb and gutter
(4 feet min.) or 4 feet more than the gutter pan
width.
A
A
B
B
D
D
C
C
136
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-35
Bike lane word, symbol, and/or arrow markings
(MUTCD Figure 9C-3) shall be placed outside
of the motor vehicle tread path in order to minimize wear from the motor vehicle path
(NACTO 2012).
Bicycle lanes provide an exclusive space, but may
be subject to unwanted encroachment by motor
vehicles.
Place Bike Lane Symbols to Reduce Wear Bicycle Lane
Further Considerations
• On high speed streets (greater than or equal to
40 mph) the minimum bike lane should be 6 feet.
• On streets where bicyclists passing each other is
to be expected, where high volumes of bicyclists
are present, or where added comfort is desired,
consider providing extra wide bike lanes up to 7
feet wide, or configure as a buffered bicycle lane.
• It may be desirable to reduce the width of
general purpose travel lanes in order to add or
widen bicycle lanes.
• On multi-lane and/or high speed streets, the
most appropriate bicycle facility to provide for
user comfort may be buffered bicycle lanes or
physically separated bicycle lanes.
Materials and Maintenance
• Manhole surfaces should be manufactured with
a shallow surface texture in the form of a tight,
nonlinear pattern
• If manholes or other utility access boxes are
to be located in bike lanes within 50 feet of
intersections or within 20 feet of driveways
or other bicycle access points, special
Approximate Cost
The cost for installing bicycle lanes will depend on the
implementation approach. Typical costs are $16,000
per mile for restriping.
manufactured permanent nonstick surfaces will
be required to ensure a controlled travel surface
for cyclists breaking or turning.
• Manholes, drainage grates, or other obstacles
should be set flush with the paved roadway.
Roadway surface inconsistencies pose a threat to
safe riding conditions for bicyclists. Construction
of manholes, access panels or other drainage
elements will be constructed with no variation in
the surface. The maximum allowable tolerance in
vertical roadway surface will be 1/4 of an inch.
137
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-36
Design Features
• The minimum bicycle travel area (not including
buffer) is 5 feet wide.
• Buffers should be at least 2 feet wide. If buffer
area is 4 feet or wider, white chevron or
diagonal markings should be used (CA MUTCD
9C-104).
• For clarity at driveways or minor street
crossings, consider a dotted line.
• There is no standard for whether the buffer is
configured on the parking side, the travel side,
or a combination of both.
A
A
B
B
Buffered Bicycle Lanes (Class II)
Buffered bike lanes (Class II) are conventional bicycle lanes paired with a designated buffer
space, separating the bicycle lane from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane and/or parking
lane.
Typical Application
• Anywhere a conventional bike lane is being
considered.
• On streets with high speeds and high volumes or
high truck volumes.
• On streets with extra lanes or lane width.
• Appropriate for skilled adult riders on most
streets.
138
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-37
The use of pavement markings delineates space for cyclists to ride in a comfortable facility.The use of pavement markings delineates space for cyclists to ride in a comfortable facility.
Buffered Bicycle Lanes
Further Considerations
• Color may be used within the lane to discourage
motorists from entering the buffered lane.
• A study of buffered bicycle lanes found that,
in order to make the facilities successful, there
needs to also be driver education, improved
signage and proper pavement markings.
• On multi-lane streets with high vehicles speeds,
the most appropriate bicycle facility to provide
for user comfort may be physically separated
bike lanes.
• NCHRP Report #766 recommends, when space
in limited, installing a buffer space between the
parking lane and bicycle lane where on-street
parking is permitted rather than between the
bicycle lane and vehicle travel lane.
Approximate Cost
The cost for installing buffered bicycle lanes will
depend on the implementation approach. Typical
costs are $16,000 per mile for restriping. However, the
cost of large-scale bicycle treatments will vary greatly
due to differences in project specifications and the
scale and length of the treatment.
139
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-38
A
B
C
Bicycle Boulevards (Class III)
Bicycle boulevards (Class III) are low-volume, low-speed streets modified to enhance bicyclist
comfort by using treatments such as signage, pavement markings, traffic calming and/or traffic
reduction, and intersection modifications. These treatments allow through movements of
bicyclists while discouraging similar through-trips by non-local motorized traffic.
Typical Application
• Parallel with and in close proximity to major
thoroughfares (1/4 mile or less).
• Follow a desire line for bicycle travel that is
ideally long and relatively continuous (2-5 miles).
• Avoid alignments with excessive zigzag or
circuitous routing. The bikeway should have less
than 10 percent out of direction travel compared
to shortest path of primary corridor.
• Streets with travel speeds at 25 mph or less and
with traffic volumes of fewer than 3,000 vehicles
per day.
Design Features
• Signs and pavement markings are the minimum
treatments necessary to designate a street as a
bicycle boulevard.
• Implement volume control treatments based
on the context of the bicycle boulevard, using
engineering judgment. Target motor vehicle
volumes range from 1,000 to 3,000 vehicles per
day.
• Intersection crossings should be designed to
enhance safety and minimize delay for bicyclists
and pedestrians.
A
B
C
140
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-39
Bicycle boulevards are established on streets
that improve connectivity to key destinations
and provide a direct, low-stress route for
bicyclists, with low motorized traffic volumes and speeds, designated and designed to give
bicycle travel priority over other modes.
Neighborhood bikeways may require additional
traffic calming measures to discourage through
trips by motor vehicles.
Bicycle Boulevards Traffic Calming
Further Considerations
• Bicycle boulevards are typically located
on streets without existing signalized
accommodation at crossings of collector and
arterial roadways. Without treatments for
bicyclists and pedestrians, these intersections
can become major barriers along the bicycle
boulevard and compromise safety.
• Traffic calming can lower speeds along bicycle
boulevards and even deter motorists from
driving on a street. Anticipate and monitor
vehicle volumes on adjacent streets to determine
whether traffic calming results in inappropriate
volumes. Traffic calming can be implemented on
a trial basis.
Approximate Cost
Costs vary depending on the type of treatments
proposed for the corridor. Simple treatments such
as wayfinding signage and markings are most cost-
effective, but more intensive treatments will have
greater impact at lowering speeds and volumes, at a
higher cost.
141
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-40
Traffic Calming for Bike Boulevards
Traffic calming may include elements intended to reduce the speeds of motor vehicle traffic
to be closer to bicyclist travel speeds, or may include design elements that restrict certain
movements for motorized travel to discourage the use of bicycle boulevard corridors for
through travel by automobiles. Traffic calming treatments can cause drivers to slow down by
constricting the roadway space or by requiring careful maneuvering. Such measures may reduce
the design speed of a street, and can be used in conjunction with reduced speed limits to
reinforce the expectation of lowered speeds. They can also lower vehicle volumes by physically
or operationally reconfiguring corridors and intersections along the route.
Typical Application
• Bicycle boulevards should have a maximum
posted speed of 25 mph. Use traffic calming
to maintain an 85th percentile speed below 20
mph (25 mph maximum). Bikeways with average
speeds above this limit should be considered for
traffic calming measures.
• Maintain a minimum clear width of 14 feet with
a constricted length of at least 20 feet in the
direction of travel.
• Bring traffic volumes down to 1,500 cars per
day (4,000 cars per day maximum). Bikeways
with daily volumes above this limit should be
considered for traffic calming measures.
Design Features: Speed Reduction
• Median islands create pinchpoint for traffic in
the center of the roadway and offers shorter
crossing distances for pedestrians when used in
tandem with a marked crossing.
• Chicanes slow drivers by requiring vehicles to
shift laterally through narrowed lanes and which
avoids uninterrupted sightlines.
• Pinchpoints, chokers, or curb extensions restrict
motorists from operating at high speeds on local
streets by visually narrowing the roadway.
• Neighborhood traffic circles reduce speed of
traffic at intersections by requiring motorists to
move cautiously through conflict points.
A
B
C
D
C
BAE
D
142
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-41
Design Features: Volume
Reduction
• Partial closure diverters allows bicyclists to
proceed straight across the intersection but
forces motorists to turn left or right. All turns
from the major street onto the bikeway are
prohibited. Can incorporate curb extensions
with stormwater management features and/ora
mountable island.
• Right-in/right-out diverters force motorists to
turn right while bicyclists can continue straight
through the intersection. The island can provide
a through bike lane or bicycle access to reduce
conflicts with-right-turning vehicles. Left turns
from the major street onto the bikeway are
prohibited, while right turns are still allowed.
• Median refuge island diverters restrict through
and left-turn vehicle movements along the
bikeway while providing refuge for bicyclists
to cross one direction of traffic at a time. This
treatment prohibits left turns from the major
street onto the bikeway, while right turns are still
allowed.
• Full diverters block all motor vehicles from
continuing on a neighborhood bikeway, while
bicyclists can continue unrestricted. Full
closures can be constructed to be permeable to
emergency vehicles.
• Street trees narrow a driver’s visual field,
subconsciously queuing drivers to slow down.
• Speed humps slow drivers through vertical
deflection. To minimize impacts to bicycles,
use a sinusoidal profile and leave a gap along
curb so that bicyclists may bypass the hump
when appropriate. Speed cushions operate in
a similar fashion to speed humps, but allow for
unimpeded travel by emergency vehicles.
E
143
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-42
A
B
C
One-Way Separated Bikeways (Class IV)
When retrofitting separated bike lanes onto existing streets, a one-way street-level design may
be most appropriate. This design provides protection through physical barriers and can include
flexible delineators, curbs, on-street parking or other barriers. A street level separated bike lane
shares the same elevation as adjacent travel lanes..
Typical Application
• Street retrofit projects with limited funds for
relating curbs and drainage.
• Streets with high motor vehicle volumes and/or
speeds and high bicycle volumes.
• Streets for which conflicts at intersections can be
effectively mitigated using parking lane setbacks,
bicycle markings through the intersection, and
other signalized intersection treatments.
• Appropriate for most riders on most streets.
Design Features
• Pavement markings, symbols and/or arrow
markings must be placed at the beginning of the
separated bike lane and at intervals along the
facility (CA MUTCD 9C.04).
• 7 foot width preferred to allow passing (5 foot
minimum).
• 3 foot minimum buffer width adjacent to parking.
18 inch minimum adjacent to travel lanes.
Channelizing devices should be placed in the
buffer area (NACTO, 2012).
• If buffer area is 4 feet or wider, white chevron or
diagonal markings should be used.
A
B
C
144
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-43
Street Level Separated Bicycle Lanes can be separated from the street with parking, planters,
bollards, or other design elements.
Further Considerations
• Separated bike lane buffers and barriers are
covered in the CA MUTCD as preferential lane
markings (section 3D.01) and channelizing
devices (section 3H.01). Curbs may be used as
a channeling device, see the section on islands
(section 3I.01).
• A retrofit separated bike lane has a relatively
low implementation cost compared to road
reconstruction by making use of existing
pavement and drainage and by using parking
lane as a barrier.
• Gutters, drainage outlets and utility covers
should be designed and configured as not to
impact bicycle travel.
• Special consideration should be given at
transit stops to manage bicycle and pedestrian
interactions.
