Agenda packet — East Palo Alto City Council, June 20, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

1. East Palo Alto Community Farmer’s Market. The CBTP team conducted outreach on November 9, 2021. Approximately 60 attendees participated in interactive exercises, comment cards and surveys.

2. Redwood City Kiwanis Farmer’s Market. The CBTP team conducted outreach on November 27, 2021. About 50 people participated in map exercises.

3. Fair Oaks Adult Activity Center Senior Lunch Program. The CBTP team conducted outreach on February 17, 2022. About 10 people participated in map exercises and surveys.

Key Findings
Table ES-1 summarizes the key findings and feedback from each outreach component.

Transportation
Survey
(Note:
responders
were able to
select multiple
options)
Transit system ridden (descending order):

1. Caltrain (61%)

2. BART (35%)

3. SamTrans (22%)

4. Other (22%)

5. Community Shuttle (13%)
Impediments to transit (descending order):

1. Route design (56%)

2. Hours of operation (31%)

3. Delays and unpredictability (26%)

4. Condition of stations or shelters (26%)

5. Location of stops (18%)
Impediments to biking (descending order):

1. Dangerous streets or intersections (78%)

2. Lack of bike lanes (70%)

3. Gaps in existing lanes (48%)

4. Lack of secure bike parking (35%)
Impediments to walking (descending order):

1. Poor sidewalk conditions (65%)

2. Poor lighting and safety (61%)

3. Difficult intersections (52%)

4. Unsafe school access (13%)
Places that are hard to get to (descending order):

1. Supermarket (48%)

2. Work (43%)

3. Transit station (43%)

4. School (30%)

5. Hospital/medical center (22%)
New COVID-19-related transportation challenges (descending order):

1. I feel unsafe on transit (49%)

2. None (22%)

3. Reduced transit schedules (17%)

4. Other (4%)
Table ES-1 Key Findings from Community Outreach Events

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 7 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County East Palo Alto
Community
Farmer’s
Market
“Pop-Up”
Bicycle Comments:
● Belief that bikes should not be on the same roads as cars. All bike routes should be isolated.
● The sidewalk is too narrow on University Avenue across 101. A cyclist and a person with a stroller cannot pass each other. ● Woodland Avenue is perilous on a bike—until you get to Menlo Park.
● Need to prioritize Garden Street for walk/bike to school improvements.
● There should be a bike/ped lane along Pulgas Avenue.

Pedestrian Comments:
● Need for traffic calming and active transportation improvements along O’Connor Street.
● Need for more pedestrian paths that are parallel to separate from main driving routes.
● The sidewalk is too narrow on University Avenue across 101 for a bike and a person with a stroller.
● Need for new signalization or a pedestrian overcrossing at Cooley Avenue and University Avenue.
● The non-signalized multi-lane crosswalk at University Avenue and Weeks Street, in front of El Concilio, is dangerous. ● Need for a signalized crosswalk at Clarke Avenue and Beech Street.
● Need for better lighting and wider sidewalks along the bridge on Newell Road at Woodland Avenue. The existing trees add to the blind crosswalk and cars don’t see people trying to cross. ● The 5-way stop at Newbridge Street, Ralmar Avenue, and Bay Road is confusing for drivers and dangerous for pedestrians. ● Pulgas Avenue is unsafe to walk on for the entire length in both directions. Sidewalks are incomplete and narrow, and cars always speed.
● People park in the pedestrian ROW on both sides of Pulgas Avenue.
● Intersection at Michigan Avenue and University Avenue needs a signalized crosswalk.
● Need better Sidewalks along many parts of West Bayshore Road. ...

East Palo Alto
Community
Farmer’s
Market
“Pop-Up”
(Continued)
Transit Comments:
● Need to restore pre-COVID bus frequencies.
● Need for a 2nd BART tube for the South Bay.
● Restore the shuttle that went from the train station at University Avenue around East Palo Alto.
● Cars speed around bus pull-outs and could hit pedestrians crossing intersections.

Safety Comments:
● Traffic speeds are too high on:
» Woodland Avenue in both directions. There are also many semi-trucks here.
» Euclid Avenue between Woodland Avenue and Okeefe Street. » Lincoln Street and on Bell Street turning off and on to Lincoln Street.
» University Avenue.
● Police do not come when called and do not take calls seriously. ● There have been various accidents on University Avenue in front of City Hall that have almost resulted in pedestrians getting ran over.
● The school located at the end of Garden Street [KIPP Esperanza High School] has very dangerous traffic at the school’s exit. It is dangerous for both students and parents during pick-up and drop-off.
● There should be more lighting on East Bayshore Road starting at Clark Avenue towards Embarcadero Road.
● Accessing the Charter school at Runnymede Street is unsafe— there is no way to access this school by walking or biking.

Redwood City
Kiwanis
Farmer’s
Market
“Pop-Up”
Bicycle Comments:
● Highway 101 is an ongoing bike barrier:
» Visibility of the center bike lane on Whipple Avenue over Highway 101 is reduced visibility by roadway vegetation. » Need for a bike lane crossing 101 (either bridge or underpass) that connects south of 101 to the Bay Trail and Marsh Rd/Bay Front Park.
...

Table ES-1 Key Findings from Community Outreach Events (Continued)

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 8 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Redwood City
Kiwanis
Farmer’s
Market
“Pop-Up”
(Continued)
Bicycle Comments: (Continued)
● The difficulty of cycling through downtown Redwood City due to wide roadways and lack of shade. This makes it unattractive and unsafe to cross most intersections.
● El Camino Real as an ongoing bike barrier:
» It feels unsafe to cross any intersection on El Camino Real, but especially those between James Avenue and Redwood
Avenue.
» Crossing El Camino Real via Oakwood Drive on a bike is dangerous. Also, the train tracks force cyclists trying to get to Middlefield from El Camino Real to use Fifth Avenue.
» There needs to be more safe crossings over Middlefield Road between Charter Street and 9th Avenue. Fifth Avenue is the only crossing around this area.
» Woodside Avenue and El Camino Real are the biggest barriers to biking. Both are difficult to cross. El Camino could have bike lanes on it but not Woodside.
» Drivers often run red lights at the intersection of El Camino and Broadway.
» We need for a bike path that runs parallel to the train tracks instead of on El Camino Real.
● The mobile home parks on East Bayshore Avenue between Woodside Avenue and Haven Avenue are impossible to access by biking or walking. Access anything from that area is also difficult.
● Sharrows on Harding Avenue and Jefferson Avenue are scary because there is parking on both sides of the street and people open car doors suddenly.
● Need for a bike lane on the segment of Marsh Road between Middlefield and Bay Road.
● Need for more bike racks in downtown Redwood City.
● The bike lane on Whipple Avenue is terrifying.
● Crossing Woodside Road is scary for cyclists coming from the Caltrain station and riding along Broadway. There should be a complete bike lane between the Caltrain station and Woodside Road.
● Need for a bike lane on segment of Broadway Street between Woodside Road and Charter Street.

