HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-02-09 e-packet
A
GENDA
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REGULAR MEETING
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
COMMUNITY ROOM
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2011
7:00 P.M.
PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council
business, we proceed as follows:
The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at
7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco,
California.
Public Comment:For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-Agendized item,
please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber’s and submit it to the City
Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public
comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking action on any item noton the Agenda
(except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation
and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive
action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address
(optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER.
Thank you for your cooperation.
The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes
reading an item, it will be ready for Council action.
KEVIN MULLIN
Mayor
RICHARD A. GARBARINOMARK N. ADDIEGO
Vice MayorCouncilman
PEDRO GONZALEZKARYL MATSUMOTO
CouncilmanCouncilwoman
RICHARD BATTAGLIAKRISTA MARTINELLI
City TreasurerCity Clerk
BARRY M. NAGELSTEVEN T. MATTAS
City ManagerCity Attorney
PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS
HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public record, relates to anopen
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 atthe location of the meeting, as listed on this agenda. The
address of City Hall is 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PRESENTATIONS
Recognition of Ercie Santos, recipient of Diamond Award from the Peninsula Arts
Council.
Presentation by Chief of Police Massoni introducing the following Police Department
Staff:
Neighborhood Response Team Members-Sgt. Danny Gil, Officer JeffLee, OfficerJosh
Cabillo & Officer Jason Pfarr
COPPS Officer-Corporal Elena Dominguez-Brennan
School Liaison Officers-Corporal Tony Pinell & Officer Bill Gablin.
AGENDA REVIEW
PUBLIC COMMENTS
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
Announcements.
Committee Reports.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1.Motion to approve the minutes of January 26, 2011.
2.Motion to approve expense claims of February 9, 2011.
3.Resolution approving the application for grant funds for the Station Area and Land Use
Planning Program funded by the FOCUS initiative, an effort led by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG).
4.Resolution awarding aconstruction contract to JMB Construction, Inc. of South San
Francisco, California, for the East of 101 Sewer Improvements Pump Station No. 8
Rehabilitation Project (Project No. 710-99999-ss1010) in an amount not to exceed
$1,278,690.
5.Resolution authorizing the filing of an application with the State of California
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery 2010/2011 tire-derived product grant
program, for $14,040 towards construction of the Westborough Park Improvements CIP
510-99999-PK1012/51-13232-0730.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGFEBRUARY 9, 2011
AGENDAPAGE 2
6.Resolution approving the disposition of property located at 636 El Camino Real pursuant
to ground leases to two Mid-Peninsula Housing Corporation affiliates; approving a reuse
report required by Health and Safety Code Section 33433 in connection with the ground
leases; andadopting findings required by Health and Safety Code Section 33433.
7.Resolution authorizing the City to accept an assignment of rights and obligations of the
South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency in the OPA assigned to HCP Life Science
REIT, Inc. in the event the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency is terminated
during the term of the OPA.
8.Resolution approving Amendment No. 6 to the Employment Agreement between the City
of South San Francisco and Barry M. Nagel for service as City Manager and Executive
Director of the Redevelopment Agency.
PUBLIC HEARING
9.Bicycle Master Plan
City of South San Francisco/applicant
Citywide
P10-0038: GPA10-0001 & ND10-0002
Resolution making findings and adopting the initial study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the General Plan Amendment and adoption of the Bicycle Master Plan;
Resolution making findings and approving a General Plan Amendmentand adopting the
South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan.
10.Waive reading and adopt an Ordinance Repealing Chapters 15.06, 15.08, 15.12, 15.16,
and 15.20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code; and adopting Chapters 15.06
(Uniform Administrative Code), 15.08 (California Building Code), 15.12 (California
Plumbing Code), 15.16 (California Mechanical Code), 15.20 (California Electrical
Code), 15.22 (California Green Building Standards Code), and 15.26 (California Energy
Code) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code in order to adopt by reference and
amend provisions of the 2010 Edition of the California Building Standards Code, Title
24, California Code of Regulations; and set public hearing on the record for adoption.
Continuedfrom Regular Meeting of 1.12.11
MOTION TO MOVE OFF CALENDAR
11.Waive reading and adopt an Ordinance repealing Chapter 15.24 of the South San
Francisco Municipal Code; and adopting Chapter 15.24 (Fire Code) of the South San
Francisco Municipal Code in order to adopt by reference and amend provisions of the
2010 Edition of the California Fire Code; and set public hearing on the record for
adoption.
Continued from Regular Meeting of 1.12.11
MOTION TO MOVE OFF CALENDAR
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGFEBRUARY 9, 2011
AGENDAPAGE 3
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
12.Westborough Park Improvement Project update and presentation.
13.Resolution awarding a consulting services contract with Daryl A. Jones, Inc., DBA
Telecommunications Engineering Associates (TEA) for the design and installation of the
computer aided dispatch system at Fire Station 63 in an amount not to exceed $33,792.
14.Transmittal of Mid-Year 2010-2011 Financial Report and Resolution amending the 2010-
2011 budget.
COMMUNITY FORUM
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGFEBRUARY 9, 2011
AGENDAPAGE 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
Dan Sherman, Chair
Karen Sumner, Vice-Chair
Teresa Avelar, Committee Member
Al Meckler, Committee Member
Betty Battaglia, Committee Member
Planning Commission Liasion
William Zemke, Commissioner
City of South San Francisco Staff
Ray Razavi, City Engineer
Project Team
Dennis Chuck, Senior Civil Engineer
Steve Carlson, Senior Planner
Heather Lawas, Administrative Assistant I
Rosalie Calvo, Office Specialist
BPAC Staff
Tracy Scramaglia, Associate Engineer
Heather Lawas, Administrative Assistant I
Alta Planning and Design
Brett Hondorp, Principal
Ian Moore, Project Manager
Bruce Wolff, Planner
III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
1.INTRODUCTION.............................................................1-1
1.1.Purpose of the Plan.................................................................................................................1-1
1.2.Public Input.............................................................................................................................1-2
2.EXISTING CONDITIONS.....................................................2-1
2.1.Setting.......................................................................................................................................2-1
2.2.Existing Bikeways....................................................................................................................2-4
2.3.Bicycle Signal Detection.......................................................................................................2-11
2.4.Bicycle Parking......................................................................................................................2-11
2.5.End of Trip Facilities............................................................................................................2-12
2.6.Existing Programs.................................................................................................................2-13
3.PLANNING AND POLICY REVIEW.........................................3-1
3.1.Area and Specific Plans..........................................................................................................3-1
3.2.Citywide Plans and Municipal Code.....................................................................................3-3
3.3.Regional Plans........................................................................................................................3-13
4.GOALS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES................4-1
5.BICYCLE DEMAND ANALYSIS..............................................5-1
5.1.Types of Bicyclists and their Preferences............................................................................5-1
5.2.Collision Data..........................................................................................................................5-3
5.3.Bicycle Usage...........................................................................................................................5-3
5.4.Bicycle Counts.........................................................................................................................5-4
5.5.Bicycle Demand.......................................................................................................................5-4
6.RECOMMENDED BICYCLE NETWORK AND SUPPORTING FACILITIES6-1
6.1.Recommended Bikeway Network........................................................................................6-1
6.2.Recommended Bicycle Support Facilities............................................................................6-6
6.3.Multi-Modal Connections....................................................................................................6-10
6.4.Maintenance...........................................................................................................................6-10
IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
7.RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS..............................................7-1
7.1.Safe Routes to School.............................................................................................................7-1
7.2.Education.................................................................................................................................7-1
7.3.Encouragement.......................................................................................................................7-2
7.4.Enforcement............................................................................................................................7-5
7.5.Evaluation................................................................................................................................7-6
8.PROJECT PRIORITIZATION AND PHASING..............................8-1
8.1.Project Prioritization...............................................................................................................8-1
8.2.Project Ranking.......................................................................................................................8-3
8.3.Project Costs............................................................................................................................8-6
8.4.Support Facility Costs.............................................................................................................8-8
8.5.Maintenance Costs..................................................................................................................8-8
8.6.Project Sheets...........................................................................................................................8-9
9.FUNDING SOURCES.........................................................9-1
9.1.Federal Funding Sources........................................................................................................9-1
9.2.Statewide Funding Sources....................................................................................................9-2
9.3.Regional Funding Sources.....................................................................................................9-4
9.4.Local Funding Sources...........................................................................................................9-5
9.5.Non-Traditional Funding Sources........................................................................................9-5
9.6.Funding Table..........................................................................................................................9-7
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX A: EXISTING BICYCLE PLAN MAP GENERAL PLAN (1999)...A-1
APPENDIX B: LIST OF BICYCLE FACILITIES.................................B-1
APPENDIX C: PROPOSED BICYCLE FACILITIES MAP.......................C-1
APPENDIX D: LIST OF PROPOSED NEW BICYCLE ROUTES,...............D-1
APPENDIX E: LIST OF PROPOSED SIGNAL DETECTOR LOCATIONS.....E-1
APPENDIX F: LIST OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS...................F-1
APPENDIX G: CITY STREET SWEEPING MAP................................G-1
APPENDIX H: LIST OF CITY BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES.................H-1
APPENDIX I: LIST OF PUBLIC FACILITIES....................................I-1
APPENDIX J: LIST OF COMMERCIAL SHOPPING FACILITIES..............J-1
APPENDIX K: TRANSIT MAPS..................................................K-1
APPENDIX L: BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION ACCOUNT COMPLIANCE....L-1
VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
This page intentionally left blank..
VIII
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 8 Project Prioritization and Phasing
Chapter 9 Funding Sources
This plan satisfies the requirements set forth by the Caltrans Bicycle Transportation Account. These
requirements include:
Review of the existing conditions and taking inventory of the existing bicycle facilities in the
o
City.
Review of the planning and policy documents relevant to bicycling in the City.
o
Analysis of the state of bicycling in the City, including collision data and estimating existing
o
and future bicycle use.
Consultation of the City÷s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee for input to this plan.
o
Prioritization of the recommended bicycle facilities to be constructed within five, ten and
o
twenty years.
1.2.PI
UBLICNPUT
The public provided input on the recommendations presented in this plan at two meetings. The
first meeting was a regularly scheduled Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) meeting
on May 6, 2009. The second meeting was a specially scheduled BPAC meeting held in the Council
Chambers on September 14, 2009 in which the City performed outreach, inviting the public to
attend and provide input.
Both meetings started with a presentation of the work completed on the plan to date and then was
followed by a public comment session. The public provided comment on the recommended goals,
policies and implementation and bicycle facility recommendations. The City and project consultant
considered all public comments received for incorporation into this plan.
1-2
2.EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section reviews existing conditions in the City of South San Francisco as they relate to bicycle
transportation and recreation. An overview of the land use and transportation setting provides an
understanding of how bicyclists are accommodated and how they access popular destinations such
as employment centers, transit stations, shopping areas, schools, and parks. A review of programs
that the City participates in to support bicycling is provided,
City and regional agencies. This section concludes with a discussion of transit accommodations for
bicycles and the CityÔs efforts to connect bicyclists with transit facilities.
2.1.S
ETTING
The City of South San Francisco is located on the San Francisco Peninsula, approximately ten miles
south of the City of San Francisco on the San Francisco Bay. The CityÔs topography is varied, with
hills to the west and low rolling hills and flat terrain to the
The CityÔs dynamic landscape attracts varied bicyclists. The recently completed and flat Centennial
Way Trail traverses the north-south spine of the community, while Junipero Serra Boulevard bicycle
lanes traverse the CityÔs hilly western side. The paved Bay Trail follows nearly all of the CityÔs San
Francisco Bay shoreline and can accommodates both recreational a
The topography just beyond the City limits is also varied and attractive to both recreational and
commuting bicyclists. San Bruno Mountain is north of the City, with an elevation of 1,314 feet and
provides an opportunity for bicyclists to ride the mountainÔs ridge trail. The Pacific Ocean is one
mile west of the western City limit. To the east lies areas devoted to offices, companies engaged in
research and development, and businesses engaged in warehousing and distribution. To the south
lies relatively flat terrain and is the location of the San Francisco International Airport and the
adjacent community of San Bruno,
Land Use
2.1.1.
The City of South San Francisco has historically been
known as the ÑIndustrial CityÒ but is becoming more and
more known as a biotechnology hub. The east part of the
City accommodates a range of uses including offices,
research and development facilities, and warehousing and is
one of the cityÔs major employment centers. The Caltrain
Station is located in this area on Dubuque Avenue, under
the East Grand Avenue overpass. Several wide arterial and
collector roadways, a few with bike lanes and routes, are
prevalent in this area.
Wide collector roadways dominate the industrial
The west and north areas of the City are primarily zoned
zoned area of South San Francisco
low density residential, with the exception of the downtown
2-1
EXISTING CONDITIONS
and portions of the El Camino Real area, which are zoned for high density mixed use.
Most schools are located in the low density areas. With lower vehicle volumes, speed limits of 25
miles per hour, and wide roads, these residential roadways are generally good for bicycle travel.
The central area of the City, generally bounded by Airport Boulevard and El Camino Real, has a
range of land uses including high, medium, and low residential density, and some commercial uses.
Portions of downtown have wide sidewalks and pedestrian actuated signals at crosswalks and mid-
block crossings. The downtown÷s main street, Grand Avenue, provides angled automobile parking,
while the side streets provide parallel parking and several off-street public parking lots. South of the
city÷s downtown is an industrial area that provides a significant portion of all the community÷s jobs
and is comprised of a diversified range of industrial uses including auto repair, warehousing,
distribution, production uses, and several private recreational centers. The South San Francisco
BART Station is located at the far west end of the city between El Camino Real and Mission Road
adjacent to McLellan Drive. Bike routes on El Camino Real (unsigned), Centennial Way Trail,
Spruce Avenue, Commercial Avenue and Linden Avenue provide access to many of the destinations
in this area.
Appendix A provides a land use map from the
City÷s General Plan (1999).
Table 2-1: Top Employers (2008)
Top Employers
2.1.2.
Employer Employees
United Airlines 9,058
The top ten employers in the City account for 24,198
Genentech 8,100
employees, out of a total estimated workforce of
Kaiser 1,100
SSF School District 950
44,490 employees, increasing the City÷s daytime
Costco 800
population to approximately 72,000 persons from
Aeroground 800
the resident population of 60,522 - many local
Amgen 800
residents commute to work locations outside of the
United Parcel Service 790
community. Table 2-1 provides a list of the top ten
Elan 500
employers in South San Francisco and number of
Oroweat 500
employees.
City of South San Francisco 450
Actuate 350
Total Employees 24,198
Sources: City of South San Francisco Annual Financial
Report (2008)
2-2
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Figure 2-3: Caltrans Bikeway Classifications
2-8
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Table 2-3: Constructed Bikeways
Name Class From To Miles
Bay Trail I SSF/Brisbane Line Oyster Point Marina 2.45
Bay Trail I Oyster Point Marina SSF/San Bruno 3.05
South San Francisco
Centennial Trail I San Bruno BART Station BART Station
2.32
East Grand Avenue
Path I Harbor Way East Grand Overpass 0.19
Forbes Boulevard** I East Grand Avenue Corporate Drive 0.06
South Canal Street
Path
I South Spruce Avenue West Orange Avenue 0.46
Total Class I: 8.53
Airport Boulevard II Brisbane Line San Mateo Avenue 1.86
Allerton Avenue* II Forbes Boulevard East Grand Avenue 0.42
Callan Boulevard II Westborough Boulevard SSF/Daly City Line 0.64
DNA Way* II Forbes Boulevard Grandview Drive 0.24
East Grand Avenue II Allerton Avenue Littlefield Avenue 0.09
Gateway Boulevard II Mitchell Avenue East Grand Avenue 0.40
Grandview Drive II DNA Way East Grand Avenue 0.70
Gull Drive* II Oyster Point Boulevard Forbes Boulevard 0.26
Hillside Boulevard*** II Lawndale Drive Lucca Drive 0.65
Junipero Serra
Boulevard II SSF/Daly City Line Avalon Drive 2.11
Lawndale Drive* II Mission Road Hillside Boulevard 0.63
Marina Boulevard II Oyster Point Boulevard East Basin Road 0.47
Orange Avenue* II Memorial Drive Tennis Drive 0.27
Oyster Point
Boulevard II Gateway Boulevard Marina Boulevard 0.59
Sister Cities
Boulevard II Hillside Boulevard Airport Boulevard 0.89
Westborough
Boulevard*** II Junipero Serra Boulevard West Orange Avenue 0.93
Westborough
Skyline Drive (Highway
Boulevard* II Galway Drive 35) 0.61
Total Class II: 11.76
Commercial Avenue III Linden Avenue Chestnut Avenue 1.14
Hillside Boulevard III Sister Cities Boulevard Linden Avenue 1.3
Huntington Avenue III Noor Avenue South Spruce Avenue 0.27
Miller Avenue III Chestnut Avenue Airport Boulevard 1.28
South Airport
Boulevard
III Mitchell Avenue SSF/San Bruno Line 1.06
South Linden Avenue III Railroad Avenue Dollar Avenue 0.74
South Spruce Avenue III El Camino Real (Highway 82) Grand Avenue
Total Class III: 6.79
2-9
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Name Class From To Miles
Total Constructed
Bikeways: 27.08
Notes: * Not In Adopted 1999 General Plan
** Not Identified In and/or Pre-dates Adopted 1999 General Plan
*** San Mateo County
2-10
EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.6.EP
XISTINGROGRAMS
Bicycle oriented programs support bikeways and end of trip facilities through encouragement,
enforcement and maintenance programs. The City administers or participates in programs that
encourage bicycling, teach safe bicycling techniques, enforce rules of the road for bicyclists and
motorists and maintain bicycle facilities. In addition, regional agencies implement similar programs.
