El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan Existing Conditions Report - FINALConditions.pdf · 2014-11-20 ·...

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan

Existing Conditions Report - FINAL

Prepared for: SamTrans

July 2014

SF13-0692

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report

July 2014

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Background of This Study ................................................................................................................................ 5

1.2 Purpose of the Existing Conditions Report ............................................................................................... 6

1.3 Introduction to the Corridor ........................................................................................................................... 6

2.0 DEMOGRAPHICS & LAND USE ........................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Population and Employment .......................................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Socioeconomic Characteristics ................................................................................................................... 13

2.3 Land Use .............................................................................................................................................................. 15

2.3.1 Existing Land Use ............................................................................................................................... 15

2.3.2 Key Destinations ................................................................................................................................ 20

2.3.3 Planned Land Use .............................................................................................................................. 23

2.4 Travel Characteristics ...................................................................................................................................... 24

3.0 ROADWAY FACILITIES .......................................................................................................................28

3.1 Inventory of Lanes ........................................................................................................................................... 28

3.1.1 Cross-Sections .................................................................................................................................... 32

3.2 Signal Coordination and Corridor Transit Signal Priority Capability ........................................... 34

3.2.1 caltrain and Signal Pre-Emption .................................................................................................. 34

3.3 Exclusive Right Turn Lanes ........................................................................................................................... 36

3.4 Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................................................. 37

3.4.1 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................... 37

3.5 Intersection Level of Service ........................................................................................................................ 39

3.6 On-Street Parking ............................................................................................................................................ 44

4.0 TRANSIT ...............................................................................................................................................45

4.1 SamTrans ............................................................................................................................................................. 45

4.1.1 Routes Serving the Corridor .......................................................................................................... 46

4.1.2 Cross Corridor Routes ...................................................................................................................... 50


July 2014

4.1.3 Ridership Along the Corridor ........................................................................................................ 53

4.1.4 Corridor Performance ...................................................................................................................... 58

4.1.5 Service Quality and Customer Experience ............................................................................... 65

4.2 SFMTA (Muni) .................................................................................................................................................... 66

4.3 VTA ......................................................................................................................................................................... 66

4.4 Caltrain ................................................................................................................................................................. 68

4.5 BART ...................................................................................................................................................................... 69

4.6 Shuttles................................................................................................................................................................. 70

4.7 Interagency Connectivity .............................................................................................................................. 71

5.0 BICYCLE FACILITIES ............................................................................................................................74

6.0 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ....................................................................................................................81


July 2014

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 El Camino Corridor ........................................................................................................................................................ 7

Figure 2-1 Population Density ..................................................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 2-2 Employment Density .................................................................................................................................................. 12

Figure 2-3 Distribution of Household Income ....................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 2-4 Median Age ................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 2-5 Race of Residents ........................................................................................................................................................ 14

Figure 2-6 Land Use Along El Camino Corridor .................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 2-7 Existing Land Use ........................................................................................................................................................ 19

Figure 2-8 Key Destinations (North) .......................................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 2-9 Key Destinations (South) .......................................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 2-10 Commute Mode Split .............................................................................................................................................. 24

Figure 2-11 Commute Trip Time ................................................................................................................................................. 24

Figure 2-12 Work Based Travel Patterns in San Mateo County ...................................................................................... 26

Figure 2-13 Work and Non-Work Based Travel Patterns in San Mateo County ...................................................... 27

Figure 3-1 Belmont Cross-Section .............................................................................................................................................. 32

Figure 3-2 San Carlos Cross-Section ......................................................................................................................................... 33

Figure 3-3 Redwood City Cross-Section .................................................................................................................................. 33

Figure 3-4 Traffic Volumes............................................................................................................................................................. 38

Figure 3-5 AM Intersection Level of Service ........................................................................................................................... 42

Figure 3-6 PM Intersection Level of Service ........................................................................................................................... 43

Figure 4-1 Route ECR ....................................................................................................................................................................... 47

Figure 4-2 Route 397 – SSP No Change................................................................................................................................... 48

Figure 4-3 Route KX – SSP Recommended Change ............................................................................................................ 49

Figure 4-4 Weekday Passenger Boardings for Route ECR ................................................................................................ 54

Figure 4-5 Weekday Passenger Boarding Activity by Stop (North County) .............................................................. 55

Figure 4-6 Weekday Passenger Boarding Activity by Stop .............................................................................................. 56

Figure 4-7 Weekday Passenger Boardings by Route .......................................................................................................... 57

Figure 4-8 Weekday Operating Speed ..................................................................................................................................... 59

Figure 4-9 Weekday Passenger Boardings per Revenue Hour ....................................................................................... 60


July 2014

Figure 4-10 Weekday Passenger Miles Per Route Mile ..................................................................................................... 62

Figure 4-11 Weekday Farebox Recovery Ratio ...................................................................................................................... 63

Figure 4-12 Weekday Subsidy per Passenger Boarding .................................................................................................... 64

Figure 4-13 VTA Rapid 522 Route Map .................................................................................................................................... 67

Figure 4-14 Caltrain Weekday Passenger Boardings by Station (San Mateo County) .......................................... 68

Figure 4-15 Caltrain Weekday Passenger Boardings Total ............................................................................................... 69

Figure 4-16 BART Weekday Exits by Station (San Mateo County)................................................................................. 70

Figure 4-17 BART Weekday Exits Total ..................................................................................................................................... 70

Figure 4-18 Millbrae BART/Caltrain Station Map ................................................................................................................. 72

Figure 4-19 Palo Alto Transit Center Map ............................................................................................................................... 73

Figure 5-1 San Mateo County Bike Network – Existing and Proposed (Daly City, Colma, Pacifica) ................. 75

Figure 5-2 San Mateo County Bike Network – Existing and Proposed (Colma to Burlingame) ........................ 76

Figure 5-3 San Mateo County Bike Network – Existing and Proposed (Burlingame, Hillsborough) ................ 77

Figure 5-4 San Mateo County Bike Network – Existing and Proposed (Hillsborough to San Carlos) ............. 78

Figure 5-5 San Mateo County Bike Network – Existing and Proposed (Foster City to Woodside) .................. 79

Figure 5-6 San Mateo County Bike Network – Existing and Proposed (Menlo Park to East Palo Alto) .......... 80


July 2014

List of Tables

Table 0-1: The Two Families of BRT .............................................................................................................................................. 4

Table 2-1 Land Use by City in San Mateo County within the Corridor ........................................................................ 16

Table 3-1 Typical Roadway Conditions..................................................................................................................................... 29

Table 3-2 Caltrain Grade Crossings ............................................................................................................................................ 35

Table 3-3 Existing and Proposed Bus Exemption Locations ............................................................................................ 36

Table 3-4 AADT Volumes ............................................................................................................................................................... 37

Table 3-5 Intersection LOS Definitions ..................................................................................................................................... 39

Table 3-6 Intersection Level of Service ..................................................................................................................................... 41

Table 4-1 SamTrans Cross Corridor Routes ............................................................................................................................ 50

Table 4-2 ECR On-Time Performance ....................................................................................................................................... 61

Table 4-3 SamTrans Customer Survey Response ................................................................................................................. 66

Table 4-4 Key Transfer Locations ................................................................................................................................................ 71


July 2014

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The El Camino Real Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Phasing Plan seeks to develop a BRT plan for the El

Camino Real Corridor (Corridor) in San Mateo County that achieves the following goals:

Goal 1 – Increase bus ridership along the El Camino Corridor by improving service for existing

customers and attracting new customers.

Goal 2 – Complement the Grand Boulevard Initiative’s (GBI) vision of realizing the Corridor as a

“grand boulevard of meaningful destinations” by building consensus on transit improvements

that promote livability and commercial vitality.

Goal 3 – Minimize system capital and operating cost increases and operational impacts by

developing a conceptual bus operating plan that optimizes local, Rapid, and Full BRT services

along the corridor.

Goal 4 – Minimize corridor traffic and parking impacts while maximizing the benefits of Rapid and

Full BRT services.

The Existing Conditions Report is one of the first tasks of the BRT Phasing Plan and sets the stage for

future analysis and planning. This report draws heavily on existing studies and plans, including the

SamTrans Service Plan (SSP) (2013) and Grand Boulevard Initiative (GBI) Corridor Plan (2010), Economic

and Housing Opportunities Assessment (2010), and Existing Conditions Report (2011). The executive

summary discusses key themes for the Corridor and highlights data that supports the need for enhanced

transit services along the El Camino Real Corridor.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Demographics and Land Use

The demographics and land use characteristics of the Corridor are conducive to supporting premium

transit service above what is currently provided. Population density within 1/2 mile of the corridor is

approximately 14 persons per square mile. There is a significant amount of multi-family residential,

followed by single family residential and retail/office/commercial land uses. There are numerous activity

centers along or adjacent to the El Camino Corridor that traditionally support high levels of transit use –

schools, city halls, medical centers, shopping centers, downtown areas, commercial corridors, and transit

stations.


July 2014

2

Roadway Facilities

In San Mateo County, El Camino Real ranges from four to six general purpose lanes (in both directions).

There are no designated bicycle lanes. Right of way (ROW) varies considerably along the corridor, from

approximately 45 feet to 120 feet (curb-to-curb). Segments with wider ROW are candidates for transit

preferential treatments, including bus-only lanes, queue jump lanes, and bus bulbs. Narrow ROW present

in other portions of the Corridor precludes a contiguous bus-only lane network for the entire Corridor.