Approximate Cost
The implementation cost is low if the project uses
existing pavement and drainage, but the cost
significantly increases if curb lines need to be moved.
A parking lane is the low-cost option for providing
a barrier. Other barriers might include concrete
medians, bollards, tubular markers, or planters.
145
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-44
Design Features
• 12 foot operating width preferred (10 ft minimum)
width for two-way facility.
• In constrained locations an 8 foot minimum
operating width may be considered (HDM
1003.1(1)).
• Adjacent to on-street parking a 3 foot minimum
width channelized buffer or island shall be provided
to accommodate opening doors (NACTO, 2012) (CA
MUTCD 3H.01, 3I.01).
• A separation narrower than 5 feet may be permitted
if a physical barrier is present (AASHTO, 2013).
• Additional signalization and signs may be necessary
to manage conflicts.
Typical Application
• Works best on the left side of one-way streets.
• Streets with high motor vehicle volumes and/or
speeds
• Streets with high bicycle volumes.
• Streets with a high incidence of wrong-way bicycle
riding.
• Streets with few conflicts such as driveways or
cross-streets on one side of the street.
• Streets that connect to shared use paths.
Two-Way Separated Bikeways (Class IV)
Two-Way Separated Bikeways are bicycle facilities that allow bicycle movement in both directions on
one side of the road. Two-way separated bikeways share some of the same design characteristics as
one-way separated bikeways, but often require additional considerations at driveway and side-street
crossings, and intersections with other bikeways.
A
A
B
B
146
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-45
A two-way facility can accommodate cyclists in two directions of travel.
Two-Way Separated Bikeway
Further Considerations
• On-street bikeway buffers and barriers are
covered in the CA MUTCD as preferential lane
markings (section 3D.01) and channelizing
devices, including flexible delineators (section
3H.01). Curbs may be used as a channeling
device, see the section on islands (section 3I.01).
• A two-way separated bikeway on one way street
should be located on the left side.
• A two-way separated bikeway may be configured
at street level or as a raised separated bikeway
with vertical separation from the adjacent travel
lane.
• Two-way separated bikeways should ideally be
placed along streets with long blocks and few
driveways or mid-block access points for motor
vehicles.
• See Caltrans Design Information Bulletin No. 89
for more details.
Materials and Maintenance
Bikeway striping and markings will require higher
maintenance where vehicles frequently traverse over
them at intersections, driveways, parking lanes, and
along curved or constrained segments of roadway. Green
conflict striping (if used) will also generally require higher
maintenance due to vehicle wear.
Bikeways should be maintained so that there are no pot
holes, cracks, uneven surfaces or debris.
Access points along the facility should be provided for
street sweeper vehicles to enter/exit the separated
bikeway.
Approximate Cost
Separated bikeway construction costs can vary drastically
depending on the type of separation used, the amount of
new curb and gutter, stormwater mitigation, and crossing
treatments. On the lower end of the scale, construction
of a striped parking protected bikeway with delineators
or other vertical elements can cost as little as $15,000-
$30,000 per mile.
147
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-46
2 ft Preferred Minimum
3 in - 6 in Height Typical
3 ft Typical
Maintain
consistentspace
1 to 2 ft
Shy distance
between
planters
6 ft Spacing(variable)
6 ft
Typical
4 in Minimum
Height
1 ft - 2 ft Typical
10 ft - 40 ft
TypicalSpacing
3 ft Preferred
Continuous
Spacing
3 ft Typical
Minimum
Continuous(Can allow
drainage gaps)
Planting Strips
(optional)
6 in TypicalCurb Height
16 in PreferredMinimum
2 ft Preferred Minimum
3 in - 6 in Height Typical
3 ft Typical
Maintain
consistentspace
1 to 2 ft
Shy distance
between
planters
6 ft Spacing(variable)
6 ft
Typical
4 in Minimum
Height
1 ft - 2 ft Typical
10 ft - 40 ft
TypicalSpacing
3 ft Preferred
Continuous
Spacing
3 ft Typical
Minimum
Continuous
(Can allow
drainage gaps)
Planting Strips
(optional)
6 in TypicalCurb Height
16 in PreferredMinimum
Delineator Posts
Raised Median
Concrete Barrier
Raised Lane
Curbing
Planters
Separation Methods
Separated bikeways may use a variety of vertical elements to physically separate the bikeway
from adjacent travel lanes. Barriers may be robust constructed elements such as curbs, or may
be more interim in nature, such as flexible delineator posts.
Typical Application
Appropriate barriers for retrofit projects:
• Parked Cars
• Flexible delineators
• Bollards
• Planters
• Parking stops
Appropriate barriers for reconstruction projects:
• Curb separation
• Medians
• Landscaped Medians
• Raised separated bike lane with vertical or
mountable curb
• Pedestrian Safety Islands
148
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-47
Raised separated bikeways are bicycle facilities that are vertically separated from motor vehicle
traffic.
Bikeway Separation Methods
Design Features
• Maximize effective operating space by placing
curbs or delineator posts as far from the through
bikeway space as practicable.
• Allow for adequate shy distance of 1 to 2 feet
from vertical elements to maximize useful space.
• When next to parking allow for 3 feet of space in
the buffer space to allow for opening doors and
passenger unloading.
• The presences of landscaping in medians,
planters and safety islands increases comfort
for users and enhances the streetscape
environment.
Further Considerations
• Separated bikeway buffers and barriers are
covered in the MUTCD as preferential lane
markings (section 3D.01) and channelizing
devices (section 3H.01). Curbs may be used as
a channeling device, see the section on islands
(section 3I.01).
• With new roadway construction a raised
separated bikeway can be less expensive to
construct than a wide or buffered bicycle lane
because of shallower trenching and sub base
requirements.
• Parking should be prohibited within 30 feet of
the intersection to improve visibility.
149
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-48
Design Features
• Typical white bike lane striping (solid or dotted 6
inch stripe) is used to outline the green colored
pavement.
• In weaving or turning conflict areas, preferred
striping is dashed, to match the bicycle lane line
extensions.
• The colored surface should be skid resistant and
retro-reflective (MUTCD 9C.02.02).
• In exclusive use areas, such as bike boxes, color
application should be solid green.
Non-Intersection Conflict Markings
Colored pavement within a bicycle lane may be used to increase the visibility of the bicycle
facility, raise awareness of the potential to encounter bicyclists, and reinforce priority of
bicyclists in conflict areas.
Typical Application
• Within a weaving or conflict area to identify the
potential for bicyclist and motorist interactions
and assert bicyclist priority.
• Across intersections, driveways and Stop or
Yield-controlled cross-streets.
• At bike boxes and two-stage turn boxes
A
A
B
B
150
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-49
Green colored conflict striping indicates the path of travel of people on bicycles, and alerts people
intending to turn across the bike lane to yield when bicyclists are present. Pictured left: green conflict
striping on Santa Rosa Ave.
Further Considerations
• Green colored pavement shall be used in compliance with FHWA Interim Approval (FHWA IA-14.10).
• While other colors have been used (red, blue, yellow), green is the recommended color in the US.
Materials and Maintenance
As intended, paint or thermoplastic are placed in
locations that are trafficked by vehicles, and are
subject to high vehicle wear. Colored pavement
treatments will experience higher rates of wear at
locations with higher turning vehicles, buses, and
heavy trucks. At these locations, green coloring will
require more frequent replacement over time.
The life of the green coloring will depend on vehicle
volumes and turning movements, but thermoplastic is
generally a more durable material than paint.
Approximate Cost
The cost for installing colored pavement markings
will depend on the materials selected and
implementation approach. Typical costs range from
$1.20/sq. ft installed for paint to $14/sq. ft installed for
thermoplastic.
151
DAVIS COUNTY
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION DESIGN GUIDE
Bicycle Facilities at Intersections
152
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-51
Transit Stop Design
Bus platforms or waiting areas serve as the critical transition point for pedestrians as transit
passengers. As such, bus platforms, shelters, and shelter amenities need to be designed to
the benefit of people boarding, alighting, waiting, and passing through. Transit platforms and
shelters should be designed to be comfortable and safe, accessible for people with disabilities,
sized appropriately based on ridership and demand, use space efficiently, and to minimize delay
and conflicts with other modes such as bicycles, and competing sidewalk uses. The transit stop
configuration depicted here is known as a side boarding island, or “floating bus stop,” and is one
of several typical transit-bike-pedestrian station typologies possible. Careful consideration of
potential conflicting movements, accessibility design elements, and street context is critical in
determining the appropriate station typology, on a station-by-station basis.
Typical Application
• Bus stops can range from simple curbside stops
with a pole and seating, to in-roadway platforms
with shelters and other shelter amenities
depending on demand, adjacent land use, and
available right of way.
• Typically, bus stop shelters and amenities occupy
an area of the sidewalk, either in the furnishing
zone, or a reserved space in the frontage zone.
They can also be located on transit islands which
accommodates bicycle through traffic, or in
medians for center running alignments.
• Shelters can face toward the roadway or away
from the roadway. Shelters facing toward the
roadway provide better sightlines, but may
compete with other sidewalk uses and adjacent
property access and circulation.
Design Features
• Bus shelters should be designed to minimize
potential for conflicts between the bus, and people
walking and bicycling through the area.
• Site visibility is a critical safety and security factor.
The bus operator needs to be able to see waiting
passengers, and waiting passengers need to
be able to see approaching buses. The shelter,
street trees, and other vertical elements must
not obstruct visibility. The stop and shelter should
be adequately illuminated at night for safety and
security.
• The shelter should maximize use of materials that
maximize visibility for waiting passengers, and
minimize incentive for vandalism.
• The shelter canopy should be sized to provide
sufficient coverage based on stop demand.
153
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-52
A
B
Intersection Crossing Markings
Bicycle pavement markings through intersections guide bicyclists on a safe and direct path
through the intersection and provide a clear boundary between the paths of through bicyclists
and vehicles in the adjacent lane.
Typical Application
• Streets with conventional, buffered, or separated
bike lanes.
• At direct paths through intersections.
• Streets with high volumes of adjacent traffic.
• Where potential conflicts exist between through
bicyclist and adjacent traffic.
Design Features
• Intersection markings should be the same width
and in line with leading bike lane.
• Dotted lane line extensions should be 2 foot line
segments with 2 to 6 foot gaps between them
(CAMUTCD 3B.08).
• All markings should be white, skid resistant and
retro reflective (CAMUTCD 9C.02.02).
• Dotted lines may be enhanced with solid green,
or dashed green with the same extents as the
dotted line itself.
A
B
154
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-53
Intersection crossing markings can be used at signalized intersections or high volume minor
street and driveway crossings.
Intersection Crossing Markings
Further Considerations
The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices has submitted a request to include additional
options for bicycle lane extensions through
intersections as a part of future MUTCD updates. Their
proposal includes the following options for striping
elements within the crossing:
• Bicycle lane markings
• Double chevron markings, indicating the
direction of travel.
• Green colored pavement.
Approximate Cost
The cost for installing intersection crossing markings
will depend on the implementation approach. On
roadways with adequate width for reconfiguration or
restriping, costs may be negligible when provided as
part of routine overlay or repaving projects.