Encouragement
2.6.1.
2.6.1.1.Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance Programs
The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance is the transportation demand management agency
for San Mateo County and funded by the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo
County, San Mateo County Transportation Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The Alliance administers a range of programs
4
that work to reduce the number of single-occupancy drivers and commuters. Employers wishing to
install bicycle parking facilities may receive up to $500 per unit from the agency for the cost of
5
facilities. Employers who have taken advantage of this reimbursement program are listed below.
Alexandria Properties Genentech
oo
Catalyst Biosciences LBA Realty
oo
City of South San Francisco Walgreens Company
oo
Exelixis Inc.
o
Employers wishing to educate and encourage their employees about bicycling to work may request
the agency to host a bicycle skills, maintenance and safety workshop at their work site. Participating
employees may enter a raffle for $50 towards purchases at local bicycle shops. Employers who have
participated in this program are listed below.
Amgen Proteolix
oo
Rigel
o
2.6.1.2.Transportation Demand Management
Transportation Demand Management Plans (TDM) are programs for encouraging travel by means
other than single-occupancy motor vehicles. In order to allow large scale developments in the area
east of US Highway 101, and to manage the associated traffic and circulation, the City has
implemented a requirement of all new major developments to adopt TDM Plans and to pay traffic
impact fees to support traffic improvements. This strategy is set forth in the City÷s adopted General
Plan and implemented through its Municipal Code and adopted city resolutions.
2.6.1.3.Bike-to-Work Day
The Bay Area÷s Bike-to-Work Day is typically held the third Thursday in May and encourages
commuters to bicycle to work and school. Headed by the Metropolitan Transportation
For more information visit www.commute.org.
4
There is no limit to number bicycle parking units an employer p
5
remaining funds.
2-13
EXISTING CONDITIONS
CommissionÔs 511.org, an Alliance partner, Bike-to-Work Day is promoted through a dedicated and
comprehensive website for the Bay Area. The website provides a one-stop location for Bike-to-
6
Work information. This includes a page where people can log the number of miles they bike to
work in May. Three of the CityÔs largest employers, United Airlines, Genentech and Kaiser
Permanente, have historically been sponsors of this event.
The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance organizes the promotional events in San Mateo
County, including the City of South San Francisco. In the City, the Alliance and the Silicon Valley
Bicycle Coalition operated an energizer station at the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and East
Grand Avenue. The energizer station provided passing cyclists promotional items, such as drinks
7
and energy bars. In 2009, 285 cyclists either bicycled passed or stopped at the energizer station.
2.6.1.4.Online Bicycle Resource
The Economic and Community Development DepartmentÔs Planning Division webpage links users
8
to the CityÔs General Plan Bikeways Map. The CityÔs Parks and Recreation Department website
provides links for information about the Centennial Way bicycle trail.
In a joint effort, the City and Kaiser Permanente produced a bic
map. The brochure provides tips for healthy and safe cycling in
routes to bicycle.
Enforcement
2.6.2.
2.6.2.1.Bicycle Patrol
The Police Department employs bicycle patrols in the downtown area from June to September.
2.6.2.2.Community Assisted Radar Enforcement (C.A.R.E.)
The Police Department implements a targeted radar enforcement program called C.A.R.E. This
program utilizes a mobile speed feedback sign and trailer that is placed in areas with speeding
problems. Speed feedback signs use radar to track a passing veh
digital sign. The intent is to reduce motorist speeds, resulting in better conditions for all road users,
including bicyclists.
2.6.2.3.Speed Feedback Signs
The Police Department has installed speed feedback signs at strategic locations throughout the City,
with most locations on roadways near schools. Similar to radar trailers, these permanent signs that
display speed may improve the safety of bicyclists. The list of speed feedback sign locations is given
below.
The official Bike to Work website address is http://btwd.bayareabikes.org/ and additional information can be found at
6
http://bicycling.511.org/btwd09.htm
Counts estimated by the Silicon Bicycle Coalition
7
These links may be accessed via: http://www.ci.ssf.ca.us/depts/rcs/special_programs/walking_trails.asp
8
2-14
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Westbound Appian Way Northbound Willow Avenue
oo
Westbound McLellan Drive Northbound Rosewood Drive
oo
Eastbound Avalon Drive Southbound Callan Boulevard
oo
Westbound South San Francisco Eastbound Sister Cities
oo
Drive Boulevard
2.6.3Maintenance
2.6.3.1 Street Sweeping
Street sweeping reduces debris on roadways, providing a cleaner and safer path of travel for
bicyclists. The City÷s Department of Public Works has a street sweeping program that covers the
virtually all the roadways in the community. Paths are maintained by the Parks and Recreation
Department on a less periodic basis. A map of the street sweeping schedule that includes sweeping
9
days and locations is available on the city÷s website.
2.6.3.2 Pothole Repairs
Much like roadway debris, potholes are also obstacles and safety hazards to bicyclists. The City
provides a phone number (650-877-8550) to report potholes and other pavement failures on its
website. Pavement failures are repaired on a priority basis that considers weather and road
conditions. Pavement failures on El Camino Real should be reported to Caltrans at 650-358-4127.
2.6.3.3 Pavement Management Program
A smooth roadway surface, free of cracks and seams, provides the safest path of travel for bicyclists.
The CityÔs Pavement Management Program (PMP), managed by the CityÔs Public Works
DepartmentÔs Engineering Division, identifies, evaluates, classi
surfaces. Depending on the level of deterioration, roadways are either maintained through
preventative measures, such as asphalt base repairs, slurry seals or asphalt resurfacing, or when these
measures are inadequate to maintain the roadway, it is reconstru
The cityÔs street sweeping schedule is located at this website: http://www.ssf.net/civica/inc/displayblobpdf2.asp?BlobID=10364.
9
2-15
3.PLANNING AND POLICY REVIEW
The chapter provides a summary of planning and policy documents relevant to the development of
the South San Francisco Bicycle Transportation Plan. Plans and policies are considered relevant if
they directly address bicycle facilities, or if they address land-use patterns that affect bicyclists. The
South San Francisco Bicycle Transportation Plan builds on and enhances the bicycle related policies
already established for the community. This chapter reviews the following:
Area and Specific Plans
Citywide Plans and Municipal Code
Regional Plans
3.1.ASP
REA AND PECIFIC LANS
This section reviews the area and specific plans pertinent to bicycling in South San Francisco. The
City includes four specific plans: Bay West Cove, Gateway, Oyster Point Marina and Terrabay.
These plans incorporate requirements that support bicyclist mobility and connectivity to regional
routes and to transit.
Bay West Cove
3.1.1.
The Bay West Cove Specific Plan was adopted in the 1990÷s and comprises an area of approximately
52 acres of which 20 acres remain undeveloped. It is bounded by the Caltrain railway to the west,
San Francisco Bay to the north, Oyster Point Boulevard to the south and research and development
uses to the east. The purpose of the plan is to guide development that incorporates a mix of office,
research and development uses, hotel, and supporting commercial and retail uses.
The Specific Plan accommodates bicyclists through the connection to San Francisco Bay Trail and
to Gateway Boulevard, which are both part of the main north-south bicycle corridor linking South
San Francisco to neighboring communities.
The first phase of the development was required to construct a bicycle and pedestrian path along the
entire length of the property÷s bay front connecting to other portions of the Bay Trail.
Gateway
3.1.2.
The Gateway Specific Plan was adopted in the early 1980÷s and comprises an area of over 100 acres
of which approximately 2 acres remain undeveloped. It is bounded by the Caltrain railway to the
west, Oyster Point Boulevard to the north, East Grand Avenue to the south, and a mix of
warehouse and some research and development uses to the east lining Eccles Avenue. The purpose
of the plan is to guide development that incorporates a mix of office, research and development, and
hotel uses with supporting commercial and retail uses.
3-1
PLANNING AND POLICY REVIEW
The specific plan accommodates bicyclists through the provision of bicycle and pedestrian paths
that circumnavigate the plan area and provide connections to the main north-south bicycle corridor
linking South San Francisco to neighboring communities, San Francisco Bay Trail, and to the
Caltrain transit station.
The first phase of the development was required to construct a bicycle and pedestrian path along the
entire length of the plan areaÔs perimeter interconnecting the individual properties comprising the
plan area.
Terrabay
3.1.3.
The Terrabay Specific Plan was adopted in the early1980Ôs and co
of which a few acres remain undeveloped although approved for office development. The plan area
is bounded by Airport Boulevard and US Highway 101 to the east, Hillside and Sister Cities
Boulevards to the south, and San Bruno Mountain to the north. The purpose of the plan is to guide
development that incorporates a mix of residential and office uses, with a small park and recreation
center, a fire station, and a few supporting light commercial and retail uses.
The specific plan accommodates bicyclists through the provision of bicycle and pedestrian lanes and
routes that provide connections between the neighborhoods comprising the residential areas within
the plan area, between the neighborhoods and the on-site park and recreation center, and provide
east-west connections to the main north-south bicycle corridors linking South San Francisco to
neighboring communities and to the San Francisco Bay Trail.
The first phase of the development was required to construct Sister Cities Boulevard and install
bicycle lane along Hillside and Sister Cities Boulevards between Chestnut Avenue and Airport
Boulevard.
Oyster Point Marina
3.1.4.
The Oyster Point Marina Specific Plan was initially adopted in the early1970Ôs and comprises an area
of over 100 acres, several of which remain undeveloped. The plan area is bounded by Oyster Point
Boulevard to the west and San Francisco Bay to the north, east and south. The purpose of the plan
is to guide development that incorporates a mix of public and private uses including a marina, a
park, open space, hotels, restaurants, a ferry terminal and boating uses.
The Specific Plan accommodates bicyclists through the provision of bicycle and pedestrian paths
and routes that provide connections between the site and adjacent commercial development, and
connections to the San Francisco Bay Trail.
The development has included the construction and installation of a bicycle and pedestrian path
along the bay front and a route along Marina Way connecting to Oyster Point Boulevard. Currently
this plan is in the early stages of being revised.
3-2
PLANNING AND POLICY REVIEW
3.2.CPMC
ITYWIDELANS AND UNICIPAL ODE
This section reviews the City of South San Francisco planning documents and municipal code
sections that reference bicyclists and land uses that affect bicyclists.
General Plan (1999)
3.2.1.
The General Plan is the community vision guiding future development in the City. This section
identifies specific city goals and policies that relate to bicyclist mobility. The Land Use and
Transportation Elements of the General Plan set the guiding principles directly in support of this
mobility.
3.2.1.1.Land Use Element
The guiding themes underlying the Land Use Element, as related to bicyclist mobility, are as follows:
ÑÈIncreased Connectivity and Accessibility (pg 13), Land Use/Transportation Correlation and
Promotion of Transit (pg 14), coordinated Shoreline Development and Increased Accessibility (pg
14), and Performance-based Standard for Services to Ensure Susta (pp 14-15).
Policies that specifically identify bicyclist mobility include the following:
Implementing Policies: El Camino Real Section 3.4-I-7 (pg 97)
ÑWork with BART and other agencies to ensure that the proposed plan for station area
improvements includes:
È Continuation of the two-mile long bikeway (included in Section 4-3: Alternative
Transportations Systems and Parking) at the surface of BART tracks directly to the terminal
building/bicycle parking areaÈÒ
3.2.1.2.Transportation Element
The guiding principles, as related to bicyclist mobility, of the Transportation Element are as follows:
ÑThe Transportation Element includes policies, programs, and standards to enhance capacity and
provide new linkages to further an integrated multi-modal transportation system that encourages
transit and meets the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as programs to help reduce
transportation demand.Ò (pg 135)
Policies that specifically identify bicyclist mobility include the following:
Street System Section 2-G-5 (pg 148)
ÑMake efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the arrangement of land uses,
improved alternate modes, and enhanced integration of various transportation systems serving South
San Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehicle-miles traveled.Ò
3-3
PLANNING AND POLICY REVIEW
Implementing Policies: Street System and Standards of Service 4.2-I-1 (pp 150-152)
”Undertake street improvements identified in Figures 4-1 and 4-2. (Amended by City Council
Resolution 31-2002, April 24, 2002)‘
Implementing Policies: Alternative Transportation Systems, Bikeways, 4.3-I-1 (pg 160)
”Prepare and adopt a Bikeways Master Plan that includes goals and objectives, a list of map of
improvements, a signage program, detailed standards, and an implementation program.‘
4.3-I-2 (pg 161)
”As part of the Bikeways Master Plan, include improvements indentified in Figure 4-3 (Bicycle
Facilities Map) in the General Plan, and identify additional improvements that include abandoned
railroad rights-of-way and other potential connections.‘
4.3-I-3 (pg 161)
”Make bikeway improvements a funding priority.‘
4.3-I-4 (pg 161)
”Require provision of secure covered bicycle parking at all existing and future multifamily
residential, commercial, industrial and office/institutional uses.‘
4.3-I-10 (pp 163-164)
”Undertake efforts to promote the City as a model employer and further alternative transportation
use by City employees by providing:
A designated commute coordinator/manager; A carpool/vanpool match program; Preferential
parking for carpools and vanpools at City Hall; Secure bicycle storage facilities; On-site shower
facilities at City Hall for employees; A commitment to future shuttle service to BART stations;
Guaranteed ride home program; Transit subsidies; On-site transit pass sales; and
Incentives/education program.‘
3.2.1.3.Parks, Public Facilities, and Services Element
The guiding principles, as related to bicyclist mobility, of the Transportation Element are as follows:
”The Transportation Element includes policies, programs, and standards to enhance capacity and
provide new linkages to further an integrated multi-modal transportation stem that encourages
transit and meets the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as programs to help reduce
transportation demand.‘ (pg 135)
3-4
PLANNING AND POLICY REVIEW
Policies that specifically identify bicyclist mobility include the following:
5.1-I-6 (pg 185)
Ñ Work with the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), Pacific, Gas and Electric (PG&E),
and the SFPUC to lease and develop linear parks on existing public utility and transportation
rights-of-way in the City, where appropriate and feasible.Ò
5.1-I-7 (pg 186)
ÑDevelop a network of linkages, as shown in Figure 5-1 (Schools, Parks and Open Space Map), to
connect existing and proposed parks and open space, school facilities and other significant features to
the greatest extent possible.Ò
5.1-I-8 (pg 198)
ÑImprove the accessibility and visibility of Sign Hill Park and the bayfrontÈÒ
3.2.1.4.South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment
The City Council adopted the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment in early 2010. The
affected area is located along the southerly 1 mile portion of El Camino Real, between Chestnut
Avenue and Noor Avenue. This segment of El Camino Real is 1.25 miles west of downtown South
San Francisco and US Highway 101, one mile east of State Route 280 and one mile north of State
Route 380. The affected properties fronting on El Camino Real comprise an area of approximately
15 acres, of which only a very few acres remain undeveloped, although many sites in the area are
underdeveloped. The purpose of the plan is to require new development in the corridor to
incorporate a mix of very high density residential and ground level active commercial uses. The
amendment incorporates a new Land Use designation, El Camino Real Mixed Use, to accommodate
high-intensity mixed-use developments.
The adopted policies specifically target improving the pedestrian environment, (e.g. providing
ground floor commercial uses), however, no specific policies were adopted affecting bicycling as a
transportation mode. El Camino Real is an unofficial primary north-south bicycle corridor linking
South San Francisco to neighboring communities. The city has preferred not to adopted plans to
improve the corridor for bicyclists as expressed in the El Camino Real Corridor Plan, constructing
instead a nearby north-south multi-use path - Centennial Way Trail. The area is connected to other
local destinations by local streets and some existing bicycle facilities, including Centennial Way Trail,
by routes along South Spruce Avenue and Orange Avenue. Future routes, such as Chestnut Avenue,
may improve access to the area.
Municipal Code
3.2.2.
The South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) sets forth the development regulations and
requirements implementing the General Plan goals and policies. This section reviews the SSFMC
regulations that relate to the bicyclist movement in the context and purpose of the Bicycle Master
3-5
PLANNING AND POLICY REVIEW
Plan. The only current chapter of the SSFMC that refers to bicycle parking is Chapter 20.120
Transportation Demand Management. The chapter sets forth a mix of program requirements to
discourage use of single occupant vehicles during peak commute hours in the area east of US
Highway 101. It requires that property owners of developments requiring discretionary entitlements
and generating a net increase of 100 vehicle trips to adopt a TDM Plan. In addition to other
program requirements, in SSFMC Section 20.120.040, all TDM Plans are required to provide long-
term and short-term bicycle parking facilities, and showers and clothes lockers. The section defines
the maximum distance from the building to required facilities, but does not define the number of
facilities or sizes. Also SSFMC Section 20.120.050 requires that a connection to an existing bicycle
lane or route be provided if adjacent to the site.
The Zoning Regulations, Title 20 of the SSFMC, are being revised and updated to implement the
South San Francisco General Plan. Key changes to the Zoning Regulations, in regards to bicycling,
include establishing minimum short-term and long-term parking requirements, and locational and
design standards, although for a limited range of uses and zoning districts.
Transit Village Design Guidelines (2001)
3.2.3.
