Existing Conditions Report - FINAL

El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report 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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report 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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report 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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report 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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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. 1

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

TABLE 0-1: THE TWO FAMILIES OF BRT

Type of BRT Typical Attributes Examples

• Alameda-Contra Costa (AC) Transit District 1R & Line 72R These systems typically operate in mixed flow lanes, • Los Angeles County Metropolitan with some degree of signal priority, and likely Transportation Authority (Metro) Rapid branded service and vehicles. Rapid systems, also Rapid sometimes known as “BRT Lite” have minimal • Livermore Amador Valley Transit capital investment. Authority (LAVTA) Rapid • Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Rapid 522

• Greater Cleveland Regional Transit These systems typically have a much higher degree Authority HealthLine of priority and enhancements than Rapid services. • Lane Transit District (LTD) Eugene These systems operate vehicles in dedicated transit Emerald Express (EmX) lanes (or segments of) that allow vehicles to BRT (or Full BRT) • LA Metro Orange Line operate faster and more reliably. Significant capital • VTA Valley Rapid (Future) investments are made to upgrade corridor right-of- • San Francisco Municipal way and stations, to make the riding experience Transportation Authority Van Ness more “rail-like”. 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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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 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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

• 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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 1-1 El Camino Corridor

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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, The densest areas along the population density in the entire County is about two persons per acre.3 Corridor include: Daly City, These densities along the corridor indicate that frequent, high capacity Colma, San Bruno east of the transit service could be supported. Corridor, Burlingame east of the Corridor, and Redwood City.

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 2-1 Population Density

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 2-2 Employment Density

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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 Median Income has risen 2000. Along the Corridor (not exclusive of San Mateo County), median while percentage earning two household income has increased from $65,000 to $83,000. The times below the poverty level percentage of population along the Corridor earning below 200% of has also risen. (or two times) the federal poverty level has increased from 18% to 21%.4

Figure 2-3 Distribution of Household Income

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

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

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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 Daly City, San Mateo, uses along the Corridor. The largest category of land use in the Belmont, Redwood City, Corridor is multi-family residential, followed by single family Menlo Park, and San Bruno residential, and retail/office/commercial. Table 2-1 provides a have high percentages of breakdown by land use type by City within the Corridor. Transit- land uses supportive of supportive locations will have high percentages of multi-family transit. 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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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

- Family Vacant Nature Corridor) City Total Industrial / Residential Residential County (for % of City in Institutional Multi Agriculture / Single FamilySingle / Commercial / Infrastructure Retail / Office / Retail Open Space / Public Civic / / Right ofRight / Way Manufacturing

Area (acres) 330.72 2,657.91 110.91 15.61 167.88 8.43 21.78 80.76 3,394.01 13.46% Daly City % of City Total 9.74% 78.31% 3.27% 0.46% 4.95% 0.25% 0.64% 2.38% 100.00%

Area (acres) 175.48 185.6 119.63 17.57 674.09 0 16.53 35.38 1,224.28 4.86% Colma % of City Total 14.33% 15.16% 9.77% 1.44% 55.06% 0.00% 1.35% 2.89% 100.00%

Area (acres) 587.7 822.99 292.22 129.9 234.98 11.39 67.55 65.01 2,211.74 8.77% South San Francisco % of City Total 26.57% 37.21% 13.21% 5.87% 10.62% 0.52% 3.05% 2.94% 100.00%

Area (acres) 358.07 574.24 220.82 15.49 70.81 38.6 103.66 15.79 1,397.49 5.54% San Bruno % of City Total 25.62% 41.09% 15.80% 1.11% 5.07% 2.76% 7.42% 1.13% 100.00%

Area (acres) 270.1 295.95 9.1 13.07 39.59 0 141.86 62.53 832.2 3.30% Millbrae % of City Total 32.46% 35.56% 1.09% 1.57% 4.76% 0.00% 17.05% 7.51% 100.00%

Area (acres) 511.75 550.71 164.63 172.87 90.72 7.96 48.84 17.46 1,564.94 6.21% Burlingame % of City Total 32.70% 35.19% 10.52% 11.05% 5.80% 0.51% 3.12% 1.12% 100.00%

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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