Areas with exclusive right-turn lanes and wide right-of-way could be good locations for potential queue

jump lanes for transit. There are two existing intersections which allow buses to proceed straight through

right turn lanes. These locations have “bus exempt” signs. SamTrans is currently considering exemption at

an additional five locations. The majority of intersections evaluated are in compliance with the County’s

LOS E standard, with the exception of El Camino Real / Millbrae Avenue (LOS F in AM peak hour).

Transit

In August 2013, SamTrans combined weekday local Routes 390 and 391 into local Route ECR (weekend

service was combined in August 2012) and improved service frequency from 20 min to 15 min. In total,

102 southbound and 104 northbound stops are served by ECR with stop spacing averaging every quarter

mile along the 26-mile corridor. SamTrans service along El Camino has the highest ridership of any

corridor in the system yet saw a downward trend over the past decade. While there is no definitive

explanation for the declining ridership, increasing congestion on El Camino, improved service and

increased ridership on Caltrain, and increases in median income along the corridor could indicate that

SamTrans customers are shifting modes (to automobile and commuter rail). Average travel speeds of 12

mph (characteristic of a local bus route) translate into long end-to-end travel times that are difficult to

attract choice riders. During peak periods when congestion occurs along El Camino Real, it can take more

than two and a half hours to travel between Daly City and Palo Alto. During off-peak periods end-to-end

travel time is still around two hours.

SamTrans has an on-time performance goal of 85%. Early results for Route ECR (August 2013) indicate

that the service is performing below that goal (combined 71.5%). The length of the route, number of

stops, and congestion on El Camino Real all contribute to poor on-time performance. With substandard

on-time performance, reliability is a major concern. Unreliable service increases wait time and uncertainty

and discourages ridership, especially by choice riders.

Reducing the number of stops served (and thus increasing stop spacing) is the easiest way to improve

travel speeds and reliability. Local buses such as Route ECR typically stop every quarter mile or less, while

agencies typically implement half-mile to mile stop spacing for Rapid and BRT services. Implementing


July 2014

3

longer stop spacing is one of the least expensive strategies to improve speed and reliability. Any

improvement in speed would increase corridor ridership. Rapid and BRT service typically translate into 10-

25% reduction in travel time operating on-street in mixed-flow traffic or exclusive lanes.1

DEFINITION OF BRT

Although there is no precise definition universally agreed upon, BRT is generally understood to connote

bus services that are given priority over general traffic and, at a minimum, operate faster and more

reliably than “local bus” service. BRT performance is facilitated by both operational and physical measures

that may include some or all of the following elements (which are described in detail in the main report):

• Limited stop service;

• Bus priority at signals and on streets;

• Faster passenger boarding and fare collection;

• Transportation system management enhancements;

• Enhanced passenger amenities; and

• Unique branding.

Many variants of BRT operate in North America and throughout the world – each agency and entity has its

own perspective on what constitutes BRT service in the local context. There is general industry consensus,

however, that BRT can be delineated into two families based on the level of attributes and investment in

each system: Rapid and Full BRT (or just BRT) – as shown in Table 0-1.

1 Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making, US DOT, February 2009.


July 2014

4

TABLE 0-1: THE TWO FAMILIES OF BRT

Type of BRT Typical Attributes Examples

Rapid

These systems typically operate in mixed flow lanes, with some degree of signal priority, and likely branded service and vehicles. Rapid systems, also sometimes known as “BRT Lite” have minimal capital investment.

• Alameda-Contra Costa (AC) Transit District 1R & Line 72R

• Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Rapid

• Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) Rapid

• Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Rapid 522

BRT (or Full BRT)

These systems typically have a much higher degree of priority and enhancements than Rapid services. These systems operate vehicles in dedicated transit lanes (or segments of) that allow vehicles to operate faster and more reliably. Significant capital investments are made to upgrade corridor right-of-way and stations, to make the riding experience more “rail-like”.

• Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority HealthLine

• Lane Transit District (LTD) Eugene Emerald Express (EmX)

• LA Metro Orange Line • VTA Valley Rapid (Future) • San Francisco Municipal

Transportation Authority Van Ness BRT (Future)

NEXT STEPS

In the context of the El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan, the Existing Conditions report documents

conditions as they are today along the Corridor by identifying existing transit service and performance,

demographics, socioeconomic characteristics, land use and activity centers, roadways and congestion, and

non-motorized facilities. At present, SamTrans does not operate Rapid or BRT service on the El Camino

Corridor. The goal of this study is to develop a short-term Rapid and long-term BRT strategy for the

Phasing Plan that addresses speed and reliability issues in the corridor and results in improved ridership.

• The short-term operating plan and phasing plan should focus on Rapid bus service. • The long-term operating plan and phasing plan should focus on more capitally intensive BRT

services.


July 2014

5

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THIS STUDY

The 2010 Grand Boulevard’s Initiative Multimodal Corridor Plan (GBI Corridor Plan) identified the need for

improvements in both transportation and land use along the El Camino Corridor.2 In San Mateo County,

the El Camino Corridor is expected to experience an increase of over 24,800 households and 90,800 jobs

between 2005 and 2035 using 2007 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projections. Several

past studies identified BRT as feasible along the Corridor. Under this backdrop, the El Camino Real Bus

Rapid Transit (BRT) Phasing Plan seeks to set forth a strategy to achieve the following goals:

Goal 1 – Increase bus ridership along the El Camino Corridor by improving service for existing

customers and attracting new customers.

Goal 2 – Complement the Grand Boulevard Initiative’s (GBI) vision of realizing the Corridor as a

“grand boulevard of meaningful destinations” by building consensus on transit improvements

that promote livability and commercial vitality.

Goal 3 – Minimize system capital and operating cost increases and operational impacts by

developing a conceptual bus operating plan that optimizes local, Rapid, and Full BRT services

along the corridor.

Goal 4 – Minimize corridor traffic and parking impacts while maximizing the benefits of Rapid and

Full BRT services.

The Phasing Plan seeks to identify and develop the following:

• Benefits and costs of a BRT system;

• Essential system components;

• Stakeholder support;

• Ridership demand analysis;

• Operating and capital cost estimates;

2 Grand Boulevard Multimodal Transportation Corridor Plan, The Grand Boulevard Initiative, October 2010.


July 2014

6

• Network integration with existing and future SamTrans, VTA and Muni bus systems;

• Funding strategy; and

• Phasing and implementation plan.

1.2 PURPOSE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT

The BRT Existing Conditions Report is one of the first tasks of the BRT Phasing Plan. This report draws

heavily on existing studies and plans, including the SamTrans Service Plan (SSP) (2013) and Grand

Boulevard Initiative (GBI) Corridor Plan (2010), Economic and Housing Opportunities Assessment (2010),

and Existing Conditions Report (2011). The report will highlight existing conditions which help identify the

need to provide an enhanced bus transit system along the Corridor. Existing conditions are also

inventoried in order to identify street network configuration opportunities and constraints and

intersection operating conditions. Other factors such as land use intensities and activity nodes are

included. Data from the SSP assisted with inventorying existing transit services and transit

competitiveness. The existing conditions data will be incorporated into modeling scenarios to estimate

ridership and develop a recommended service plan along the Corridor.

1.3 INTRODUCTION TO THE CORRIDOR

The El Camino Real Corridor connects San Francisco to San Jose along the Peninsula. El Camino Real

(Royal Road in Spanish) is also the historical 600-mile route that connected the former Alta California’s 21

missions from San Diego to Sonoma. For this study the Corridor is defined as the portion of El Camino

Real that traverses San Mateo County and the small section in Santa Clara County from the San Mateo

County Border to the Palo Alto Transit Center. Figure 1-1 shows the extent of the study corridor. This

report presents details of the Corridor, including:

• Demographics and land use

• Roadway facilities and performance

• Transit operations and performance

• Bicycle/Pedestrian facilities


July 2014

7

Figure 1-1 El Camino Corridor


July 2014

8

2.0 DEMOGRAPHICS & LAND USE

This section discusses the demographic and land use characteristics of the Corridor. Some of the key

takeaways from this section include:

• The population density in the Corridor is greater than the San Mateo County average.

• The densest areas along the Corridor include: Daly City, Colma, San Bruno (east of the Corridor), Burlingame (east of the Corridor), and Redwood City.

• Employment is predicted to grow at an average of 7.2% every five years from 2010 to 2035 (from approximately 104,000 to 147,000 jobs).

• The areas along the Corridor with the highest employment density include South San Francisco, San Bruno, Burlingame, San Mateo, and Redwood City.

• Median household income is increasing at the same time low-income households are making up a greater share of residents along the Corridor.

• Daly City, San Mateo, Belmont, Redwood City, Menlo Park, and San Bruno have high percentages of transit supportive land use.

• There are numerous major destinations along or near the El Camino Corridor – schools, city halls, medical centers, shopping centers, downtown areas, commercial corridors, and multi-modal transit hubs that are conducive to transit usage.

• The drive alone rate along the Corridor is slightly lower than San Mateo County overall.


July 2014

9

2.1 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT

Population density along the Corridor (half-mile distance from El

Camino Real) is slightly less than 14 persons per acre. In comparison,

population density in the entire County is about two persons per acre.3

These densities along the corridor indicate that frequent, high capacity

transit service could be supported.

3 Grand Boulevard Initiative – Existing Conditions Report. November 2011.

The densest areas along the

Corridor include: Daly City,

Colma, San Bruno east of the

Corridor, Burlingame east of

the Corridor, and Redwood

City.