The Transit Village Zoning District is situated on El Camino Real, between Hickey and
Westborough Boulevards, adjacent to the BART Station. The Transit Village is defined as the area
within 2,640 lineal feet (½ mile) of the BART Station. The Transit Village Design Guidelines were
adopted by the City Council in 2001. The design guidelines are intended to augment the Zoning
District regulations and requirements and provide non-binding guidance for private development
and public improvements within the Transit Village area. The guidelines encourage the provision of
bicycle facilities including a mix of routes, lanes and paths and storage facilities. The Transit Village
is intended to be comprised of a mix of residential and commercial uses in close proximity to
encourage less reliance on vehicle trips and encourage more of a pedestrian enclave. Bicycle lanes
have been constructed on Lawndale Drive (in the Town of Colma) linking the area to Hillside
Boulevard.
A bicycle path through the BART station area was constructed as part of the station construction. A
north-south linear park, a portion of which is in the final stage of construction, connects the area
and both the South San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations - a local sponsored project
associated with the BART project.
El Camino Real Master Plan (aka Grand Boulevard
3.2.4.
Initiative) (2006)
The El Camino Real Master Plan was adopted by the City Council in 2006. The plan is based on the
principles of the Grand Boulevard Initiative promoted by a consortium of businesses, advocacy
groups and peninsula communities. The El Camino Real Master Plan is advisory in nature as it is not
a part of the City÷s adopted General Plan. It consists of goals and policies principally focused on
visual improvements (landscaping of the medians and sidewalk areas) and operational and safety
improvements. A key concept of the South San Francisco plan is to convert El Camino Real into a
boulevard with provisions not only for automobiles, but also for mass transit, and pedestrians. The
City has not yet constructed any of the suggested plan improvements.
3-6
PLANNING AND POLICY REVIEW
3.2.4.1.3.2.5 El Camino Real Northern Corridor Study
The City Council is studying of land uses along the northern portion of the El Camino Real corridor
and will likely culminate in the adoption of a plan to provide for future development.
Genentech Campus Master Plan (2007)
3.2.5.
The Genentech Master Plan is a privately sponsored ten-year build-out plan for the Genentech
Campus, but also includes the associated public improvements to accommodate the new
development. The main campus is comprised of many separate parcels totaling over 160 acres and is
generally located in the area east of US Highway 101. The campus properties front on Forbes
Boulevard, Allerton Avenue, East Grand Avenue, Grandview Drive, and Point San Bruno
Boulevard. San Francisco Bay forms the easterly campus boundary. The public improvements
include utility upgrades including sanitary and storm drains, and improvements to the public right-
of-way including pedestrian and bicycle facilities, traffic signals, traffic channeling, turning pockets at
selected intersections, and bus turnouts and shelters. Most of the improvements have been
completed or are under construction with a tentative completion date of 2011.
Capital Improvement Program (2008-2012)
3.2.6.
The City÷s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a comprehensive five year plan for the projects of
public improvements adopted by the City Council. These projects are organized into the following
categories:
Streets Public Facilities
oo
Railroad Crossings Parks
oo
Storm Drains Traffic Signals
oo
Sanitary Sewer
o
All of these categories may influence bicyclist mobility, whether directly through the improvement
and construction of community projects, parks, or streets, or indirectly through the construction of
sewer and storm drains. The projects and their costs over the five year plan that directly affect
bicyclist mobility are:
Streets. 2008-09 Street Resurfacing Project ($1,500,000) will resurface East Grand Avenue between
Forbes Boulevard and Haskins Way. The South Linden Avenue Grade Separation ($18,000) will
coordinate with the Joint Powers Board regarding the design and construction of the separation of
trains and vehicles at South Linden Avenue and Dollar Avenue. The South Airport Boulevard
Bridge Approach Slab ($60,000) project will raise the settling approach slabs for the bridge over
Colma Creek using a foam injection process.
Railroad Crossings. A future project will install a concrete crossing providing a smooth, lower
maintenance surface across a railroad spur on Gateway Boulevard between South Airport Boulevard
and East Grand Avenue. The estimated cost is $200,000.
Storm Drains. Miscellaneous Storm Drain Repairs project ($180,000) will correct minor storm drain
problems throughout the City. There are no exact locations as this project will mainly address
3-7
PLANNING AND POLICY REVIEW
emergency problems which arise within the system. The Arch Culvert Replacement project
($150,000) will replace existing arch culverts at intersections throughout the City. They are mostly
located in the ÑOld TownÒ section of the City, near the downtown
Michelle Court Storm Drains project ($73,000) will evaluate the storm drain system on Swift Avenue
and Michelle Court and install a check valve and/or liner in the
Sanitary Sewer. The Forbes Boulevard/DNA Way Sanitary Sewer Trunk Main project ($950,000)
will install a new sanitary sewer main on Forbes Boulevard and DNA Way to support the
Genentech Master Plan. Construction will be completed by July 2009. The Allerton Avenue Sewer
Main Project ($2,778,000) will construct a new sanitary sewer ma
the Genentech Master Plan. Construction will be completed by July 2009. The Sanitary Sewer Pump
Station No. 8 Force Main project ($1,177,000) will construct a new force main for sanitary sewer
pump station No. 8 located on Forbes Boulevard to support the Ge
Construction will be completed by July 2009. The East Grand Avenue Sewer Trunk main project
($2,500,000) will upgrade an existing sewer along East Grand Avenue from Grandview to Harbor
Way to support the Genentech Master Plan. Construction will be completed by July 2009.
Public Facilities. The Train Station project ($2,155,000) will study the effects the train station
relocation will have on City Facilities and improve the interface with Caltrain to ensure the needs of
the City, Community and Businesses are met. The Miller Avenue Parking Structure ($9,800,000) will
construct a new parking structure to replace an existing parking lot located on Miller Avenue
between maple Avenue and Linden Avenue. Construction began July 2009. The 200-212 Baden
Avenue new parking lot ($350,000) will construct a new parking lot at this location. Construction
will be completed by August 2009.
Parks. The Gateway Boulevard Island Improvements Projects ($50,000) will provide median
improvements on Gateway Boulevard, north of the Gateway/East Grand Intersection. The Junipero
Serra Tree Remediation and Replanting project ($1,000,000) will implement a phased reforestation
master plan between Avalon Drive and Hickey Boulevard. This phase will complete irrigation,
planting and removal of dead trees on the north end. The Citywide tree reforestation project
($100,000) will plant, prune and remove trees throughout the City. The Planter Strips in Old Town
Area project ($25,000) will install planter strips throughout the Old Town Area in the City.
Traffic. The Citywide Traffic Model ($20,000) will develop a City-wide traffic model to study traffic
congestion in the City. The Miscellaneous Traffic Improvements project ($100,000) will fund minor
traffic improvements within the City. The Hickey Boulevard Interconnect Project ($45,000) will
interconnect signals along Hickey Boulevard between Junipero Serra Boulevard and El Camino Real.
The Gateway Boulevard/East Grand Avenue Traffic Improvement Project ($200,000) will provide
intersection improvements identified in the East of 101 Traffic Impact fee to accommodate future
growth. The Opticom System project will install opticom system (Emergency Vehicle Advance
Warning System) to improve emergency response times and reduce intersection accidents involving
emergency vehicles. The South Airport Boulevard/North Access Road Intersection Improvement
project ($215,000) will provide intersection improvements to the intersection of South Airport
Boulevard and North Access Road including installation of a dual left-turn lane onto North Access
Road. The Evergreen Drive/Mission Road Traffic Signal project ($228,000) will install a new traffic
signal at the intersection of Evergreen Drive and Mission Road. The Grandview Drive/East Grand
Avenue project ($594,000) will provide intersection improvements identified in the East of 101
Traffic Impact fee to accommodate future growth. The Traffic Calming Program ($50,000) will fund
3-8
PLANNING AND POLICY REVIEW
design and installation of projects related to the traffic calming program. The South Airport
Boulevard/Utah Avenue project ($441,000) will provide intersection improvements identified in the
East of 101 Traffic Impact fee to accommodate future growth. The East Grand Avenue/Haskins
Way Traffic Signal and intersection improvements project ($200,000) will design and install a traffic
signal at E. Grand Avenue and Haskins Way to accommodate development in the area. The Traffic
Impact Fee Study ($500,000) will update the East of 101 traffic study and fee, and prepare feasibility
studies and preliminary design of traffic improvements related to the fee. The King Drive/Junipero
Serra Boulevard Traffic Signal Upgrade and Intersection Improvements project ($200,000) will
upgrade the existing traffic signal and improve the intersection operation. The Airport
Boulevard/Miller Avenue project ($2,049,000) will add another left turn lane on the Highway 101
off-ramp. This improvement is identified in the East of 101 Traffic Impact fee. The Forbes
Boulevard/East Grand Avenue project ($2,491,000) will provide intersection improvements
identified in the East of 101 Traffic Impact fee to accommodate future growth. The Citywide street
Lighting project ($100,000) will install street lights at various locations within the City. The
Grand/East Grand project ($305,000) will add an additional right-turn lane onto eastbound East
Grand Avenue. This improvement is identified in the East of 101 Traffic Impact fee. The Airport
Boulevard and San Mateo Avenue project ($1,067,000) will provide intersection improvements
identified in the East of 101 Traffic Impact fee to accommodate future growth. The Airport
Boulevard and Grand Avenue project ($154,000) will add an additional left turn lane at Grand
Avenue to Westbound East Grand Avenue. The South Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue and
Gateway Boulevard project ($4,041,000) will provide intersection improvements identified in the
East of 101 Traffic Impact fee to accommodate future growth. The Bayshore/Airport/Sister Cities
project ($591,000) will provide intersection improvements identified in the East of 101 Traffic
Impact fee to accommodate future growth. The Eccles Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard project
($436,000) will provide intersection improvements identified in the East of 101 Traffic Impact fee to
accommodate future growth. The South Airport Boulevard Hook Ramps project ($2,841,000) will
add an additional right turn lane to the hook ramps. This improvement is identified in the East of
101 Traffic Impact fee. The Improvements to westbound Oyster Point Boulevard to Northbound
101 on-ramp project ($1,462,000) will provide intersection improvements identified in the East of
101 Traffic Impact fee to accommodate future growth.
3.2.6.1.Linear Park
Bicycle projects are included in the current CIP. The City÷s bicycle network, consisting of routes,
lanes and paths, has been largely constructed over the past 15 years with the majority of funding
being provided by grants.
Linear Park Phase I ($1,961,900.00) Completed 2008
Phase I project is the first phase of ”Centennial Way‘ which consists of a 3-mile, Class 1 bicycle and
pedestrian trail, connecting the San Bruno and South San Francisco BART stations. The project
includes safe crossings where the pathway intersects City streets.
Phase I of the project constructed an approximately 1 mile section beginning at Tanforan
Avenue/Huntington Avenue and continuing to Orange Avenue. The project included the
construction of a 10-foot wide asphalt bicycle/pedestrian trail with two-foot shoulders on each side,
landscaping/irrigation and lighting. A new traffic signal was also installed at South Spruce Avenue
for a safe crossing.
3-9
PLANNING AND POLICY REVIEW
Linear Park Phase II/III ($3,454,000) Completed 2009
Bart Linear Park Phase II/III provides a continuous Class I Mixed Use trail for bicyclists and
pedestrians. The pathway is comprised of an asphalt path with a width of 10 feet and a 2 foot soft
shoulder, built on top of an underground BART line. Safe intersections are specified where the trail
crosses streets. The project included extensive community outreach and multi-agency cooperation
to provide a safe route for children to bicycle and walk to school. The path will extend the existing
path between the San Bruno Bart Station and Orange Avenue an additional 1.85 miles northward to
the South San Francisco BART station. The trail is predominantly Class I, with only one short Class
II section for bicyclists on a cul-de-sac on Antoinette Lane.
3.2.6.2.Bay Trail Improvement
($196,500) Completed 2010
This project reconstructed and widened 1,200 linear feet of multi-use pathway from Haskins Way
southward. This project connected a newly installed portion of the Bay Trail north of this location
which was developer funded and a previously improved portion to the south. The existing trail is 8
feet in width and was one of the first sections installed. It was constructed over 20 years ago and has
deteriorated to a point that reconstruction of the path is needed. The new path consists of a 10 foot
wide Asphalt Concrete surface with 2 foot wide graded shoulders on either side. This meets the
requirements for a Caltrans Class I pathway. This project is included in the C/CAG Bicycle Plan.
This project facilitates cyclist and pedestrian access to the various employment areas east of
Highway 101.
3.2.6.3.Bicycle Video Detectors
($115,000) Completion 2010
This project will install 23 Traficon Video Detection Systems (or approved equal) at the following
intersections: Veterans Blvd/Oyster Point Blvd, Baden Ave/Linden Ave, Airport Blvd/Baden Ave,
Railroad Ave/Linden Ave, Hillside Blvd/Linden Ave, Westborough Blvd/Gellert Blvd, Grand
Ave/Chestnut Ave, E. Grand Ave/Dubuque Ave, North Canal Street/S
Oyster Point Blvd/Gull Dr.
Conventional in-ground traffic loops often fail to detect bicyclists as they approach an intersection
due to insufficient metal in the bicycle to cause adequate distortion of the magnetic field generated
by the loop. Video detectors use changes in the video picture of the approaching traffic to trigger
the traffic signal. The bicyclist's image will cause the signal to activate. Video detectors for signals are
particularly ideal for the intersection of public and private roads, where they can be placed on public
property, cover the intersection including the entrance from the private road, but maintain City
access to the units for maintenance without entering private property. The use of video detection
will allow the traffic signal to identify bicyclists who utilize Veterans Boulevard, which is a private
roadway, without the installation of facilities on private property.
The objective of this project is to provide consistent activation of traffic signals utilized by bicyclists.
This project will allow bicycles to activate the various traffic signals when no automobiles are
3-10
PLANNING AND POLICY REVIEW
present, allowing safe, legal use of the intersections, and providing proper right-of-way for the
cyclist.
This project provides connectivity for bicyclists to major activity centers such as, the East of 101
area, the South San Francisco Caltrain Station, schools, shopping areas, and the future ferry terminal.
3.2.6.4.Bicycle Route Signage Project
Citywide ($60,000) Completion 2010
Bicycle Route Signage Project - This project will install 275 bicycle route signs within the City of
South San Francisco along 105,500 linear feet of existing bicycle routes as indicated on the Project
Location Map as part of the City's General Plan, Figure 4-3 - Bicycle Facilities. The project will
supplement previous Transportation Development Act (TDA) projects that installed bicycle route
signs along the San Mateo County Bikeway System, connecting the two systems together.
This project will facilitate cyclists from various residential areas to access City activity centers (parks,
schools, libraries, City Hall, recreation centers, San Mateo County Courthouse, fire stations, Police
station, BART, Caltrain, religious centers, work areas, and shopping areas) and alert motorists that
bicyclists will be more prevalent on the signed roadways. The signs themselves establish a unique
identification for local bike routes in the City of South San Francisco.
3.2.6.5.In-Ground Lighted Crosswalks
($60,000) Completion 2010
This project will install 2 in-ground lighted crosswalks within the City of South San Francisco. The
first location is across West Orange Avenue at B Street. The second location is across West Orange
Avenue at North Canal Street. Both crosswalks will be located on the east side of the intersection
due to better sight distance given the geometry of the roadway.
West Orange Avenue has long been a source of speeding complaints by the community. The short
distances between El Camino Real and A, B, and C Streets along West Orange Avenue make it
difficult to install typical traffic control devices such as stop signs. The City has made various
improvements at the intersections, including installation of red zones to improve sight distance,
installation of signage warning drivers of crosswalks and school zones, and improvements to the
City's Linear Park crossing across West Orange Avenue.
This project will facilitate pedestrians from South San Francisco High School and Los Cerritos
School to community centers such as Orange Memorial Park. It will help to alert motorists of
pedestrians and slow vehicular speeds. The objective of this project is to provide a safe corridor for
neighborhood children to access the City's schools and parks.
3-11
PLANNING AND POLICY REVIEW
3.2.6.6.In-Ground Lighted Crosswalk
($15,500) Completed 2009
This project installed a lighted In-ground Lighted Crosswalk across Grand Avenue in front of City
Hall (400 Grand Avenue). This project will improve safety for pedestrians crossing Grand Avenue
between City Hall and the adjacent businesses.
($105,000) Completion 2010
In-Ground Lighted Crosswalk Project - This project will install 2 in-ground lighted crosswalks
within the City of South San Francisco. The first location is across West Orange Avenue at Tennis
Drive. The second location is across Miller Avenue at Cypress Avenue. Both crosswalks will be
located on the west side of the intersections due to better sight distance given the geometry of the
roadways.
West Orange Avenue has long been a source of speeding complaints by the community. The short
distance between Tennis Drive and Circle Court/Railroad Avenue along West Orange Avenue make
it diffucult to install typical traffic control devices such as stop signs. The City has made various
improvements at the intersection of Tennis Drive to help aid pedestrians, including, but not limited
to: installation of red zones to improve sight distance, installation of signage to warn drivers of the
crosswalk and street improvements.
The lighted crosswalk across West Orange Avenue will facilitate pedestrians from the surrounding
neighborhood to the newly constructed recreation center and existing pool at Orange Memorial
Park. It will help to alert motorists of pedestrians and slow vehicular speeds. The objective of this
project is to provide a safe corridor for our neighborhood children to access our City's schools and
parks.
The intersection of Miller Avenue and Cypress Avenue is located approximately 250 feet west of the
US-101 northbound offramp at Airport Boulevard. The close proximity to the offramp results in a
high vehicular volume and speeds. Also, the intersection is within the downtown area, with busy
public parking lots flanking both sides. This creates a high number of pedestrians at the
intersection.
Genentech Master Plan
3.2.7.