Area (acres) 305.54 0.51 4.46 0 2.64 16.13 2.76 6.94 339 1.34% Hillsborough % of City Total 90.13% 0.15% 1.32% 0.00% 0.78% 4.76% 0.81% 2.05% 100.00%

Area (acres) 968.85 5,769.97 345.15 43.03 76.58 24.9 45.42 96.54 7,370.44 29.23% San Mateo % of City Total 13.15% 78.29% 4.68% 0.58% 1.04% 0.34% 0.62% 1.31% 100.00%

Area (acres) 346.49 1,390.12 69.89 36.94 62.24 22.31 1.67 25.71 1,955.36 7.75% Belmont % of City Total 17.72% 71.09% 3.57% 1.89% 3.18% 1.14% 0.09% 1.31% 100.00%

Area (acres) 394.01 336.6 153.11 667.51 21.75 12.99 11.74 27.02 1,624.73 6.44% San Carlos % of City Total 24.25% 20.72% 9.42% 41.08% 1.34% 0.80% 0.72% 1.66% 100.00%

Area (acres) 393.65 448.88 265.16 44.31 80.51 4.29 23.72 27.71 1,288.24 5.11% Redwood City % of City Total 30.56% 34.84% 20.58% 3.44% 6.25% 0.33% 1.84% 2.15% 100.00%

Area (acres) 61.78 2.12 2.26 0 81.03 22.18 2.99 8.94 181.29 0.72% Atherton % of City Total 34.08% 1.17% 1.25% 0.00% 44.70% 12.23% 1.65% 4.93% 100.00%

Area (acres) 237.32 541.91 195.6 2.87 31.66 22.41 33.2 13.23 1,078.20 4.28% Menlo Park % of City Total 22.01% 50.26% 18.14% 0.27% 2.94% 2.08% 3.08% 1.23% 100.00%

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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

Area (acres) 130.28 202.28 62.11 105.04 76.32 1.53 140.15 35.02 752.72 2.99% Unincorporated % of City Total 17.31% 26.87% 8.25% 13.95% 10.14% 0.20% 18.62% 4.65% 100.00%

El Camino 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 Corridor Total (San Mateo % of City Total 15.78% 40.11% 5.92% 4.37% 2.51% 0.69% 2.21% 1.34% 100.00% County)

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 2-7 Existing Land Use

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 2-8 Key Destinations (North)

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 2-9 Key Destinations (South)

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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 Land Use Plans (North to South)

Daly City General Plan Update

Colma Housing Element Update

South El Camino Real Area Plan South San Francisco El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan

General Plan San Bruno Downtown and Transit Corridors Plan

Millbrae Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map Update

Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan

Hillsborough General Plan

Bay Meadows Phase II Guidelines and Development Standards Rail Corridor Transit-Oriented Development Plan San Mateo Hillsdale Station Area Plan General Plan

General Plan Update (in progress) Belmont Economic Development/Target Site Policy Amendments (in progress)

General Plan Update San Carlos Zoning Ordinance Update

General Plan Update Redwood City Downtown Precise Plan

El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan Menlo Park Housing Element Update (in progress)

San Mateo County North Fair Oaks Community Plan

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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 Drive alone rate along the means. The drive alone rate has decreased from 75% in 2000. The Corridor has decreased from drive alone rate along the Corridor is slightly lower than that in San 75% in 2000 to 70% in 2009. Mateo County overall. Figure 2-10 details mode split.

Figure 2-10 Commute Mode Split

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

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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

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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

TABLE 3-1 TYPICAL ROADWAY CONDITIONS

Length Avg ROW SB SB SB NB NB NB From To City Median (mi) Width (ft) Sidewalk Parking Lanes Lanes Parking Sidewalk

John Daly Blvd/ El 20', De Long St 0.31 Daly City 200 2 2 Camino Real Planted

John Daly Blvd/El 15', Bismark St 0.65 Daly City 110 X X 2 2 X X Camino Real Planted

Market St/ San 15', Bismark St 0.42 Daly City 110 X X 2 2 X X Pedro Rd Raised

Market St/San Daly City/ Unincorporated 30', Mission Rd 1.39 110 X X 3 3 X X Pedro Rd Colma/ Colma Planted