Typical thermoplastic shared lane markings cost $180
each.
155
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-54
Design Features
At auxiliary right turn only lanes (add lane):
• Continue existing bike lane width; standard
width of 5 to 6 feet or 4 feet in constrained
locations.
• Use signage to indicate that motorists should
yield to bicyclists through the conflict area.
• Consider using colored conflict areas to promote
visibility of the mixing zone.
Colored pavement may be used
in the weaving area to increase
visibility and awareness of
potential conflict
Optional dotted lines
MUTCD R4-4
(optional)
Bike Lanes at Right Turn Lanes
The appropriate treatment at right-turn lanes is to place the bike lane between the right-turn
lane and the right-most through lane or, where right-of-way is insufficient, to use a shared bike
lane/turn lane.
The design (below) illustrates conflict markings, with signage indicating that motorists should
yield to bicyclists through the conflict area.
Where a through lane becomes a right turn only lane:
• Do not define a dotted line merging path for
bicyclists.
• Drop the bicycle lane in advance of the merge
area.
• Use shared lane markings to indicate shared use
of the lane in the merging zone.
156
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-55
Bike Lanes at Right Turn Lanes
Materials and Maintenance
Because the effectiveness of markings depends entirely
on their visibility, maintaining the visibility of markings
should be a high priority.
Drivers wishing to enter the right turn lane must transition across the bicycle lane in advance of the
turn.
Further Considerations
• The bicycle lane maintains a straight path, and drivers must weave across, providing clear right-of-way priority
to bicyclists.
• Maintaining a straight bicycle path reinforces the priority of bicyclists over turning cars. Drivers must yield to
bicyclists before crossing the bike lane to enter the turn lane.
• Through lanes that become turn only lanes are difficult for bicyclists to navigate and should be avoided.
• The use of dual right-turn-only lanes should be avoided on streets with bike lanes (AASHTO, 2013). Where there
are dual right-turn-only lanes, the bike lane should be placed to the left of both right-turn lanes; however, this
merge is uncomfortable for most bicyclists. Keeping the bike lane to the right of the turn lanes is possible if a
bicycle signal phase is implemented to separate bicyclists from turning vehicles.
Approximate Cost
The cost for installing bicycle lanes will depend on the
implementation approach. On roadways with adequate
width for reconfiguration or restriping, costs may be
negligible when provided as part of routine overlay or
repaving projects.
Typical costs are $16,000 per mile for restriping.
157
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-56
C
Combined Bike Lane/Turn Lane
Where there isn’t room for a conventional bicycle lane and turn lane a combined bike lane/turn lane
creates a shared lane where bicyclists can ride and turning motor vehicles yield to through traveling
bicyclists. The combined bicycle lane/turn lane places shared lane markings within a right turn only
lane.
Typical Application
• Most appropriate in areas with lower posted
speeds (30 MPH or less) and with lower traffic
volumes (10,000 ADT or less).
• May not be appropriate for high speed arterials
or intersections with long right turn lanes.
• May not be appropriate for intersections with
large percentages of right-turning heavy vehicles.
Design Features
• Maximum shared turn lane width is 13 feet;
narrower is preferable (NACTO, 2012).
• Shared Lane Markings should indicate preferred
positioning of bicyclists within the combine lane.
• A “Right Lane Must Turn Right” (CA MUTCD
R3-7R) sign with an “EXCEPT BIKES” plaque may
be needed to permit through bicyclists to use a
right turn lane.
• Use “Begin Right Turn Lane Yield To Bikes”
signage (CA MUTCD R4-4) to indicate that
motorists should yield to bicyclists through the
conflict area.
• There should be a receiving bicycle lane or
shoulder on the far side of the intersection.
A
A
B
C
D
D
C
B
158
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-57
Shared lane markings and signs indicate that bicyclists should right in the left side of this right turn
only lane.
Combined Bike Lane/Turn Lane (Billings, MT)
Further Considerations
• This treatment is recommended at intersections lacking sufficient space to accommodate both a standard
through bike lane and right turn lane.
• Not recommended at intersections with high peak motor vehicle right turn movements.
• Combined bike lane/turn lane creates safety and comfort benefits by negotiating conflicts upstream of the
intersection area.
Approximate Cost
• The cost for installing a combined will depend on
the implementation approach. On roadways with
adequate width for reconfiguration or restriping,
costs may be negligible when provided as part
of routine overlay or repaving projects. Some
roadways can be retrofitted with simple shared
lane markings and accompanying signage.
Materials and Maintenance
Because the effectiveness of markings depends entirely
on their visibility, maintaining the visibility of markings
should be a high priority.
159
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-58
Design Features
• 14 foot minimum depth from back of crosswalk to
motor vehicle stop bar (NACTO, 2012).
• A “No Turn on Red” (CA MUTCD R10-11) sign shall
be installed overhead to prevent vehicles from
entering the Bike Box. A “Stop Here on Red” (CA
MUTCD R10-6) sign should be post mounted at
the stop line to reinforce observance of the stop
line.
• A 50 foot ingress lane should be used to provide
access to the box.
• Use of green colored pavement is optional but
recommended.
A
A
B
B
C
C
Typical Application
• At potential areas of conflict between bicyclists
and turning vehicles, such as a right or left turn
locations.
• At signalized intersections with high bicycle
volumes.
• At signalized intersections with high vehicle
volumes.
Bike Box
A bike box is a designated area located at the head of a traffic lane at a signalized intersection
that provides bicyclists with a safe and visible space to get in front of queuing traffic during the
red signal phase. Motor vehicles must queue behind the white stop line at the rear of the bike
box. On a green signal, all bicyclists can quickly clear the intersection.
160
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-59
A bike box allows for cyclists to wait in front of queuing traffic, providing high visibility, and a head
start over motor vehicle traffic.
Bike Box
Further Considerations
• This treatment positions bicycles together and on a green signal, all bicyclists can quickly clear the
intersection, minimizing conflict and delay to transit or other traffic.
• Pedestrians also benefit from bike boxes, as they experience reduced vehicle encroachment into the
crosswalk.
• Two stage turn boxes are better treatments to facilitate bicycle turns as they are available for queuing during
a parallel green signal indication.
Approximate Cost
Costs will vary due to the type of paint used and the
size of the bike box, as well as whether the treatment
is added at the same time as other road treatments.
The typical cost for painting a bike box is $11.50 per
sq. foot.
Materials and Maintenance
Because the effectiveness of markings depends
entirely on their visibility, maintaining the visibility of
markings should be a high priority.
161
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-60
Design Features
• The two-stage turn box shall be placed in a
protected area. Typically this is within the
shadow of an on-street parking lane or separated
bike lane buffer area and should be placed in
front of the crosswalk to avoid conflict with
pedestrians.
• 6.5 feet deep by 10 feet wide is the
required minimum dimensions of the box to
accommodate three bicyclists side by side
(FHWA).
• Bicycle stencil and turn arrow pavement
markings shall be used to indicate proper bicycle
direction and positioning (NACTO, 2012).
A
A
B
B
Two-Stage Turn Boxes
Two- stage turn boxes offer bicyclists a safe way to make turns at multi-lane signalized
intersections from a physically separated or conventional bike lane. On physically separated bike
lanes, bicyclists are often unable to merge into traffic to turn due to physical separation, making
the provision of two-stage turn boxes critical.
Typical Application
• Streets with high vehicle speeds and/or traffic
volumes.
• At intersections locations of multi-lane roads
with signalized intersections.
• At signalized intersections with a high number
of bicyclists making a left turn from a right side
facility.
162
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-61
This MUTCD compliant design carves a
jughandle out of the sidewalk to provide space
for waiting bicyclists.
On separated bike lanes, the two-stage turn box
can be located in the protected buffer/parking
area.
Jughandle Turn Box Separated Bike Lane Turn Box
Further Considerations
• Provide a “No Turn on Red” sign (MUTCD R10-11) on the cross street if turning vehicles come into conflict
with the placement of the turn box.
• This design formalizes a maneuver called a “box turn” or “pedestrian style turn.”
• Design guidance for two-stage turns apply to both bike lanes and separated bike lanes.
• Two-stage turn boxes reduce conflicts in multiple ways; from keeping bicyclists from queuing in a bike lane
or crosswalk and by separating turning bicyclists from through bicyclists.
• Bicyclist capacity of a two-stage turn box is influenced by physical dimension (how many bicyclists it can
contain) and cycle length (how frequently the box clears).
• More information on two stage turn boxes is available:
• FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide
• NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012
• FHWA Interim Approval-20
Approximate Cost
Costs will vary due to the type of paint used and the
size of the two-stage turn box, as well as whether the
treatment is added at the same time as other road
treatments.
The typical cost for painting a two-stage turn box is
$11.50 per square foot.
Materials and Maintenance
Because the effectiveness of markings depends
entirely on their visibility, maintaining the visibility of
markings should be a high priority.
163
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-62
Bicycle Detection and Actuation
At fully signalized intersections, bicycle crossings are typically accomplished through the use of a standard
green signal indication for Class II and III bikeways. A number of traffic signal enhancements can be
made to improve detection and actuation and better accommodate bicyclists. An exclusive bicycle phase
provided by bicycle signals offers the highest level of service and protection, especially for Class I and
IV bikeways, but feature the same detection and actuation devices used at intersections with standard
traffic signals. For more information on bicycle signals, see Protected Bicycle Signal Phase.
Typical Application
• Bicycle detection and actuation is used to
alert the signal controller of bicycle crossing
demand on a particular approach. Proper bicycle
detection should meet at least two primary
criteria: 1) accurately detect bicyclists, and 2)
provide clear guidance to bicyclists on how to
actuate detection (e.g. what button to push or
where to stand). Additionally, new technologies
are being developed to provide feedback to
bicyclists once they have been detected to
increase the likelihood of stop compliance.
• Detection mechanisms can also provide bicyclists
with an extended green time before the signal
turns yellow so that bicyclists of all abilities can
reach the far side of the intersection.
• All new or modified traffic signals in California
must be equipped for bicyclist detection, or
be placed on permanent recall or fixed time
operation (CalTrans Traffic Operations Policy
Directive 09-06).
• Detection shall be place where bicyclists are
intended to travel and/or wait.
• On bicycle priority corridors with on-street bike
lanes or separated bikeways, consider the use of
advance detection placed 100-200 feet upstream
of the intersection to provide an early trigger to
the signal system and reduce bicyclist delay.
Design Features
• Bicycle detection and actuation systems include
user-activated buttons mounted on a pole
facing the street, in-pavement loop detectors
that trigger a change in the traffic signal when a
bicycle is detected, video detection cameras that
use digital image processing to detect a change
in the image at a location, and/or Remote Traffic
Microwave Sensor Detection (RTMS) which uses
frequency modulated continuous wave radio
signals to detect objects in the roadway.
• 6 foot by 6 foot Type C loop conductors should
be used.
• A linear pavement marking should be used to
indicate where cyclists should stand to acuate
the signal.