The plan described in the planning documents section includes new or upgraded public
improvements including sanitary and storm drains, modification to the public right-of-way
throughout the campus area to provide increased traffic circulation (e.g. addition of left turn pockets
and new or upgraded traffic signals with bicycle detectors), transit improvements (e.g. bus turnouts
and shelters), pedestrian facilities (e.g. new or upgraded ADA accessible sidewalks) and bicycle
facilities (e.g. routes and lanes). Most of these improvements indentified in the plan have or will be
completed in 2009.
Improvements include slurry sealing of Forbes Boulevard, narrowing of median islands and
installation of bicycle lanes. Allerton Avenue will be repaved and new bike lanes installed.
Grandview Drive and DNA Way currently have bicycle lanes.
3-12
PLANNING AND POLICY REVIEW
3.3.RP
EGIONAL LANS
The City of South San Francisco is situated in the following regional transportation jurisdictions, the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Water Emergency Transportation Authority
(WETA), San Mateo County Joint Powers Corridor Board (JPB) operates Caltrain, San Mateo
County Transit District (SamTrans), San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA), and
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG). The MTC released the
Bicycle Master Plan in 2001. Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) developed a Plan
in 2003 and currently has a Transition Plan and an Emergency Plan in the public review was adopted
in 2009. The JPB, through Caltrain, operates passenger rail service and adopted an Access and
Parking Plan in 2008.
Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) adopted a plan in 2003 and adopted the
Transition Plan and Emergency Management Plan in 2009.
MTC Regional Bicycle Master Plan (2009)
3.3.1.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) oversees regional transportation planning
throughout the Bay Area region. MTC updated its Regional Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco Bay
Area in 2009. The purpose of the plan is to ”ensure that bicycling is a convenient, safe, and practical
means of transportation throughout the Bay Area for all Bay Area residents.‘
Because MTC is the overarching transportation entity in the Bay Area, its goals and priorities are
allocated on the county level. The San Mateo Transit Authority (SamTrans), Peninsula Corridor
Joint Powers Board, Caltrain, and City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County
(C/CAG), described below, receive some direction from MTC÷s policy goals. Among the key goals
are:
Establishing a regional bikeway system.
o
Integrating bicycles and transit.
o
Developing regional funding strategies.
o
Establishing regional support systems.
o
The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG), a sub-regional
entity comprised of the twenty communities within San Mateo County and the county government,
adopted the county Bicycle Plan in 2000 and is currently updating the plan.
In 2003 the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) completed the extension of the rail system into
San Mateo County, from Day City to Millbrae and to San Francisco International Airport (SFIA),
with new stations in South San Francisco, San Bruno, SFIA and Millbrae.
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board - Caltrain
3.3.2.
The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB), formed in 1992, is a consortium of San
Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara County Transit Districts that own the peninsula corridor
Caltrain railway. The railway extends from San Francisco to Gilroy and serves 32 communities.
Caltrain has contracted with Amtrak to operate the passenger service on the railway and to maintain
3-13
PLANNING AND POLICY REVIEW
the tracks and appurtenant facilities. San Mateo County Transit District is the managing agency for
Caltrain.
Passenger service stands at about 34,000 passengers per year and has been increasing at about 10
percent per annum. At this growth rate, effective capacity of the system is anticipated in 2015.
Approximately 8-9 percent of the riders utilize bicycles in addition to the train service. Direct transit
connections are provided at most stations. Bicycle parking is provided at all stations. Demand for
on-board train storage of bicycles has grown and at times is beyond capacity.
The JPB adopted a Bicycle Access and Parking Plan in 2008. The plan provides for additional
facilities to accommodate an increased number of passengers using bicycles. Improvements are
planned for Caltrain stations to increase bicycle parking and facilitate access to bicycle parking at the
ten stations which account for 75 percent of the current cyclist passengers. The plan includes
specific marketing and customer service measures, increasing bicycle parking and mix of bicycle
parking facilities, improving station access for bicyclists, working with communities to improve
station access, and providing innovative station access (such as providing subsidies for folding
bicycles and bicycle sharing, and providing real-time bicycle capacity information).
San Mateo County Bike Plan (2000)
3.3.3.
The City and County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) is a consortium
of the communities and the San Mateo County government that originally formed in response to
state legislation requiring the development of Congestion Management Plans. Since then, the
C/CAG÷s purposes and functions have expanded. The C/CAG now addresses quality of life issues
including transportation, air quality, storm water runoff, hazardous waste, solid waste and recycling,
land use near airports, and abandoned vehicle abatement. In 2000, the C/CAG adopted a
Countywide Bicycle Plan that focuses primarily on a regional level. The C/CAG has appointed a
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) to advise the C/CAG on issues affecting
bicycling and pedestrians. The BPAC also makes recommendations to the C/CAG regarding
awarding the annual TDA Funding (made available through MTC) for local bicycle and pedestrian
improvements. The C/CAG staff is currently involved in updating the plan.
San Francisco Bay Trail Plan (1989)
3.3.4.
The San Francisco Bay Trail Plan, adopted in 1989 by the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG), provides for the development of a paved regional pedestrian and bicycling trail around the
perimeter of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. Approximately 240 miles of the 400 mile trail have
been constructed, either as pedestrian or bicycle paths or as on-street bicycle lanes or routes. The
Bay Trail designates a ”spine‘ for a continuous through-route around the Bay and ”spurs‘ for
shorter routes to Bay resources. The goals of the Plan include providing connections to existing park
and recreation facilities, links to existing and proposed transportation facilities, and preserving the
ecological integrity of the Bays and wetlands.
Along the Bay front in South San Francisco, the trail is nearly complete with the exception of a path
near North Access Road, which is currently under construction with a tentative completion date of
summer 2010. Other future improvements include repaving portions of the trail that have degraded
3-14
PLANNING AND POLICY REVIEW
and adding more amenities such as native landscaping, benches, interpretive kiosks, parking, and
signs.
Water Emergency Transportation Authority
3.3.5.
The Water Transportation Authority (WTA) was established in 1999 to plan and expand Bay Area
ferry service and terminals. WTA adopted a ferry service plan in 2003. In October 2007, SB 976 was
signed into law, which established the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA), a new
agency that absorbed the WTA. The goal of the legislation was to create an agency that would
manage and expand Bay Area ferry service in a way that would make ferries a central component of
the region÷s response to earthquakes and other emergencies. WETA adopted the required Transition
Plan and an Emergency Management Plan in 2009.
The Transition Plan will facilitate WETA÷s transition from an agency that plans to one that actually
operates. When the Transition Plan is implemented WETA will own and operate the three existing
East Bay ferry services “ Alameda/Oakland, Alameda Harbor Bay, and Vallejo Baylink “ that are
now owned and managed by the Cities of Alameda and Vallejo, and new services, including ferries
and terminals, debuting in 2011-2012 to Oakland-South San Francisco and Berkeley/Albany-San
Francisco. In the future, six other routes are planned that would link San Francisco to Treasure
Island, Richmond, Berkeley/Albany, Hercules, Antioch/Martinez, and Redwood City. North Bay
ferries will continue to be operated by the Golden Gate District.
Bicycle routes and lanes connect the ferry terminal under construction at Oyster Point Marina to the
San Francisco Bay Trail, to adjacent businesses and the community.
During an earthquake or other emergency event, the Emergency Water Transportation System
Management Plan will enable WETA to activate its own Emergency Operations Center in response
to the emergency; this will in turn mobilize all of the Bay Area÷s maritime transportation services,
and it will allow WETA to coordinate the response to and recovery from an emergency, as well as
the restoration of normal operations.
3-15
4.GOALS, POLICIES AND
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
The goals and objectives of this Bicycle Transportation Plan serve as the foundation for bicycling in
South San Francisco. The goals and policies are intended to make bicycling accessible to the widest
range of users, from children to adults and from leisure to commuting bicyclists. Associated with
each goal, are more specific policies. Implementation measures are provided for each policy as a way
to measure the effectiveness of the policies and consequently achievement of the goals.
The overarching vision of this plan is to increase bicycle use in the City. The goals, policies and
implementation measures below serve to achieve this overarching goal.
Goal 1: Promote and Encourage Bicycle Transportation
Policy 1.1: Integrate bicycle facility and planning into all of the City÷s planning review
and construction activities, legitimizing bicycling as a transportation mode.
Implementation Measures:
1.1-1All development projects shall be required to conform to the Bicycle
Transportation Plan goals, policies and implementation measures.
1.1-2All public and private street projects shall incorporate bicycle
improvements as identified on the Bikeways Map.
Policy 1.2: Reduce reliance on travel by single occupant passenger vehicles.
Implementation Measures:
1.2-1 All major developments shall be required to establish and maintain a
Transportation Demand Management Plan as prescribed in the South
San Francisco Municipal Code Title 20 Zoning Regulations.
1.2-2 All developments with approved Transportation Demand
Management Plans shall be required to prepare periodic reports as
prescribed in the SSFMC Zoning Regulations.
1.2-3 As part of the review of the Bicycle Plan stated in Goal 6, the BPAC
shall review and make recommendations on the effectiveness of local
TDM Plans in supporting bicycling as a transportation mode.
Policy 1.3: Encourage residents and employees to use bicycles for journeys to work,
shopping, school and recreation.
Implementation Measures:
4-1
GOALS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
1.3-1 Sponsor and/or support at least one local annual event promoting
bicycling such as Bike-To-Work Day.
1.3-2 Work with the South San Francisco Unified School District and
private schools to implement programs and events to support
bicycling including regular bike-to-school contests, and challenging
10
students to bicycle to school.
1.3-3 Develop and implement incentive based bicycle programs to
encourage and increase bicycling.
1.3-4 Maintain, update and publish a City Bike Map.
Goal 2: Improve Bicycle Safety
Policy 2.1: The BPAC and City staff shall continually seek to improve bicyc
Implementation Measures:
2.1-1City staff, assigned to support the BPAC, shall establish and ma
a current bicycle data base. The data base shall include, but no
limited to, an annual bicycle user count, analysis of bicycle co
rates and locations, and a review of facility conditions.
2.1-2City staff shall establish and maintain a BPAC webpage to
disseminate bicycling information and elicit community input.
2.1-3The BPAC shall annually review efforts to improve bicycling safe
and make recommendations for improving bicycling safety,
maintaining existing bicycle facilities, and constructing new bicycle
facilities.
Policy 2.2: Enforce bicycle related traffic laws to maintain and improve traffic safety.
Implementation Measures:
2.2-1 The Police Department should enforce the vehicle code for
bicyclists.
2.2-2 The BPAC webpage shall be utilized to provide public infor
pertaining to laws regarding bicycling on public roads.
Encouraging students to bicycle can be implemented and funded t
10
4-2
GOALS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
Policy 2.3 Provide security on bicycle paths.
Implementation Measure
2.3-1The city shall establish and maintain a security program for rem
paths including the Bay Trail, Centennial Way path and future
conversion of former rail spur tracks.
2.3-2Expand the Police Department Bike Patrol to include bicycle path
and evaluate other methods to improve security such as establish
Citizen Bike Patrol, installing cameras and lighting on bicycle paths.
Goal 3: Improve Bicycle Access
Policy 3.1: The city shall expand the existing bikeway network and improve access
throughout the community with a special emphasis on connections
of work, transit, commercial centers and community amenities.
Implementation Measure:
3.1-1 Construct bicycle facilities in accordance with a prioritized list of
facilities.
Policy 3.2: Bicycle parking facilities should be provided at schools, parks
stops, and shall be required to be provided at private developme
places of work, commercial shopping establishments, parks, community
facilities and other bicyclist destinations.
Implementation Measure:
3.2-1 Amend the CityÔs Zoning Regulations to require public and private
developments and facilities to provide both long-term and short-
bicycle parking and support facilities, such as shower and chang
facilities.
3.2-2 Work with transit agencies to provide bicycle parking at s
key transit connections and provide bicycle racks and/or storage
areas on buses and trains.
3.2.3 Work with the South San Francisco Unified School District
private schools to provide and improve bicycle parking facilities at
schools and provide safe access to schools.
4-3
GOALS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
11
Policy 3.2: Install bicycle way finding and destination signage on public paths.
Implementation Measures:
3.2-1 Develop a hierarchy of signs providing a uniform and consistent
appearance providing clear orientation and direction for bicyclists.
3.2-2 Install bicycle way finding and destination signage on all public paths
and require that privately sponsored path projects implement the
same type of signage.
Goal 4: Identify Funding Sources to Construct and Maintain Bicycle Facilities
Policy 4.1: City sponsored bicycle facilities shall include, to the extent feasible and
available, Federal, State and/or local grant funding to augment city funding.
Implementation Measures:
4.1-1City staff shall establish and maintain a data base of funding sources to
support planning, design, construction and maintenance of bicycling
facilities.
4.1-2Bicycle improvement and maintenance projects shall be included in the City÷s
Capital Improvement Plan.
GOAL 5: Maintain Community Bicycle Facilities
Policy 5.1 Maintain bicycle routes, lanes and paths as a high priority.
Implementation Measures:
5.1-1 Maintain the city÷s street sweeping program to keep the streets, including
bicycle routes and lanes, free and clear of debris.
5.1-2 Establish a regular maintenance program including sweeping, pavement,
signs, pavement markings and lighting to keep bicycle paths in good
condition.
Policy 5.2 The BPAC shall conduct regular evaluations of the bicycle facilities.
Implementation Measures
5.2-1 Conduct an annual review of the bikeways maintenance program and make
recommendations to improve maintenance.
5.2-2 The BPAC, with the assistance of city staff, shall conduct and document an
annual review of all bikeways surface condition.
Bicycle wayfinding signs directs bicyclists along bikeways. Bicmunity
11
amenities.
4-4
GOALS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
Policy 5.3 Keep the City÷s Pavement Management Plan relevant to bicycle
transportation.
Implementation Measure:
5.3-1 The city staff shall revise the City÷s Pavement Management Plan to include
bikeways, pavement marking, signage and lighting maintenance as a high
priority.
GOAL 6: Periodically Review The Bicycle Plan and Keep It Relevant
Policy 6.1 Maintain the Bicycle Plan and the implementation schedule and keep the
plan current and relevant.
Implementation Measures:
6.1-1The BPAC shall conduct an annual review of the Bike Plan, including
achievement of the goals and policies, effectiveness of the implementation
measures, the progress of implementation and the efficient use of local
resources.
6.1-2The BPAC shall make recommendations to improve the plan, to achieve the
goals and policies, and improve implementation.
6.1-3As part of the annual review, the BPAC shall prioritize bicycle improvements
and identify external funding sources.
6.1-4 The BPAC shall make recommendations to undertake periodic bicycle
planning studies to update the plan and achieve greater effectiveness.
Policy 6.2 Maintain a focus on bicycle issues.
Implementation Measures:
6.2-1 The BPAC shall adopt an annual work program to guide its efforts to
improve bicycling and to focus on bicycle issues, programs and projects, and
the progress of implementation.
6.2-4 The BPAC shall make recommendations to the City Council on all public
and privately sponsored bicycle projects.
4-5
GOALS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
GOAL 7: Encourage Public Participation and Stay Informed
Policy 7.1 Promote public awareness of bicycling and increase public participation.
Implementation Measure:
7.1-1 Establish and maintain a BPAC webpage to disseminate information and
elicit community input.
7.1-2 Notify the community of the BPAC meetings and encourage public
attendance at its meetings through various media including the city website.
Policy 7.2 Develop an outreach plan to establish and maintain contact with local
residents, external agencies and interest groups.
Implementation Measures:
7.2-1 Establish and maintain a community data base of BPACs, interested
residents, and organizations.
7.2-2 Establish and maintain contact with BPACs within San Mateo County,
bicycle organizations, SamTrans, BART, Caltrain and FHWA, interested
citizens and businesses.
7.2-3The BPAC shall conduct a periodic joint meeting with the neighboring
communities, including Daly City, Colma, Brisbane, Pacifica and San Bruno
BPAC÷s, and local bicycle groups to review establishing better connections
between bikeways and programs to improve bicycling, coordinating
improvements and co-sponsoring joint projects.
7.2-4The BPAC shall propose joint meetings with the C/CAG and all local
community BPACs within San Mateo County to discuss bicycling issues
including coordinating bicycle projects and have more voice in bicycling
issues.
7.2-5The BPAC shall work with other City Boards and Commissions to
coordinate efforts to implement the plan and improve bicycling facilities.
Policy 7.3 The BPAC shall take a proactive approach to stay informed.
Implementation Measure
7.3-1Participate in regional bicycle conferences and increase awareness, knowledge
and technical bicycle expertise. On an annual basis, attend at least one public
event including bicycling fairs and/or conference to establish and maintain
connections with the larger bicycling and transportation planning
4-6
GOALS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
communities. Attend regional and national bicycle related conferences, such
as the California and US Bike-Walk Conference.
7.3-2Take an active leadership role by directing the planning, implementation and
maintenance of bicycling improvements and programs.
7.3-3Monitor and review bicycle demonstration and cutting edge projects and
programs in other communities.
7.3-4The BPAC shall keep current on advancements, bicycle information and new
and pending Federal and State bicycle legislation.
4-7
5.BICYCLE DEMAND ANALYSIS
This section analyzes existing and future bicycle demand in South San Francisco. This section
includes a general summary of the preferences and characteristics of bicyclists, a summary of bicycle
collisions for the last five years, and an estimate of future bicycle demand.