Table ES-1 Key Findings from Community Outreach Events (Continued) Redwood City
Kiwanis
Farmer’s
Market
“Pop-Up”
(Continued)
Pedestrian Comments:
● Need for pedestrian crossing improvements at the following intersections:
» Whipple Avenue across Highway 101 northbound on-ramp
» Jefferson Avenue and Alameda de las Pulgas.
» All crosswalks along Jefferson Avenue
» El Camino Real and Edgewood Road
» Broadway and 2nd Avenue.
» Broadway and Bay Road crossing
» Marsh Road and Bay Road
» Marsh Road and Middlefield Road
● Unsafe or uneven sidewalks on:
» Bloomquist Street between Maple Street and Seaport
Boulevard.
» The north side of Hopkins Avenue between Grand Street and Hudson Street
» The perimeter of Dingee Circle park, at Broadway and
Hopkins.
» Maple Street from Marshall Street to Hilltop Street
» Brittan Avenue underpass intersecting El Camino Real
Transit Comments:
● The need for a bus line between Downtown Redwood City and Edgewood Park.
● The need to reinstate SamTrans Route 274: It used to take 6 minutes to get between the Caltrain station and Alameda and Jefferson. Now it takes much longer to get between these two points since this bus was canceled.
● Use the freight train ROW to connect future ferry terminal to Redwood City Caltrain.
● Lack of good public transit around North Fair Oaks. Not enough frequency or routes.
● Need for a bus line connecting Middlefield Road to the ECR route along Fifth Avenue.
● Need for bus route along Jefferson Avenue after lines 274 and 278 stopped running there.
...

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 9 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Table ES-1 Key Findings from Community Outreach Events (Continued) Redwood City
Kiwanis
Farmer’s
Market
“Pop-Up”
(Continued)
Safety Comments:
● Number of informal encampments along El Camino and
Redwood Avenue (near interchange with Woodside Rd and El Camino Real) that can make pedestrians feel unsafe.
● Need for improved safety and intersections around Redwood High School.
● There is a lot of trash along Industrial Road.
● Danger related to high auto speeds on Samson Street between Arguello Street and Allerton Street
● Needs for traffic calming on segment of Whipple Avenue between East Bayshore Road and El Camino Real.

Fair Oaks
Adult Activity
Center
“Pop-Up”
Pedestrian Comments:
● The need for better traffic controls at many Middlefield Road intersections , especially from about Woodside Road to Fifth Avenue.
● The sidewalk quality in North Fair Oaks is only inconsistent; there are areas that need to be improved for the safety of all users.

Transit Comments:
● The need for additional, alternative transportation to the Fair Oaks Adult Activity Center and other senior centers for clients and visitors with health and mobility challenges.
● The fact that some clients to the Fair Oaks Adult Activity Center are either not well enough to take public transit or don’t know how to ride paratransit, because program eligibility and access are confusing.
● The fact that Fair Oaks Adult Activity Center staff are undertaking a process of identifying who qualifies for various paratransit services and informing clients and visitors of their likely eligibility status.
● The lack of efficient transit access to Daly City, particularly that the combined SamTrans Routes ECR/ 296 itinerary to Daly City takes two hours.
...

Fair Oaks
Adult Activity
Center
“Pop-Up”
(Continued)
Transit Comments: (Continued)
● The expense and difficulty of getting to San Mateo Medical Center and SamTrans Route ECR isn’t direct enough.
● Confusion as to what paratransit service provides access to what medical centers.

Safety Comments:
● The increasing amount of vehicle drop-offs and pick-ups and idling on streets in the residential area southwest of the intersection of Middlefield Road and Charter Street, such as Douglas Avenue.
● Decrease safety on Middlefield Road due to ongoing
construction.
● The fact that Middlefield Road is very busy and intimidating to walk on.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 10 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Recommendations Methodology
Evaluation Criteria
As detailed in Chapter 5, the CBTP project team worked with the AG to establish four evaluation criteria to rank projects and programs by their ability to improve mobility for challenged communities:

1. Reflects Community Priorities

2. Increases Access

3. Is Financially Feasible

4. Ease of Implementation
Scoring Methodology
Recommendations were scored one through five for each evaluation criteria. A score of one reflects the lowest potential for fulfillment of that category; five the highest.

For all project and plans, the following score averages were calculated:
■ Average Score: The average score of Criteria 1 through 4. ■ Area Need Score: The average score of Criterion 1 (Community Priorities) and Criterion 2 (Increases Access).
■ Project Potential Score: The average score of Criterion 3 (Financial Feasibility) and Criterion 4 (Ease of Implementation).

The CBTP team consolidated criteria into the two scores above to improve the likelihood that CBTP projects will be implemented. A focus on recommendations with the highest and/or most immediate potential to get funded and built will support the grant selection and planning. It will facilitate more informed decision-making and awareness of potential challenges for future projects.

Implementation TimeFrame
Each of the following recommendations is assigned one the following three implementation timeframes based on community priority:

1. Short Term (ST). These recommendations are assumed to be implemented in one to three years.

2. Medium Term (MT). These recommendations are assumed to be implemented in three to eight years.

3. Long Term (LT). These recommendations are assumed to be implemented in eight or more years.

Project Types
Recommendations fall within the following groups of projects and plans:

Active Transportation. These are generally capital improvements that increase safe, healthy, active transportation choices, namely walking and biking, for everyday trips.

Active transportation also includes micromobility, which refers to the use of individual, lightweight vehicles, such as bikeshares and e-scooters, typically on a per-ride basis.

Transit and Paratransit. Transit projects may include new routes, expanding operating hours of certain lines, increasing transit line frequency, or improving transit stops with lighting, shelter, and seating.

Safety. School safety projects provide safe, non-motorized routes between where people live and local schools. Examples of safety projects include improvements to school access and student safety, traffic calming on streets with high rates of pedestrians, neighborhood lighting improvements and poorly-secured transit facilities.

Recommendations
The following tables summarize recommended projects and plans, including estimated cost, timeframe and responsible agency(ies) for the three project types. All recommendations are listed in descending order of average score.