July 2014

10

Figure 2-1 shows existing population density along the Corridor. Population density fluctuates

significantly. The densest areas along the Corridor include: Daly City, Colma, San Bruno east of the

Corridor, Burlingame east of the Corridor, and Redwood City. Figure 2-2 illustrates the existing

employment density along the Corridor. The areas along the Corridor with the highest employment

density include South San Francisco, San Bruno, Burlingame, San Mateo, and Redwood City. Interestingly,

between 2000 and 2010 employment decreased (124,000 to 104,000 jobs) along the Corridor, possibly

due to the 2008 recession.


July 2014

11

Figure 2-1 Population Density

Source: Grand Boulevard Initiative – Existing Conditions Report. November 2011.


July 2014

12

Figure 2-2 Employment Density



July 2014

13

2.2 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

Figure 2-3 shows the distribution of household income for San Mateo and Santa Clara counties,

respectively, and for the El Camino Real Corridor (not specific to San Mateo County). Forty percent of the

population along the El Camino Real Corridor has a household income of greater $100,000, an increase

from 27% in year 2000. San Mateo County as a whole has also seen a

similar trend. The data shows that income disparity has increased since

2000. Along the Corridor (not exclusive of San Mateo County), median

household income has increased from $65,000 to $83,000. The

percentage of population along the Corridor earning below 200% of

(or two times) the federal poverty level has increased from 18% to

21%.4

Figure 2-3 Distribution of Household Income


The median age along the Corridor is age 40, up from 35 in 2000, indicating an aging population. Figure

2-4 provides a comparison of median age, which has increased along the Corridor and within both


Median Income has risen

while percentage earning two

times below the poverty level

has also risen.


July 2014

14

counties as well. The race of residents living along the Corridor has also changed. Figure 2-5 shows that

the Corridor (not specific to San Mateo County), along with the two counties, have seen a decrease in

Caucasians and an increase in Latinos and Asians.

Figure 2-4 Median Age

Figure 2-5 Race of Residents

Source (both figures): Grand Boulevard Initiative – Existing Conditions Report. November 2011.


July 2014

15

2.3 LAND USE

2.3.1 EXISTING LAND USE

Figure 2-6 shows the breakdown of land use type along the Corridor

in San Mateo County. Figure 2-7 provides a map of the existing land

uses along the Corridor. The largest category of land use in the

Corridor is multi-family residential, followed by single family

residential, and retail/office/commercial. Table 2-1 provides a

breakdown by land use type by City within the Corridor. Transit-

supportive locations will have high percentages of multi-family

housing and retail/office/commercial land uses. Daly City, San Mateo

and Belmont are the cities with the highest percentage of multi-family residential land use. Redwood City,

Menlo Park, and San Bruno have the highest percentage of retail/office/commercial land use.

Figure 2-6 Land Use Along El Camino Corridor

Source: Grand Boulevard Initiative – Existing Conditions Report. November 2011. Table 4-5.

Daly City, San Mateo,

Belmont, Redwood City,

Menlo Park, and San Bruno

have high percentages of

land uses supportive of

transit.


July 2014

16

TABLE 2-1 LAND USE BY CITY IN SAN MATEO COUNTY WITHIN THE CORRIDOR

Sing

le F

amily

Re

side

ntia

l

Mul

ti-Fa

mily

Re

side

ntia

l

Reta

il /

Offi

ce

/ Co

mm

erci

al

Indu

stria

l /

Man

ufac

turin

g

Publ

ic /

Civ

ic /

In

stitu

tiona

l

Ope

n Sp

ace

/ Ag

ricul

ture

/

Nat

ure

Righ

t of W

ay /

In

fras

truc

ture

Vaca

nt

City

Tot

al

% o

f City

in

Coun

ty (f

or

Corr

idor

)

Daly City Area (acres) 330.72 2,657.91 110.91 15.61 167.88 8.43 21.78 80.76 3,394.01 13.46%

% of City Total 9.74% 78.31% 3.27% 0.46% 4.95% 0.25% 0.64% 2.38% 100.00%

Colma Area (acres) 175.48 185.6 119.63 17.57 674.09 0 16.53 35.38 1,224.28 4.86%

% of City Total 14.33% 15.16% 9.77% 1.44% 55.06% 0.00% 1.35% 2.89% 100.00%

South San Francisco

Area (acres) 587.7 822.99 292.22 129.9 234.98 11.39 67.55 65.01 2,211.74 8.77%

% of City Total 26.57% 37.21% 13.21% 5.87% 10.62% 0.52% 3.05% 2.94% 100.00%

San Bruno Area (acres) 358.07 574.24 220.82 15.49 70.81 38.6 103.66 15.79 1,397.49 5.54%

% of City Total 25.62% 41.09% 15.80% 1.11% 5.07% 2.76% 7.42% 1.13% 100.00%

Millbrae Area (acres) 270.1 295.95 9.1 13.07 39.59 0 141.86 62.53 832.2 3.30%

% of City Total 32.46% 35.56% 1.09% 1.57% 4.76% 0.00% 17.05% 7.51% 100.00%

Burlingame Area (acres) 511.75 550.71 164.63 172.87 90.72 7.96 48.84 17.46 1,564.94 6.21%

% of City Total 32.70% 35.19% 10.52% 11.05% 5.80% 0.51% 3.12% 1.12% 100.00%


July 2014

17


Sing

le F

amily

Re

side

ntia

l

Mul

ti-Fa

mily

Re

side

ntia

l

Reta

il /

Offi

ce

/ Co

mm

erci

al

Indu

stria

l /

Man

ufac

turin

g

Publ

ic /

Civ

ic /

In

stitu

tiona

l

Ope

n Sp

ace

/ Ag

ricul

ture

/

Nat

ure

Righ

t of W

ay /

In

fras

truc

ture

Vaca

nt

City

Tot

al

% o

f City

in

Coun

ty (f

or

Corr

idor

)

Hillsborough Area (acres) 305.54 0.51 4.46 0 2.64 16.13 2.76 6.94 339 1.34%

% of City Total 90.13% 0.15% 1.32% 0.00% 0.78% 4.76% 0.81% 2.05% 100.00%

San Mateo Area (acres) 968.85 5,769.97 345.15 43.03 76.58 24.9 45.42 96.54 7,370.44 29.23%

% of City Total 13.15% 78.29% 4.68% 0.58% 1.04% 0.34% 0.62% 1.31% 100.00%

Belmont Area (acres) 346.49 1,390.12 69.89 36.94 62.24 22.31 1.67 25.71 1,955.36 7.75%

% of City Total 17.72% 71.09% 3.57% 1.89% 3.18% 1.14% 0.09% 1.31% 100.00%

San Carlos Area (acres) 394.01 336.6 153.11 667.51 21.75 12.99 11.74 27.02 1,624.73 6.44%

% of City Total 24.25% 20.72% 9.42% 41.08% 1.34% 0.80% 0.72% 1.66% 100.00%

Redwood City Area (acres) 393.65 448.88 265.16 44.31 80.51 4.29 23.72 27.71 1,288.24 5.11%

% of City Total 30.56% 34.84% 20.58% 3.44% 6.25% 0.33% 1.84% 2.15% 100.00%

Atherton Area (acres) 61.78 2.12 2.26 0 81.03 22.18 2.99 8.94 181.29 0.72%

% of City Total 34.08% 1.17% 1.25% 0.00% 44.70% 12.23% 1.65% 4.93% 100.00%

Menlo Park Area (acres) 237.32 541.91 195.6 2.87 31.66 22.41 33.2 13.23 1,078.20 4.28%

% of City Total 22.01% 50.26% 18.14% 0.27% 2.94% 2.08% 3.08% 1.23% 100.00%


July 2014

18


Sing

le F

amily

Re

side

ntia

l

Mul

ti-Fa

mily

Re

side

ntia

l

Reta

il /

Offi

ce

/ Co

mm

erci

al

Indu

stria

l /

Man

ufac

turin

g

Publ

ic /

Civ

ic /

In

stitu

tiona

l

Ope

n Sp

ace

/ Ag

ricul

ture

/

Nat

ure

Righ

t of W

ay /

In

fras

truc

ture

Vaca

nt

City

Tot

al

% o

f City

in

Coun

ty (f

or

Corr

idor

)

Unincorporated Area (acres) 130.28 202.28 62.11 105.04 76.32 1.53 140.15 35.02 752.72 2.99%

% of City Total 17.31% 26.87% 8.25% 13.95% 10.14% 0.20% 18.62% 4.65% 100.00%

El Camino Corridor Total (San Mateo County)

Area (acres) 3,977.84 10,113.28 1,492.29 1,101.14 633.85 173.3 555.99 336.91 25,214.64

% of City Total 15.78% 40.11% 5.92% 4.37% 2.51% 0.69% 2.21% 1.34% 100.00%



July 2014

19

Figure 2-7 Existing Land Use



July 2014

20

2.3.2 KEY DESTINATIONS

Major destinations are primary generators of person trips, and their intensity and density are attractive to

alternate transportation modes, such as transit. There are numerous major destinations along or near the

El Camino Corridor, including:

• Educational institutions such as Menlo College (Menlo Park) and Stanford University (Palo Alto);

• City halls and other municipal buildings;

• Medical facilities such as Kaiser Permanente Medical Center (South San Francisco), Peninsula Hospital (Burlingame), and Mills Health Center (San Mateo);

• Shopping centers such as The Shops at Tanforan (San Bruno), Hillsdale Shopping Center (San Mateo), and Stanford Shopping Center (Palo Alto);

• Downtowns and commercial corridors such as Broadway and Burlingame Avenue (Burlingame), Downtown San Mateo, Laurel Street (San Carlos), Downtown Redwood City, and Downtown Menlo Park; and

• BART and Caltrain stations that provide access to regional destinations such as Downtown San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose.