5.1.TBP
YPES OF ICYCLISTS AND THEIR REFERENCES
Understanding the preferences of bicyclists is important to
develop a plan that accommodates bicyclists of all skill
levels. Just as skill levels and types vary, so do bicyclist
preferences. For example, people who bicycle for
recreational purposes tend to or may prefer scenic, winding,
off-street trails, while bicyclists who ride to work or for
errands tend to prefer more direct on-street bicycle
facilities.
This Plan separates bicyclists into two skill levels: casual
and experienced. Casual bicyclists include youth and adults
Casual bicyclists generally prefer scenic paths.
who are intermittent riders and include families.
Experienced bicyclists include commuters and long-distance road bicyclists. A summary of bicyclist
types and perceived needs are provided in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1: Bicyclist Preferences
Casual Riders Experienced Riders
Prefer off-street bike paths or bike lanes along low-Prefer on-street or bicycle-only facilities to multi-use
volume, low-speed streets. paths.
May have difficulty gauging traffic and may be unfamiliar Comfortable riding with vehicles on streets. Negotiates
with rules of the road. May walk bike across intersections. streets like a motor vehicle, including ”taking the lane‘ and
using left-turn pockets.
May use less direct route to avoid arterials with heavy May prefer a more direct route.
traffic volumes.
May ride on sidewalks and ride the wrong way on streets Avoid riding on sidewalks or on multi-use paths. Rides
and sidewalks. with the flow of traffic on streets.
May ride at speeds comparable to walking, or slightly faster Ride at speeds up to 20 mph on flat ground, up to 40 mph
than walking. on steep descents.
Shorter trip distances: less than 5 miles. May bicycle longer distances, typically over 20 miles.
Casual bicyclists benefit from route markers, multi-use paths, bicycle lanes on low-volume streets,
traffic calming and educational and encouragement programs. They also benefit from a connected
network of marked routes that lead to parks, schools, shopping areas, and other destinations.
Because experienced bicyclists generally desire the shortest path between their origin and
destination, they benefit from a connected network of bicycle lanes, wider curb lanes on high-
volume arterial roadways and loop detectors at traffic signals.
5-1
BICYCLE DEMAND ANALYSIS
The experienced bicyclist who is primarily interested in exercise benefits from loop routes that lead
back to the point of origin. Because they typically travel at high speeds, experienced bicyclists prefer
on-street facilities or off-street facilities with few pedestrians.
Characteristics of Recreational and Utilitarian Trips
5.1.1.
This Plan separates bicycle trips into two types: recreational and utilitarian. Recreational trips can
range from a 50-mile weekend group ride to a family outing along Centennial Way Trail. Utilitarian
trips, which are a primary focus of state and federal bicycle funding, include bicycling to school,
work or running other errands. Table 5-2 describes these differences.
Table 5-2: Characteristics of Recreational and Utilitarian Trips
Recreational Trips Utilitarian Trips
Directness of route not as important as visual interest, Directness of route and connected, continuous facilities
shade, protection from wind. more important than visual interest, etc.
Loop trips may be preferred to backtracking. Trips generally travel from residential to shopping or work
areas and back.
Trips may range from under a mile to over 50 miles. Trips generally are 1-5 miles in length.
Short-term bicycle parking should be provided at Short-term and long-term bicycle parking should be
recreational sites, parks, trailheads and other recreational provided at stores, transit stations, schools, workplaces.
activity centers.
Varied topography may be desired, depending on the Flat topography is desired.
skill level of the cyclist.
May be riding in a group. Often ride alone.
May drive with their bicycles to the starting point of a Use bicycle as primary transportation mode for the trip; may
ride. transfer to public transportation; may or may not have
access to a car for the trip.
Trips typically occur on the weekend or on weekdays Trips typically occur during morning and evening commute
before morning commute hours or after evening hours (commute to school and work), shopping trips also
commute hours. occur on weekends.
Type of preferred facility varies and depends on cyclist÷s Generally use on-street facilities, may use pathways if they
skill level. provide easier access to destinations than on-street facilities.
Recreational bicyclists÷ needs vary depending on skill level. Experienced road cyclists on a 100-mile
weekend ride are likely to prefer well-maintained roads with wide shoulders, few intersections, and
few stop signs or stop lights. Casual bicyclists on a family trip may prefer a quiet path with adjacent
parks, benches, and water fountains.
Utilitarian bicyclist needs are more straightforward and are provided below.
Commuter routes should be direct, continuous, and connected.
o
Protected intersection crossing locations are needed for safe and efficient bicycle
o
commuting.
Bicycle commuters must have secure places to store their bicycles at their destinations.
o
Bicycle facilities should be provided on arterials.
o
5-2
BICYCLE DEMAND ANALYSIS
5.2.CD
OLLISIONATA
Bicycle collision data for the past five years (2003-2007) was
Table 5-3: Collisions Involving
gathered from the Statewide Integrated Transportation
Bicyclists in South San Francisco
Report System (SWITRS). This data presents where
Total Bicyclist
collisions occur and the conditions that may have been
Year Collisions Injuries
associated with them. While bicycle related collisions and
2003 17 14
injuries trended downward from 2003 to 2006, they
2004 15 13
increased in 2007.
2005 19 3
2006 5 3
Table 5-3 provides collision statistics for the past five years
2007 10 10
and Figure 5-1 provides a map of collision locations. While
Total82 56
56 bicyclists were injured in these collisions, no bicyclists
were killed.
5.3.BU
ICYCLESAGE
Monitoring the number of bicyclists in the City provides a
way to track the success of bicycle facilities. This Plan
presents the most current US Census Journey to Work data
12
as a basis for estimating bicycle use. As bicycle facilities
are built and education and encouragement programs
implemented, Journey to Work data can be revisited to
monitor changes in bicycling rates. Table 5-4 presents
Journey to Work Data for the City and compares it to San
Mateo County, California and the US.
The percentage of City residents that bicycle to work is 0.4
Many bicyclists use transit, however, the US Census
percent. This is half the percentage of San Mateo County
Journey to Work data does not account for Ñmulti-
and California (0.8 percent), and just under the percentage of
modalÒ trips
the United States (0.5 percent).
Table 5-4: South San Francisco Journey to Work Data
San Mateo South San
Mode United StatesCaliforniaCountyFrancisco
Bicycle 0.5%0.8%0.8%0.4%
Drove Alone 75.7%71.8%72.3%68.2%
Carpool 12.2%14.5%12.8%16.9%
Public Transit 4.7%5.1%7.4%9.2%
Walked 2.9%2.9%2.1%2.6%
Other 0.7%0.8%0.7%0.7%
Source: US Census 2000
The US Decennial Census only provides data for the number of bicycle commuters, not bicyclists in general, which can result an
12
inaccurate estimate of the actual number of people riding their
5-3
BICYCLE DEMAND ANALYSIS
5.4.BC
ICYCLEOUNTS
The City counted bicyclists at the Orange Avenue and Memorial Drive intersection on Saturday,
April 25, 2009. This intersection is bisected by Centennial Way, which is a Class I path that opened
on May 16, 2009. The count establishes a weekend baseline for future comparison.
A total of nine bicyclists were counted from 9 am to 11 am. Two bicyclists were children and seven
were adult males. Four adult males were not wearing helmets and one travelled the wrong way on
the roadway. Table 5-5 presents the results of the count.
Table 5-5: Bicycle Count, April 25, 2009
No Wrong
AM Time Period Male FemaleChild
HelmetWay
0000
0
9:00-9:15 AM
0000
9:15-9:30 AM 0
00
9:30-9:45 AM 110
00
9:45-10:00 AM 111
000
10:00-11:15 AM 32
00000
11:15-11:30 AM
00000
11:30-11:45 AM
00
11:45-12:00 PM 220
Total 70241
5.5.BD
ICYCLEEMAND
An estimate of future bicycle commuters helps determine the need and justification for new bicycle
facilities. The number of existing and future bicycle commuters was estimated using a bicycle
demand model that uses the most current and available US census data and other sources as noted.
.
5-4
Existing Bicycle Commuter Population
5.5.1.
The US Census provides bike-to-work mode share as part of its surveys. The 2000 US Census
reports the City÷s bike-to-work mode share as 0.4 percent. However, this does not include students
bicycling to school or people bicycling to transit. When students and transit riders were considered,
a more comprehensive estimate of daily bicycle use was calculated. The model below estimates that
one percent of the City÷s population bicycles daily. Table 5-6 provides the sources and estimates
used in determining the existing bicycle commuter population.
Table 5-6: Existing Bicycle Commuter Population
Variable FigureSources and Notes
South San Francisco Population 60,552US Census 2000
Number of Commuters 28,157US Census 2000 (Employed persons minus
work at home)
Number of Bicycle-to-Work 119US Census 2000 (0.4% bike-to-work mode share)
Commuters
Bicycle-to-Work Mode Share 0.4%Mode share percentage of Bicycle to Work Commuters
2006 American Community Survey
School Children Grades K-8 6,725US Census 2000, Children enrolled in school grades 1-8
Estimated School Bicycle Commuters 101National average 2%. National Safe Routes to School
Survey (2003)
Number of College Students 5,038US Census 2000
Estimated College Bicycle Commuters 252National Bicycling & Walking Study, FHWA, Case Study
No. 1, 1995. Review of bicycle commute share in seven
university communities (5%)*
Number of Commuters who take 2,680US Census 2000
Public Transportation
Estimated Number of People who 80System wide Bike to BART average 3% of riders. BART
Bicycle to Transit Bicycle Access and Parking Plan (2002)
Number of Commuters who take 1,328US Census 2000, Means of travel to work
SamTrans Bus
Estimated Number of People who 27Estimates 2% of bus boardings are by bicyclists.
Bicycle to a Bus Stop
Estimated Total Number of Bicycle 579Total of bike-to-work, transit, school, college and
Commuters and Utilitarian Riders utilitarian bicycle commuters. This does not include
recreational bicyclists.
Estimated Adjusted Mode Share 1.0%Estimated Bicycle Commuters di
* According to the 2000 US Census, 5,038 college students live in South San Francisco.
Future Bicycle Use
5.5.2.
Future bicycle use was estimated by assuming that current residents who commute to work in less
than 29 minutes will ride their bicycle to work if bicycle condi
assumption, there are potentially 1,577 more bike-to-work commuters. When these bicyclists are
added to the current number of bicyclists, their bicycle trips can be converted into vehicle miles
reduced. The result is nearly four million vehicle miles shifted to bicycle miles. Table 5-7 describes
the future bicycle commuter population estimation.
5-7
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE SYSTEM AND SUPPORTING FACILITIES
Table 5-7: Future Estimated Bicycle Trips
Variable FigureSources and Notes
Number of Workers with Commutes Nine 2,653US Census 2000
Minutes or Less
Number of Workers with Commutes 10-9,024US Census 2000
19 minutes
Number of Workers with Commutes 20-5,258US Census 2000
29 minutes
Number of Workers who already Bicycle 119US Census 2000
or Walk to Work
Number of Potential Bike-to-Work 16,816Calculated by subtracting number of workers who already bicycle
commuters or walk from the number of workers who have commutes 29
minutes or less
Future Number of New Bike-to-Work 1,577Based capture rate goals of 20%, 10%, and 5% of potential
Commuters bicycle riders commuting less than 9 minutes, 10-19 minutes, and
20-29 minutes to work, respectively.
Total Future Daily Bicycle Commuters 2,156Current daily bicycle commuters, bike to school and utilitarian
and Utilitarian Riders riders, plus future bicycle commuters
Future Total Daily Bicycle Trips 4,311Total bicycle commuters x 2 (for round trips)
Future Reduced Vehicle Trips per 3,147Assumes 73% of bicycle trips replace vehicle trips
Weekday
Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per 14,477Assumes average one-way trip travel length of 4.6 miles for
Weekday adults. Assumes 12 mph average bicycle speed; 23 minute
average travel time. Travel time data from NHTS 2001 Trends,
Table 26.
Future Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 3,836,470256 weekdays per year
Air Pollutants Avoided from Future Bicycle Trips
5.5.3.
The reduction of approximately four million VMT per year yields an air pollutant reduction of 1,633
tons. Table 5-8 converts kilograms of each air pollutant per mile to metric tons of air pollutants
avoided per year.
Table 5-8: Air Pollutants Avoided
Variable FigureConversion
Reduced HC (kg/weekday) 41(0.0028 kg/mile)
Reduced CO (kg/weekday) 303(0.0209 kg/mile)
Reduced NOX (kg/weekday) 20(0.00139 kg/mile)
Reduced CO2 (kg/weekday) 6,015(.4155 kg/mile)
Total Air Pollutants Avoided (metric tons/year) 1,633 1000 kg per metric ton; 256 weekdays/year
Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-00-013 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars
and Light Trucks." 2000.
Estimating the reduction in vehicle miles travelled and resulting decrease in air pollutants directly
responds to California State Bill 375, which was signed into law in 2008. This bill calls for regional
metropolitan planning organizations and local governments to develop policies that encourage
alternative modes of travel to the automobile, including bicycling, as a way to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. The estimated air pollutants avoided shows that increased bicycle use as a result of
building bicycle facilities and implementing bicycling programs will reduce vehicle miles travelled.
5-8
6.RECOMMENDED BICYCLE NETWORK
AND SUPPORTING FACILITIES
This chapter recommends bicycle facilities that connect gaps in and expand the current bicycle
network. Both on-street facilities-Class II bicycle lanes and Class III bicycle routes- and off-street
paved paths are recommended to provide these connections. In addition to building new facilities,
this chapter also recommends short- and long-term bicycle parking provisions, bikeway signage and
striping improvements, on-street improvements, maintenance of bikeways, and coordination with
transit agencies. The City, BPAC and project consultant collaborated in developing these
recommendations.
6.1.RBN
ECOMMENDED IKEWAYETWORK
The recommended bikeway network follows the three
Caltrans bikeway classifications. Class I bikeways are
paved, multi-use paths separated from the street. Class II
bikeways are striped on-street bicycle lanes and Class III
bikeways are signed routes that share roadways. Figure 6-1
illustrates the three Caltrans' bikeway classifications. On
roadways with on-street parallel vehicle parking, shared lane
markings are recommended. This is explained more in
Section 6.2.5.
The recommended bikeway network prioritizes connections
to employment centers, transit stations, schools,
commercial centers and recreational destinations, and
considers bicyclist safety and hillside slope. Bicyclists of all
abilities will benefit from the additional 15.5-miles of
The right of way along Colma Creek provides an opportunity
for a Class I path
recommended bikeways that provide recreational,
commuting and utilitarian bicycle trip opportunities and
connections to the existing network.
South San Francisco has a few locations for expanding the Class I path network. This plan
recommends new Class I paths along waterways and privately owned railroad rights-of-way that can
link to existing and proposed bikeways. These paths require additional feasibility study due to the
costs of acquisition.
Class II Bicycle Lanes are recommended where roadway widths allow at least five-foot wide bicycle
lanes, eight-foot wide parking lanes and twelve-foot wide vehicle travel lanes, meeting the City's
existing street standards. The additional bicycle lanes utilize the city÷s main thoroughfares i.e., Grand
Avenue, Oyster Point Boulevard and Airport Boulevard that provide access to transit stations,
employment centers, commercial centers, public facilities and the downtown area.
6-1
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE SYSTEM AND SUPPORTING FACILITIES
Class III Bicycle Routes are recommended on roadways frequently used by bicyclists that do not
have the necessary right-of-way width for installing bicycle lanes. Bicycle Routes are identified by
either signs or shared lane markings and they typically have a shared wide outside lane for vehicles
and bicycles. The California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD)
recommends installing signs at decision points or intersections along bike routes. Shared lane
markings (SLMs) or ”sharrows‘ are recommended along segments of roadways with high turn over
13
rates of on-street parallel parking. Shared lane marking stencils delineate the bicyclists÷ path away
from opening doors of parked vehicles. CAMUTCD standard placement of SLMs and ”sharrows‘ is
eleven feet away from the curb face, placing bicyclists out of the way of opening automobile doors.
The Constructed Bikeways are listed in Table 2-3 and the Recommended New Bikeways Projects
are listed in Table 6-1 and shown in Figure 6.2.
Shared lane markings are not necessary along bike routes on residential roadways but may be installed upon the discretion of the
13
City.
6-2
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE SYSTEM AND SUPPORTING FACILITIES
Figure 6-1: Caltrans Bikeway Types
6-3
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE SYSTEM AND SUPPORTING FACILITIES
6.2.RBS
ECOMMENDED ICYCLEUPPORT
F
ACILITIES
This section recommends a range of facilities that support
bicyclists on- and off-street. Recommended on-street
facilities include bicycle signal detection, warning and way
finding signage and concrete railroad track fittings.
Recommended off-street facilities include short-term
bicycle parking and showers for commuting bicyclists.
This section also includes bicycle facility maintenance
recommendations.
Bicycle Signal Detection
6.2.1.
and Stencil
Traffic lights are either set to change at regular intervals
or when a motor vehicle, bicycle or pedestrian is sensed at
an intersection. Sensing devices are either installed under
the pavement as electro magnetic loops or on traffic
lights as video detection. South San Francisco has secured
funding for installing video detectors for the intersections
Figure 6-3: Bicycle Detection Marking
listed on page 2-9.
Recommendation
South San Francisco should paint bicycle detector symbols as sho Figure 6-3, in coordination
with installing video detectors. As opportunities arise, detector stenciling can be coordinated with
resurfacing and restriping projects.
Guide Signs
6.2.2.
Guide signs direct bicyclists on to bikeways at decision
points, i.e. intersections and turns. In addition to the
standard guide signs, the CAMUTCD provides unique guide
sign option. The City has installed unique guide signs on its
bike routes.