Active Transportation Projects and Plans
Table ES-2 lists recommended pedestrian projects and plans. Table ES-3 lists recommended bike and micromobility projects and plans.

Transit and Paratransit Projects and Plans
Table ES-4 lists recommended SESM CBTP transit and paratransit projects and plans.

Safety Projects and Plans
Table ES-5 lists recommended SESM CBTP safety projects and plans.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 11 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Table ES-2 Recommended Pedestrian Projects and Plans
Recommendation Average
Score
Area
Need Score
Project
Potential
Score
Estimated
Cost
Implementation
Timeframe
Responsible
Agency
Close all sidewalk gaps on East Bayshore Road from Poplar Avenue to Euclid Avenue in response to pedestrian fatalities. 4.75 5 4.5 $50,000 to $75,000 ST East Palo Alto Perform safety audits and install intersection safety improvements such as signalization controls, pedestrian islands, flashing beacons, high-visibility crosswalks and/or physical traffic calming elements, at the following intersections:
● University Ave. and Runnymede St.
● Marsh Rd. and Bay Rd.
● Marsh Rd. and Middlefield Rd.
● Cooley Ave. and University Ave.
● Oakwood Dr. and East Bayshore Rd.
● Newbridge St. and Willow Rd.
● Willow Rd. and Ivy Dr.
● Willow Rd. and O’Brien Dr.
4 4.5 3.5 $4,000 to $15,000 per
intersection
ST
East Palo Alto,
Redwood City, City
of Menlo Park, San
Mateo County
Widen sidewalks, close all sidewalk gaps and install parking controls along West Bayshore Rd. between Cooley Ave. and Woodland Ave. in East Palo Alto. 4 4 4 $75,000 to $125,000 ST East Palo Alto Assess sidewalk deficiencies and implement feasible recommendations for new sidewalks on the west side of Pulgas Ave. from East Bayshore Rd. to University Avenue in East Palo Alto.

3.75 4.5 3 $100,000 to $200,000 MT East Palo Alto
Install Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons (RRFB) with curb extensions at onand off-ramps on both sides of Highway 101 at the Whipple Ave. overcrossing in Redwood City.

3.75 3.5 4 $150,000 to $200,00 MT Redwood City,
Caltrans
Install a High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (“HAWK”) and median improvements at intersection of SR 82 and Selby Lane in East Palo Alto. 3.5 4.5 3 $125,000 to $150,000 ST Atherton, San Mateo County

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Table ES-3 Recommended Bicycle and Micromobility Projects and Plans Recommendation Average
Score
Area
Need
Score
Project
Potential
Score
Estimated
Cost
Implementation
Timeframe
Responsible
Agency
Implement the North Fair Oaks bicycle boulevards network in the area between Middlefield Rd., 5th Ave., El Camino Real and the unincorporated County/ Redwood City limits, per the North Fair Oaks Bicycle and Pedestrian Railroad Crossing and Community Connections Study. 4.25 4.5 4 $3.5M to $7M MT San Mateo County
Improve bike facilities on Seaport Blvd. by installing a Class I bike path from Broadway to East Bayshore Road, per the 2021 C/CAG San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and from Veterans Boulevard Highway 101 per RWC Moves. 4 4.5 3.5 $1M to $1.25M ST San Mateo County, Redwood City
Install grade- separated pedestrian/bicycle crossing of Caltrain tracks in North Fair Oaks between 5th Avenue and Redwood City limits, labeled high-priority project in the 2021 Unincorporated San Mateo County Active Transportation Plan. 4 4.5 3.5 $10M-$15M LT San Mateo County, Caltrain
Install Class IV cycle track on SR 82 (El Camino Real) between Finger Ave. and north of Berkshire Avenue per RWC Walk Bike Thrive. 4 5 3 $2.5M to $4M MT Redwood City
Install a Class IV bikeway on the segment of SR 82 (El Camino Real) that forms the border of North Fair Oaks, per the Unincorporated San Mateo County Active Transportation Plan. 4 5 3 $750,000 to
$1.5M MT San Mateo County
Fill missing bikeways gap on Middlefield Rd. between 5th Ave. and Town of Atherton with a Class II bikeway, per the Unincorporated San Mateo County Active Transportation Plan. 4 5 3 $500,000 to
$750,000 ST San Mateo County
Install Class IV facility on Brewster Avenue from Main St. to King St. to connect Sequoia High School and Caltrain transit center, per RWC Walk Bike Thrive. 3.75 4 3.5 $1M to
$1.5M ST Redwood City
Study upgrading the existing Class III bike route along Woodland Avenue in East Palo Alto to a Class IV or other separated bike facility and implement the most feasible option. 3.75 4 3.5 $750,000 to $2M ST East Palo Alto
Study bicycle and pedestrian network conditions and conflicts within ½ mile of Caltrain stations and major transit stops in the study area. Include recommendations for active transportation network improvements, infrastructure projects and micromobility programs designed to increase bike/ped safety and close “first-mile-last-mile” gaps.

3.5 4 3 $275,000 ST
C/CAG,
San Mateo County,
Redwood City
Develop a micromobility implementation guidebook for local jurisdictions to support efficient roll-out of bikeshare, e-scooter and other micromobility programs. The guidebook should include a framework for:
● Engaging community members to get input on preferred micromobility programs. ● Identifying type(s) of micromobility program(s) for maximum community benefit. ● Locating micromobility vehicle access and parking areas. ● Designing safe and accessible micromobility routes that close “first-mile-last-mile” transit gaps. ● Contracting with third party vendors.

3.5 3.5 3.5 $325,000 ST C/CAG
Upgrade the existing bike facility on Willow Road between Bayfront Expressway and Highway 101 to a Class IV separated bikeway, per the City of Menlo Park Transportation Master Plan. 3.5 3.5 3.5 $1M to $1.5 M MT City of Menlo Park
Implement City of Menlo Park Transportation Master Plan project #178 and Catrans District 4 Bike Plan Project Number SM-101-X14: Design and develop a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Highway 101 north of Marsh Road, with connections to Bay Trail and Bedwell/Bay Front Park. 3.5 4.5 3 $30M to $35M LT Caltrans, Menlo Park
Install Class II buffered bike lanes on Marsh Road from Bay Road to Scott Drive in the City of San Mateo, per the 2020 San Mateo Transportation Master Plan. 3.5 3.5 3.5 $1.5M to
$2M MT City of San Mateo
Improve access to electronic bikes via equity programs for both shared e-bikes and individually owned e-bikes. 3.5 3.5 3.5 $50,000 to $500,000 MT
C/CAG, San Mateo
County, Redwood
City, East Palo Alto,
Menlo Park
Install buffered bike lanes on Alameda de las Pulgas, from Brewster Avenue to De Anza Avenue in Redwood City, as considered in RWC Walk Bike Thrive. 3.5 3.5 3.5 $500,000 to
$1M MT City of Redwood City
Install Class IV bikeways on Bay Rd. and Marsh Rd. in North Fair Oaks per the 2021 Unincorporated San Mateo County Active Transportation Plan. 3.25 4.5 2 $1.5M to $2M MT San Mateo County