• Signal heads should depict green, yellow, and red
cyclist icons to communicate when the exclusive
bicycle phase is in progress.
164
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-63
Bicycle push button actuators are positioned to allow
bicycle riders in roadway to stop traffic on busy cross-
streets.
Type C loop detector have been shown to most
reliably detect bicyclists at all points over their surface.
Push Button Actuation Type C Loop Detector
Materials and Maintenance
Bicycle signal detection equipment should be inspected
and maintained regularly, especially if detection relies
on manual actuation. Pushbuttons and loop detectors
will tend to have higher maintenance needs than other
passive detection equipment.
Approximate Cost
Costs vary depending on the type of technology used,
but bicycle loop detectors embedded in the pavement
typically cost from $1,000-$2,000. Video detection
camera systems typically range from $20,000 to $30,000
per intersection.
Other traffic signal programming enhancements can be
made to existing traffic signal hardware with relatively
little to no additional hardware costs.
Further Considerations
• The location of pushbuttons should not require
bicyclists to dismount or be rerouted out of the
way or onto the sidewalk to activate the phase.
Signage should supplement the signal to alert
bicyclists of the required activation to prompt the
green phase.
• In-pavement Type C Loop detectors are induction
circuits installed within the roadway surface
to detect bicyclists as they wait for the signal.
This allows the bicyclists to stay within the lane
of travel. Loop detectors should be sufficiently
sensitive to detect bicyclists and be marked with
pavement markings instructing bicyclists on where
to stand. CAMUTCD provides guidance on stencil
markings and signage related to loop detectors.
• Remote Traffic Microwave Sensor Detection (RTMS)
is unaffected by temperature and lighting which
can affect standard video detection.
• Bicyclists typically need more time to travel
through an intersection than motor vehicles. Green
light times should be determined using the bicycle
crossing time for standing bicycles.
165
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-64
Design Features
• An additional “Bicycle Signal” sign should be
installed below the bicycle signal head.
• Designs for bicycles at signalized crossings should
allow bicyclists to trigger signals via pushbutton,
loop detectors, or other passive detection, to
navigate the crossing.
• On bikeways, signal timing and actuation shall be
reviewed and adjusted to consider the needs of
bicyclists (CA MUTCD 9D.02).
Typical Application
• Two-way protected bikeways where contraflow
bicycle movement or increased conflict points
warrant protected operation.
• Bicyclists moving on a green or yellow signal
indication in a bicycle signal shall not be in
conflict with any simultaneous motor vehicle
movement at the signalized location
• Right (or left) turns on red should be prohibited
in locations where such operation would conflict
with a green bicycle signal indication.
Separated Bicycle Signal Phase
Separated bicycle lane crossings of signalized intersections can be accomplished through the use of
a bicycle signal phase which reduces conflicts with motor vehicles by separating bicycle movements
from any conflicting motor vehicle movements. Bicycle signals are traditional three lens signal heads
with green, yellow and red bicycle stenciled lenses.
A
A
B
B
166
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-65
A bicycle signal head at a signalized crossing
creates a protected phase for cyclists to safely navigate an intersection.
A bicycle detection system triggers a change in
the traffic signal when a bicycle is detected.
Further Considerations
• A bicycle signal should be considered for use only
when the volume/collision or volume/geometric
warrants have been met (CA MUTCD 4C.102).
• The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has
approved bicycle signals for use, if they comply
with requirements from Interim Approval 16 (I.A.
16). Bicycle Signals are not approved for use in
conjunction with Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons.
• Bicyclists typically need more time to travel
through an intersection than motor vehicles.
Green light times should be determined using
the bicycle crossing time for standing bicycles.
• Bicycle detection and actuation systems include
user-activated buttons mounted on a pole,
loop detectors that trigger a change in the
traffic signal when a bicycle is detected and
video detection cameras, that use digital image
processing to detect a change in the image at a
location.
Materials and Maintenance
Bicycle signal detection equipment should be
inspected and maintained regularly, especially if
detection relies on manual actuation. Pushbuttons and
loop detectors will tend to have higher maintenance
needs than other passive detection equipment.
Approximate Cost
Bicycle signal heads have an average cost of $12,800.
Video detection camera system costs range from
$15,000 to $25,000 per intersection.
167
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-66
Design Features
• Setback bicycle crossing of 19.5 feet allows
for one passenger car to queue while yielding.
Smaller setback distance is possible in slow-
speed, space constrained conditions.
• Corner island with a 15-20 foot corner radius
slows motor vehicle speeds. Larger radius
designs may be possible when paired with a
deeper setback or a protected signal phase,
or small mountable aprons. Two-stage turning
boxes are provided for queuing bicyclists
adjacent to corner islands.
• Use intersection crossing markings.
Typical Use
• Streets with separated bikeways protected by wide
buffer or on-street parking.
• Where two separated bieways intersect and two-
stage left-turn movements can be provided for
bicycle riders.
• Helps reduce conflicts between right-turning
motorists and bicycle riders by reducing turning
speeds and providing a forward stop bar for
bicycles.
• Where it is desirable to create a curb extension at
intersections to reduce pedestrian crossing distance.
Protected Intersection
A protected intersection, or “Bend Out” uses a collection of intersection design elements to
maximize user comfort within the intersection and promote a high rate of motorists yielding to
people bicycling. The design maintains a physical separation within the intersection to define the
turning paths of motor vehicles, slow vehicle turning speed, and offer a comfortable place for people
bicycling to wait at a red signal.
A
A
B
B
C
C
168
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-67
Protected intersections feature a corner safety
island and intersection crossing markings.
Protected intersections incorporate queuing
areas for two-stage left turns.
Approximate Cost
The cost of protected intersection elements
vary depending on materials used and degree of
implementation desired.
• Complete reconstruction costs comparable to a
full intersection.
• Retrofit implementation may be possible at
lower costs if existing curbs and drainage are
maintained. Inexpensive materials can used,
such as paint, concrete planters, and bollards.
Further Considerations
• Pedestrian crosswalks may need to be further
set back from intersections in order to make
room for two-stage turning queue boxes.
• Wayfinding and directional signage should be
provided to help bicycle riders navigate through
the intersection.
• Colored pavement may be used within the
corner refuge area to clarify use by people
bicycling and discourage use by people walking
or driving.
• Intersection approaches with high volumes of
right turning vehicles should provide a dedicated
right turn only lane paired with a protected
signal phase. Protected signal phasing may allow
different design dimensions than are described
here.
Materials and Maintenance
• Green conflict striping (if used) will also generally
require higher maintenance due to vehicle wear.
• Bikeways should be maintained so that there are
no pot holes, cracks, uneven surfaces or debris.
• Bikeways protected by concrete islands or other
permanent physical separation, can be swept by
street sweeper vehicles with narrow widths.
169
DAVIS COUNTY
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION DESIGN GUIDE
Bicycle Facility Amenities
170
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-70
D1-1
D11-1/D1-3a
D11-1c
A B C
Wayfinding Sign Types
The ability to navigate through a city is informed by landmarks, natural features, and other
visual cues. Signs throughout the city should indicate to bicyclists the direction of travel, the
locations of destinations and the travel time/distance to those destinations. A bicycle wayfinding
system consists of comprehensive signing and/or pavement markings to guide bicyclists to their
destinations along preferred bicycle routes.
Typical Application
• Wayfinding signs will increase users’ comfort and
accessibility to the bicycle network.
• Signage can serve both wayfinding and safety
purposes including:
• Helping to familiarize users with the bicycle
network
• Helping users identify the best routes to
destinations
• Helping to address misperceptions about time and
distance
• Helping overcome a “barrier to entry” for people
who are not frequent bicyclists (e.g., “interested
but concerned” bicyclists)
Design Features
• Confirmation signs indicate to bicyclists that
they are on a designated bikeway. Make
motorists aware of the bicycle route. Can include
destinations and distance/time but do not
include arrows.
• Turn signs indicate where a bikeway turns from
one street onto another street. These can be
used with pavement markings and include
destinations and arrows.
• Decisions signs indicate the junction of two
or more bikeways and inform bicyclists of the
designated bike route to access key destinations.
These include destinations, arrows and distances.
Travel times are optional but recommended.
A
B
C
171
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-71
Wayfinding signs can include a local community
identification logo, as this example from
Oakland, CA.
Custom street signs can also act as a type of confirmation sign, to let all users know the street is prioritized for bicyclists.
Community Logos on Signs Custom Street Signs (Berkeley, CA)
Further Considerations
• Bicycle wayfinding signs also visually cue
motorists that they are driving along a bicycle
route and should use caution. Signs are typically
placed at key locations leading to and along
bicycle routes, including the intersection of
multiple routes.
• Too many road signs tend to clutter the right-of-
way, and it is recommended that these signs be
posted at a level most visible to bicyclists rather
than per vehicle signage standards.
• A community-wide bicycle wayfinding signage
plan would identify:
o Sign locations
o Sign type – what information should be
included and design features
o Destinations to be highlighted on each
sign – key destinations for bicyclists
o Approximate distance and travel time to
each destination
Approximate Cost
Wayfinding signs range from $150 to $500
• Green is the color used for directional guidance
and is the most common color of bicycle
wayfinding signage in the US, including those in
the MUTCD.
• Check wayfinding signage along bikeways for
signs of vandalism, graffiti, or normal wear and
replace signage along the bikeway network
as-needed.
172
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-72
Belmont
Central
Elementary
Sacred
Heart
College
Conrmation
SignCDecision
SignD
Turn SignTD
C
C T T
TT
C C
D
D
D
Wayfinding Sign Placement
Signs are placed at decision points along bicycle routes – typically at the intersection of two or
more bikeways and at other key locations leading to and along bicycle routes.
Typical Application
Confirmation Signs
• Placed every ¼ to ½ mile on off-street facilities and
every 2 to 3 blocks along on-street bicycle facilities,
unless another type of sign is used (e.g., within 150
feet of a turn or decision sign).
• Should be placed soon after turns to confirm
destination(s). Pavement markings can also act as
confirmation that a bicyclist is on a preferred route.
Turn Signs
• Near-side of intersections where bike routes turn
(e.g., where the street ceases to be a bicycle route
or does not go through).
• Pavement markings can also indicate the need to
turn to the bicyclist.
Design Features
• MUTCD guidelines should be followed for
wayfinding sign placement, which includes
mounting height and lateral placement from
edge of path or roadway.
• Pavement markings can be used to reinforce
routes and directional signage.
Decision Signs
• Near-side of intersections in advance of a
junction with another bicycle route.
• Along a route to indicate a nearby destination.
173
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-73
Some cities use pavement markings to indicate required turns along the bicycle route.
Wayfinding Pavement Markings
Further Considerations
• It can be useful to classify a list of destinations
for inclusion on the signs based on their relative
importance to users throughout the area. A
particular destination’s ranking in the hierarchy
can be used to determine the physical distance
from which the locations are signed. For example,
primary destinations (such as the downtown area)
may be included on signage up to 5 miles away.
Secondary destinations (such as a transit station)
may be included on signage up to two miles away.
Tertiary destinations (such as a park) may be
included on signage up to one mile away.