Recommendation
South San Francisco should continue following the
CAMUTCD standard for route signage installation. To
maintain consistency with previously installed bicycle route
signage, the City should continue installing unique route
designation signs.
The City has installed unique guide signs along its bike
routes.
6-6
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE SYSTEM AND SUPPORTING FACILITIES
Share the Road Signs
6.2.3.
Several streets in the South San Francisco bikeway network
do not easily accommodate the installation of on-street
facilities without major engineering. In these constrained
areas, the City should install ÑShare the RoadÒ signs along
with Class III route signage. STR signs are recommended
for the following intersections.
Westborough Boulevard at Interstate 280
o
Grand Avenue at Highway 101
o
Oyster Point Boulevard at Highway 101
o
Wayfinding Signs
6.2.4.
Wayfinding signs provide information for bicyclists to reach
popular destinations via a bicycle network. While the
CAMUTCD does not specifically provide standards for
wayfinding signage, it does provide supplemental plaques
that can display destinations, distances and estimated travel
times. Wayfinding signs are recommended for Centennial
Way and the other Class I paths in South San Francisco's
bicycle network. Example signs on Centennial Way can
Figure 6-4: CAMUTCD STR Signage
direct bicyclists to major destinations such as the BART
Stations, downtown, and Orange Park.
Shared Lane Markings
6.2.5.
Shared Lane Markings (SLM) and ÑsharrowsÒ delineate the
path of bicyclists away from opening vehicle doors.
CAMUTCD standard is to install SLMs where parallel
parking exists on Class III bicycle routes or roadways
without a bikeway designation. However, several
communities have placed SLMs on roadways even without
parking as a tool to increase bicycle safety. SLMs are
recommended on:
Mission Road
o
Baden Avenue
o
South Canal Street
o
Railroad Crossings
6.2.6.
Figure 6-5: Shared Lane Marking
Railroad crossings can be challenging for bicyclists to cross.
Bicycle tires can lodge between the tracks and the road causing a bicyclist to crash. To prevent this,
concrete can be installed.
6-7
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE SYSTEM AND SUPPORTING FACILITIES
Railroad crossings can cause bicyclists to lodge their wheels
Rubber fittings at railroad tracks.
between the tracks and the road if not addressed with rubber
Photo Source: FHWA
fittings.
Recommendation
South San Francisco should install a smooth surface at the Gateway Boulevard railroad crossing
pictured above.
Bicycle Parking
6.2.7.
Providing secure bicycle parking is important for the City to
integrate bicycling into the transportation system. People
are more likely to bike to a location in South San Francisco
if secure bicycle parking is available. For example, a small
portion of Grand Avenue in downtown South San
Francisco is provided with bicycle parking that is heavily
used in a couple of locations. This plan recommends
installing secure bicycle parking spaces at major
destinations.
The level of bicycle parking security is based on the amount
Inverted U racks are a recommended rack type because they
of time a bicycle is parked in one location. Short-term
provide two securing points, when installed correctly
bicycle parking is less than two hours of parking and
provides a bicycle rack with two points of contact for
14
securing a bicycle. Long-term bicycle parking is more
than two hours of parking and provides additional secured
access, individual bicycle lockers, a room or a cage for
parking multiple bicycles.
Recommendation
The City÷s current TDM regulations require that
commercial, office and industrial developments generating
Inverted U racks should be installed parallel to objects, at lea
over 100 net new vehicles trips adopt a TDM Plan that
two feet away
includes installing bicycle parking and showers as a traffic
The use of ”wave‘ racks is discouraged because they do not provide two points of contact to which a bicycle can be secured and
14
stabilized. Inverted u-racks are preferred because they provide two points of contact.
6-8
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE SYSTEM AND SUPPORTING FACILITIES
impact mitigation measure. This plan recommends that the City expand its bicycle parking
requirement to all developments throughout the City. Many cities in the Bay Area have adopted
similar standards. The city is revising the zoning ordinance and is proposing bicycle parking
requirements for a limited range of uses and zoning districts. This plan recommends refinements to
the bicycle parking requirements and expanding the bicycle parking requirements to include all
zoning districts to facilitate bicycling trips to and from work locations, shopping centers, schools,
public and government facilities, and recreational destinations. This approach will help to facilitate
trips by bicycle mode.
The City should adopt and implement the bicycle parking standards are listed below.
Short-term parking should be located in Parking should be well lit during evening
oo
close proximity to primary building hours.
entrances.
Parking should not block access to
o
Parking should be in clear sight of transit, loading activities or pedestrian
o
building entries or actively monitored movement.
locations.
Parking should only be provided on
o
Short-term parking should be and Long-impervious surfaces that are free of
o
term parking must be protected from imperfections.
inclement weather.
Short-term parking facilities should
o
provide a minimum of two points of
contact such as a u-shaped rack.
Showers and Lockers
6.2.8.
Providing showers and changing rooms with lockers is an incentive for employees to bicycle to
work, allowing them to clean up after a bicycle commute. Like bicycle parking, employers can be
required to install shower facilities as part of a TDM policy. When required, one shower stall per
gender should be required. Table 6-2 provides sample shower requirements.
Recommendation
While the City÷s Transportation Element calls for shower facilities at City Hall it does not call for
shower and locker facilities at other employment centers. The City should expand the
Transportation Element policy to all employment centers. The City should also amend the zoning
ordinance to include requirements for shower and locker facilities, such as the sample below:
Table 6-2: Sample Shower Requirements
Shower
Number of Required
Requirement*
Bike Parking Spaces
15
0-3 0
4-29 1
City of Vancouver, Requirement for Shower and Changing Rooms, By-Law 7481, 2003.
15
6-9
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE SYSTEM AND SUPPORTING FACILITIES
Shower
Number of Required
Requirement*
Bike Parking Spaces
15
30-64 2
65-94 3
95-129 4
130-159 5
160-194 6
More than 194 6 plus one per 30
additional spaces
* Shower requirements are for each gender.
6.3.M-MC
ULTIODALONNECTIONS
Three transit systems operate within South San Francisco: Caltrain, BART and SamTrans. The
Water Emergency Transit Authority (WETA) also has begun construction of a ferry terminal at
Oyster Point providing service to Oakland÷s Jack London Square. While South San Francisco does
not directly implement bicycle accommodations on transit, it can make recommendations. South
San Francisco can also ensure that bikeways access transit stations and in some cases install bicycle
parking.
Recommendations
South San Francisco should prioritize constructing bikeways that increase access to transit stops and
stations. As new stations are built, i.e. the relocation of the Caltrain Station and the Oyster Point
Ferry terminal, the City should work with the operators to ensure bicyclists are accommodated
through bicycle parking and easy access.
6.4.M
AINTENANCE
Both on- and off-street bicycle facilities need regular maintenance because bicyclists are more
susceptible than motor vehicles to roadway irregularities such as potholes, cracks and debris. South
San Francisco currently inspects bicycle facilities every two to three years.
Recommendations
The City should continue a bicycle facility inspection program and consider a regular maintenance
schedule. Additional recommended considerations are listed below.
Street sweeping. Roads striped with bike lanes or designated as bicycle routes should be
o
swept more frequently than roads without designated bikeways.
Minor repairs and improvements. Potholes and cracks along the shoulder of roadways
o
primarily affect bicyclists. All repairs should be flush to the existing pavement surface. The
City should consider expanding its current ”pothole‘ phone hotline (650-877-8550) to
accept bicycle facility maintenance requests. The City should promote this service as a way to
identify maintenance needs for on- and off-street bikeways.
6-10
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE SYSTEM AND SUPPORTING FACILITIES
Street resurfacing. When streets are resurfaced, utility covers, grates and other in-street items
o
should be brought up to the new level of pavement. Similarly, the new asphalt should be
tapered to meet the gutter edge and provide a smooth transition between the roadway and
the gutter pan.
Regular Maintenance of Multi-Purpose paths. Paths require regular maintenance, including
o
trimming adjacent vegetation, sweeping, removing trash and debris, and periodic repair. The
City should develop a schedule for these routine items and should consider assigning staff to
monitor the pathways on a regular basis to proactively identify maintenance needs. If
funding is not available, an ”Adopt-a-Trail‘ program should be considered.
6-11
7.RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS
The chapter presents programs that support bicycling in South San Francisco. Programs are
classified into four categories: education, encouragement, enforcement and evaluation, commonly
known as the four E÷s.
7.1.SRS
AFEOUTES TO CHOOL
Safe Routes to School (SR2S) is a multi-disciplinary
program that promotes walking and bicycling to school and
works to improve traffic safety around school areas. The
SR2S program is comprised of four sub-programs:
education, encouragement, enforcement and engineering.
Education programs incorporate bicycle skill
o
curriculum into the school day.
Encouragement programs, such as celebrating
o
Walk/Bike to School Week, lets students and
parents know that their school supports walking
Real life practice improves the bicycling skills of children.
and bicycling.
Enforcement programs utilize the police department and volunteers to enforce safer driving
o
around schools.
Engineering programs seek to identify improvements to the physical barriers students face as
o
they walk and bicycle to school.
Most South San Francisco schools are located in residential neighborhoods and on residential
roadways with low traffic volumes and speed although two are located in the downtown. These
locations, combined with the Class III bicycle routes recommended in this plan, create safer
bicycling conditions. In addition to these bikeway improvements, the City of South San Francisco
work with the SSFUSD and private schools to encourage bicycling programs, including the
16
promotion of Walk/Bike to School Week.
7.2.E
DUCATION
Education programs teach children and adults safe bicycling skills and the rules of the road. The
objective of these programs is to increase the skill level and knowledge of traffic code among
bicyclists of all ages. Education programs also seek to teach City staff and contractors about
accommodating bicyclists in construction zones.
The National Safe Routes to School website: http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/ is a resource for implementing Safe Routes to School
16
programs.
7-1
RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS
Adult Bicycle Education
7.2.1.
Adult bicycle education is typically provided by local bicycle coalitions. While there is not an
established bicycle coalition for South San Francisco, there are active coalitions in the area that the
City can work with. The Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition and the
Bay Area Bicycle Coalitions all teach bicycle education courses and can be possible partners. There
are also other options, for example the City of Palo Alto÷s Parks and Recreation Department offers
17
bicycle courses for adults and children that are based on the League of American Cyclists curricula.
South San Francisco should consider hosting adult bicycle educat
7.3.E
NCOURAGEMENT
Encouragement programs are a way for South San Francisco to show that bicycling is welcome and
encouraged. Such programs include participating in national events such as Bike to Work Day or
providing incentives to employers that encourage bicycling to work. Maintenance programs are
another way to show bicycling infrastructure is important to the City.
Bike to Work Day
7.3.1.
Bike to Work Day is usually the third Thursday in May,
which is Bike to Work month. The City has participated in
past Bike to Work Days by setting up Ñenergizer stations,Ò
providing free refreshments and promotional items to
commuters bicycling to work. On Bike to Work Day 2010,
the City hosted an energizer station at the intersection of
East Grand Avenue and Gateway Boulevard. In addition,
the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance gave $40
gift certificates for local bicycle shops as a reward to people
who pledged to bicycle eight times during May and June
2010.
May is Bike to Work Month. The City of South San
Continuing to promote Bike to Work Day (and month) is
Francisco should continue to promote this event.
an excellent way to build acceptance of bicycling in South
San Francisco. In addition to the existing efforts, the City
should consider hosting a larger event at City Hall or at the BART station. This event could feature a
speech by a public official on the CityÔs recent and future efforts to support bicycling.
7.3.2Sunday Streets
Sunday Streets is a program that involves closing down a selected street from vehicle traffic for use
by a mix of bicyclists, pedestrians and other non-motorized modes of travel. It has been successfully
launched in the Bay Area and has generated much interest by local and regional participants. The
city should consider a Sunday Streets pilot program to determine the level of community interest
and a way in which to promote interest in bicycling.
For more information about Palo AltoÔs bicycle education program visit their website at http://bikeclass.swent.net/Classes.htm
17
7-2
RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS
7.3.3Employer Incentives
Given that South San Francisco is home to several large employers, providing incentives for
employers to encourage employees to bicycle to work can result in an increase in the CityÔs bicycle
mode share. In coordination with the current Transportation Demand Management regulations, the
City may also consider a Bicycle Friendly Employer Certification for outstanding employers.
Practices that can lead to a Bicycle Friendly Certification, of which many South San Francisco
employers already implement, can include:
Short-term and long-term bicycle parking options (racks, cages and lockers).
o
Shower Facilities: Company provides free shower stalls and clothes lockers for employees.
o
Company Bike Sharing: Bikes (helmets and tool kits) available for employee work trips.
o
(Genentech plans to implement bike sharing in 2010)
Employee Bike Training Session: Adult bike skills training sessions are available for a
o
nominal fee through League of American Bicyclist certified instr
Bike Commuter Incentives: Company provides incentives to bike c
o
reimbursement for not using an automobile parking space.
Bike Week Team Entry: Register a team to participate in a Bicycle Commuter Challenge.
o
Promotional Information: Company provides bicycle information t
o
e-newsletter, website, or brochure/poster display. (Genentech currently provides this
information)
7.3.4 Bicycle Website
Websites are an excellent resource for the bicyclists. Many cities use websites to inform their
bicycling residents about the current state of bicycling. The Cities of Oakland and San José are two
examples of cities in the Bay Area that have bicycle web pages. The City of South San Francisco
currently has a website for the BPAC that could serve as a found
Recommendations for webpage content include:
A list of all bicycling groups, including clubs, racing teams, a
o
Information about the BPAC (how to get involved, meeting times a
o
minutes)
Information about current projects and how to get involved (e.g.
o
periods)
Maps and brochures (links to on-line maps including the South Sa
o
and how to request or find materials locally)
Links to laws and statutes relating to bicycling
o
Links to all relevant local jurisdictions and bicycle coordinators or BPACs
o
Information about bicycling events (rides, classes, volunteer op
o
7-3
RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS
A list of local bike shops, including phone numbers
o
and addresses
Relevant phone numbers (hotlines for pothole
o
repair, parking enforcement, bike rack installation
request, etc.)
7.3.5 Bike Sharing
Bike share programs provide rental bicycles for short
distances. Bike share systems typically employ smart card
technology, allowing the user to load their card with money to rent a bicycle at any bike share
station. Bicycle rentals are meant for short distances and allow the user to return their bicycle at any
station, not just the one they rented from.
Where they exist, it is common for a public agency to undertake operation
Bixi has installed its bike stations in front of large
of a bike share system with an operating partner, as most bike share
employers
systems are not financially self-sustaining. Funding for public bicycle
systems commonly comes through a combination of advertisements, user fees, and public
government funds and operates as a public-private partnership. Washington D.C. is the first United
States city to employ a bike share system, charging users $40 for an annual membership that includes
unlimited rentals.
With two existing transit stations, a future ferry terminal and thousands of commuters, South San
Francisco should conduct a study to determine the commuter interest and financial feasibility of a
bike sharing system. While the capital start-up costs are relatively expensive, operation of the system
could potentially be a partnership between the transit agencies, the City and its large employers.
South San Francisco could also look to partner with the County or a future system in San Francisco.
Potential locations for parking station locations are listed below.
BART Station Orange Memorial Park
oo
Caltrain Station North Access Road at SFO Parking Garage
oo
Oyster Point Ferry Terminal Kaiser Hospital
oo
City Hall/Library Genentech and/or other employers
oo
7.3.6 Adopt a Bikeway/Adopt a Trail
Community Bikeway and Trail Adoption programs are
similar to the widely-instituted Adopt-a-Highway program
found throughout the country. These programs identify
local individuals, organizations, or businesses that would be
interested in ”adopting‘ a bikeway. With the adoption of a
bikeway, a person or group is responsible for facility
maintenance, either through direct action or as the source
of funding for the City÷s maintenance of that facility. For
example, members of a local recreation group may
volunteer every other weekend to sweep a bikeway and
Adopt-a-Trail programs provide funding and
identify and address larger maintenance needs. Or, a local
maintenance opportunities for trails.
7-4
RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS
company may adopt a bikeway segment, and provide the funding for maintenance costs.
7.4.E
NFORCEMENT
Enforcement programs strategically position police officers in areas where unlawful driving and
bicycling exist. Law enforcement can be formal, employing police officers, or informal, employing
trained members of the public. The goal of enforcement programs is not only to enforce the vehicle
code but to educate motorists and bicyclists about the California Vehicle Code as it pertains to
bicycling.
Traffic and Parking Enforcement
7.4.1.
Traffic and parking enforcement stations police officers at
locations where traffic and parking violations frequently
occur. This is especially important around schools, where
children walk and bike. Such an effort may be coordinated
with Bike to School Day in the first week in October.
Employing targeted enforcement at the beginning of the
school year can assist in setting a standard of safe driving
for the rest of the year. The City should work with the
school district and the police department to indentify areas
where targeted enforcement is needed. Safe Routes to
School grants are one source to fund this initiative.
Police Bicycle Patrol
7.4.2.
The City and its bicyclists both benefit from police bicycle
patrols in downtown South San Francisco when law
officers bicycle instead of using squad cars. The City
benefits from using squad cars less, resulting in less fuel
Targeted enforcement heightens the awareness of
consumed. Bicyclists benefit because bicycle patrols show
bicyclists.
residents that City employees ride bicycles.
The City currently employs bicycle patrols in the downtown area during the summer months. The
City should consider employing bicycle patrols throughout the year or longer into the spring and fall,
and in additional venues such as along Centennial Way. Bicycle patrols on Centennial Way can help
deter vandalism, littering and other unlawful behavior.