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Table ES-4 Recommended Transit and Paratransit Projects and Plans Recommendation Average
Score
Area
Need
Score
Project
Potential
Score
Estimated
Cost
Implementation
Timeframe
Responsible
Agency
Broaden awareness campaign of Clipper START program to include multi-lingual information at transit stops, stations and high-activity destinations in SESM Equity Priority Communities. 4.25 4 4.5 $15,000 to $30,000 ST MTC Implement a multi-lingual awareness campaign of SamTrans’ new East Palo Alto On-Demand Zone.

Potential riders should made aware of:
● How to download and use the program App
● How to use the service
● The difference between the On-Demand program and traditional bus service ● The On-Demand zone service area limits

4.25 3.5 5 $15,000 to $30,000 ST SamTrans
Implement transit-only lanes or transit signal priority infrastructure on Newbridge St., Bay Rd. and University Avenue from Menlo Park to the Palo Alto Transit Station to improve Caltrain access by Menlo Park and East Palo Alto residents.
4 5 3 $10M to $20M LT
SamTrans, East Palo Alto,
Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Caltrain,
San Mateo County
Implement a 2022 San Mateo County Paratransit Rider’s Guide “How-to Tour.” Introduce participants at senior centers, medical facilities and social service organizations to the basics of paratransit eligibility, sign-up, routing and ride process. 4 4 4 $10,000 to $20,000 ST SamTrans
Audit ground and curb conditions at bus stops and paratransit boarding areas at the following facilities to identify uneven sidewalks, lack of red paint and other parking/vehicle deterrents and missing or ADA noncompliant bus shelters:
● East Palo Alto Senior Center
● Ravenswood Health Clinic
● Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Redwood City
● Fair Oaks Health Center
● Menlo Park VA Medical Center

3.75 3 4.5 $20,000 to $40,000 ST SamTrans
Develop implementation strategies for equity mobility programs that encourage mode shift, such as the 2021 101 Express Lanes Community Benefits Program. 3.75 4 3 $20,000 to $35,000 MT C/CAG, San Mateo County,
Redwood City, East Palo Alto,
Menlo Park
Add shelters to SamTrans route 296 stops at Middlefield Road and Fifth Avenue to improve shopping experience for those at Chavez Supermarket at 3282 Middlefield Rd., Menlo Park 3.75 3 4.5 $20,000 to $30,000 per stop ST SamTrans,
City of Menlo Park
Survey physically and sensory-impaired visitors to hospitals, senior centers and social service facilities in SamTrans’ SESM Equity Priority Area to identify drop-off-to-destination (and reverse) wayfinding and access challenges and solutions.

3.5 3.5 3.5 $7,500 to $10,000 MT SamTrans
Add shelters to SamTrans route 270 stops at Bay Road and Fifth Avenue to improve shopping experience for those at Mi Tienda Market, 812 Fifth Avenue, Redwood City 3.5 3 4 $20,000 to $30,000 per stop ST SamTrans,
City of Redwood City
Decrease current 1+ hour headways of City of Menlo Park Belle Haven Shuttle by 25 percent. 3 3.5 2.5 $500,000 to $1M annually LT Menlo Park
Program an east-west running SamTrans route along 5th Avenue through North Fair Oaks to provide better connections from Middlefield Rd to SamTrans Routes 296 and ECR. 3 4.5 1.5 $1.5M to $3M start-up LT SamTrans

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 14 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Table ES-5 SESM CBTP Safety Projects and Plans
Recommendation Average
Score
Area Need
Score
Project
Potential
Score
Estimated
Cost
Implementation
Timeframe Responsible Agency
Assess queuing impacts to public streets during peak drop-off/pick-up hours at:
● Belle Haven Elementary School
● Garfield Community School
● North Star Academy/McKinley
● Aspire East Palo Alto Charter School
● TIDE Academy

4.25 4 4.5
$10,000 to
$15,000
per school
ST
Ravenswood City School District,
Redwood City School District,
Aspire Public Schools, Sequoia
Union High School District, East
Palo Alto, Menlo Park,
Redwood City
Complete an assessment of pedestrian safety in North Fair Oaks North, including audits and recommendations for:
● Areas of dumping and/or blight
● Lighting “deserts”
● Poor sidewalk conditions

3.75 4 3.5 $25,000 to
$50,000 MT San Mateo County
Implement Safe Routes to School infrastructure, including traffic calming techniques such as lane narrowing, speed humps, bulb-outs, and rapid flashing beacons at:
● Belle Haven Elementary School
● Garfield Community School
● North Star Academy/McKinley
● Aspire East Palo Alto Charter School
● TIDE Academy
● Sequoia High School
● KIPP Esperanza High School

3.75 4 3.5
$300,000
to
$500,000
MT
Ravenswood City School District,
Redwood City School District,
Aspire Public Schools, Sequoia
Union High School District, KIPP
Public Schools, East Palo Alto,
Menlo Park, Redwood City
Support the completion of Objective 4, Data Gathering, and Objective 5, Engineering Routes to School, of the East Palo Alto Safe Routes to School 5 Year Work Plan.

3.75 4 3.5 $40,000 to
$80,000 ST East Palo Alto
Increase safety for students of Menlo-Atherton High School who live in East Palo Alto and Belle Haven, via improved bike/ped infrastructure on Coleman Ave. and Ringwood Ave. in unincorporated Menlo Oaks and Menlo Park, per 2023 Coleman/Ringwood Transportation Study.

3.25 3.5 3 $3M TO
$6M ST San Mateo County

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 15 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County

1. Introduction

1.1 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Lifeline Transportation Program In 2001, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) published two reports identifying gaps in the provision of transportation services in low-income Bay Area neighborhoods and initiated two programs to allocate funding for transportation improvement projects based on outreach to low-income communities. The Lifeline Transportation Program (LTP) allocates state and federal funds to provide grants for projects that meet mobility and accessibility needs in low-income communities. The Community-Based Transportation Planning (CBTP) Program is an outreach-based program to improve travel needs in specific low-income Equity Priority Communities (EPC) throughout the Bay Area. Each CBTP is a collaborative effort between community members, transit operators, and congestion management agencies to identify local mobility challenges and community-oriented solutions.