Some of the major destinations are shown on Figure 2-8 (northern San Mateo County) and Figure 2-95

(southern San Mateo County).

5 SamTrans Service Plan, Market Assessment Working Paper. 2012.


July 2014

21

Figure 2-8 Key Destinations (North)

Source: SamTrans Service Plan, Market Assessment Working Paper. 2012


July 2014

22

Figure 2-9 Key Destinations (South)

Source: SamTrans Service Plan, Market Assessment Working Paper, 2012


July 2014

23

2.3.3 PLANNED LAND USE

Policy documents in development or developed by cities within San Mateo County affect land uses on the

El Camino Corridor. Overall, the adopted policies encourage increasing land use intensity along the

Corridor. Adopted plans by jurisdiction are shown in the table below.

Jurisdiction

(North to South) Land Use Plans

Daly City General Plan Update

Colma Housing Element Update

South San Francisco South El Camino Real Area Plan

El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan

San Bruno General Plan

Downtown and Transit Corridors Plan

Millbrae Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map Update

Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan

Hillsborough General Plan

San Mateo

Bay Meadows Phase II Guidelines and Development Standards

Rail Corridor Transit-Oriented Development Plan

Hillsdale Station Area Plan

General Plan

Belmont General Plan Update (in progress)

Economic Development/Target Site Policy Amendments (in progress)

San Carlos General Plan Update

Zoning Ordinance Update

Redwood City General Plan Update

Downtown Precise Plan

Menlo Park El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan

Housing Element Update (in progress)

San Mateo County North Fair Oaks Community Plan


July 2014

24

Details of how each plan may affect the Corridor are documented in the Grand Boulevard Initiative –

Existing Conditions Report (November 2011) and the project website (www.grandboulevard.net).

2.4 TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS

From the 2005-2009 American Community Survey, about 70% of workers along the El Camino Corridor

(not specific to San Mateo County) drove alone to work, 9% carpooled,

9% took public transit, 6.5% walked or biked, and 6% took another

means. The drive alone rate has decreased from 75% in 2000. The

drive alone rate along the Corridor is slightly lower than that in San

Mateo County overall. Figure 2-10 details mode split.

Figure 2-10 Commute Mode Split


Figure 2-11 provides detail on commute times. Residents along the El Camino Corridor (not specific to

San Mateo County) have shorter commute times than that in the County as a whole. About 47% of

Corridor residents commute less than 20 minutes to work. Commute times have also decreased since

2000.

Figure 2-11 Commute Trip Time

Drive alone rate along the

Corridor has decreased from

75% in 2000 to 70% in 2009.


July 2014

25


Using the MTC 2005 Travel Model, work and non-work travel patterns were mapped on Figure 2-12 and

Figure 2-13. Some of the key insights include:

• Travel within a specific city is seen mostly within Daly City, San Mateo, South San Francisco, and Redwood City. With the exception of Redwood City, these cities also see high volumes of peak period home-to-work trip making.

• Travel between cities generally follows a north-south pattern along the El Camino Corridor. Redwood City, San Mateo, and South San Francisco are major generators for work trips to and from nearby cities.

• There is significant regional travel between the counties. Work trips account for 39% of the trips to and from San Francisco County and 48% of trips to and from Santa Clara County.


July 2014

26

Figure 2-12 Work Based Travel Patterns in San Mateo County



July 2014

27

Figure 2-13 Work and Non-Work Based Travel Patterns in San Mateo County



July 2014

28

3.0 ROADWAY FACILITIES

This section discusses the roadway characteristics of the Corridor. Some of the key takeaways from this

section include:

• Areas with exclusive right turn lanes may be good locations for potential queue jump lanes for transit. There are two existing intersections which allow buses to proceed straight through right turn lanes. These locations have “bus exempt” signs. SamTrans is currently installing exemption signs at an additional five locations.

• Some of the intersections along the Corridor with the highest roadway volumes include Westborough Boulevard in South San Francisco, I-380 in San Bruno, and SR-92 in San Mateo.

• The majority of intersections evaluated are in compliance with the County’s LOS E standard for El Camino Real, with the exception of El Camino Real / Millbrae Avenue.6

3.1 INVENTORY OF LANES

El Camino Real ranges from two to three general purpose (GP) lanes in each direction. There are no

designated bus-only or bicycle lanes. Landscaped or painted medians exist on the majority of the

Corridor. Table 3-1 provides a summary of the typical roadway conditions7 along the corridor including

number of lanes and existence of sidewalks, parking, and medians for each City along the Corridor. Right-

of-way varies considerably, which provides both opportunities and constraints for bus preferential

treatments.

6 City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG), 2011 7 Specific right-of-way conditions may vary within the block segments described the table.


July 2014

29

TABLE 3-1 TYPICAL ROADWAY CONDITIONS

From To Length (mi)

City Avg ROW Width (ft)

SB Sidewalk

SB Parking

SB Lanes

Median NB Lanes

NB Parking

NB Sidewalk

De Long St John Daly Blvd/ El Camino Real

0.31 Daly City 200

2 20',

Planted 2

John Daly Blvd/El Camino Real

Bismark St 0.65 Daly City 110 X X 2 15',

Planted 2 X X

Bismark St Market St/ San Pedro Rd

0.42 Daly City 110 X X 2 15',

Raised 2 X X

Market St/San Pedro Rd

Mission Rd 1.39 Daly City/ Unincorporated Colma/ Colma

110 X X 3 30',

Planted 3 X X

Mission Rd Hickey Blvd 0.48 Colma/South San Francisco 45

2 Barrier 2

Hickey Blvd McLellan Dr 0.37 South San Francisco 120 X

2 16',

Planted 2

X

McLellan Dr Ponderosa Rd 1.4 South San Francisco 120 X X 3 16',

Planted 3 X X

Ponderosa Rd Francisco Dr 0.49 South San Francisco 120 X X 3 20',

Planted 3

Francisco Dr Commodore Dr 0.72 South San Francisco/San Bruno

120 X X 3 20',

Planted 3 X X

Commodore Dr San Bruno Ave 0.34 San Bruno 120 X

3 17',

Planted 3

X

San Bruno Ave Murchison Dr 2.81 San Bruno/Millbrae 120 X X 3 17',

Planted 3 X X

Murchison Dr Ray Dr 0.59 Burlingame 120 X X 3 17',

Planted 3

Ray Dr Mills Ave 0.31 Burlingame 45 X

2

2


July 2014

30

From To Length (mi)


SB Sidewalk

SB Parking

SB Lanes

Median NB Lanes

NB Parking

NB Sidewalk

Mills Ave 2nd Ave 3.12 Burlingame/Hillsborough/San Mateo

45 X

2

2

X

2nd Ave Mission Dr 0.27 San Mateo 90 X

3 15',

Planted 3

X

Mission Dr 17th Ave/Bovet Rd

0.79 San Mateo 90 X X 3 5' 3 X X

17th Ave/Bovet Rd Lodato Ave 0.46 San Mateo 90 X X 3 12'

Planted 3 X X

Lodato Ave 28th Ave 0.5 San Mateo 90 X X 3 5' 3 X X

28th Ave 36th Ave 0.61 San Mateo 95 X

3 14',

Raised 3

X

36th Ave North Rd 0.59 San Mateo/Belmont 95 X

3 16' 2

X

North Rd Middle Rd 0.71 Belmont 95 X

2 16',

Planted 2

Middle Rd San Carlos Ave 1.42 Belmont/San Carlos 95 X X 2 16',

Planted 2 X X

San Carlos Ave Arroyo Ave 0.39 San Carlos 95 X X 3 12',

Planted 2 X X

Arroyo Ave Belmont Ave 0.53 San Carlos 95 X X 3 12' 2

Belmont Ave St Francis Wy 0.27 San Carlos 95 X X 3 10',

Planted 2

St Francis Wy Claremont Ave 0.35 San Carlos/Redwood City 95 X X 3 10',

Planted 2 X X

Claremont Ave SR-84 1.47 Redwood City 95 X X 2 12',

Planted 2 X X


July 2014

31

From To Length (mi)


SB Sidewalk

SB Parking

SB Lanes

Median NB Lanes

NB Parking

NB Sidewalk

SR-84 Wilburn Ave 1.18 Redwood City/North Fair Oaks (Unincorporated)/Atherton

95 X X 3 12',

Planted 3 X X

Wilburn Ave Spruce Ave 0.71 Atherton/Menlo Park 90

3 17',

Planted 3

Spruce Ave Valparaiso Ave 0.46 Atherton/Menlo Park 100 X

3 12',

Planted 2 X X

Valparaiso Ave Roble Ave 0.51 Menlo Park 100 X X 2 18',

Planted 2 X X

Roble Ave Quarry Rd 0.88 Menlo Park/Palo Alto 100 X X 3 18',

Planted 3 X X

Quarry Rd University Ave 0.17 Palo Alto 80

3 Barrier 3

Source: ARUP 2013


July 2014

32

3.1.1 CROSS-SECTIONS

Typical cross-sections are provided below for Belmont (Figure 3-1), San Carlos (Figure 3-2), and

Redwood City (Figure 3-3). Each of the cross-sections was obtained from the Transforming El Camino

Real Study (San Mateo County Transit District, 2007).