The goals of the Bicycle Patrol may include:
Educating users on sharing the path and roadway.
o
Providing information on area bicycle resources.
o
Maintaining proper path conditions by informing responsible agencies of hazards.
o
Acting as a deterrent to irresponsible activities by having more eyes on the path.
o
7-5
RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS
7.5.E
VALUATION
Measuring the effectiveness of existing bicycle programs and facilities can occur through evaluation
programs. Evaluation programs that monitor bicycle volumes and bicycle collisions can help the City
make educated enforcement, engineering and maintenance decisions. In addition, bicycle count data
strengthens grant applications by demonstrating that the City actively monitors its state of cycling.
Annual Bicycle Counts
7.5.1.
The City can benefit in a variety of ways from annual
bicycle counts. Counting bicyclists at consistent locations,
dates and times helps the City understand bicycle travel
patterns and volumes. The City can also use this data to
make educated policy decisions and strengthen grant
applications.
There are two ways to collect bicycle count data, manually
or with a counting device, as pictured to the left. While a
Infrared counters can provide the City with an
counting device incurs a higher initial cost than hiring
automated counting system, such as this one installed
someone to count manually, it will be able to continuously
next to path in San Diego.
collect data.
To gain a better understanding of bicycle travel across the United States, a consistent method of
bicycle counting has been developed. The National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project
has developed a recommended methodology, survey and count form, and reporting form that can
18
be modified to serve the needs and interests of individual jurisdictions.
The City should pursue the following bicycle data collection opportunities:
Before-and-after bicycle and vehicle data collection on priority roadway projects
o
Insert bicycle survey questions into any existing travel mode or city audit workplace
o
transportation survey instrument
Require the counting of bicyclists in all traffic studies
o
Purchase National Household Travel Survey add-on
o
Collision Analysis
7.5.2.
A historical bicycle collision analysis in South San Francisco is provided on page 5-3 and is a
requirement to receive funding through the Bicycle Transportation Account. This information will
help the City make informed decisions about where to install the proposed bicycle facilities and the
appropriate countermeasures. The collision analysis can be strengthened by applying bicycle count
data to specific locations of the collisions to establish collision rates.
Alta Planning and Design and the Institute of Transportation Engineers,
18
http://www.altaplanning.com/App_Content/files/NDP_Description090205.pdf, 2005.
7-6
RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS
The City should consider conducting an annual collision analysis. Collision data is readily available
from the State Wide Integrated Traffic System (SWITRS). Because the City does not have a bicycle
and pedestrian coordinator, this analysis should be a coordinated effort between the City traffic
engineer and the Police Department. This information can be used for validating bicycle
improvements and strengthening bicycle project grant applications.
7-7
RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS
This page intentionally left blank.
7-8
8.PROJECT PRIORITIZATION AND
PHASING
This chapter presents the method used to rank the bikeway projects into a prioritized list for
construction and phases for implementation. Included are cost estimates for individual projects and
near-term, mid-term, and long-term phases for implementation. These recommendations for
development may change over time.
8.1.PP
ROJECTRIORITIZATION
The project list and individual projects outlined in this plan are flexible concepts that serve as
implementation guidelines. As projects are constructed, lower ranked projects move up the list. The
high-priority project list, and perhaps the overall system and segments themselves, may change over
time as a result of changing bicycling patterns, land use patterns, implementation constraints and
opportunities, and the development of other transportation system facilities. City staff, in
conjunction with the BPAC, should review the project list at regular intervals to ensure that it
reflects the most current priorities, needs, and opportunities for implementing the bicycle network in
a logical and efficient manner.
Table 8-1 lists the ranking criteria, weighting factors and total possible score for proposed bicycle
projects in South San Francisco. The project consultant in conjunction with City staff and the BPAC
developed these criteria. After criteria were selected, weighting factors were assigned to them
according to the importance to bicyclists. Since many people commute to South San Francisco,
access to employers and transit stations were weighted with the highest factor of three. Improved
safety, access across bicycling barriers and access to community destinations are also important
criteria for both bicycle commuters and residents and were weighted with a factor of two. Gap
closures and hillside slopes can deter people from bicycling, so these criteria were included but with
the lowest weighting factor of one.
Table 8-1: Ranking Criteria
Total
Weighting Possible
Criteria Score Factor Score Description
Employer Access: Proposed bikeway directly connects
2 6
Bicycle access to the 10 to a top 10 employer.
largest employers in South
Proposed bikeway connects to an
San Francisco
existing bikeway accessing a top 10
3
1 3
employer and this connection is
within 0.5 miles of the employer.
Proposed bikeway does not access a
0 0
top 10 employer.
8-1
IMPLEMENTATION AND PHASING
Total
Weighting Possible
Criteria Score Factor Score Description
Transit Access: Proposed bikeway directly connects
Bicycle access to bus lines, 2 6 to the BART station, Caltrain station,
the future Oyster Point or future Ferry Terminal.
Ferry Terminal and the
Proposed bikeway connects to an
BART and Caltrain
3 existing bikeway accessing a BART or
1 3
stations
Caltrain Station and this connection
is within 0.5 miles of the station.
Proposed bikeway does not connect
0 0
to a transit station.
Community Destinations: Proposed bikeway accesses two or
Bicycle access to major trip 2 4 three of the listed community
attractors and generators: destinations.
2
Proposed bikeway accesses one of the
Commercial Districts
1 2
listed community destinations.
Recreation
1
Proposed bikeway does not access a
Schools
0 0
community destination.
Safety: Proposed bikeway is on a roadway
Number of bicycle related that had four or more reported
2 4
collisions in the past five bicycle related collisions in the last
years. five years.
Proposed bikeway is on a roadway
2 that had one to four reported bicycle
1 2
related collisions in the last five
years.
2
Proposed bikeway is on a roadway
0 0 that had zero reported bicycle related
collisions in the last five years.
Barriers: Proposed bikeway improves Highway
2 4
Difficult areas that are 101 or 280 crossings.
improved by bikeways.
Proposed bikeway improves El
2
1 2
Camino Real or railroad tracks.
Proposed bikeway does not cross
0 0
barriers.
Gap Closure: Proposed bikeway connects two
2 2
Proposed bikeways that existing bikeways.
connect to existing
Proposed bikeway connects to one
1
1 1
bikeways
existing bikeways.
Proposed bikeway does not connect
0 0
to existing bikeways.
Slope: Proposed bikeway with an average
2 2
Average hill slope for slope less than 6%.
streets of proposed
Proposed bikeway with an average
1
1 1
bikeways
slope less than 8%.
Proposed bikeway with an average
0 0
slope greater than 8%.
8-2
IMPLEMENTATION AND PHASING
8.2.PR
ROJECTANKING
Table 8-2 shows the weighted project scores and the sum of these weighted criteria. Total scores
ranged from 8 to 23 and are placed into three phasing groups:
Tier 1 projects received scores over 16 and are the highest priority bicycle projects. These
o
projects are intended for near-term project implementation within 1-5 years.
Tier 2 projects received scores between 14 and 15 and are intended for development within
o
the mid-term or 6-10 years.
Tier 3 projects received scores equal and less than 13 and are the least priority for
o
implementation and are intended as long-term bicycle projects for the next 11-20 years.
Project sheets were developed for Tier 1 projects in Section 8.6. They describe the project in more
detail and are intended to provide the City with information for grant applications. A project sheet
is not provided for the top scoring project, a bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing at the proposed
Caltrain Station. This project has been previously identified by the City as part of a future project
involving the entire station that is beyond the scope of this plan.
It should be noted that the project ranking presented is a flexible concept. The City can choose to
implement any project from any tier depending on available funding, future development and other
opportunities.
8-3
IMPLEMENTATION AND PHASING
8.3.PC
ROJECTOSTS
This section presents the cost estimates for the recommended projects and phasing tiers.
Cost Assumptions
8.3.1.
This plan uses standard assumptions to arrive at ”planning level‘ cost estimates for the
recommended facilities. Bikeway costs include materials associated with constructing each bikeway
type, i.e. signing and striping. CAMUTCD standard installation intervals are used to determine the
number of signs and length of striping needed. In addition, planning, specifications and estimates
(PS&E), environmental and contingency costs are included in the costs. Table 8-3 provides the
cost assumptions by facility and improvement type.
Table 8-3: Facility Cost Assumptions
Material Implementation
Facility Materials Included Costs Costs*
Bicycle Rack — Inverted U (ea) Rack $200 15%
Class I (per mile) Construction, striping, signing $800,000 30%
Traffic Control, Striping and
Class II Bike Lanes (per mile) Signing $18,000 20%
Class III Bike Route (per mile) Signing $2,200 15%
Modifying Median (sq ft) Removal and replacement $20 30%
Railroad Track Rubber Fittings (lf) Fittings $50 15%
Shared Lane Marking (ea) Stencils (20 per mile) $250 15%
Sign — Share the Road (ea) Signs, posts $200 15%
Sign — Wayfinding/Destination (ea) Oversized Custom Signs, posts $500 15%
Undercrossing (ea) Construction $5,000,000** 50%
* PS&E, environmental, and contingency
** Based on Homer Avenue, Palo Alto Caltrain undercrossing
Project Costs by Tier
8.3.2.
Table 8-4 presents the project costs by tier. Tier One, comprised of near-term projects, costs the
most of the three tiers. If the cost of the Caltrain undercrossing is omitted, the total cost of
constructing the near-term projects is $200,200. Tier Two and Three costs are mostly comprised of
Class I multi-use path projects costing $1,564,700 and $702,800, respectively. The costs of land
acquisition are not included — past city efforts to estimate the costs of acquisition of the former rail
road spur tracks suggests that the land costs would be substantial and far in excess of the cost of the
proposed improvements. Caltrain would fund 100% of the costs of the rail station undercrossing.
8-6
IMPLEMENTATION AND PHASING
Table 8-4: Project Costs by Tier
Project Bikeway
ID Type Project Name Mileage Cost
Near Term Projects
1 III East Grand Avenue Bridge 0.35 $900
2 III Oyster Point Interchange 0.25 $1,600
3 I Caltrain Station Undercrossing 0.08 $7,500,000
4 II Grand Avenue 1.21 $26,200
5 II East Grand Avenue 1.44 $31,100
6 II South Airport Boulevard 1.06 $142,900
7 III Westborough Boulevard at SR 280 0.12 $800
8 II McLellan Drive 0.23 $4,900
9 II Chestnut Avenue 1.07 $23,200
10 III Mission Road 0.71 $5,900
11 I Rail Trail 1.22 $1,464,000
12 II Forbes Boulevard 1.50 $32,400
Totals9.24 $9,233,900
Mid-Term Projects
13 I Sister Cities Park Path Extension 0.60 $720,000
14 II North Access Road 0.20 $4,300
15 III Arroyo Drive 0.13 $300
16 III Arroyo Drive at El Camino Real 0.11 $300
Totals1.04 $724,900
Long Term Projects
17 III Lawndale Boulevard 0.04 $200
18 I Veterans Boulevard 0.19 $228,000
19 I Centennial Connector 0.05 $60,000
20 III Miller Avenue 0.30 $800
21 III Baden Avenue 0.46 $4,000
22 III South Canal Street 0.33 $3,100
23 III Oyster Point Boulevard 0.27 $5,900
24 III Marina Boulevard 0.17 $500
25 III Mitchell Avenue 0.28 $700
26 III Harbor Way 0.35 $900
27 III Dubuque Avenue 0.75 $2,000
28 III Holly Avenue 0.71 $1,800
29 III Newman Dr/King Dr/San Felipe Ave 0.74 $1,800
30 I Bay Trail 0.06 $72,000
31 II Oakmont Drive 0.20 $94,300
32 II Gellert Boulevard 0.54 $11,600
8-7
IMPLEMENTATION AND PHASING
Project Bikeway
ID Type Project Name Mileage Cost
33 III Alta Loma Drive 0.27 $700
34 III Hickey Boulevard 0.07 $200
Totals 5.78 $
Total Network 1
8.4.SFC
UPPORTACILITYOSTS
Table 8-5 presents the costs for recommended Share the Road sign, bicycle
fitting improvements. Descriptions of these recommendations are provided in Section 6.2. The
City should consider these as near-term projects and install them within the next five years.
Table 8-5: Support Facility Costs
Cost
Type Location To From
Sign STR at Westborough/ 280 Gellert Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard $900
Sign STR at Grand Ave / 101 Grand Avenue East Grand Avenue $900
Sign STR at Oyster Point Blvd / 101 Gateway Boulevard Sister Cities Boulevard $900
Sign Centennial Way Wayfinding BART Station Southern City Limit
Grand Avenue Library
Parking (10) Bicycle Parking Racks $2,300
RR Fittings 290 Gateway Boulevard $5,800
Total$22,300
8.5.MC
AINTENANCE OSTS
Bikeways require regular maintenance and repair. On-street bike
CityÔs roadway maintenance and should receive priority over roadways not designated as bikeways.
Off-street paths should be also maintained on a regular basis, kept clear of debris and vegetation
overgrowth. Table 8-6 presents the costs of these maintenance procedures through the n
years.
Table 8-6: Maintenance Cost of Bikeway Network
Length
Facility Unit Cost Description (Miles)Yearly Cost Notes
Lighting and debris
and removal of
Class I Multi-Use Path $8,500 Miles/Year 3.1$26,200 vegetation overgrowth.
Repainting lane stripes
and stencils, sign
Class II Bicycle Lane $2,000 Miles/Year 7.7$15,400 replacement as needed
Replacing signage and
shared use stencils as
Class III Bicycle Route $1,000 Miles/Year 4.7$4,700 needed
8-8
IMPLEMENTATION AND PHASING
Average Cost Per Year$46,300
Estimated 10-year Cost$1,300,000**
* Inflation rate conversation factor estimate is the average rate between years 2000 and 2008.
** 10-year cost includes one time cost of pavement seal coat at $10,000 per mile for Class I bikeways and estimates inflation
rates calculated using conversion factor of 2.78.* Cost does not include patching and repair as these vary significantly by facility.
8.6.PS
ROJECTHEETS
This section presents three near-term projects to be initiated or completed within the next five years
It is expected that more complex projects, such as the Caltrain undercrossing and multi-use paths,
will require additional study and more than five years to complete, and that the City should initiate
the planning processes in the next five years. The intention of these project sheets is for the City to
use them in future bicycle grant applications. These three project sheets consist of the top bicycle
projects from the matrix presented in Table 8-2 and show aerial views of the project, a description
of the project, start and end points, affected jurisdictions, and planning level cost estimates. The
three near-term projects are:
Grand Avenue Class II Bicycle Lanes from Mission Avenue to Spruce Avenue
o
East Grand Avenue Class II Bicycle Lanes from Industrial Way to the Bay Trail
o
South Airport Road Class II Bicycle Lanes from Gateway Boulevard to City Limits
o
8-9
East Grand Avenue (Industrial Way to Bay Trail)
Project Description
The East Grand Avenue project inlcudes Class II Bicycle Lanes from Industrial Way to the San Francisco Bay Trail
in eastern South San Francisco. The 1.44-mile bicycle facility will connect the South San Francisco Caltrain Station
with the San Francisco Bay Trail and improve bicycle access to several major employers, including Actuate Corp,
the United Postal Service and Roche. In addition to the Bay Trail link, the facility will connect with existing bicycle
lanes along Gateway Boulevard, Allerton Avenue and Grandview Drive and bicycle routes along Gateway Boulevard
and Littlefl eld Avenue, providing a key link in the bikeway network. From the Bay Trail, bicyclists can ride north to
the Future Ferry Terminal at Oyster Point or south toward San Francisco International Airport.
Median and wide travel
lanes constrict standard
Up
Djuz!Ibmm!boe!
application of Class II
Gvuvsf!Gfssz
Hsboe!Bwfovf!Mjcsbsz
Ufsnjobm
bike lanes.
Roche
Downtown
Refresh existing bike lanes
United Parcel Service
Actuate Corp Qpjou
Bike lane pockets
needed at intersections.
Tbo!Csvop
101
Paint shared lane mark-
ings in lieu of bike lanes
Restrict on-street
(ROW too narrow).
parking.
Existing FacilitiesProposed Facilities
Class I - Multi-Use PathBike/Ped BridgeClass I - Multi-Use Path
Dbmusbjo!Tubujpo
Class II - Bicycle LaneBicycle Parking Nbkps!Fnqmpzfs Class II - Bicycle Lane
101
01,000500
Feet
Class III - Bicycle Route Djuz!Mjnju Class III - Bicycle Route
Site PhotoPlanning Level Cost Estimate
$31,000 (Signing, striping and 20% PS&E)
Bikeway Length
1.44 miles
Potential Funding Sources
• Integration with the Pavement Management
Program, City of South San Francisco
• Bicycle Facilities Program, Bay Area Air Quality
Management District
• Safe Routes to Transit, MTC/TransForm
• Measure A, San Mateo County Transportation
Authority
• Bicycle Transportation Account, Caltrans
Xftucpvoe!F/!Hsboe!Cmwe/!bu!Hbufxbz!Cmwe/
9.21
South Airport Road (Gateway Boulevard to City Limit)
Project Description
The South Airport Boulevard project
includes Class II Bicycle Lanes between
Gateway Boulevard and the City limit in
southeastern South San Francisco. The
Remove right arrow at
NB bridge approach
1.06-mile bicycle facility will connect
and stripe dashed bike
Class II and Class III bicycle facilities
lane through right-slip
along Gateway Boulevard with the
turn.