The projects identified in CBTPs then become eligible for funding through the LTP.

The goal of the LTP is to fund projects that result in improved mobility and accessibility for low-income residents of the San Francisco Bay Area. Eligible projects must:
■ Be developed through an inclusive planning process that engages a broad range of stakeholders;
■ Improve a range of transportation choices by adding new or expanded services; ■ Address transportation gaps and/or barriers identified in CBTPs.

Both operating projects and capital projects are eligible for funding under the LTP.

LTP Cycle 6, which covers Fiscal Year 2018–2019 through Fiscal Year 2019–2020 was funded by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Funds.

MTC distributes a portion of State Transit Assistance (STA) population-based funds STA to CMAs, each of which is tasked with establishing policies to distribute STA Block Grant funds within its jurisdiction. San Mateo County has proposed to allocate 40 percent of funds to SamTrans’ paratransit program and 60 percent to C/CAG for the county-led Lifeline Program.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 16 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County

1.2 CBTP Guidelines
MTC has established guidelines to ensure that CBTP mobility recommendations are the result of community input. Per the 2018 MTC guidelines:
■ All CBTP recommendations must be based on a Community Engagement Plan that includes at least three best practices for outreach to low-income residents. ■ Community outreach must be coordinated with community stakeholders, such as Community Based Organizations (CBO) and non-profits working with the underserved.
■ Each CBTP must convene a Steering Committee composed of social service, CBO, agency, and/or non-profit leadership to review outreach strategies, recommendation selection criteria, and milestones. ■ Each CBTP must identify funding sources for “high-priority” projects.

1.2.1 Equity Priority Communities
As noted in Section 1.1, CBTP study areas are composed of MTC-identified EPCs.

These are census tract-based geographies that exhibit either:1

1. A low-income population (<200-percent federal poverty level) that exceeds 30 percent and a minority population that exceeds 70 percent; or

2. A low-income population that exceeds 30 percent and a population that surpasses MTC thresholds for at least three of the following:
■ Limited English Proficiency (12 percent threshold)
■ Seniors 75 Years and Over (15 percent threshold)
■ Zero-Vehicle Households (15 percent threshold)
■ Single Parent Families (18 percent threshold)
■ People with a Disability (12 percent threshold)
■ Rent-Burdened Households (14 percent threshold)
1 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021 (modified May 14),”Equity Priority Communities,”mtc.ca.gov. https://mtc. ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/equity-priority-communities.

1.3 2005 East Palo Alto CBTP
The most recent CBTP for southeast San Mateo County was adopted in 2005. The 2005 East Palo Alto CBTP included a study area comprised of the entire city of East Palo Alto, approximately 2.5 square miles of land between Highway 101 and the San Francisco Bay with the Dumbarton Bridge as the northeastern boundary and Palo Alto to the south (see Figure 1-1).

The 2005 East Palo Alto CBTP recommended a series of operations-based and capital programs for improved mobility in the study area. As shown in Table 1-1, about half of the 13 recommendations from the Plan were implemented as of 2020. Three were partially implemented and the remaining four not implemented. Significant changes in demographics, land use and transit options have occurred in the last 14 years throughout the greater southeast San Mateo County area, prompting initiation of the current Southeast San Mateo County CBTP and revised study area.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 17 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Figure 1-1 2005 East Palo Alto CBTP Study Area

1.4 Current Southeast San Mateo County CBTP
Study Area

1.4.1 Study Area Location
The current Southeast San Mateo County CBTP study area (study area) is determined primarily by the location of 12 contiguous census tracts spanning three cities and unincorporated San Mateo County. As shown in Figure 1-2, the east-west running study area includes EPCs south of Highway 101 in Redwood City; south of Middlefield Road and north of Florence Street in North Fair Oaks, north of Highway 101 in Menlo Park; and throughout most of East Palo Alto. This study area includes the Redwood City Caltrain Station. The study area boundary does not entirely conform to these EPCs boundaries. This is because the community focus, reliance on outreach, and potential transit solutions, programs and projects that result from the CBTP will not be limited to the census tract level.

1.4.2 CBTP Advisory Group
Per MTC’s CBTP Guidelines, C/CAG convened two Advisory Groups (AG), and one to guide the Southeast San Mateo County CBTP and one to guide the concurrent Daly City CBTP. The AGs consisted of representatives from CBOs, non-profits, local jurisdictions, transit agencies, and MTC. The role of the AGs was to ensure transparency and inclusivity throughout the process, review project milestones, and assist in program evaluation. The AGs provided input on reaching specific members of the community, prioritized outreach opportunities, and evaluated the list of policy and project recommendations for the study area.

Due to challenges of coordinating two AGs at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, shared COVID-19 mobility challenges and the need to adapt all outreach strategies pandemic conditions, the CBTP team decided to combine the Daly City and Southeast San Mateo AGs into a single AG. The AG met four times throughout the outreach process (one in-person, three virtual) to provide practical guidance on local input, review deliverables, and provide input on project review criteria and CBTP draft recommendations. See Chapter 4 for a complete list of all AG members.

AG members also and participated in review of final CBTP recommendations.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 18 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Table 1-1 Status of 2005 East Palo Alto CBTP Recommendations Recommended Project/Plan/Program
Level of Implementation
Notes
Fully
Implemented
Partially
Implemented
Not
Implemented
Short-Term
Improve the Scheduling and Connectivity of Transit Service X Transit Study completed.

Subsidize Monthly Transit Passes for Low Income Residents X Transit Fare Assistance program (CalWORKS) in County Welfare to Work Transportation Plan.

Provide Demand Response Transit Service X Hindered by low ridership, redundancy with SamTrans routes Provide More Bus Pass Vendor Outlets X New Clipper vendor outlets installed at regional drug stores Provide a City Transportation Systems Management
Coordinator X Hindered by city budget constraints and human resource challenges.