Mission Rd Hickey Blvd 0.48 Colma/South San Francisco 45 2 Barrier 2

16', Hickey Blvd McLellan Dr 0.37 South San Francisco 120 X 2 2 X Planted

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

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

South San Francisco/San 20', Francisco Dr Commodore Dr 0.72 120 X X 3 3 X X Bruno Planted

17', Commodore Dr San Bruno Ave 0.34 San Bruno 120 X 3 3 X Planted

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

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

Ray Dr Mills Ave 0.31 Burlingame 45 X 2 2

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Length Avg ROW SB SB SB NB NB NB From To City Median (mi) Width (ft) Sidewalk Parking Lanes Lanes Parking Sidewalk

Burlingame/Hillsborough/San Mills Ave 2nd Ave 3.12 45 X 2 2 X Mateo

15', 2nd Ave Mission Dr 0.27 San Mateo 90 X 3 3 X Planted

17th Ave/Bovet Mission Dr 0.79 San Mateo 90 X X 3 5' 3 X X Rd

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

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

14', 28th Ave 36th Ave 0.61 San Mateo 95 X 3 3 X Raised

36th Ave North Rd 0.59 San Mateo/Belmont 95 X 3 16' 2 X

16', North Rd Middle Rd 0.71 Belmont 95 X 2 2 Planted

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

12', San Carlos Ave Arroyo Ave 0.39 San Carlos 95 X X 3 2 X X Planted

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

10', Belmont Ave St Francis Wy 0.27 San Carlos 95 X X 3 2 Planted

10', St Francis Wy Claremont Ave 0.35 San Carlos/Redwood City 95 X X 3 2 X X Planted

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Length Avg ROW SB SB SB NB NB NB From To City Median (mi) Width (ft) Sidewalk Parking Lanes Lanes Parking Sidewalk

Redwood City/North Fair 12', SR-84 Wilburn Ave 1.18 Oaks 95 X X 3 3 X X Planted (Unincorporated)/Atherton

17', Wilburn Ave Spruce Ave 0.71 Atherton/Menlo Park 90 3 3 Planted

12', Spruce Ave Valparaiso Ave 0.46 Atherton/Menlo Park 100 X 3 2 X X Planted

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

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

Quarry Rd University Ave 0.17 Palo Alto 80 3 Barrier 3

Source: ARUP 2013

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 3-2 San Carlos Cross-Section

Figure 3-3 Redwood City Cross-Section

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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

5th Avenue San Mateo

9th Avenue San Mateo

25th 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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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 Areas with exclusive right priority lanes at specific locations. In the US context, queue jump lanes turn lanes may be good are typically in right-hand turn lanes and allow for transit through locations for considering movements. There are two existing intersections which allow buses to queue jump lanes for transit. 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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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%)

Source: Grand Boulevard Initiative – Existing Conditions Report. November 2011. Table 5-3.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 3-4 Traffic Volumes

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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

Average Delay1 LOS Description (Seconds / Vehicle)

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

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

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

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

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

TABLE 3-6 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE

Intersection of El City 2009 (C/CAG) 2011 (C/CAG 2013 (Caltrain) Camino Real &

Hillside / John Daly Daly City D C - Boulevard

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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 3-5 AM Intersection Level of Service

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 3-6 PM Intersection Level of Service

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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.

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 4-1 Route ECR

Source: SamTrans

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 4-2 Route 397 – SSP No Change

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 4-3 Route KX – SSP Recommended Change

Source: SamTrans

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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

# of Route Origin/Destination Interaction with Corridor SSP Changes stops1

Colma BART/ South Travels along ECR from I-380 to the San Bruno 38 0 None San Francisco BART station

South San Francisco 39 Travels along ECR from Arroyo Dr to Orange 2 N/A (school route)

San Bruno BART/ Travels along ECR in San Bruno from San 43 5 None Burlingame Bruno Ave to Park Place

46 Burlingame Crosses ECR at Trousdale 0 None

53 San Mateo Crosses ECR at SR92 0 None

Travels along ECR from Clark Drive to Barneson 55 San Mateo 4 None Ave

San Mateo (school 59 Crosses ECR at 4th St 1 N/A route)