San Francisco Bay Trail and the San
Francisco International Airport. From
Gateway Boulevard, bicyclists can
connect to the Brentwood Shopping
101
District and the South San Francisco
Existing lane width
Caltrain Station. In addition to the
and medians constrict
standard Class II ap-
Bay Trail and bikeways along Gateway
Dptudp
plication.
Boulevard, the facility will connect with
an existing multi-use path along Belle
Aire Road and a bicycle route along
Utah Avenue.
Paint bike markings in
existing NB shoulder
and reduce NB lane
Planning Level Cost Estimate
widths and restripe NB
shoulder as bike lane.
$142,900 (Signing, striping and 20%
PS&E)
380
Fyjtujoh!Gbdjmjujft
Qspqptfe!Gbdjmjujft
Cjlf0Qfe!Csjehf
Cjdzdmf!Qbsljoh
Dmbtt!J!.!Nvmuj.Vtf!Qbui
Dmbtt!J!.!Nvmuj.Vtf!Qbui
Bikeway Length
Dmbtt!JJ!.!Cjdzdmf!Mbof
Dbmusbjo!TubujpoDmbtt!JJ!.!Cjdzdmf!Mbof
Dmbtt!JJJ!.!Cjdzdmf!Spvuf
Nbkps!FnqmpzfsDmbtt!JJJ!.!Cjdzdmf!Spvuf
1.06 miles
Djuz!Mjnju
12-111611
Gffu
Potential Funding Sources
• Integration with the Pavement
Management Program, City of
South San Francisco
• Bicycle Facilities Program, Bay
Area Air Quality Management
District
• Safe Routes to Transit, MTC/
TransForm
• Measure A, San Mateo County
Transportation Authority
• Bicycle Transportation Account,
Caltrans
9.22
921
Chestnut Avenue (El Camino Real to Hillsdale Boulevard)
Qspkfdu!Eftdsjqujpo
The Chestnut Avenue project includes
upgrading of the existing Class III
El Camino Real
Bicycle Lanes along Chestnut Avenue
Sunshine Gardens
High School
between Hillsdale Boulevard and Grand
School
Avenue in central South San Francisco.
The 0.67-mile bicycle facility will
connect Class II and Class III bicycle
Sunshine
facilities along Hillsdale Boulevard
Gardens
Parkway Heights
with Class III facilities along Chestnut
Shopping
School
Avenue and Grand Avenue. Continuing
south on Chestnut Avenue, bicyclists
can connect with the Centennial Way
Kaiser
Class I multi-use path and shopping
areas near El Camino Real. From this
82
multi-use path, bicyclists can ride north
to the Sunshine Gardens Shopping
District, Kaiser Permanente, El Camino
High School and South San Francisco
BART Station. The project will
connect with Class III bicycle routes
along Commercial Avenue in addition
West
to bikeways along Hillsdale Boulevard,
Orange
Grand Avenue, Chestnut Avenue and
Library
Centennial Way.
Qspqptfe!Gbdjmjujft
Fyjtujoh!Gbdjmjujft
Cjlf0Qfe!Csjehf
Planning Level Cost Estimate
Elementary
Baden School
Cjdzdmf!Qbsljoh
Dmbtt!J!.!Nvmuj.Vtf!Qbui
Dmbtt!J!.!Nvmuj.Vtf!Qbui
School
Dmbtt!JJ!.!Cjdzdmf!Mbof
Dmbtt!JJ!.!Cjdzdmf!Mbof
CBSU!Tubujpo
$3,100 (7 bike route signs, 5 SLMs and
SSF School District
Dmbtt!JJJ!.!Cjdzdmf!Spvuf
Dmbtt!JJJ!.!Cjdzdmf!SpvufNbkps!Fnqmpzfs
15% PS&E)
Dbmjgpsojb
Tibsfe!Mbof!Nbsljoht
Djuz!Mjnju
South San Francisco
Cjlf!Spvuf!Tjho
01,000500
Bikeway Length
Hpmg!Dmvc
High School
Feet
0.94 mile
Potential Funding SourcesChestnut Ave at Livingston Place facing south
Diftuovu!Bwf/!gbdjoh!tpvui
• Integration with the Pavement
Management Program, City of
South San Francisco
• Bicycle Facilities Program, Bay
Area Air Quality Management
District
• Measure A, San Mateo County
Transportation Authority
• Bicycle Transportation Account,
Caltrans
• Safe Routes to School, Caltrans
9.23
9.FUNDING SOURCES
This chapter reviews potential funding sources for the recommended projects in this plan. It begins
with a description of the Federal legislation that guides transportation funds and is followed by an
overview of Federal, State and local funding sources. A summary table presenting these funding
sources, eligible applicants and required matches is provided at the end of this chapter.
9.1.FFS
EDERALUNDINGOURCES
The primary federal source of surface transportation funding“including bicycle facilities“is
SAFETEA-LU, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users. SAFETEA-LU is the fourth iteration of the transportation vision established by Congress in
1991 with the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and renewed in 1998 and
2003 through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003 (SAFETEA). Also known
as the federal transportation bill, the $286.5 billion SAFETEA-LU bill was passed in 2005 and
authorizes Federal surface transportation programs for the five-year period between 2005 and 2009.
SAFETEA-LU funding is administered through the State (Caltrans and the State Resources Agency)
and regional planning agencies. Most, but not all, of these programs fund facilities that support
utilitarian and commute related bicycle trips, with an emphasis on reducing auto trips and providing
inter-modal connections. SAFETEA-LU programs require a local match of 11.47 percent.
SAFETEALU funding is intended to be used for capital improvements and safety and education
programs and projects must relate to the surface transportation system.
Specific funding programs under SAFETEA-LU include, but are not limited to:
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) — Funds projects that are likely to
o
contribute to the attainment of national ambient air quality standards
Recreational Trails Program“$370 million nationally through 2009 for non-motorized trail
o
projects
Safe Routes to School Program“$612 million nationally through 2009
o
Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program“$270 million nationally
o
over five years
Federal Lands Highway Funds“Approximately $4.5 billion dollars are available nationally
o
through 2009
Transportation, Community and System Preservation
9.1.1.
Program
The Transportation, Community and System Preservation (TCSP) Program provides federal funding
for projects that improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce the impact on the
9-1
FUNDING SOURCES
environment, and provide efficient access to jobs, services and trade centers. TCSP Program funds
total $61.25 million annually, require a 20 percent match and expire in 2009.
Regional Surface Transportation Program
9.1.2.
The Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) is a block grant program which provides
funding for bicycle projects, among many other transportation projects. Under the RSTP,
Metropolitan Planning Organizations, such as MTC, prioritize and approve projects which will
receive RSTP funds. Metropolitan planning organizations can transfer funding from other federal
transportation sources to the RSTP program in order to gain more flexibility in the way the monies
are allocated. In California, 62.5 percent of RSTP funds are allocated according to population. The
remaining 37.5 percent is available statewide.
Regional Transportation Improvement Program
9.1.3.
The Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) is a derivative of the STIP program and
identifies projects which are needed to improve regional transportation. Such projects may include
bicycle facilities, safety projects and grade separation, among many others. RTIP project planning,
programming and monitoring may be funded up to five percent of total RTIP funds in urbanized
regions. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission prepares the RTIP, consisting of projects to
be funded through STIP. MTC helps prioritize projects for the RTIP. Funded projects must be
identified in the Regional Transportation Plan.
9.2.SFS
TATEWIDEUNDINGOURCES
The State of California uses both federal sources and its own budget to fund the following bicycle
projects and programs.
TDA Article 3
9.2.1.
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds are state grants awarded annually to local
jurisdictions for bicycle and pedestrian projects in California. Eligible bicycle projects include:
construction and engineering for capital projects, maintenance of bikeways, bicycle safety education
programs (up to five percent of funds), and development of comprehensive bicycle facilities plans. A
city or county is allowed to apply for funding for bicycle plans not more than once every five years.
These funds may be used to meet local match requirements for federal funding sources. Two
percent of the total TDA apportionment is available for bicycle and pedestrian funding.
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/STA-TDA/
Bicycle Transportation Account
9.2.2.
The Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) provides state funding for local projects that improve
the safety and convenience of bicycling for transportation. Because of its focus on transportation,
BTA projects, including trails, must provide a transportation link. Funds are available for both
planning and construction. BTA funding is administered by Caltrans, which requires cities and
9-2
FUNDING SOURCES
counties to adopt Bicycle Transportation Plan for eligibility. City Bicycle Transportation Plans must
be approved by MTC prior to Caltrans approval. Out of $5 million available statewide, the
maximum amount available for individual projects is $1.2 million.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/bta/btawebPage.htm
California Safe Routes to School (SR2S)
9.2.3.
With the passage of Assembly Bill 57, the California Safe Routes to School Program (SR2T) is
extended indefinitely. Cities and counties that have projects that improve walking and bicycling to
schools with grades K-12 are eligible. The fund is primarily for construction, but up to 10 percent
of the program funds can be used for education, encouragement, enforcement and evaluation
activities. Funding cycles are two years, with the next cycle accepting grant applications in 2011. The
maximum award for a project is $1 million, including the 10 percent local match requirement.
Agencies are allowed three prioritized applications per cycle.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/saferoutes/saferoutes.htm
Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants
9.2.4.
The California Office of Traffic Safety distributes federal funding apportioned to California under
the National Highway Safety Act and SAFETEA-LU. Grants are used to establish new traffic safety
programs, expand ongoing programs or address deficiencies in current programs. Bicycle safety
programs are included in the list of traffic safety priority areas. Eligible grantees are: governmental
agencies, state colleges, and state universities, local city and county government agencies, school
districts, fire departments and public emergency services providers. Grant funding cannot replace
existing program expenditures, nor can traffic safety funds be used for program maintenance,
research, rehabilitation or construction. Grants are awarded on a competitive basis, and priority is
given to agencies with the greatest need. Evaluation criteria to assess need include: potential traffic
safety impact, collision statistics and rankings, seriousness of problems, and performance on
previous OTS grants.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/saferesr/
Community Based Transportation Planning
9.2.5.
Demonstration Grant Program
The Community Based Transportation Planning Demonstration Grant Program, administered by
Caltrans, provides funding for projects that exemplify livable community concepts including bicycle
improvement projects. Eligible applicants include local governments, MPO÷s and RPTA÷s. A 20
percent local match is required and projects must demonstrate a transportation component or
objective. There are $3 million dollars available annually statewide.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/grants.html
9-3
FUNDING SOURCES
9.3.RFS
EGIONAL UNDINGOURCES
Regional bicycle, pedestrian and trail grant programs come from a variety of sources, including
SAFETEA-LU, the State budget and vehicle registration fees.
Bicycle Facility Program
9.3.1.
The Bicycle Facility Program provides grant funding for the construction of bicycle facilities in order
to reduce motor vehicle emissions. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District provides
funding for this program. This program funds new projects on a first come first serve basis. The
program cycle is annual, with applications released in mid-summer.
http://www.baaqmd.gov/pln/grants_and_incentives/bfp/index.htm
Regional Bike Program (RBP)
9.3.2.
The Regional Bike Program (RBP) was created in 2009/2010 as part MTC÷s long range
Transportation 2030 Plan. The program“currently funded with Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality funds“funds regionally significant bicycle and pedestrian projects, and bicycle projects
serving schools or transit and is administered by in San Mateo County by C/CAG. $200 million
dollars are committed to this program over the 25-year period. Seventy-five percent of the total
funds are allocated to the county congestion management agencies based on population. The
remaining 25 percent of funds are regionally competitive, with the county CMAs recommending the
projects to be submitted to MTC for funding consideration.
www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bicyclespedestrians/regional.htm#bikepedprog
Safe Routes to Transit (SR2T)
9.3.3.
Regional Measure 2 (RM2), approved in March 2004, raised the toll on seven state-owned Bay Area
bridges by one dollar for 20 years. This fee increase funds various operational improvements and
capital projects which reduce congestion or improve travel in the toll bridge corridors.
Twenty million dollars of RM2 funding is allocated per cycle to the Safe Routes to Transit Program
(SR2T), which provides grant funding for capital and planning projects that improve bicycle and
pedestrian access to transit facilities. Eligible projects must be shown to reduce congestion on one
or more of the Bay Area÷s toll bridges. The Transportation and Land Use Coalition and the East Bay
Bicycle Coalition administer the competitive grant process. Competitive funding is awarded in $4
million grant cycles. Funding cycles are scheduled for 2009, 2011 and 2013 on June 1.
http://www.transcoalition.org/c/bikeped/bikeped_saferoutes.html
9-4
FUNDING SOURCES
Lifeline Transportation Program
9.3.4.
The Lifeline Transportation Program established to fund projects
for low-income residents of the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties. The Lifeline Program
supports community-based transportation projects that:
Develop a collaborative and inclusive planning process that includes broad partnerships
among a variety of stakeholders such as public agencies, transit operators, community-based
organizations and other community stakeholders, and outreach to underrepresented
stakeholders.
Address transportation gaps and/or barriers identified through a Community-Based
Transportation Plan (CBTP), countywide or regional Welfare-to-Work Transportation Plan,
or are otherwise based on a documented assessment of needs withi
communities of concern. Findings emerging from one or more CBTPs may also be applied
to other low-income areas, or otherwise be directed to serve low
within the county, as applicable.
Improve a range of transportation choices by adding a variety of new or expanded services
including but not limited to: enhanced fixed route transit servi
programs, taxi voucher programs, improved access to autos, capital improvement projects.
Transportation needs specific to elderly and disabled residents
may also be considered when funding projects.
Funding for the Lifeline program varies from year to year. Available funding through the end of
fiscal year 2008 is estimated at $18 million.
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/lifeline/index.htm
9.4.LFS
OCALUNDING OURCES
Measure A
9.4.1.
Measure A is a half-cent sales tax that San Mateo County voters approved in 1998 and then
reapproved in 2004 for reauthorization through 2033. The proceeds from the tax are for
transportation projects and programs. Of the sales tax revenue, three percent of these revenues or
approximately $45 million are dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian projects. San Mateo County
Transportation Authority administers the funds and puts out comp
http://www.smcta.com/index.asp
9.5.N-TFS
ONRADITIONALUNDING OURCES
Community Development Block Grants
9.5.1.
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program provides money for streetscape
revitalization. Federal CDBG Grantees may Ñuse CDBG funds for activities that include, but are not
9-5
FUNDING SOURCES
limited to, acquiring real property; reconstructing or rehabilitating housing and other property;
building public facilities and improvements, such as streets, sidewalks, community and senior citizen
centers and recreational facilities, paying for planning and administrative expenses, such as costs
related to developing a consolidated plan and managing CDBG funds; provide public services for
youths, seniors, or the disabled; and initiatives such as neighborhood watch programs.‘ A total of
$602,000 was allocated to South San Francisco in 2009.
www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/programs/index.cfm
Requirements for New Developments
9.5.2.
With the increasing support for ”routine accommodation‘ and ”complete streets,‘ requirements for
new development, road widening and new commercial development provide opportunities to
efficiently construct bicycle facilities.
Impact Fees
9.5.3.
One potential local source of funding is developer impact fees, typically tied to trip generation rates
and traffic impacts produced by a proposed project. A developer may attempt to reduce the number
of trips (and hence impacts and cost) by paying for on- and off-site bicycle improvements designed
to encourage residents, employees and visitors of the new development to bike rather than drive.
Establishing a clear nexus or connection between the impact fee and the project÷s impacts is critical
to ensure legal soundness.
Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act
9.5.4.
The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act was passed by the Legislature in 1982 in response to
reduced funding opportunities brought about by the passage of Proposition 13. The Mello-Roos Act
allows any county, city, special district, school district or joint powers of authority to establish a
Community Facility District (CFD) for the purpose of selling tax-exempt bonds to fund public
improvements within that district. CFDs must be approved by a two-thirds margin of qualified
voters in the district. Property owners within the district are responsible for paying back the bonds.
Pedestrian facilities are eligible for funding under CFD bonds.
http://mello-roos.com/pdf/mrpdf.pdf
Volunteer and Public-Private Partnerships
9.5.5.
Volunteer programs may substantially reduce the cost of implementing the bikeways recommended
in this plan. For example, the California Conservation Corp, which offers low cost assistance, can
reduce project costs. Local schools or community groups may use the bikeway projects as their
volunteer project for the year, possibly working with a local designer or engineer. Work parties may
be formed to help clear the right-of-way where needed. A local construction company may donate
or discount services. A challenge grant program with local businesses where corporations ’adopt÷ a
bikeway and help construct and maintain the facility may be a good source of local funding.
9-6
FUNDING SOURCES
Dynamic Automobile Parking Rates
9.5.6.
Dedicated local sources of funding, such as parking meter
tolls, can be valuable for implementing bicycle projects. In
an effort to encourage South San Francisco residents and
visitors to travel alternate mean to the automobile, the City
should consider a market rate automobile parking fee. Such
fees would require ”smart‘ pay stalls that adjust the parking
rate to maintain 80 percent occupancy. This parking
strategy maximizes parking fees, while minimizing traffic
congestion resulting from motorists ”cruising‘ for parking
spots. The revenue from these parking fees (if allowed by
law) should be used fund bicycle and pedestrian
improvements, thereby shifting some of the City÷s
automobile mode share to bicycling.
http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/
9.6.FT
UNDINGABLE
Parking meters in Redwood City, California adjust the
Table 9-1 provides a summary of the funding sources
parking rate according to demand.
explained above and is organized by funding source.
Where information is available, the expiration date, annual
amount available, maximum project award and match requirement for each funding source is
provided.
9-7
FEDERAL STATE
Regional
FUNDING SOURCES
This page intentionally left blank.
9-10