Enhance Transit Information in Spanish X Printed materials now obsolete with online translation resources and smartphone availability Implement a Transit Oriented Development Program X TOD Program adopted as part of Ravenswood/ 4 Corners TOD Specific Plan Relocate School Bus Stops X Facilities Master Plan focused on bus stops at school campuses, not routes Provide Community Shuttle Services at Night X Hindered by low ridership and redundancy with SamTrans routes Mid-Term
Provide Enhanced Transit Transfer Sites X Hindered by limiting site conditions, permit and power requirements, lack of responsible agency accountability
Increase Frequency of Transit Service X SamTrans increased frequency of Route 281 and Route 296 Extend SamTrans Routes 297/397 into Neighborhoods or
Extend Hours of Route 296 X SamTrans implemented
Long-Term
Provide a Transit Center in East Palo Alto X Dumbarton Rail project has overshadowed this project and highlighted a potential redundancy with an independent transit station

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 19 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Figure 1-2 Southeast San Mateo County CBTP Study Area
I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Chestnut St
Menlo Park
Caltrain Station
Palo Alto
Caltrain Station
Atherton Caltrain
Station
Redwood City
Caltrain Station
Æþ101
2nd Ave
Euclid Ave
Broadway
Barry Ln
Florence St
High Rd
Blomquist St
University Dr
E Okeefe St
Newbridge St Lincoln Ave
Arguello St
Elena Ave
Ravenswood Ave
Santa Clara Ave
Cooley Ave
Fair Oaks Ln
Oak Grove Ave
Lytton Ave
Marsh Rd
Chilco St
Quarry Rd
Churchill Ave
Camino Al Lago
Newell Rd
Main St
Ringwood Ave
Woodside Dr
Virginia Ave
Saint Francis Way
Whipple Ave
Willow Rd
Alameda de Las Pulgas
Middle Ave
Oregon Expy
5th Ave
Seaport Blvd
Sand Hill Rd
Santa Cruz Ave
Woodland Ave
Atherton Ave
E Bayshore Rd
Alma St
Embarcadero Rd
Hudson St
Old County Rd
Bay Rd
Selby Ln
Valparaiso Ave
Channing Ave
University Ave
Middlefield Rd
Veterans Blvd
Woodside Rd
El Camino Real
n Commission, 2018; PlaceWorks 2019.
0 0.375 0.75 1.5
Miles
San Francisco
Bay
Study Area
Equity Priority Communities
East Palo Alto
Menlo Park
Redwood City
Other Jurisdictions
San Mateo County
I2 Caltrain Stations

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

EAST PALO ALTO

MENLO PARK

ATHERTON

REDWOOD CITY
SAN
CARLOS
North Fair Oaks
Menlo
Oaks
Southeast San Mateo County CBTP Study Area
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2018; Esri, 2013; PlaceWorks, 2019

PLACEWORKS
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Chestnut St
Menlo Park
Caltrain Station
Palo Alto
Caltrain Station
Atherton Caltrain
Station
wood City
in Station
Æþ101
2nd Ave
Euclid Ave
oadway
Barry Ln
Florence St
High Rd
Blomquist St
University Dr
E Okeefe St
Newbridge St Lincoln Ave
Arguello St
Elena Ave
Ravenswood Ave
Santa Clara Ave
Cooley Ave
Fair Oaks Ln
Oak Grove Ave
Lytton Ave
Marsh Rd
Chilco St
Quarry Rd
Churchill Ave
Camino Al Lago
Newell Rd
Main St
Ringwood Ave
Virginia Ave
Willow Rd
s
Middle Ave
Oregon Expy
5th Ave
Seaport Blvd
Sand Hill Rd
Santa Cruz Ave
Woodland Ave
Atherton Ave
E Bayshore Rd
Alma St
Embarcadero Rd
Hudson St
Bay Rd
Selby Ln
Valparaiso Ave
Channing Ave
University Ave
Middlefield Rd
Veterans Blvd
side Rd
El Camino Real

0.375 0.75 1.5
Miles
San Francisco
Bay
Study Area
Equity Priority Communities
East Palo Alto
Menlo Park
Redwood City
Other Jurisdictions
San Mateo County
I2 Caltrain Stations

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

EAST PALO ALTO

MENLO PARK

ATHERTON

REDWOOD CITY
North Fair Oaks
Menlo
Oaks
an Mateo County CBTP Study Area
ansportation Commission, 2018; Esri, 2013; PlaceWorks, 2019

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 20 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County

1.5 COVID-19 and CBTP Development
The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting shelter-in-place mandate of March 2020 occurred just after the CBTP Community Needs Assessment background report and Community Outreach Strategy were completed. As such, outreach implementation was temporarily halted and revisited. On August 24, 2020 the AG and MTC approved a new strategy for distanced community outreach and agreed that input related to emerging COVID-19 mobility challenges was relevant to the CBTP and resulting recommendations.

COVID-19 cases peaked from November 2020 to February 2021, again in August 2021, and a third time in January 2022. Each peak required delaying or adapting outreach and working with new partners, a process described fully in Chapter 4.

As a result, some of the community feedback that influences recommendations in this CBTP is directly tied into the mobility context, habits, priorities, and challenges influenced by COVID-19.

The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG), with MTC, determined that it is in the interest of communities in the CBTP study area to adopt this plan in the current context, rather than re-initiate the existing conditions, community outreach, and recommendations processes.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 21 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County

2. Study Area Profile
The current Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) study area is large and diverse. It includes four separate jurisdictions and is composed of a range of land uses, all of which contributes to a diverse profile.

A full CBTP Study Area Community Needs Assessment report is provided in Appendix A.

2.1 Demographic Analysis
The demographic profile presented in this report is based on census tract data from the 2010 U.S. Census. Data from the American Community Survey (ACS) five-year estimates (2006–2010 and 2013–2017) are compared to show trends since the last CBTP. In addition, future projections are provided on key demographic variables from the 2017 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which MTC published in July 2017.

Also known as Plan Bay Area (PBA) 2040, this RTP contains forecasts for population, housing, and employment for the horizon year of 2040. For purposes of this analysis, data shown for the study area is limited to the census tracts that make up the EPCs shown in Figure 1-1.

2.1.1 Population and Housing
The population of the study area in 2017 was approximately 78,495, an increase of eight percent from the 2010 Census. The population in the study area has seen approximately the same growth rate as the countywide population over the past seven years, the latter of which grew nine percent from 704,327 residents in 2010 to 767,450 in 2017. Population growth within the CBTP study area is forecasted to accelerate in the future, with an expected growth rate of 28 percent from 2017 to 2040 to 98,851 residents. This growth rate will be twice of the county’s long-term growth rate, which is expected to grow by only 19 percent (less than one percent per year) from 2017 to 2040 to a population of 916,590.

Household size in the study area is about 19 percent larger than households in San Mateo County and is expected to decrease. Households in the study area increased from 3.40 people in 2010 to 3.55 people in 2017, a growth rate of four percent.