Figure 3-1 Belmont Cross-Section


July 2014

33

Figure 3-2 San Carlos Cross-Section

Figure 3-3 Redwood City Cross-Section


July 2014

34

3.2 SIGNAL COORDINATION AND CORRIDOR TRANSIT SIGNAL

PRIORITY CAPABILITY

Transit Signal Priority (TSP), also known as Bus Signal Priority (BSP), can help reduce delay and variability

in bus travel times and schedule arrival times. TSP can be implemented in a mixed flow context, but also

for dedicated bus lanes and queue jump lanes to minimize delay to through bus movements. Traffic

signals along the Corridor are currently coordinated via an interconnect cable and controlled by

Caltrans. As part of the Smart Corridor Program the signals will be upgraded (Type 170 controllers will be

replaced with type 2070 lite) within the next year to the current Caltrans standard. The new controllers

will be TSP capable; however upgrades to either the central system or signal cabinets would be needed to

implement TSP as well as the addition of equipment hardware on each bus that travels along the

corridor.

Caltrans owns, operates and maintains all signals in the El Camino Corridor. If TSP is a desired component

of the BRT Phasing Plan, cities along the corridor should be included in any discussions regarding signals

in their jurisdictions, however, implementation decisions would be made by Caltrans and SamTrans. Based

on initial discussions with Caltrans, there are no objections to TSP and Caltrans would be willing to work

with SamTrans to implement TSP. Discussions would be needed in regard to the method of installation

(type of equipment) and data collection.

3.2.1 CALTRAIN AND SIGNAL PRE-EMPTION

Caltrain currently employs signal pre-emption at all at-grade crossings along its commuter rail corridor.

There are 30 grade crossings in San Mateo County as shown in Table 3-2. Proximity of the Corridor to

Caltrain grade crossings has the potential to affect how TSP would function. It is likely that Whipple

Avenue in Redwood City is the only Caltrain grade crossing that is close to the Corridor enough to affect

TSP functionality.


July 2014

35

TABLE 3-2 CALTRAIN GRADE CROSSINGS

Cross Street City

Linden Avenue South San Francisco

Scott Street San Bruno

Center Street Millbrae

Broadway Burlingame

Oak Grove Avenue Burlingame

North Lane Burlingame

Howard Avenue Burlingame

Bayswater Avenue Burlingame

Peninsula Avenue San Mateo

Villa Terrace San Mateo

Bellevue Avenue San Mateo

1st Avenue San Mateo

2nd Avenue San Mateo

3rd Avenue San Mateo

4th Avenue San Mateo




Whipple Avenue Redwood City

Brewster Avenue Redwood City

Broadway/Marshall Street Redwood City

Maple Street Redwood City

Main Street Redwood City

Chestnut Avenue Redwood City

Fair Oaks Lane Atherton

Watkins Avenue Atherton


July 2014

36

TABLE 3-2 CALTRAIN GRADE CROSSINGS

Cross Street City

Encinal Avenue Menlo Park

Glenwood Avenue Menlo Park

Oak Grove Avenue Menlo Park

Ravenswood Avenue Menlo Park

3.3 EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TURN LANES

Areas with exclusive right turn lanes may be good locations for considering transit queue jump lanes if

current traffic and delay conditions warrant. Queue jump lanes, also

known as queue jumpers or exempt lanes, are short segments of

priority lanes at specific locations. In the US context, queue jump lanes

are typically in right-hand turn lanes and allow for transit through

movements. There are two existing intersections which allow buses to

proceed straight through right turn lanes. These locations have “bus

exempt” signs. SamTrans is currently installing exemption signs at an additional five locations. Existing

and proposed locations are listed in Table 3-3. Additional intersections, depending on right-of-way and

intersection operations, may also be good candidates for bus exemption.

TABLE 3-3 EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUS EXEMPTION LOCATIONS

Cross Street City Northbound Southbound Status

Hillsdale Boulevard San Mateo X Existing

Ravenswood Avenue Menlo Park X Existing

Second Avenue San Mateo X Proposed

Broadway Redwood City X Proposed

Jefferson Redwood City X X Proposed

Valparaiso Menlo Park X Proposed

Source: SamTrans Service Planning, 2013.

Areas with exclusive right

turn lanes may be good

locations for considering

queue jump lanes for transit.


July 2014

37

3.4 TRAFFIC VOLUMES

3.4.1 ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES

The annual average daily traffic volume (AADT) measures the daily traffic flow for a given location

averaged out over the year. Figure 3-4 illustrates the AADT along the Corridor at given intersections. The

AADT for the Corridor ranged from approximately 16,000 to 47,000 vehicles. Some of the busier

intersections include Westborough Boulevard in South San Francisco, I-380 in San Bruno, SR-92 in San

Mateo and Woodside Road in Redwood City. A comparison of AADT levels along the Corridor between

2005 and 2010 (see Table 3-4) shows a nine percent decrease in traffic volumes from 2005 levels, likely an

after-effect of the 2008 recession.

TABLE 3-4 AADT VOLUMES

Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes Along the Corridor

County 2005 2010 Difference

San Mateo County 32,145 29,109 -3,036 (-9%)



July 2014

38

Figure 3-4 Traffic Volumes



July 2014

39

3.5 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE

The method to conduct level of service (LOS) analysis is documented by the Transportation Research

Board (TRB) in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). LOS is considered a qualitative description of

traffic operations; however, most studies quantify intersection LOS using “control delay” at intersections.

Intersection LOS is based on control delay, which is defined as the delay directly associated with the traffic

control device (i.e., a stop sign or signal), including initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time,

stopped delay and final acceleration delay. These delay estimates are considered meaningful indicators of

driver discomfort and frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time.

The LOS analysis for signalized intersections accounts for factors that affect delay at signalized

intersections, including the turning movement volumes, lane geometries, and signal timing plan (e.g.,

cycle length, coordination and phasing). Table 3-5 presents the relationship between LOS and delay for

signalized intersections.

TABLE 3-5 INTERSECTION LOS DEFINITIONS

LOS Average Delay1

(Seconds / Vehicle) Description

A < 10.1 Insignificant delay: No approach is fully used and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication (at signals).

B 10.1 – 20.0 Minimal Delay: An occasional approach is fully used and drivers begin to feel restricted.

C 20.1 – 35.0 Average/moderate, but acceptable delay. Most drivers feel restricted.

D 35.1 – 55.0 Tolerable delay. Some queuing may occur, but usually dissipates quickly.

E 55.1 – 80.0 Significant delay. Volume approaches capacity and vehicles wait through several signal cycles. Drivers at unsignalized intersections may wait in long queues.

F >80.0 Excessive delay and congestion. Conditions are at capacity with long delay and queuing.

Notes: 1. For signalized intersections Source: Chapters 16 and 17, Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000.


July 2014

40

The congestion management agency for San Mateo County (City/County Association of Governments

(C/CAG)) defines unacceptable LOS as part of the Congestion Management Program (CMP). The minimum

acceptable level of service for El Camino Real is LOS E. The majority of intersections are in compliance with

the LOS E standard, with the exception of El Camino Real & Millbrae Avenue. See Table 3-6 for a

comparison of intersection LOS at C/CAG monitoring locations and intersections studied in the Caltrain

Electrification EIR. Figure 3-5 and Figure 3-6 show the 2011 intersection LOS for the Corridor. When

acceptable intersection operations are considered LOS E, significant delay is expected to occur.

Intersections at or approaching LOS E should be considered for transit preferential treatments to improve

bus speed through congested locations.


July 2014

41

TABLE 3-6 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE

Intersection of El Camino Real &

City 2009 (C/CAG) 2011 (C/CAG 2013 (Caltrain)

Hillside / John Daly Boulevard

Daly City D C -

San Bruno Ave San Bruno D C -

Millbrae Ave Millbrae E F/D D

E 25th Avenue San Mateo - - C/F

31st Avenue San Mateo - - B/E

E Hillsdale Boulevard San Mateo - - D/E

Broadway Burlingame B B -

Park-Peninsula Burlingame B C

Ralston Ave Burlingame D C F

Holly Street San Carlos D C

San Carlos Avenue San Carlos - - C/D

Whipple Ave Redwood City D C E/D

Broadway Street Redwood City - - C/D

James Avenue Redwood City - - C

Fair Oaks Lane Atherton - - C

Watkins Avenue Atherton - - D

Glenwood Avenue Menlo Park - - C

Oak Grove Avenue Menlo Park - - B/C

Santa Cruz Avenue Menlo Park - - A/B

Ravenswood Avenue Menlo Park - - D/F

Source: San Mateo County Congestion Management Program. 2011.


July 2014

42

Figure 3-5 AM Intersection Level of Service

Source: San Mateo County Congestion Management Program. 2011. Appendix F.


July 2014

43

Figure 3-6 PM Intersection Level of Service

Source: San Mateo County Congestion Management Program. 2011. Appendix F.


July 2014

44

3.6 ON-STREET PARKING

On-street parking is available on the majority of the Corridor. However, on-street parking is prohibited in

some areas of few lanes or narrow width including residential areas of Hillsborough, Burlingame, and

Atherton, as well as on segments adjacent to major intersections. Segments of downtown San Mateo and

Redwood City have metered parking. Commercial districts in Daly City, San Carlos, Redwood City, and

Menlo Park have free time-restricted parking.8 Conversion of the parking lane (where one exists) to either

a peak-period or exclusive bus-only lane is an effective strategy to improve transit speed and reliability.