Approximate Cost
The cost of a wayfinding sign placement plan
depends on the scale and scope of the approach. Trail
wayfinding signage range from $500-$2000.
174
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-74
Bike Parking
Bicyclists expect a safe, convenient place to secure their bicycle when they reach their destination. This may be
short-term parking of two hours or less, or long-term parking for employees, students, residents, and commuters.
Typical Application
• Bicycle parking facilities shall be located in highly visible well-lighted areas. In order to maximize security,
whenever possible short-term bicycle parking facilities shall be located in areas highly visible from the street
and from the interior of the building they serve (i.e. placed adjacent to windows).
• Bike racks provide short-term bicycle parking and is meant to accommodate visitors, customers, and others
expected to depart within two hours. It should be an approved standard rack, appropriate location and
placement, and weather protection.
• On-street bike corrals (also known as on-street bicycle parking) consist of bicycle racks grouped together
in a common area within the street traditionally used for automobile parking. Bicycle corrals are reserved
exclusively for bicycle parking and provide a relatively inexpensive solution to providing high-volume bicycle
parking. Bicycle corrals can be implemented by converting one or two on-street motor vehicle parking spaces
into on-street bicycle parking. Each motor vehicle parking space can be replaced with approximately 6-10
bicycle parking spaces.
175
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-75
Bike Parking
Bicyclists expect a safe, convenient place to secure their bicycle when they reach their destination. This may be
short-term parking of two hours or less, or long-term parking for employees, students, residents, and commuters.
Design Features
• All bicycle facilities shall provide a minimum 4
foot aisle to allow for unobstructed access to the
designated bicycle parking area.
• Bicycle parking facilities within auto parking
facilities shall be protected from damage by cars
by a physical barrier such as curbs, wheel stops,
poles, bollards, or other similar features capable
of preventing automobiles from entering the
designated bicycle parking area.
• Bicycle parking facilities should be securely
anchored so they cannot be easily removed and
shall be of sufficient strength and design to resist
vandalism and theft.
Bike Racks
• 2 foot minimum from the curb face to avoid
‘dooring.’
• 4 feet between racks to provide maneuvering
room.
• Locate close to destinations; 50 foot maximum
distance from main building entrance.
• Minimum clear distance of 6 feet should be
provided between the bicycle rack and the
property line.
Bike Corrals
• Bicyclists should have an entrance width from
the roadway of 5-6 feet for on-street corrals.
• Can be used with parallel or angled parking.
• Parking stalls adjacent to curb extensions
are good candidates for on-street bicycle
corrals since the concrete extension serves as
delimitation on one side.
• Off-street bike corrals are appropriate where
there is a wide sidewalk furnishing zone (7 feet
or greater), or as part of a curb extension.
Perpendicular Bike Racks
Bike Corral
A
A
B
B C
C
Approximate Cost
Costs can vary based on the design and materials
used. Bicycle rack costs can range from approximately
$60 to $3,600, depending on design and materials
used. On average the cost is approximately $660.
Bicycle lockers costs range from $1,280 to $2,680.
176
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-76
Signage
• Check regulatory and wayfinding signage
along bikeways for signs of vandalism,
graffiti, or normal wear.
• Replace signage along the bikeway network
as-needed.
• Perform a regularly-scheduled check on
the status of signage with follow-up as
necessary.
• Create a Maintenance Management Plan.
MAINTENANCE
Sweeping
• Establish a seasonal sweeping schedule that
prioritizes roadways with major bicycle routes.
• Sweep walkways and bikeways whenever there is an
accumulation of debris on the facility.
• In curbed sections, sweepers should pick up debris;
on open shoulders, debris can be swept onto gravel
shoulders.
A
A
G
C
D
B
B
E
F
Bikeway Maintenance
Regular bicycle facility maintenance includes sweeping, maintaining a smooth roadway,
ensuring that the gutter-to-pavement transition remains relatively flush, and installing
bicycle-friendly drainage grates. Pavement overlays are a good opportunity to improve
bicycle facilities. The following recommendations provide a menu of options to consider to
enhance a maintenance regimen.
177
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANSISCO
A-77
Roadway Surface
• Maintain a smooth pothole-free surface.
• Ensure that on new roadway construction,
the finished surface on bikeways does not
vary more than ¼ inch.
• Maintain pavement so ridge buildup does not
occur at the gutter-to-pavement transition or
adjacent to railway crossings.
• Inspect the pavement 2 to 4 months
after trenching construction activities
are completed to ensure that excessive
settlement has not occurred.
Pavement Overlays
• Extend the overlay over the entire roadway
surface to avoid leaving an abrupt edge.
• If the shoulder or bike lane pavement is of
good quality, it may be appropriate to end
the overlay at the shoulder or bike lane stripe
provided no abrupt ridge remains.
• Ensure that inlet grates, manhole and valve
covers are within ¼ inch of the finished
pavement surface and are made or treated
with slip resistant materials.
Drainage Grates
• Require all new drainage grates be bicycle-
friendly, including grates that have horizontal
slats on them so that bicycle tires and
assistive devices do not fall through the
vertical slats.
• Create a program to inventory all existing
drainage grates, and replace hazardous grates
as necessary – temporary modifications such
as installing rebar horizontally across the
grate should not be an acceptable alternative
to replacement.
Gutter to Pavement Transition
• Ensure that gutter-to-pavement transitions
have no more than a ¼ inch vertical
transition.
• Examine pavement transitions during every
roadway project for new construction,
maintenance activities, and construction
project activities that occur in streets.
Maintenance Activity Frequency
Inspections Seasonal – at beginning and end of Summer
Pavement sweeping/blowing As needed, with higher frequency
in the early Spring and Fall
Pavement sealing 5 - 15 years
Pothole repair 1 week – 1 month after report
Culvert and drainage grate inspection Before Winter and after major storms
Pavement markings replace-ment As needed
Signage replacement As needed
Shoulder plant trimming
(weeds, trees, brambles)
Twice a year; middle of growing
season and early Fall
Tree and shrub plantings, trimming 1 – 3 years
Major damage response
(washouts, fallen trees, flood-
ing)
As soon as possible
C
D
E
F
Landscaping
• Ensure that shoulder plants do not hang into or
impede passage along bikeways
• After major damage incidents, remove fallen
trees or other debris from bikeways as quickly as
possible
• Maintenance Management Plan
• Provide fire and police departments with map
of system, along with access points to gates/
bollards
• Enforce speed limits and other rules of the road
• Enforce all trespassing laws for people
attempting to enter adjacent private properties
G
178
FINAL – JUNE 2022
APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES97
179
98
FINAL – JUNE 2022
B
Appendix B: Pedestrian Spot
Improvement Types
180
FINAL – JUNE 2022
APPENDIX B: PEDESTRIAN SPOT IMPROVEMENT TYPES99Pedestrian Priority Areas
Identified Pedestrian Priority Areas
highlight important corridors in the city
that support walking and are currently
considered high stress. These areas are
identified on Map 15, and specify areas
where the City will focus on sidewalk
and other pedestrian infrastructure
improvements.
Pedestrian Spot
Improvements
This Plan identified 40 spot improvements,
crossing, and area locations mainly within
the Pedestrian Priority Areas that require
investment to improve the comfort and
safety for pedestrians.
These improvements have been delineated
by the following categories:
pedestrian Spot
Improvement Types
PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL
IMPROVEMENTS
Signal improvements include changing
existing signal timing and features to create
protected walking times when pedestrians
are crossing the street.
PEDESTRIAN SCHOOL AREA
IMPROVEMENTS
These improvements highlight spots that
would improve walking routes for families
and students to reach neighborhood
schools.
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
IMPROVEMENTS
These crossing improvements focus
on challenging street crossings where
enhanced facilities would increase the
visibility of people walking.
WALKING ENVIRONMENT
IMPROVEMENTS
Improvements to the walking environment
include additions such as sidewalk
improvements, public art, parklets,
landscaping, and light that improve the
comfort and visual interest of a walking
route.
PEDESTRIAN TRANSIT ACCESS
IMPROVEMENTS
Transit access improvements look
to improve the waiting areas around
transit stops to increase the comfort of
community members who walk to their
local transit stop.
181
FINAL – JUNE 2022
MAp 15
182
FINAL – JUNE 2022
THIS pAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT bLANK
183
102
FINAL – JUNE 2022
C
Appendix C: Pedestrian
Improvement Intersection
Typologies
184
FINAL – JUNE 2022
APPENDIX C:
PEDESTRIAN
IMPROVEMENT INTERSECTION
TYPOLOGIES
103
pedestrian Improvement
Intersection Typologies
Typology Types
• Typology A: Signalized Intersections
• Typology B: Major Street/Minor Street
(the major street is uncontrolled)
• Typology C: Minor Street/Minor Street
(one or both streets are controlled)
• Typology D: Trail Crossings and Mid-
block Crossings
• Typology E: High-volume Pedestrian
Areas
• Typology F: Freeway Interchanges/
Highway Crossings
185
FINAL – JUNE 2022
COMMON CHALLENGES• High vehicle speeds
• High vehicle volumes
• Free right-turn lanes
• Left-turn pedestrian conflicts
• Cars stop too close to the crosswalk
TOOLS• Curb extensions
• No right on red
• Crosswalks and curb ramps
• Slip lane removal
• Leading pedestrian intervals
• Conflict markings
• Bicycle detection
• Signage and lighting
• Traffic circles
IDENTIFIED SPOT IMPROVEMENTS• Chestnut Avenue/Grand Avenue
• Forbes Boulevard/Gull Drive
• Junipero Serra Boulevard/King Drive
Signalized intersection
Typically major street at major street
COMMON CHALLENGES• Failure to yield to pedestrians
• Unmarked crosswalks
• Lighting
• High vehicle speeds
• High vehicle volumes
• Long blocks without controlled crossings
TOOLS• Curb extensions
• Signage and lighting
• Crosswalks and curb ramps
• Pedestrian crossing beacons
• Conflict markings and advance stop/yield pavement markings
• Bicycle detection
• Traffic circles
IDENTIFIED SPOT IMPROVEMENTS• Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue
• S Airport Boulevard/Marco Way
• Utah Avenue/Harbor Way
Major street/minor street
Major street uncontrolled
COMMON CHALLENGES• Failure to yield to pedestrians
• Unmarked crosswalks
• Parking too close to the corner (visibility)
• Incomplete stops (rolling stops)
TOOLS• Curb extensions
• Signage and lighting
• Crosswalks and curb ramps
• Pedestrian crossing beacons
• Conflict markings and advance stop/yield pavement markings
• Red curb
IDENTIFIED SPOT IMPROVEMENTS• Miller Avenue / Holly Avenue
• Evergreen Drive / Baywood Avenue
Minor street/minor street
Controlled or uncontrolled intersection
186
FINAL – JUNE 2022
COMMON CHALLENGES• Uncontrolled crossings
• Vehicles have priority
• Lack of driver awareness
• Unmarked crosswalks
TOOLS• Curb extensions
• Signage and lighting
• Crosswalks and curb ramps
• Pedestrian crossing beacons
• Bicycle detection
• Wayfinding signs
IDENTIFIED SPOT IMPROVEMENTS• S Airport Boulevard/N Access Road
• Spruce Avenue/Mayfair Way
Midblock crossings
Uncontrolled mid-block crossings and trail crossings
COMMON CHALLENGES• Impatient and aggressive drivers
• Limited sidewalk space
• Competing curbside uses
• Limited pedestrian queuing space
TOOLS• Curb extensions
• Crossing guards or traffic control
• High-visibility crosswalks
• Leading pedestrian intervals
• Pedestrian-only signal phase
• Extended crossing time
IDENTIFIED SPOT IMPROVEMENTS• Gellert Boulevard/Westborough Boulevard
• Crestwood Drive/Ferndale Avenue
• Evergreen Drive/Baywood Avenue
High volume pedestrian areas
Schools, transit centers, and commercial centers
COMMON CHALLENGES• High vehicle speeds
• High vehicle volumes
• Drivers not expecting pedestrians
• Missing sidewalks
• Unmarked crossings
• Lighting
• Limited alternative routes
TOOLS• Marked crosswalks
• Signs
• Pavement markings
• Sidewalks
• Lighting
• Slip lane removal
IDENTIFIED SPOT IMPROVEMENTS• Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue
• S Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane
• Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue
Freeway interchanges
Freeway interchanges, highway crossings, overpass connections
187
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY106
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Intersection Intersection Typology Higher Priority Recommendations
Airport and Baden B
Airport and Gateway See high priority recommendations Upgrade existing crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Construct
median refuge islands at the west, east, and south approaches. Remove
the slip lane from the southern approach.