Belmont (school Travels along ECR from 42nd Ave to Davey 68 2 N/A route) Glen Rd

Travels along ECR between Hazel and 72 Redwood City 0 None Northumberland and Dumbarton and Selby

Redwood City 79 Travels along ECR from Roosevelt to Woodside 0 N/A (school route)

82 & Atherton/ Menlo Crosses ECR at Valparaiso and Santa Cruz 0 None 83 Park

Crosses ECR at Valparaiso and Santa Cruz. Atherton/ Menlo 84 Travels along ECR between Fair Oaks Ln and 2 N/A Park Encinal

Menlo Atherton 86 School/ Portola Crosses ECR at Santa Cruz Ave 0 N/A Valley

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

TABLE 4-1 SAMTRANS CROSS CORRIDOR ROUTES

# of Route Origin/Destination Interaction with Corridor SSP Changes stops1

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

Crosses ECR/Mission St at John Daly Blvd. Daly City/ Skyline 121 Travels along ECR/Mission from F St to Mission 1 Route realignment College/ Lipman MS Rd.

SF (Stonestown)/ Travels along ECR from Arroyo Dr to Lawndale 122 3 Route realignment SSF BART Blvd

Daly City BART/ Route shortening - will 130 Crosses ECR/Mission St at John Daly Blvd 5 South San Francisco stop at Colma BART

Travels along ECR from Hickey Blvd to New route (not 131 South San Francisco Unknown McLellan implemented)

Route realignment will Travels along ECR from Lawndale Blvd to shift travel along ECR 132 South San Francisco 3 Arroyo Dr to between Arroyo Dr and Orange Ave

Route shortening - Daly City/ San 133 Travels along ECR from Hickey Blvd to Sneath 3 travel along ECR will be Bruno BART from Arroyo to Sneath

Pacifica/ San Bruno 140 Crosses ECR at San Bruno Ave 1 Route realignment BART

141 San Bruno Crosses ECR at Jenevein 1 Route realignment

250 San Mateo Crosses ECR at Hillsdale 1 Route realignment

Foster City/ San 251 Travels along ECR from 31st to Hillsdale 1 Route realignment Mateo

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

College of San Crosses ECR at Ralston. Travels along ECR from 260 Mateo/ San Carlos 2 Improved schedule Holly St to San Carlos Ave. Caltrain

Route shortening - will Travels along ECR from 31st Ave to 36th and 262 Belmont 4 not serve Hillsdale Davey Glen Rd to Ralston Ave Shopping Center

Travels along ECR from James Ave to Jefferson 270 Redwood City 1 Improved schedule Ave

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

TABLE 4-1 SAMTRANS CROSS CORRIDOR ROUTES

# of Route Origin/Destination Interaction with Corridor SSP Changes stops1

Route shortening - Travels along ECR from James Ave to Roosevelt 271 Redwood City 2 discontinue portion on Ave ECR

Canada College/ 274 Crosses ECR at James Ave 0 Decreased schedule RWC Caltrain

Canada College/ Travels along ECR from James Ave to New route (not 275 unknown RWC Caltrain Woodside implemented)

Stanford Shopping 280 Center/ East Palo Travels along ECR from Sand Hill Rd to Palm Dr 1 To be discontinued Alto

Stanford Shopping 281 Center/ East Palo Travels along ECR from Sand Hill Rd to Palm Dr 1 Improved schedule Alto/ Menlo Park

Hillsdale Shopping 292 Crosses ECR at Hillsdale 0 Route realignment Center/ SF

Hillsdale Shopping Route shortening - will 294 Center/ Half Moon Travels along ECR from 31st to Hillsdale 1 not serve Linda Mar Bay/ Linda Mar

Travels along ECR from 2nd Ave to 5th Ave, Route shortening - will San Mateo/ Menlo 27th Ave to 36th Ave, San Carlos Ave to 295 8 not serve south of Park Arroyo, James Ave to Woodside. Crosses ECR Redwood City at Santa Cruz.