Actual occupancy, availability of off-street parking, and cities’ policies on transit preferential treatments

would help guide the discussion for future conversion of the parking lane to either a peak-period or

exclusive bus-only lane.



July 2014

45

4.0 TRANSIT

This section describes weekday ridership along the Corridor and the transit agencies and routes that

operate within the Corridor. Some of the key takeaways include:

• Weekday ridership is strong where active, mixed-use regional corridors and activity centers are present, specifically along the El Camino Real;

• Stops along the Corridor with high weekday boardings include Daly City BART Station, Colma BART Station, South San Francisco BART Station, San Bruno (near Kaiser Permanente Medical Center), Millbrae Transit Center, downtown San Mateo, Hillsdale Shopping Center, Redwood City Caltrain Station, and Palo Alto Caltrain Station;

• SamTrans routes along the Corridor have seen a steady downward trend in ridership over the last 12 years. Route 397 (owl service) is the exception but also has much lower overall ridership numbers compared to ECR and KX;

• El Camino Real service has the highest level of service productivity, strongest farebox recovery ratios, and lowest subsidy per passenger boarding in the SamTrans system;

• Operating speed along El Camino is average for the SamTrans system. Focusing improvements, such as operating speed, on productive, high-ridership services (such as the El Camino Real routes) will improve service quality for a majority of SamTrans riders;

• In a customer survey, compared to other transit characteristics, on-time performance and frequency were the two greatest concerns; and

• For customers using multiple operators to reach their destinations, there are several key transfer locations along the Corridor including Daly City BART, El Camino Real & Hillsdale Avenue, Millbrae Caltrain/BART Station, and Palo Alto Transit Center.

4.1 SAMTRANS

The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) is the public transit operator for San Mateo County and

provides service within the County and also connects north to San Francisco and south to Palo Alto. This

section primarily focuses on the routes serving the Corridor and discusses ridership, service performance,

and customer experience.


July 2014

46

4.1.1 ROUTES SERVING THE CORRIDOR

The SamTrans routes which serve the El Camino Corridor include routes ECR (formerly 390 and 391), 397,

and KX (See Figure 4-1, Figure 4-2, and Figure 4-3). Implementation of the SamTrans Service Plan (SSP)

included the following service changes along the Corridor:

• In August 12, 2013, routes 390 and 391 were replaced by Route ECR, which runs every 15 minutes between the Palo Alto Transit Center and the Daly City BART Station. This change eliminated stops at the San Bruno and South San Francisco BART stations, as well as service into San Francisco. Alternative service into San Francisco for Route 391 customers is available on Route 292, Route KX (peak-hour only), Muni 14, BART and Caltrain.

• On January 26, 2014, Route ECR reinstated service to the San Bruno BART Station and eliminated service to the Millbrae BART Transit Center. KX began operation between Redwood City and San Bruno BART, via the San Francisco International Airport, with service to San Francisco only offered on weekdays during the peak-hour/peak-direction.

Route 397 was not affected by the SSP changes. Route 397 is a late night (“owl”) service.


July 2014

47

Figure 4-1 Route ECR

Source: SamTrans


July 2014

48

Figure 4-2 Route 397 – SSP No Change

Source: SamTrans Service Plan: Final Adopted Recommendations. May 2013.


July 2014

49

Figure 4-3 Route KX – SSP Recommended Change

Source: SamTrans


July 2014

50

4.1.2 CROSS CORRIDOR ROUTES

A large number of SamTrans bus routes either intersect or travel along (for some portion) El Camino Real

as part of their route. Table 4-1 provides detail of each routes’ interaction with the Corridor, the number

of stops on the Corridor, and whether the SSP had an impact on the route.

TABLE 4-1 SAMTRANS CROSS CORRIDOR ROUTES

Route Origin/Destination Interaction with Corridor # of

stops1 SSP Changes

38 Colma BART/ South

San Francisco Travels along ECR from I-380 to the San Bruno

BART station 0 None

39 South San Francisco

(school route) Travels along ECR from Arroyo Dr to Orange 2 N/A

43 San Bruno BART/

Burlingame Travels along ECR in San Bruno from San

Bruno Ave to Park Place 5 None

46 Burlingame Crosses ECR at Trousdale 0 None

53 San Mateo Crosses ECR at SR92 0 None

55 San Mateo Travels along ECR from Clark Drive to Barneson

Ave 4 None

59 San Mateo (school

route) Crosses ECR at 4th St 1 N/A

68 Belmont (school

route) Travels along ECR from 42nd Ave to Davey

Glen Rd 2 N/A

72 Redwood City Travels along ECR between Hazel and

Northumberland and Dumbarton and Selby 0 None

79 Redwood City (school route)

Travels along ECR from Roosevelt to Woodside 0 N/A

82 & 83

Atherton/ Menlo Park

Crosses ECR at Valparaiso and Santa Cruz 0 None

84 Atherton/ Menlo

Park

Crosses ECR at Valparaiso and Santa Cruz. Travels along ECR between Fair Oaks Ln and

Encinal 2 N/A

86 Menlo Atherton School/ Portola

Valley Crosses ECR at Santa Cruz Ave 0 N/A


July 2014

51



stops1 SSP Changes

120 Daly City/ Colma Crosses ECR/Mission St at John Daly Blvd 1 Improved schedule

121 Daly City/ Skyline

College/ Lipman MS

Crosses ECR/Mission St at John Daly Blvd. Travels along ECR/Mission from F St to Mission

Rd. 1 Route realignment

122 SF (Stonestown)/

SSF BART Travels along ECR from Arroyo Dr to Lawndale

Blvd 3 Route realignment

130 Daly City BART/

South San Francisco Crosses ECR/Mission St at John Daly Blvd 5

Route shortening - will stop at Colma BART

131 South San Francisco Travels along ECR from Hickey Blvd to

McLellan Unknown

New route (not implemented)

132 South San Francisco Travels along ECR from Lawndale Blvd to

Arroyo Dr 3

Route realignment will shift travel along ECR to between Arroyo Dr

and Orange Ave

133 Daly City/ San Bruno BART

Travels along ECR from Hickey Blvd to Sneath 3 Route shortening -

travel along ECR will be from Arroyo to Sneath

140 Pacifica/ San Bruno

BART Crosses ECR at San Bruno Ave 1 Route realignment

141 San Bruno Crosses ECR at Jenevein 1 Route realignment

250 San Mateo Crosses ECR at Hillsdale 1 Route realignment

251 Foster City/ San

Mateo Travels along ECR from 31st to Hillsdale 1 Route realignment

252 San Mateo Travels along ECR from 2nd to 5th Unknown New route (not implemented)

260 College of San

Mateo/ San Carlos Caltrain

Crosses ECR at Ralston. Travels along ECR from Holly St to San Carlos Ave.

2 Improved schedule

262 Belmont Travels along ECR from 31st Ave to 36th and

Davey Glen Rd to Ralston Ave 4

Route shortening - will not serve Hillsdale Shopping Center

270 Redwood City Travels along ECR from James Ave to Jefferson

Ave 1 Improved schedule


July 2014

52



stops1 SSP Changes

271 Redwood City Travels along ECR from James Ave to Roosevelt

Ave 2

Route shortening - discontinue portion on

ECR

274 Canada College/

RWC Caltrain Crosses ECR at James Ave 0 Decreased schedule

275 Canada College/

RWC Caltrain Travels along ECR from James Ave to

Woodside unknown

New route (not implemented)

280 Stanford Shopping Center/ East Palo

Alto Travels along ECR from Sand Hill Rd to Palm Dr 1 To be discontinued

281 Stanford Shopping Center/ East Palo Alto/ Menlo Park

Travels along ECR from Sand Hill Rd to Palm Dr 1 Improved schedule

292 Hillsdale Shopping

Center/ SF Crosses ECR at Hillsdale 0 Route realignment

294 Hillsdale Shopping Center/ Half Moon

Bay/ Linda Mar Travels along ECR from 31st to Hillsdale 1

Route shortening - will not serve Linda Mar

295 San Mateo/ Menlo

Park

Travels along ECR from 2nd Ave to 5th Ave, 27th Ave to 36th Ave, San Carlos Ave to

Arroyo, James Ave to Woodside. Crosses ECR at Santa Cruz.

8 Route shortening - will

not serve south of Redwood City

296 RWC Caltrain/ East

Palo Alto Travels along ECR from James Ave to Jefferson

Ave 1 Improved schedule

297 RWC Caltrain/ Palo

Alto Caltrain Travels along ECR from James Ave to Jefferson

Ave 1 None

Notes: 1. Stops along El Camino Real. Source: SamTrans, 2013.