Airport Blvd and San Mateo
Ave
A/F
Arroyo and Alta Loma See high priority recommendations Construct curb extensions on both sides of the crosswalk. Construct a
median refuge island. Install an RRFB. Install a high visibility crosswalk
across Alta Loma Drive.
BART Area Recommendations See high priority recommendations ^ Mission and Lawndale/McLellan: Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility
crosswalks. Construct curb extensions at all four corners. Provide leading
pedestrian intervals for all crossings. Construct sidewalks on the west side
of McLellan south of Mission Rd.
^ El Camino Real and McLellan: Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility
crosswalks. Install a high-visibility crosswalk at the western ECR approach.
Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the ECR crossings. Consider
installing curb extensions at all four corners. Construct curb extensions.
^ El Camino Real and BART: Straighten the crosswalk across the
northern approach. Upgrade both crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks.
Provide a leading pedestrian interval.
^ McLellan and BART: Upgrade existing crosswalks to high-visibility
crosswalks. Install leading pedestrian intervals at all crossings. Build a curb
extension at the eastern corners.
Chestnut and Commercial See high priority recommendations Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility. Remove the slip lane from
the southeast corner and construct a curb extension; straighten both
crosswalks from this corner.
Chestnut and Grand A
Chestnut and Hillside A
Chestnut and Mission A
Crestwood/Evergreen C/E
Crestwood/Ferndale C/E
TAbLE 9 Pedestrian Spot Recommendations
188
APPENDIX C:
PEDESTRIAN
IMPROVEMENT INTERSECTION
TYPOLOGIES
107
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Intersection Intersection Typology Higher Priority Recommendations
Crestwood/Gardenside See high priority recommendations Install a neighborhood traffic circle. Upgrade all crosswalks to high-
visibility crosswalks.
E Grand and Poletti Way See high priority recommendations Mark crosswalks across E Grand Avenue and Industrial Way to enhance
Caltrain and Grand Avenue access. Tighten corner radii to square-up
intersection approaches. Provide the proposed trail with an enhanced
crossing.
East Grand and Forbes See high priority recommendations Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Install curb extensions
at the northwest, northeast, and southeast corners. Install a curb
extension at the southwest corner. Install pedestrian refuge islands across
E Grand Avenue.
El Camino Real and Arroyo &
Arroyo and Del Paso
See high priority recommendations Remove the crosswalk at Del Paso Drive across Arroyo Drive; close gap
in the median, and remove yield paddle. At ECR, upgrade all crosswalks
to high visibility crosswalks. Provide a leading pedestrian interval for
ECR crossings. Consider curb extensions at the northern and southeast
corners.
El Camino Real and Kaiser See high priority recommendations Construct sidewalks on the south side of ECR from the bus stop to the
bend in Del Paso Drive. Build sidewalk between ECR and Del Paso. At
the Kaiser driveway, upgrade all crosswalks to high visibility crosswalks.
Redesign the pedestrian refuge island in the western ECR crossing.
Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the ECR crossing.
El Camino Real and Orange See high priority recommendations Straighten the southern crosswalk across ECR. Create pedestrian refuge
islands for the ECR crossings. Upgrade all four crosswalks to high visibility
crosswalks. Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the ECR crossing.
El Camino Real and Spruce See high priority recommendations Upgrade all four crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Construct
pedestrian refuge islands for the two ECR crossings. Provide a leading
pedestrian interval for the ECR crossings. Consider curb extensions at all
four corners.
El Camino Real and Ponderosa See high priority recommendations Construct sidewalks on the eastern side of ECR between Country Club
Drive and Ponderosa. Upgrade all three marked crosswalks to high-
visibility crosswalks. Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the ECR
crossings. Construct median refuge islands for the ECR crossings.
Evergreen/Baywood C/E
Forbes and Eccles A
Forbes and Gull A
189
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY108
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Intersection Intersection Typology Higher Priority Recommendations
Gellert and Westborough
Square access
E
Grand and Airport Blvd See high priority recommendations Remove free eastbound right turn lane. Upgrade two marked crossings
to high-visibility. Consider a pedestrian-only signal phase. Construct a
pedestrian refuge island at the Airport Boulevard approach.
Grand and Cypress See high priority recommendations Install advance yield markings and signs for the Grand Avenue crossings.
Grand and Gateway See high priority recommendations Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Remove free right turn
lanes at northwest and southeast corners. Install pedestrian refuge islands
in all crossings. Install curb extensions at all four corners.
Grand and Linden See high priority recommendations Install advance stop markings at all approaches. Provide a leading
pedestrian interval for all crossings.
Grand and Magnolia A/E
Grand and Maple See high priority recommendations Install advance stop markings at all approaches. Provide a leading
pedestrian interval for all crossings.
Grand and Mission See high priority recommendations Upgrade both crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Extend medians and
create pedestrian refuge islands.
Grand and Orange See high priority recommendations Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Consider installing
curb extensions at all four corners. Provide a leading pedestrian interval
for the crossings of Grand Avenue.
Grand and Roebling B
Grand and Walnut See high priority recommendations Install advance yield pavement markings and signs.
Grand and Willow C
Grand Avenue and E Grand
Avenue
See high priority recommendations Upgrade two existing crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Remove the
free right turn lane at the southeast corner. Install pedestrian refuge island
in the E Grand Avenue crossing. Install curb extensions at the northeast,
southwest, and southeast corners. Add a leading pedestrian interval for
the E Grand Avenue crossing.
Grand mid-block crossings
between Linden and Maple
See high priority recommendations Install advance yield pavement markings and signs.
190
APPENDIX C:
PEDESTRIAN
IMPROVEMENT INTERSECTION
TYPOLOGIES
109
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Intersection Intersection Typology Higher Priority Recommendations
Hickey and El Camino Real See high priority recommendations Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Straighten the
northern ECR crosswalk. Install a high-visibility crosswalk across the
southern ECR approach (push back the northbound stop bar and median
to create a straight crossing). Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the
ECR crossings.
Hickey and Hilton B
Hillside and Arden See high priority recommendations Refresh the two existing high-visibility crosswalks. Construct curb
extensions at the two eastern corners. Install advance stop/yield markings.
Hillside and Belmont See high priority recommendations Shift the crossing of Hillside Boulevard to the western approach to
improve site lines. Install curb extensions at all three corners with a
crosswalk. Install an RRFB for the Hillside crosswalk. Install advance yield
markings.
Holly Ave and Westview C
Holly and Crestwood See high priority recommendations Upgrade all crossings to high-visibility crosswalks. Consider installing a
neighborhood traffic circle.
Junipero Serra and Arroyo See high priority recommendations Construct sidewalks on the western (highway) side of Junipero Serra
Boulevard to Arroyo Drive. Install a HAWK beacon at JSB/Arroyo Drive.
Junipero Serra and Avalon &
Avalon and Valverde
See high priority recommendations Mark high-visibility crosswalks across Valverde Drive. Construct sidewalks
on the eastern (golf course) side of JSB to Avalon Drive. Mark a high-
visibility crosswalk across the eastern approach of Avalon Drive at JSB.
Junipero Serra and Hickey See high priority recommendations Remove the free right turn lane at the southeast, southwest, and
northwest corner. Upgrade all crosswalks to high visibility crosswalks.
Provide leading pedestrian intervals for both crosswalks. Construct
pedestrian refuge islands.
Junipero Serra and King A
Linden and 6th Ln C
Linden and Airport Blvd A
Linden and Armour C/E
Linden and California C
Linden and Commercial C
Linden and Lux C
Linden and Miller C
191
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY110
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Intersection Intersection Typology Higher Priority Recommendations
Linden and N Canal See high priority recommendations Construct sidewalks on one or both sides of the Colma Creek bridge.
Install appropriate curb ramps. Mark a crosswalk across S Canal street if
sidewalks are present on the west side.
Linden and Tamarack C
Maple and School C
Miller and Holly C/E
Miller and Oakcrest See high priority recommendations Construct curb extensions at the southeast, southwest, and northwest
corners. Install advance stop/yield pavement markings. Consider installing
an RRFB.
Miller and Westview See high priority recommendations Construct curb extensions at the southeast, southwest, and northwest
corners. Straighten the crosswalk across Miller. Install advance stop/yield
pavement markings. Consider installing an RRFB.
Miller/Evergreen C/E
Miller/Ferndale C/E
Miller/Gardenside C/E
Mission and Sequoia See high priority recommendations Install a crosswalk on the northern approach. Upgrade all crosswalks to
high-visibility crosswalks. Construct curb extensions.
Neighborhood Path See high priority recommendations Create a stair channel along the existing stairs to improve bicycle access.
Remove the gate at Alta Loma/Cymbidium to open stair access to both
neighborhoods. At ECR, upgrade crosswalk to high visibility and straighten
the crosswalk. Provide a leading pedestrian interval.
Neighborhood Path D
Orange and A C/E
Orange and Baden C
Orange and Commercial C
Orange and Railroad See high priority recommendations Upgrade the transverse crosswalk across Railroad Avenue to high-visibility
and construct a curb extension at the southeast corner.
Orange and Tennis Dr See high priority recommendations Construct curb extensions for the crossings of Orange Avenue and Tennis
Drive. Install a high-visibility crosswalk across Tennis Drive.
Oyster Point and Airport See high priority recommendations Construct curb extensions at the north, west, and south corners. Upgrade
two marked crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks and realign to be
straight. Implement a leading pedestrian interval for both crosswalks.