Table 2-1: Race and Ethnicity
Race Category
2017 ACS % of Population
Study Area San Mateo County
White 15% 40%
Black or African American 7% 2%
American Indian or Alaska Native <1% <1%
Asian 6% 27%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 5% 1%
Other <1% <1%
Two or More Races 2% 4%
Hispanic or Latinx 64% 25%
Total 100% 100%
Source: US Census 2013-2017 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates.

Households countywide have increased five percent from 2.72 people to 2.88 people. By 2040, household size in the study area is expected to decrease to 3.20 people, which will still be 11 percent higher than the rest of the county.

2.1.2 Race and Ethnicity
The study area contains higher percentages of Latinx, Black, and Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander residents than San Mateo County. The study area has approximately one quarter of the percentage of Asian residents and a less than half of the percentage of White residents compared to the county (Table 2-1).

Fifteen percent of EPC residents are White, compared to about 40 percent countywide.

The Black population is approximately seven percent in the study area , compared to two percent countywide. Finally, the Latinx community makes up over 64 percent of the population of the study area.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 22 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County

2.1.6 Poverty Status
The U.S. Census Bureau uses a set of income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine the population living in poverty. To reflect high living costs in the Bay Area, the poverty threshold used in the CBTP analysis is 200 percent of the federal poverty threshold. The resulting local thresholds range from $31,754 for a family of two to $101,362 for families of nine or more. According to 2013–2017 ACS five-year estimates, approximately 42 percent of residents in the study area were living in poverty. This figure is significant when compared to 19 percent in San Mateo County as a whole.

As shown in Figure 2-5, North Fair Oaks and East Palo Alto south of Highway 101 have the highest rate of households within 200 percent of the federal poverty threshold. Menlo Park has the lowest incidence of households within 200 percent of the federal poverty threshold, comprising between 31 to 35 percent of each census tract population.

2.1.3 Age Distribution
Figure 2-1 shows the percentage of seniors in the study area by census tract. The senior population is smaller in the study area than that of San Mateo County, at seven percent and 15 percent, respectively. The percentage of seniors is highest the northern half of Redwood City’s EPCs and lowest in the southern half of Redwood City’s EPCs and in East Palo Alto south of Highway 101.

Approximately 27 percent of the study area’s total population is under 18 years of age, or around 20,800 people. This youth rate is higher than that of San Mateo County. Figure 2-2 shows the percentage of persons under the age of 18 in the study area by census tract. The dominant pattern of youth population in the CBTP study area is the relatively low rate of young people in the northwest portion, immediately southwest of Highway 101.

2.1.4 Disability
The rate of the disabled population is one of seven tract-level variables that may factor into the establishment of an EPC. The U.S. Census separates disability type into sensory (hearing- and sight-impaired) and physical disabilities. Both are considered significant barriers to mobility.

As shown in Figure 2-3, Redwood City and northern North Fair Oaks have the highest incidences of residents with sensory disabilities in the CBTP study area, at a peak of six percent of the total population in some places. Populations with high rates of physical disabilities (Figure 2-4) are concentrated in Redwood City, Menlo Park, and northeast Palo Alto.

2.1.5 Language and English Proficiency
In the Southeast San Mateo County CBTP study area, approximately 4,100 households are designated as “Limited English-Speaking Households.” These are households in which all members 14 years and over speak a non-English language and have varying degrees of English fluency. This rate is considerably higher than the countywide rate of nine percent.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 23 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Figure 2-1 Population Age 65 and Over
I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

REDWOOD CITY
SAN
CARLOS
Menlo
Oaks
Menlo Park
Caltrain Station
Palo Alto
Caltrain Station
Atherton Caltrain
Station
Redwood City
Caltrain Station
San Francisco
Bay
Population Age 65 Years and Over
Source: US Census 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019 0 1,600 3,200 800
Feet

PLACEWORKS
Study Area
Percentage of Seniors (65 or Older)
Per Census Tract
4% - 6%
7% - 8%
9% - 10%
11% - 12%
San Mateo County
Incorporated
Unincorporated
I2 Caltrain Stations
Southeast San Mateo County CBTP
I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 24 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Figure 2-2 Population Age 18 Years and Younger
I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

REDWOOD CITY
SAN
CARLOS
Menlo
Oaks
Menlo Park
Caltrain Station
Palo Alto
Caltrain Station
Atherton Caltrain
Station
Redwood City
Caltrain Station
San Francisco
Bay
Population Under 18 Years of Age
Source: US Census 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019 0 1,600 3,200 800
Feet

PLACEWORKS
Study Area
Percentage of Youth (Under Age 18)
Per Census Tract
11% - 16%
21% - 24%
25% - 28%
29% - 32%
San Mateo County
Incorporated
Unincorporated
I2 Caltrain Stations
Southeast San Mateo County CBTP
I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

REDWOOD CITY
SAN
CARLOS
Menlo
Oaks
Menlo Park
Caltrain Station
Palo Alto
Caltrain Station
Atherton Caltrain
Station
Redwood City
Caltrain Station
San Francisco
Bay
Population Under 18 Years of Age
Source: US Census 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019 0 800 1,600 3,200
Feet

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 25 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Figure 2-3 Percent of Population with Sensory Disability I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

REDWOOD CITY
San Francisco
Bay
SAN
CARLOS
Menlo
Oaks
Menlo Park
Caltrain Station
Palo Alto
Caltrain Station
Atherton Caltrain
Station
Redwood City
Caltrain Station
Percentage of Population with Sensory Disabilities
Source: US Census 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019 0 1,600 3,200 800
Feet

PLACEWORKS
Study Area
Percentage of People with Sensory
Disabilities (Hearing and Visual)
Per Census Tract
1% - 2%

2.1% - 3%

3.1% - 4%

4.1% - 5%

5.1% - 6%
San Mateo County
Incorporated
Unincorporated
I2 Caltrain Stations
Southeast San Mateo County CBTP
I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

PLACEWORKS
Study Area
Percentage of People with Sensory
Disabilities (Hearing and Visual)
Per Census Tract
1% - 2%

2.1% - 3%

3.1% - 4%

4.1% - 5%

5.1% - 6%
San Mateo County
Incorporated
Unincorporated
I2 Caltrain Stations
Southeast San Mateo County CBTP

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 26 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Figure 2-4 Percent of Population with Physical Disability I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

REDWOOD CITY
San Francisco
Bay
SAN
CARLOS
Menlo
Oaks
Menlo Park
Caltrain Station
Palo Alto
Caltrain Station
Atherton Caltrain
Station
Redwood City
Caltrain Station
Percentage of Population with Physical Disabilities
Source: US Census 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019 0 1,600 3,200 800
Feet