July 2014

53

4.1.3 RIDERSHIP ALONG THE CORRIDOR

4.1.3.1 Ridership by Stop

Figure 4-4 shows average weekday boardings for Route ECR for

October and November 2013. Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6 show

average weekday daily boardings by individual stop for the entire

SamTrans system. The circle sizes are proportionate to the number of

boardings. Weekday ridership appears strong where active, mixed-use

regional corridors and high-activity centers are present, specifically

along the El Camino Real and Caltrain Corridor. Strong ridership is also

present in Daly City, South San Francisco, San Mateo, Redwood City,

and East Palo Alto, where market characteristics are typically more conducive to transit. In general,

weekend ridership is lower; however, it also appears dominant primarily along the El Camino Real and

Caltrain Corridor, and in Daly City, indicating strong all-week demand in these areas9. Stops along the El

Camino Corridor with high weekday boardings include:

• Daly City BART Station

• Colma BART Station

• South San Francisco BART Station

• San Bruno (near Kaiser Permanente Medical Center)

• Millbrae Transit Center

• Downtown San Mateo

• Hillsdale Shopping Center

• Redwood City Caltrain Station

• Palo Alto Caltrain Station

9 SamTrans Service Plan – Fixed Route Service Evaluation. TMD. 2012.

Weekday ridership appears

strong where active, mixed-

use regional corridors and

high-activity centers are

present, specifically along the

El Camino Real.


July 2014

54

Figure 4-4 Weekday Passenger Boardings for Route ECR


July 2014

55

Figure 4-5 Weekday Passenger Boarding Activity by Stop (North County)

Source: SamTrans Service Plan – Fixed Route Service Evaluation. TMD. 2012.


July 2014

56

Figure 4-6 Weekday Passenger Boarding Activity by Stop (South County)



July 2014

57

4.1.3.2 Ridership by Route

In October-November 2013, Route ECR served 5,300-5,400 daily weekday boardings in either direction

(thus daily corridor boardings totaled about 10,600-10,700 in both directions). Saturday boardings were

about 60% of the average weekday, while Sunday boardings were about 55% of the average weekday. The

most recent systemwide ridership analysis was performed for the 2013 SamTrans Service Plan, where

ridership data from 2012 was analyzed. See Figure 4-7 for a comparison of weekday passenger

boardings for all SamTrans routes. In 2012, Route ECR operated as Routes 390 and 391.

Figure 4-7 Weekday Passenger Boardings by Route



July 2014

58

4.1.3.2.1 Elderly and Wheelchair Customers

Data collected for Route ECR (Routes 390 and 391 in October 2012) indicate that approximately 0.7% of

customers are elderly and 0.2% require a wheelchair lift. While it is imperative to provide service to these

user groups, stop dwell time is increased and results in a higher variability of service reliability. Low floor

or level boarding would decrease dwell time and provide an improved customer experience for these

users.

4.1.3.2.2 Average Passenger Trip Length and Turnover

For SamTrans as a whole, the average passenger trip length is slightly

over four miles. The El Camino Real routes average passenger trip

length is higher at about 5.4 miles. This suggests that SamTrans’

customers are utilizing bus service for longer trips despite the

availability of Caltrain that runs parallel to the Corridor. Higher seat

turnover on El Camino Real service is present in Redwood City, San

Mateo, and Daly City where strong off-corridor markets are located.10

4.1.4 CORRIDOR PERFORMANCE

Service performance is evaluated across five areas: speed, productivity, on time performance, corridor

intensity, and financial effectiveness. This section will discuss each area as it relates to the Corridor routes.

4.1.4.1 Operating Speed

Operating speed is a key metric which contributes to a customer’s

onboard experience and perception of service quality. SamTrans as a

whole, along with the El Camino Real routes, have an average

operating speed of around 12 mph11 (see Figure 4-8). For such a long

route, a 12 mph average operating speed is less than optimal. It

discourages choice riders from using the service and contributes to

high operating costs. Increasing operating speed will thus help to

increase ridership and reduce operating costs. Focusing on

improvements that increase operating speed, on productive, high-

10 SamTrans Service Plan – Fixed Route Service Evaluation. TMD. 2012. 11 SamTrans Service Plan – Fixed Route Service Evaluation. TMD. 2012.

Higher seat turnover on El

Camino Real service is

present in Redwood City, San

Mateo, and Daly City where

strong off-corridor markets

are located.

Operating speed along El

Camino is average for the

SamTrans system. Focusing

improvements on productive,

high-ridership services (such

ECR routes) will improve

service quality for the greatest

number of customers.


July 2014

59

ridership services (such as the El Camino Real routes) will improve service quality and reduce travel time

for a majority of SamTrans customers.

Figure 4-8 Weekday Operating Speed


4.1.4.2 Productivity

Productivity measures route level service effectiveness using passenger

boardings per revenue vehicle hour. Passenger boardings per revenue

vehicle hour is the number of unlinked passenger boardings (ridership)

generated per revenue hour of service operated. This measure shows

ridership generated per unit of service provided by SamTrans. See

Figure 4-9 for a comparison of this measure across all SamTrans

routes. Routes 390 and 391 averaged 42 passenger boardings per

revenue hour on weekdays, 43 on Saturday, and 34 on Sunday. While the El Camino Real service has the

highest level of service productivity in the SamTrans system, its boardings per revenue vehicle hour is

below that of comparable routes, such as the Metro Rapid network in Los Angeles which has

approximately 60 boardings per revenue vehicle hour.

The El Camino Real service

has the highest level of

service productivity in the

SamTrans system but is still

below comparable routes.


July 2014

60

Figure 4-9 Weekday Passenger Boardings per Revenue Hour


4.1.4.3 On-Time Performance

SamTrans has an on-time performance goal of 85%. Early results for Route ECR (August 2013) as shown in

Table 4-2 indicate that the service is performing below that goal (combined 71.5%). The length of the

route, number of stops, and congestion on El Camino Real all contribute to poor on-time performance.


July 2014

61

TABLE 4-2 ECR ON-TIME PERFORMANCE

Day Late Early On-Time

Weekday 24.6% 1.8% 73.6%

Saturday 33.6% 2.1% 64.3%

Sunday 19.6% 1.3% 79.1%

Overall 26.8% 1.7% 71.5%

Source: SamTrans, 2013

4.1.4.4 Corridor Intensity

Corridor intensity measures level of service consumption on a per mile

basis using passenger mile per route mile. Passenger miles per route

mile is the number of passenger miles generated per mile of route.

Greater corridor intensity creates the opportunity to invest additional

resources and implement higher levels of service. The SamTrans

Service Plan evaluation found that Routes 390 and 391 (now Route

ECR) showed high intensity along the Corridor (see Figure 4-10). Route ECR represents the best

candidate for investment in expedited bus service on weekdays.

4.1.4.5 Financial Effectiveness

Financial effectiveness compares passenger farebox revenue (operating revenue) with operating costs

using farebox recovery ratio and net subsidy per passenger boarding. Each metric is discussed below.

4.1.4.5.1 Farebox Recovery Ratio

Farebox recovery ratio is the ratio of fare revenue to operating costs.

Subsidized services have farebox recovery ratios below 100 percent,

while profitable services are over 100 percent. Systemwide, SamTrans

recovers approximately 18 percent of operating costs through farebox

revenues. The El Camino Real routes have the strongest farebox

recovery ratios mainly due to the strong ridership along the Corridor

compared to other system routes (see Figure 4-11).

The El Camino Corridor

represents the best candidate

for investment in expedited

bus service on weekdays.

The El Camino Real routes

have higher farebox recovery

ratios (22%) than local and

community service groups in

the SamTrans system (18%),


July 2014

62

Figure 4-10 Weekday Passenger Miles Per Route Mile



July 2014

63

Figure 4-11 Weekday Farebox Recovery Ratio


4.1.4.5.2 Net Subsidy per Passenger Boarding

Net subsidy per passenger boarding measures the average passenger

fare less the operating cost per unlinked passenger boarding. This

metric indicates the amount of cost subsidy necessary to support each

passenger trip. At a systemwide level SamTrans’ average subsidy per

passenger boarding is $5.20 on weekdays, $5.80 on Saturdays, and

$6.50 on Sundays. As shown in Figure 4-12, El Camino Real service has

the lowest subsidy per passenger boarding as a group due to higher

ridership and productivity along this Corridor. This is the only service group with a subsidy below $5.00.

The El Camino Real routes

have the lowest subsidy per

passenger boarding

compared to other SamTrans

system groups.


July 2014

64

Figure 4-12 Weekday Subsidy per Passenger Boarding



July 2014

65

4.1.5 SERVICE QUALITY AND CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE

Service quality and customer experience are important metrics to understand a customer’s perceived

quality of service. Metrics discussed below include crowding and results of the customer survey.

4.1.5.1 Crowding

Crowding is experienced on El Camino Real routes. The passenger load standard for SamTrans services is

125 percent of seated capacity. While load data hasn’t yet been prepared for Route ECR, the SamTrans

Service Plan found that Route 390 experienced loads over the seated capacity and 391 experienced loads

over the load standard (of 125 percent of seated capacity)12.

4.1.5.2 Customer Survey

SamTrans conducts on-board surveys of its customers every three years. Customers were asked to rate

SamTrans characteristics on a scale of 1 (Very Dissatisfied) to 5 (Very

Satisfied). Good on-time performance and high service frequency are

two key characteristics of Rapid and BRT service. Customers rated

these characteristics at 3.78 and 3.64, respectively. This roughly

translates to between a Neutral rating and a Satisfied rating, with room

for improvement compared to the Satisfied to Very Satisfied ratings of

other performance metrics. See the ratings of various characteristics compared across three years of

survey data in Table 4-3. Compared to other characteristics, on-time performance and frequency are the

two lowest performing.

12 SamTrans Service Plan – Fixed Route Service Evaluation. TMD. 2012.

On-time performance and

frequency are the two lowest

performing metrics ranked

by SamTrans customers.