192
APPENDIX C:
PEDESTRIAN
IMPROVEMENT INTERSECTION
TYPOLOGIES
111
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Intersection Intersection Typology Higher Priority Recommendations
Oyster Point and Dubuque F
Oyster Point and Eccles B
Oyster Point and Gateway A/F
Oyster Point and Gull A
S Airport and Marco B
S Airport and Utah See high priority recommendations Consistent with proposed Utah overcrossing of 101, install high visibility
crosswalks at all four approaches. Provide a leading pedestrian interval.
S Airport and Wondercolor F
S Airport/N Access Rd A/D
School and Olive C
Spruce and Baden A
Spruce and Beech C
Spruce and Commercial C
Spruce and Grand See high priority recommendations Install yellow transverse markings around the decorative crosswalk.
Upgrade three remaining crosswalks to high-visibility. Consider installing
curb extensions at all corners.
Spruce and Hemlock C
Spruce and Hillside See high priority recommendations Construct curb extensions at the two northern and southeastern corners.
Mark high-visibility crosswalks across Spruce Avenue and School Street.
Spruce and Huntington A
Spruce and Lux C
Spruce and Mayfair B/D
Spruce and Miller A
Spruce and N. Canal St See high priority recommendations Build curb extensions at the two northern corners. Straighten and
upgrade all three marked crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks.
Spruce and Park Way See high priority recommendations Upgrade the two existing crosswalks across Park Way to high-visibility
crosswalks. Install high-visibility crosswalks across both Spruce
approaches. Install advance stop markings. Paint/refresh red curb at all
corners.
193
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY112
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Intersection Intersection Typology Higher Priority Recommendations
Spruce and S Canal Way See high priority recommendations Straighten the crosswalk across S Canal Street. Upgrade both crosswalks
to high-visibility crosswalks. Construct a curb extension at the southeast
corner. Add trail wayfinding information. Consider leading pedestrian
intervals for Spruce Avenue crossing.
Spruce and Tamarack C
Sunnyside/Holly C
Utah and Corey B
Utah and Harbor Way B
Utah Ave/San Mateo Ave See high priority recommendations Install a protected intersection with high visibility crosswalks.
Westborough and Callan See high priority recommendations Upgrade all four crosswalks to yellow high-visibility crosswalks. Construct
pedestrian refuge islands on the Westborough and Callan crossings.
Update/add school zone signs.
Westborough and Galway See high priority recommendations Upgrade all four crosswalks to yellow high-visibility crosswalks. Construct
pedestrian refuge islands on the Westborough crossings. Construct
curb ramps at all corners. Install curb extensions to tighten corner radii.
Update/add school zone signs.
Westborough and Gellert See high priority recommendations Upgrade the three marked, and install on the fourth approach high-
visibility crosswalks. Build out the necessary corners to straighten all
crosswalks. Construct pedestrian refuge islands at all crosswalks. Provide a
leading pedestrian interval for the northern Westborough crosswalk.
Westborough and Junipero
Serra Blvd
See high priority recommendations Construct sidewalks on the southern side of Westborough Boulevard
through the interchange area to Junipero Serra. Install/upgrade high
visibility crosswalks at all interchange crossing locations. Install with
appropriate signs and pavement markings.
Westborough and Skyline
Westborough/Chestnut and El
Camino Real
See high priority recommendations Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Straighten the
northern crosswalk across Chestnut. Provide a leading pedestrian interval
for all crossings. Consider installing curb extensions at all corners. Extend
all four medians to create pedestrian refuge islands.
194
THIS pAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT bLANK
195
114
FINAL – JUNE 2022
D
Appendix D: Funding Strategies
196
FINAL – JUNE 2022
APPENDIX D: FUNDING STRATEGIES115
Funding Strategies
A variety of sources exist to fund bicycle
and pedestrian infrastructure projects,
programs, and studies. Local and regional
funding sources that can be used for
construction or maintenance of bicycle
or pedestrian improvements, along with
competitive grant programs, are described
below.
Local and Regional Funding
Sources
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE
The City of South San Francisco requires
developers to pay a fair share of the
cost of transportation improvements
through a Citywide Transportation Impact
Fee. Adopted in 2020 the citywide fee
replaces the East of 101 and Bicycle and
Pedestrian Impact Fees, and is intended
to be used toward a range of multimodal
transportation improvements in all areas of
the city. These fees apply to all residential
and non-residential development.
MEASURE A
The Pedestrian and Bicycle Program
of Measure A provides funding to
projects that improve bicycling and
walking accessibility and safety in San
Mateo County, helping to encourage
more residents to participate in active
transportation, and 3% of Measure A funds
are dedicated to pedestrian and bicycle
facilities. Funds are distributed through a
competitive call for projects process; calls
occur biennially.
Funds are programmed by the San
Mateo County Transportation Authority
(SMCTA).
MEASURE M
Passed in 2010, Measure M imposes an
annual fee of $10 dollars on motor vehicles
registered in San Mateo County for
transportation-related traffic congestion
and water pollution mitigation programs.
Half of the funds are allocated to cities/
County for local streets and roads. The
other half is allocated for countywide
programs, including safe routes to schools,
transit, congestion management, and
others.
Countywide funds are programmed by
City/County Association of Governments
of San Mateo County (C/CAG).
MEASURE W
San Mateo County voters passed Measure
W in 2018, a half-cent sales tax for
transportation in San Mateo County. Half
of Measure W funds are administered
by SamTrans for public transportation.
The other half is managed by SMCTA.
Of that 50%, 5% is allocated for bicycle
and pedestrian projects. SMCTA is still
finalizing project evaluation criteria for
money that they allocate.
Funds are programmed by SamTrans and
SMCTA.
197
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY116
FINAL – JUNE 2022
TRANSPORTATION FUNDS FOR
CLEAN AIR
Money in the Transportation Funds
for Clean Air program, established by
Assembly Bill 434, is generated by a $4
vehicle registration surcharge in the nine
Bay Area counties. The funds may be used
on projects that reduce vehicle emissions,
including bicycle and pedestrian projects,
and can also be used as a match for
competitive state or federal programs.
Funds are programmed by the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) and C/CAG.
BICYCLE FACILITIES GRANT
PROGRAM
Throughout the nine-county Bay Area, the
Bicycle Facilities Grant program strives to
reduce emissions from on-road vehicles
and improve air quality by helping residents
and commuters shift modes to bicycling
and walking as alternatives to driving for
short distances and first-and-last mile trips.
BAAQMD has grant programs that fund
both on-street facilities and bicycle parking
facilities.
Funds are programmed by the BAAQMD.
ONE BAY AREA GRANT
The program emphasizes funding for
projects within Priority Development Areas
in the region that are in-line with housing
and land-use goals.
Funds are programmed by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) and C/CAG.
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT
ACT ARTICLE 3
Transportation Development Act Article
3 (TDA 3) provides funding annually for
bicycle and pedestrian projects, and 2%
of TDA funds collected within the county
are used for TDA 3 projects. Metropolitan
Transportation Commission policies require
that all projects be reviewed by a BPAC or
similar body before approval.
Funds are programmed by C/CAG.
REGIONAL MEASURE 3
Regional Measure 3 uses toll revenue
from the Bay Area’s seven state-owned
toll bridges. The money from Regional
Measure 3 funds a variety of highway and
transit projects throughout the region.
Funds are programmed by MTC.
198
APPENDIX D: FUNDING STRATEGIES117
FINAL – JUNE 2022
Competitive Grant
Programs
CALIFORNIA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
California’s Active Transportation
Program (ATP) funds infrastructure and
programmatic projects that support the
program goals of shifting trips to walking
and bicycling, reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, and improving public health.
Competitive application cycles occur every
one to two years, typically in the spring
or early summer. Eligible projects include
the construction of bicycling and walking
facilities, new or expanded programmatic
activities, or projects that include a
combination of infrastructure and non-
infrastructure components. Typically, no
local match is required, though extra points
are awarded to applicants who do identify
matching funds.
Funds are programmed by the California
Transportation Commission (CTC).
SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING GRANTS
Caltrans Sustainable Transportation
Planning Grants are available to
communities for planning, study, and
design work to identify and evaluate
projects, including conducting outreach or
implementing pilot projects. Communities
are typically required to provide an
11.47% local match, but staff time or
in-kind donations are eligible to be used
for the match provided the required
documentation is submitted.
Funds are programmed by Caltrans.
HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
Caltrans offers Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) grants every
one to two years. Projects on any publicly
owned road or active transportation
facility are eligible, including bicycle and
pedestrian improvements. HSIP focuses on
projects that explicitly address documented
safety challenges through proven
countermeasures, are implementation-
ready, and demonstrate cost-effectiveness.
Funds are programmed by Caltrans.
SOLUTIONS FOR CONGESTED
CORRIDORS PROGRAM
Funded by SB1, the Congested Corridors
Program strives to reduce congestion in
highly-traveled and congested through
performance improvements that balance
transportation improvements, community
impacts, and environmental benefits.
This program can fund a wide array of
improvements, including bicycle facilities
and pedestrian facilities. Eligible projects
must be detailed in an approved corridor-
focused planning document. These projects
must include aspects that benefit all
modes of transportation using an array of
strategies that can change travel behavior,
dedicate right of way for bikes and transit,
and reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Funds are programmed by the CTC.
199
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY118
FINAL – JUNE 2022
OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY
Under the Fixing America’s Surface
Transportation (FAST) Act, 5% of Section
405 funds are dedicated to addressing
non-motorized safety. These funds may
be used for law enforcement training
related to pedestrian and bicycle safety,
enforcement campaigns, and public
education and awareness campaigns.
Funds are programmed by the California
Office of Traffic Safety.
RECREATIONAL TRAILS PROGRAM
The Recreational Trails Program helps
provide recreational trails for both
motorized and non-motorized trail use.
Eligible products include trail maintenance
and restoration, trailside and trailhead
facilities, equipment for maintenance, new
trail construction, and more.
Funds are programmed by the California
Department of Parks and Recreation.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES
PROGRAM
The AHSC program funds land-use,
housing, transportation, and land
preservation projects that support infill
and compact development that reduces
greenhouse gas emissions. Projects must
fall within one of three project area types:
transit-oriented development, integrated
connectivity project, or rural innovation
project areas. Fundable activities include
affordable housing developments,
sustainable transportation infrastructure,
transportation-related amenities, and
program costs.
Funds are programmed by the Strategic
Growth Council and implemented by the
Department of Housing and Community
Development.
CULTURAL, COMMUNITY, AND
NATURAL RESOURCES GRANT
PROGRAM – PROPOSITION 68
Proposition 68 authorizes the legislature to
appropriate $40 million to the California
Natural Resources Agency to protect,
restore, and enhance California’s cultural,
community, and natural resources. One
type of eligible project that this program
can fund is projects that develop future
recreational opportunities, including
creation or expansion of trails for walking,
bicycling, and/or equestrian activities and
development or improvement of trailside
and trailhead facilities, including visitor
access to safe water supplies.
Funds are programmed by the California
Natural Resources Agency.
