Transportation Element 4 His Chapter Describes San Bruno’S Vard/State Route 35
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 4 his chapter describes San Bruno’s vard/State Route 35. Caltrain provides Avenue, Jenevein Avenue, Crystal Springs existing transportation network, in- commuter rail service north and south along Road, Crestmoor Drive, Skyline Boulevard, Tcluding roadway and highway sys- the San Francisco Peninsula, providing a and Sneath Lane. There is a bike lane on tem, scenic corridors, transit systems, and direct link to San Francisco, Silicon Valley, Sharp Park Road and sidewalks are gener- pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Guiding and San Jose. The BART extension to SFO, ally provided along all public streets. and implementing policies address all which includes a new BART station in San Overall, there is a significant amount modes of transportation, as well as the Bruno, began operations in June 2003 and of work-related commuting into and out of interrelationship between the modes. provides direct commuter rail service to San San Bruno. The majority of San Bruno resi- San Bruno’s transportation system con- Francisco, northern San Mateo County, and dents work in other locations in San Mateo sists of streets and highways, public transit, the East Bay. Local bus service, as well as County or in San Francisco. In contrast to bicycle routes, sidewalks, and trails. Re- bus service to San Francico, is provided by work-related trips, most non-work trips be- gional roadway access to and from the city SamTrans. San Bruno’s bicycle facilities are gin and end within San Bruno, or are made is provided by Highway 101, Interstate 280 generally limited to signed bike routes that between San Bruno and other locations in (I-280), Interstate 380 (I-380), El Camino share roadways with vehicles. Existing bike San Mateo County. Real/State Route 82, and Skyline Boule- routes include El Camino Real, Huntington Vision 4-1 ROADWAY NetWORK The Transportation Element places emphasis on El Transportation infrastructure has played a significant Camino Real as the primary automobile and transit cor- role in the city’s development, from the construction of ridor within San Bruno, with special linkages to the San El Camino Real in the late 18th century and the railroad Bruno BART station and planned San Bruno Avenue in the late 19th century, to the development of SFO and Caltrain station. The City focuses on integration of the an extensive freeway system in the latter half of the 20th various transportation modes, with safe, efficient, and century. San Bruno’s current land use pattern is bisected convenient routes provided for transit users, bicyclists, by several important regional and state highways. I-280 and pedestrians. divides the city into its eastern and western halves, and is traversed by Sneath Lane, San Bruno Avenue, Crys- Provision of a roadway network that supports efficient tal Springs Road, and Jenevein Avenue/Whitman Way. vehicular movement within and through the commu- I-380 crosses through San Bruno’s northeastern cor- nity is a key priority, while the City keeps traffic con- ner and connects I-280 with Highway 101. State routes gestion and related impacts away from residential neigh- El Camino Real and Skyline Boulevard are the major borhoods. San Bruno also preserves the unique and sce- north-south arterials in the eastern and western halves of nic features along Sneath Lane, Skyline Boulevard, and San Bruno, respectively. Crystal Springs Road. Improved connections to the San Bruno BART station and planned San Bruno Avenue Street Classification System Caltrain station include expansion of the SamTrans bus routes and new shuttle services. A comprehensive net- Figure 4-1 illustrates the City of San Bruno transporta- work of bicycle routes and pedestrian paths is developed, tion network, which is comprised of arterials, collector San Bruno’s street system includes arterial streets leading to local activity centers—Downtown, Tanforan streets, and local streets: such as Sneath Lane (top) and collector streets such District, the BART and Caltrain stations, Bayhill Office as Cherry Avenue (bottom). Park, schools, and park facilities, as well as connections • Arterial Streets. Medium-speed (30-40 miles per to the regional park system (Bay Trail, Sawyer Camp hour), medium-capacity (10,000-35,000 average Trail, Sweeney Ridge, etc.). Additionally, connections to daily trips) roadways that provide through passage adjacent regional multi-use trails are provided, including to and from major commercial centers, community the Bay Trail, Sweeney Ridge Trail, and Sawyer Camp facilities, and regional highways. Access to arterial Trail. streets should be provided at collector roads and local streets. However, direct access from parcels to existing arterials is common. Arterial streets in San Bruno include El Camino Real, Sneath Lane and San Bruno Avenue. • Collector Streets. Relatively low-speed (25-30 miles per hour), low-capacity (5,000-20,000 average daily trips) streets that provide connections between neighborhood areas. Collector streets usually serve 4-2 San Bruno General Plan FIGURE 4-1 Transportation Network Figure 3.4-1 OAKMONT DR Existing Transportation Network SHARP PARK RD SK Y LIN E 82 BLVD EL CAMINO REAL INTERSTATE 280 COLLEGE DR EVERGREEN DR FLEETW 35 VALLEYWOOD DR O O D SNEATH LANE MONTGOMERY AVE D R INTERSTATE 380 AVE WALNUT EUCLID ST SNEATH LANE R SAN BRUNO AVE EAST D BA YHILL SAN BRUNO AVE WEST AVE H KAINS U U N S H TIN EL C IG GTO H A WA M IN N AVE Y O 101 REA AVE KAINS SAN L BRU NO AV E W CHERRY AVE EST SAN MATEO AVE C R LINDEN ELM E S CYPRESS T M O AVE O AVE AVE R JENEVEIN AVE D Freeway R SKYLINE Highway and Arterial Streets AVE BLVD Major Pedestrian Area SAN FELIPE SAN ANSELMO E CRYSTAL S AV Caltrain P NGS Source: DKS Associates, 2001. RI 35 BART AVE City Limits EL CAMINO REAL 10 acres 0 500 1000 2000 San Andreas FEET R e s e r v o i r 82 DYETT & B HAT I A Urban and Regional Planners short trips, and are intended for collecting vehicles 4-2 CIRCULATION AND TRAFFIC from local streets and distributing them to the arte- ANALYSIS rial network. Collector streets include Cherry Avenue and Fleetwood Drive. Roadway and intersection operations are evaluated in • Local Streets. Extremely low-speed (15-20 miles per terms of “level of service” (LOS), which is a measure hour), low-volume (1,000 average daily trips) streets of driving conditions and vehicle delay. Levels of ser- that provide access to neighborhood areas and inter- vice range from A (best) to F (poorest). LOS A, B and nal commercial drives. All local streets provide vehi- C indicate satisfactory conditions where traffic can move cle, pedestrian and utility access. On-street parking relatively freely. LOS D describes conditions where delay is often present to provide parking and slow traffic. is more noticeable. LOS E indicates conditions where traffic volumes are at or close to capacity, resulting in Highway 101, I-280, I-380, El Camino Real (State Route significant delays and average travel speeds that are one- 82), and Skyline Boulevard (State Route 35) constitute third the uncongested speeds or lower. LOS F charac- Congestion Management Program (CMP) facilities as terizes conditions where traffic demand exceeds available outlined in the City/County Association of Govern- capacity, with very slow speeds (stop-and-go), long delays ments of San Mateo County Final Congestion Manage- (over a minute) and queuing at signalized intersections. ment Program for 2001. According to this document, Descriptions of levels of service for signalized intersec- the purpose of a CMP is to “develop a procedure to alle- tions, together with their corresponding volume-to- viate or control anticipated increases in roadway conges- capacity ratios (V/Cs), are presented in Table 4-1. Table tion and to ensure that ‘federal, state, and local agencies 4-2 presents Level of Service definitions for unsignalized join with transit districts business, private and environ- intersections. mental interests to develop and implement comprehen- sive strategies needed to develop appropriate responses Overall, relatively few intersections in San Bruno cur- to transportation needs’ (California Government Code rently experience significant amounts of congestion (LOS Section 65088(e)).” E or F, depicted in Table 4-3). During morning peak hours, the intersections of Skyline Boulevard and San Bruno Avenue, Skyline Boulevard and College Drive, and Skyline Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard have experienced severe levels of congestion. During afternoon peak hours, the intersections of Skyline Boulevard and San Bruno Avenue and El Camino Real and Noor Ave- nue1 have experienced severe levels of congestion. During weekend morning, midday, and afternoon peak hours, the intersection of El Camino Real and Sneath Lane has suffered from severe traffic congestion. 1 This intersection overlaps the boundary between San Bruno and South San Francisco. 4-4 San Bruno General Plan Intersection improvements are proposed in General Plan TABLE 4-1: Level of Service Definitions – Signalized Intersections Policy T-7 for intersections that would worsen to LOS E or F under buildout of the proposed General Plan. Level of Service Volume to Capacity Ratio Description These intersections include Skyline Boulevard/Sharp A ≤0.60 Uncongested operations; all queues clear in a single signal cycle Park Road/Westborough Boulevard, Skyline Boulevard/ B 0.61-0.70 Very light congestion; an occasional approach phase is fully utilized. Sneath Lane, Sequoia Avenue/Sneath Lane, El Camino C 0.71-0.80 Light congestion; occasional backups on critical approaches. Real/Noor Avenue, Skyline Boulevard/San Bruno Ave- D 0.81-0.90 Significant congestion on critical approaches, but intersection functional. nue, Skyline Drive/College Drive/Berkshire Drive, and Cars required to wait through more than one cycle during short peaks. No Huntington Avenue/San Mateo Avenue.