July 2014

66

TABLE 4-3 SAMTRANS CUSTOMER SURVEY RESPONSE

Q: How are we doing?1 2006 2009 2012

Courtesy of bus operators 4.03 4.2 4.24

Feeling of personal security on bus 4.08 4.25 4.3

Availability of schedules on bus 3.91 4.32 4.33

On-time performance 3.76 3.87 3.78

Frequency (how often buses run) 3.55 3.67 3.64

Convenience of routes 3.99 4.13 4.15

Value of money 3.79 3.82 3.96

Communication of bus changes (schedule) 3.79 3.87 3.99

Responsiveness of customer service 4.02 4.15 4.22

Overall experience with SamTrans 4.13 4.21 4.21

Cleanliness of bus 4.23 4.32

Notes: 1. Responses are on a scale from 1 (Very Dissatisfied) to 5 (Very Satisfied). Source: SamTrans, 2013.

4.2 SFMTA (MUNI)

Muni provides bus and light rail transit (LRT) service, primarily within the borders of the City and County

of San Francisco, serving approximately 700,000 average weekday boardings. Muni service that connects

with SamTrans ECR is provided at Daly City BART and on Mission Street at Evergreen Avenue. Four Muni

routes currently serve the Daly City BART Station: the 14L Mission Limited (serves the station during peak

hours), the 28 19th Avenue, 28L 19th Avenue Limited, and 54 Felton. ECR customers can also connect to

the 14 Mission, 14L Mission Limited, and 14X Mission Express on Mission Street.

4.3 VTA

The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is the operator of bus and LRT service for Santa

Clara County. VTA also provides some connecting services to San Mateo and Alameda Counties. VTA

routes that connect with SamTrans Route ECR at the Palo Alto Transit Center include:


July 2014

67

• Local Route 22: from Palo Alto Transit Center to Eastridge Transit Center with 12- to 60-minute headways

• Rapid Route 522: from Palo Alto Transit Center to Eastridge Transit Center with 15- to 30-minute headways

• Local Route 35: Downtown Mountain View to Stanford Shopping Center with 30-minute headways

Figure 4-13 shows a route map for Rapid 522. Local Route 22 operates along the same route but with

more frequent stops. Within the Corridor, the Palo Alto Transit Center has the most weekday boardings13.

VTA is in the planning stages for BRT service along El Camino Real in Santa Clara County. It is expected to

be completed and operational by 2018. VTA has identified two other BRT corridors within the County:

Santa Clara/Alum Rock and Stevens Creek. The Santa Clara/Alum Rock Bus Rapid Transit Project is under

construction and is expected to be completed in the fall of 2015.

Figure 4-13 VTA Rapid 522 Route Map

Source: VTA, 2013.

13 Grand Boulevard Initiative – Existing Conditions Report. November 2011. VTA, May 2011.


July 2014

68

4.4 CALTRAIN

Caltrain provides commuter rail service along the San Francisco Peninsula and through the South Bay to

San Jose and Gilroy. In San Mateo County, Caltrain generally runs parallel to the Corridor. In the County,

Caltrain has 13 stations (2 only active on weekends). Figure 4-14 and Figure 4-15 show the average

weekday boardings at stations within San Mateo County from 1992 to 2013. In general, ridership on all

stops has steadily increased over time. Millbrae, Redwood City, and Hillsdale are the three most popular

stations.

Caltrain will be implementing its Modernization Program to upgrade the performance, operating

efficiency, capacity, safety and reliability of Caltrain's commuter rail service with conversion to electrified

operations. The Caltrain Modernization Program is scheduled to be operational by 2019.

Figure 4-14 Caltrain Weekday Passenger Boardings by Station (San Mateo County)

Source: SamTrans, 2013.


July 2014

69

Figure 4-15 Caltrain Weekday Passenger Boardings Total

Source: SamTrans, 2013.

4.5 BART

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) is a regional heavy rail system connecting the counties of San Francisco,

Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Mateo. Within San Mateo County, BART has six stations (Daly City, Colma,

South San Francisco, San Bruno, San Francisco International Airport, and Millbrae). All stations (except for

SFO) are within one-quarter of a mile of the El Camino Corridor. Figure 4-16 and Figure 4-17 show the

average weekday exits at the BART stations in San Mateo County from 1999 to 2012. BART ridership at

most San Mateo County stations has increased over the past decade. Ridership at the Colma station

dropped after the SFO Extension opened. The most popular stations are Daly City, SFO, and Millbrae.


July 2014

70

Figure 4-16 BART Weekday Exits by Station (San Mateo County)

Figure 4-17 BART Weekday Exits Total

Source (both figures): BART, SamTrans, 2013.

4.6 SHUTTLES

Shuttles offer first mile/last mile connections to regional transit providers such as BART and Caltrain.

These shuttles provide service to rail stations, residential neighborhoods, and employment sites. Some of

the major shuttles in the Corridor include:14

• Weekday shuttles operated by Caltrain



July 2014

71

• Shuttles operated by SamTrans

• Shuttles and on-demand commuter taxi program operated by the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (Alliance)

• Private shuttles operated by major employers such as Genentech

4.7 INTERAGENCY CONNECTIVITY

Several transit agencies operate along the El Camino Corridor. For riders using multiple operators to

reach their destinations, there are several key transfer locations along the Corridor. These are summarized

in Table 4-4.

TABLE 4-4 KEY TRANSFER LOCATIONS

Location Transit Operator

Daly City BART BART, SamTrans, SF Muni, shuttles

San Jose Avenue/Mission Street SF Muni

El Camino Real and Hillsdale Avenue Caltrain, AC Transit Transbay Service (Route M)

Millbrae Caltrain/BART Caltrain, BART, SamTrans, shuttles

Palo Alto Transit Center Caltrain, SamTrans, VTA, Dumbarton Express, shuttles


AC Transit prepared maps for several regional transit centers as part of the Bay Area Hub Signage

Program. Figure 4-18 and Figure 4-19 are maps created for the Millbrae BART/Caltrain Station and the

Palo Alto Transit Center, respectively.


July 2014

72

Figure 4-18 Millbrae BART/Caltrain Station Map

Source: http://www.actransit.org/transit-center-maps-and-information/


July 2014

73

Figure 4-19 Palo Alto Transit Center Map

Source: http://www.actransit.org/transit-center-maps-and-information/


July 2014

74

5.0 BICYCLE FACILITIES

Heavy traffic, high vehicle speeds, and lack of bicycle

facilities along El Camino Real makes the Corridor a

difficult route for bicyclists to travel on. In addition,

multiple freeways, along with the BART and Caltrain

right of ways, create barriers to bicycle travel. Some

cities have established dedicated bicycle routes on

streets parallel to El Camino Real to provide a safer means of travel down the Peninsula. Many of these

parallel routes rely on side streets that are often noncontiguous and disjointed.

The San Mateo County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2011) identifies proposed bicycle facilities to connect

many of these disjointed parallel routes. The Plan discusses the North-South Bikeway paralleling El

Camino Real as a key corridor (such as along Huntington Ave, Magnolia Ave, California Dr, Pacific Bl, Old

County Rd, and Middlefield Rd.). Key corridors are defined as long-distance routes that serve key

transportation and recreation needs evident in county commute patterns, concentration of population

and county geography. The North-South Bikeway is also identified in MTC‘s Regional Bicycle Plan. Figure

5-1 to Figure 5-6 show the existing and proposed bike network in San Mateo County.

Heavy traffic, high vehicle speeds, and lack

of bicycle facilities along El Camino Real

makes the Corridor a difficult route for

bicyclists to travel on.


July 2014

75

Figure 5-1 San Mateo County Bike Network – Existing and Proposed (Daly City, Colma, Pacifica)

Source: San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. 2011.


July 2014

76

Figure 5-2 San Mateo County Bike Network – Existing and Proposed (Colma to Burlingame)



July 2014

77

Figure 5-3 San Mateo County Bike Network – Existing and Proposed (Burlingame, Hillsborough)



July 2014

78

Figure 5-4 San Mateo County Bike Network – Existing and Proposed (Hillsborough to San Carlos)



July 2014

79

Figure 5-5 San Mateo County Bike Network – Existing and Proposed (Foster City to Woodside)



July 2014

80

Figure 5-6 San Mateo County Bike Network – Existing and Proposed (Menlo Park to East Palo Alto)



July 2014

81

6.0 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

Pedestrian facilities provided along the Corridor consist mainly of crosswalks and sidewalks. The majority

of crosswalks across El Camino Real are at signalized intersections. There are a limited number of

crosswalks at unsignalized intersections and at mid-block locations.15

Crossing El Camino Real is challenging for pedestrians due to the

heavy traffic volumes, high travel speeds, the long crossing distance

(ranging from four to six vehicle travel lanes), and long distances

between signalized crosswalks.

Along the Corridor, there are several segments with sidewalk gaps.

There are no sidewalks along the Corridor in Atherton. Segments of

Colma, Burlingame, South San Francisco, and San Mateo, and San Carlos are also missing sidewalks on

one or both sides of the street. Most of the sidewalks along the Corridor are functional by design. They

tend to lack pedestrian-oriented elements such as landscaping, street furniture, bulb outs, and attractive

streetscapes. The sidewalks are also generally narrow (4’). Poor placement of benches, transit shelters, and

information signage poles in the sidewalk further narrow the effective walkable area.


Crossing El Camino Real can

be challenging for

pedestrians due to high

vehicle volumes and lengthy

crossing distances.

Date post:	19-Jan-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan Existing Conditions Report - FINALConditions.pdf · 2014-11-20 ·...

Documents