RWC Caltrain/ East Travels along ECR from James Ave to Jefferson 296 1 Improved schedule Palo Alto Ave

RWC Caltrain/ Palo Travels along ECR from James Ave to Jefferson 297 1 None Alto Caltrain Ave

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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 Weekday ridership appears average weekday daily boardings by individual stop for the entire strong where active, mixed- SamTrans system. The circle sizes are proportionate to the number of use regional corridors and boardings. Weekday ridership appears strong where active, mixed-use high-activity centers are regional corridors and high-activity centers are present, specifically present, specifically along the along the El Camino Real and Caltrain Corridor. Strong ridership is also El Camino Real. 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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 4-4 Weekday Passenger Boardings for Route ECR

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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 Higher seat turnover on El over four miles. The El Camino Real routes average passenger trip Camino Real service is length is higher at about 5.4 miles. This suggests that SamTrans’ present in Redwood City, San customers are utilizing bus service for longer trips despite the Mateo, and Daly City where availability of Caltrain that runs parallel to the Corridor. Higher seat strong off-corridor markets turnover on El Camino Real service is present in Redwood City, San are located. 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 Operating speed along El onboard experience and perception of service quality. SamTrans as a Camino is average for the whole, along with the El Camino Real routes, have an average SamTrans system. Focusing operating speed of around 12 mph11 (see Figure 4-8). For such a long improvements on productive, route, a 12 mph average operating speed is less than optimal. It high-ridership services (such discourages choice riders from using the service and contributes to ECR routes) will improve high operating costs. Increasing operating speed will thus help to service quality for the greatest increase ridership and reduce operating costs. Focusing on number of customers. 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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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

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

4.1.4.2 Productivity

Productivity measures route level service effectiveness using passenger boardings per revenue vehicle hour. Passenger boardings per revenue The El Camino Real service vehicle hour is the number of unlinked passenger boardings (ridership) has the highest level of generated per revenue hour of service operated. This measure shows service productivity in the ridership generated per unit of service provided by SamTrans. See SamTrans system but is still Figure 4-9 for a comparison of this measure across all SamTrans below comparable routes. 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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 4-9 Weekday Passenger Boardings per Revenue Hour

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

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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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 The El Camino Corridor mile is the number of passenger miles generated per mile of route. represents the best candidate Greater corridor intensity creates the opportunity to invest additional for investment in expedited resources and implement higher levels of service. The SamTrans bus service on weekdays. 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, The El Camino Real routes while profitable services are over 100 percent. Systemwide, SamTrans have higher farebox recovery recovers approximately 18 percent of operating costs through farebox ratios (22%) than local and revenues. The El Camino Real routes have the strongest farebox community service groups in recovery ratios mainly due to the strong ridership along the Corridor the SamTrans system (18%), compared to other system routes (see Figure 4-11).

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 4-10 Weekday Passenger Miles Per Route Mile

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 4-11 Weekday Farebox Recovery Ratio

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

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 The El Camino Real routes metric indicates the amount of cost subsidy necessary to support each have the lowest subsidy per passenger trip. At a systemwide level SamTrans’ average subsidy per passenger boarding passenger boarding is $5.20 on weekdays, $5.80 on Saturdays, and compared to other SamTrans $6.50 on Sundays. As shown in Figure 4-12, El Camino Real service has system groups. 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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 4-12 Weekday Subsidy per Passenger Boarding

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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 On-time performance and two key characteristics of Rapid and BRT service. Customers rated frequency are the two lowest these characteristics at 3.78 and 3.64, respectively. This roughly performing metrics ranked translates to between a Neutral rating and a Satisfied rating, with room by SamTrans customers. 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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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:

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

• 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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

• 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

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

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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 4-18 Millbrae BART/Caltrain Station Map

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

Figure 4-19 Palo Alto Transit Center Map

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

5.0 BICYCLE FACILITIES

Heavy traffic, high vehicle speeds, and lack of bicycle Heavy traffic, high vehicle speeds, and lack facilities along El Camino Real makes the Corridor a of bicycle facilities along El Camino Real difficult route for bicyclists to travel on. In addition, makes the Corridor a difficult route for multiple freeways, along with the BART and Caltrain bicyclists to travel on. 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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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.

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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

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

El Camino Real BRT – Existing Conditions Report July 2014

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 Crossing El Camino Real can heavy traffic volumes, high travel speeds, the long crossing distance be challenging for (ranging from four to six vehicle travel lanes), and long distances pedestrians due to high between signalized crosswalks. vehicle volumes and lengthy

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

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