200
APPENDIX D: FUNDING STRATEGIES119
FINAL – JUNE 2022
URBAN GREENING GRANTS
Urban Greening Grants support the
development of green infrastructure
projects that reduce GHG emissions
and provide multiple benefits. Projects
must include one of three criteria, most
relevantly: reduce commute vehicle miles
travels by constructing bicycle paths,
bicycle lanes, or pedestrian facilities that
provide safe routes for travel between
residences, workplaces, commercial
centers, and schools. Eligible projects
include green streets and alleyways and
non-motorized urban trails that provide
safe routes for travel between residences,
workplaces, commercial centers, and
schools.
Funds are programmed by the CA NRA.
Other State Funds
SENATE BILL 1: LOCAL
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
This program provides local and regional
agencies that have passed sales tax
measures, developer fees, or other
transportation-imposed fees to fund
road maintenance and rehabilitation,
sound walls, and other transportation
improvement projects. Jurisdictions with
these taxes or fees are then eligible for
a formulaic annual distribution of no less
than $100,000. These jurisdictions are also
eligible for a competitive grant program.
Local Partnership Program funds can be
used for a wide variety of transportation
purposes, including roadway rehabilitation
and construction, transit capital and
infrastructure, bicycle and pedestrian
improvements, and green infrastructure.
Funds are programmed by CTC.
SENATE BILL 1: ROAD
MAINTENANCE AND
REHABILITATION PROGRAM
Senate Bill 1 created the Road
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program
(RMRP) to address deferred maintenance
on state highways and local road systems.
Program funds can be spent on both
design and construction efforts. On-street
active transportation-related maintenance
projects are eligible if program maintenance
and other thresholds are met. Funds are
allocated to eligible jurisdictions.
Funds are programmed by the State
Controller’s Office.
201
Thursday, July 7, 2022
7:00 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
Virtual Meeting
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda
202
July 7, 2022Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda
WELCOME
If this is the first time you have been to a Commission meeting, perhaps you'd like to know a little about
our procedure.
This meeting is being held in accordance with the Brown Act as currently in effect under the provisions of
Assembly Bill 361 which allows attendance by members of the Planning Commission, City staff and the public
to participate and conduct the meeting by teleconference. Teleconference locations are not open to the public.
Planning Commissioners teleconferencing: Michele Evans, Norm Faria, JulieAnn Murphy, Sam Shihadeh, Alex
Tzang, Luis De Paz Fernandez, Sarah Funes.
You may need to also install the Zoom app on your device prior to joining the meeting:
Planning Commission Meeting
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/82584801637
Or One tap mobile:
US: +16699006833,,82584801637# or +13462487799,,82584801637#
Or Telephone:
Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715
8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or 888 475 4499 (Toll Free) or 833 548 0276 (Toll Free) or 833 548 0282 (Toll
Free) or 877 853 5257 (Toll Free)
Webinar ID: 825 8480 1637
International numbers available: https://ssf-net.zoom.us/u/kcIkA6wMWz
Please note that dialing in will only allow you to listen in on the meeting. To make a public comment during the
Zoom Meeting session, join the meeting from your computer or mobile device, enter your name, and request to
comment through the “Chat” function and a staff person will add you to the queue for comments and unmute
your microphone during the comment period. In the alternative, you may also provide email comments received
during the meeting will be read into the record.
Under Oral Communications, at the beginning of the meeting, persons wishing to speak on any subject not on
the Agenda will have 3 minutes to discuss their item. The Clerk will read the name and type of application to be
heard in the order in which it appears on the Agenda. A staff person will then explain the proposal. The first
person allowed to speak will be the applicant, followed by persons in favor of the application. Then persons
who oppose the project or who wish to ask questions will have their turn. If you wish to speak, please fill out a
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/1/2022
203
July 7, 2022Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda
card (which is available near the entrance door) and give it, as soon as possible, to the Clerk at the front of the
room. When it is your turn, she will announce your name for the record.
The Commission has adopted a policy that applicants and their representatives have a maximum time limit of 20
minutes to make a presentation on their project. Non-applicants may speak a maximum of 3 minutes on any
case. Questions from Commissioners to applicants or non-applicants may be answered by using additional time.
Remote Public Comments:
Members of the public wishing to participate are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of
the meeting. The email and phone line below will be monitored during the meeting and public comments
received will be read into the record. The City encourages the submission of comments by 6:00pm on the date
of the Public Hearing to facilitate inclusion in the meeting record. A maximum of 3 minutes per individual
comment will be read into the record. Comments that are not in compliance the Planning Commission’s rules of
decorum may be summarized for the record rather than read verbatim.
Email: PCcomments@ssf.net
Electronic Comments received by email will be monitored during the meeting and read into the record. We ask
that you limit your electronic comments so that they comply with the 3-minute time limitation for public
comment.
Planning Division Hotline: (650) 829-4669
Voice messages will be monitored during the meeting, and read into the record. Your voicemail should be
limited so that it complies with the 3 minute time limitation for public comment.
Observing the Meeting:
This teleconference meeting may be observed via livestream:
https://www.ssf.net/government/city-council/video-streaming-city-and-council-meetings/planning-commission
Any interested party will have 15 calendar days from the date of an action or decision taken by the Planning
Commission to appeal that action or decision to the City Council by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk
as provided under Chapter 20.570 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. In the event an appeal period
ends on a Saturday, Sunday, or any other day the City is closed, the appeal period shall end at the close of
business on the next consecutive business day.
If any interested party, other than the applicant, wishes to obtain a copy of a Notice of Action for any Planning
Commission action or decision at a hearing, the interested party must file a written request of such notification
with the Planning Division in advance of that Planning Commission hearing.
When the Commission is not in session, we'll be pleased to answer your questions if you will go to the Planning
Division, City Hall, 315 Maple Avenue or telephone (650) 877-8535 or by e-mail at planning@ssf.net.
Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/1/2022
204
July 7, 2022Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda
Sam Shihadeh, Chairperson
Alex Tzang, Vice Chairperson
Norm Faria, Commissioner
JulieAnn Murphy, Commissioner
Michele Evans, Commissioner
Sarah Funes, Commissioner
Luis De Paz Fernandez, Commissioner
Tony Rozzi, Secretary to the Planning Commission
City of South San Francisco Staff
Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner
Adena Friedman, Principal Planner
Billy Gross, Principal Planner
Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner
Christy Usher, Senior Planner
Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner
Victoria Kim, Associate Planner
Vacant, Clerk
PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS
Individuals with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services to attend and participate in this
meeting should contact the ADA Coordinator at (650) 877-8505, five working days before the meeting.
In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public
record, relates to an open session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular
meeting will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall. If,
however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it relates, then the
document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this
agenda. The address of City Hall is 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080.
Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/1/2022
205
July 7, 2022Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda
CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS
AGENDA REVIEW
The Planning Commission will inquire and staff will report on any change or order, deferral and/or
removal of items on this meeting agenda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for comment on items not on the agenda. Under the Brown Act, the
Commission cannot act on items raised during public communications, but may respond briefly to
statements made or questions posed; request clarification; refer the item to staff; or place the item on the
next meeting agenda.
DISCLOSURE OF EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for Planning Commissioners to disclose any communications,
including site visits, they have had on current agenda items, or any conflict of interest regarding current
agenda items.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Consideration of Draft Minutes for the June 16, 2022 Regular Planning Commission
Hearing
1.
6-16-22 Draft MinutesAttachments:
PUBLIC HEARING
Report regarding Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
for the proposed South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code
Amendments and Climate Action Plan. (Billy Gross, Principal Planner)
2.
Att 1 - General Plan Update Draft Program EIRAttachments:
Report regarding a resolution recommending the City Council to adopt the Active
South City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. (Christopher Espiritu, Senior
Transportation Planner)
3.
Attachment 1_SSF-ActiveSouthCity_FinalAttachments:
Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council adopt the Active
South City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
3a.
Page 5 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/1/2022
206
July 7, 2022Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda
Report regarding resolutions making a determination that a proposed project to
construct a new Security Building (B38) at 380 DNA Way in the Genentech Master
Plan (GMP) Zoning District is fully within the scope of the Genentech Master Plan
and Program Environmental Impact Report under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162
and 15168, and approving a request for a Use Permit and Design Review for the
proposed project in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal
Code. (Adena Friedman, Principal Planner)
4.
Attachment 1 DRB Letter.pdfAttachments:
Resolution making findings and a determination that the environmental effects of the
proposed Security Building (B38) at 380 DNA Way at the Genentech Campus were
sufficiently analyzed under the Genentech Master Plan Update Environmental Impact
Report under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168.
4a.
Exhibit A Initial Study.pdfAttachments:
Resolution making findings and approving a Use Permit and Design Review to
construct the proposed Security Building (B38) in the Genentech Master Plan District
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
4b.
Exhibit A GNE 38 Plan Package.pdf
Exhibit B B38 COAs.pdf
Attachments:
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
ITEMS FROM STAFF
Staff may report on items of general interest.
ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION
The Commission may report on items of general interest.
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
This portion of the meeting is reserved for additional comment on items not on the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
Page 6 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/1/2022
207
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:22-548 Agenda Date:7/6/2022
Version:1 Item #:3.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/1/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™208
Page 1 of 7
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 mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/complete-
streets.
This form may be downloaded at mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/complete-streets.
Submittal
Completed Checklists must be emailed to completestreets@bayareametro.gov.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name/Title:
Project Area/Location(s):
Attach map if available.
City of South San Francisco - Martin Elementary School OBAG3 Complete Streets Checklist
209
Page 2 of 7
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (300-word limit)
Please indicate project phase (Planning, PE, ENV, ROW, CON, O&M)
May attach additional project documents, cross sections, plan view, or other supporting materials.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name & Title: Contact Email: Contact Phone:
Agency:
Topic CS Policy Consideration YES NO Required Description Description
1.Bicycle,Pedestrian andTransitPlanning
Does Project implement relevant
Plans, or other locally adopted recommendations?
Plan examples include:
•City/County General + AreaPlans
•Bicycle, Pedestrian & Transit
Plan
•Community-BasedTransportation 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.
2.ActiveTransportationNetwork
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 All Ages and Abilities and Design Guidelines below.
210
Page 3 of 7
Topic CS Policy Consideration YES NO Required
Description Description
3.Safety and
Comfort
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.
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.
4.Transit
Coordination
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?
Please attach
confirmation
email from transit
operator(s) to
email.
2.Active
TransportationNetwork (Cont.)
211
Page 4 of 7
Topic CS Policy Consideration YES NO Required
Description Description
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.
5.Design Does the project meet professional
design standards or guidelines
appropriate for bicycle and/or
pedestrian facilities?
(AASHTO), (ADAAG),
(NACTO), City
Standards
6.Equity Will Project improve active
transportation in an Equity Priority
Community?
Please list EPC(s)
affected.
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.
Please provide
Class designation
for bikeways. Cite
design standards
used.
212
Page 5 of 7
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
Documentation
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 parallelroute.
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
213
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: Title:
Date:
Signature:
All Ages and Abilities and Design Guidelines
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.
Page 6 of 7
214
Page 7 of 7
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.
215
City of South San Francisco - Martin Elementary School OBAG 3 Attachment B216