PLACEWORKS
Study Area
Percentage of People with Physical
Disabilities
Per Census Tract
5% - 6%

6.1% - 7%

7.1% - 8%

8.1% - 9%

9.1% - 10%
San Mateo County
Incorporated
Unincorporated
I2 Caltrain Stations
Southeast San Mateo County CBTP
I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

REDWOOD CITY
San Francisco
Bay
SAN
CARLOS
Menlo
Oaks
Menlo Park
Caltrain Station
Palo Alto
Caltrain Station
Atherton Caltrain
Station
Redwood City
Caltrain Station
Percentage of Population with Physical Disabilities
Source: US Census 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019 0 800 1,600 3,200
Feet

PLACEWORKS
Study Area
Percentage of People with Physical
Disabilities
Per Census Tract
5% - 6%

6.1% - 7%

7.1% - 8%

8.1% - 9%

9.1% - 10%
San Mateo County
Incorporated
Unincorporated
I2 Caltrain Stations
Southeast San Mateo County CBTP

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 27 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Figure 2-5 Population In Poverty (200% of Federal Poverty Level) I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

REDWOOD CITY
SAN
CARLOS
Menlo
Oaks
Menlo Park
Caltrain Station
Palo Alto
Caltrain Station
Atherton Caltrain
Station
Redwood City
Caltrain Station
San Francisco
Bay
Population in Poverty (200% of Federal Poverty Level)
Source: US Census 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019 0 1,600 3,200 800
Feet

PLACEWORKS
Study Area
Percent Population with Income Below
200 Percent of Poverty Level
Per Census Tract
31% - 35%
36% - 45%
46% - 55%
San Mateo County
Incorporated
Unincorporated
I2 Caltrain Stations
Southeast San Mateo County CBTP
I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

REDWOOD CITY
SAN
CARLOS
Menlo
Oaks
Menlo Park
Caltrain Station
Palo Alto
Caltrain Station
Atherton Caltrain
Station
Redwood City
Caltrain Station
San Francisco
Bay
Population in Poverty (200% of Federal Poverty Level)
Source: US Census 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019 0 800 1,600 3,200
Feet

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 28 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County

2.2 Transportation Patterns
The following sections describe current transportation and commute patterns in the CBTP study area and countywide.

2.2.1 Vehicle Availability
The rate of household vehicle ownership is lower in the study area than countywide.

As shown in Figures 2-6 and 2-7, four percent of households in the study area do not have a private vehicle, as compared to three percent countywide. Similarly, 21 percent of households in the study area have one vehicle, compared to 18 percent countywide.

Figure 2-8 illustrates that the highest concentrations of households without vehicles are in the western part of the Southeast San Mateo and in the southern portions of North Fair Oaks.

2.2.2 Journey to Work
Out of about 40,000 workers aged 16 years and over in the study area, approximately 81 percent travel to work by car, truck, or van. Approximately 67 percent of these workers drive alone (Table 2-2). Using a vehicle as the primary means of transportation to work is more prevalent in the study area than countywide, where 79 percent of commuters use a personal vehicle.

The use of public transportation in the study area is 30 percent less than countywide.

In addition, the combined rates of walking and bicycling to work in the study area is double that of countywide rates.

Figure 2-6 Household Vehicle Availability in Study Area Source: 2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates (2013-2017).

Figure 2-7 Household Vehicle Availability Countywide
Source: 2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates (2013-2017).

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 29 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Figure 2-8 Percent of Households with No Vehicles
I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

REDWOOD CITY
SAN
CARLOS
Menlo
Oaks
Menlo Park
Caltrain Station
Palo Alto
Caltrain Station
Atherton Caltrain
Station
Redwood City
Caltrain Station
San Francisco
Bay
Household Vehicle Availability
Source: US Census 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019 0 1,600 3,200 800
Feet

PLACEWORKS
Study Area
Percentage of Households with No
Vehicles
Per Census Tract
0% - 2%
3% - 5%
6% - 8%
9% - 11%
San Mateo County
Incorporated
Unincorporated
I2 Caltrain Stations
Southeast San Mateo County CBTP
I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 30 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Table 2-2 Means of Travel to Work
Means of Transportation to Work
2017 ACS (% of Total)
Study Area San Mateo
County
Car, Truck or Van 81% 79%
• Drove Alone 67% 69%
• Carpooled 14% 10%
Public Transportation 6% 10%
Bicycle 3% 1%
Walk 5% 3%
Other 3% 1%
Worked at Home 2% 5%
Total Workers 16 and Over 100% 100%
Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey (ACS) 5year estimates.

2.2.3 Long Distance Commute
As evident in Figure 2-9, EPCs in Redwood City generally experience the longest commutes—28 to 32 minutes—in the study area. North Fair Oaks residents have the lowest average commute time, ranging from 22 to 24 minutes. This is probably because neighborhoods in Redwood City have lower vehicle ownership rates and are better served by transit.

2.3 Transportation Network
The following sections describe existing transit service and infrastructure in the study area.

2.3.1 Transit Network
There are multiple transit options in the Southeast San Mateo County study area.

The area is served by bus and rail systems managed by several agencies. The existing transportation network is shown in Figure 2-10.

Rail
Commuter rail service is provided by Caltrain. The system connects Downtown San Francisco, through San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties to the City of Gilroy in southern Santa Clara County. Caltrain is routed through Redwood City in the western portion of the CBTP study area, including a Caltrain Station in Downtown Redwood City.

Bus
Local and intercity bus transit is provided primarily by San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) in the study area. Alameda County Transit District (AC Transit) Transbay also services a single line. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) provides indirect service to the study area via bus routes to the Palo Alto Caltrain Station, where transfers to SamTrans routes are available North Fair Oaks and Menlo Park have fewer bus stops and routes, which primarily traverse diagonally across the communities and leave pockets of underserved areas.

EPCs in Redwood City and East Palo Alto are served by multiple bus lines and stops.

As evident in Figure 2-10, there is comparatively less bus service in the northern half of East Palo Alto, which is primarily single-family housing, industrial uses, and offices.

Figure 2-10 includes recent SamTrans routing changes resulting from the operational analysis known as Reimagine SamTrans, recommendations from which were adopted in June 2022 (see Chapter 3). As described further in Chapter 3, these recommendations include changes to multiple bus routes serving the study area. As stated by SamTrans staff, full operation of Reimagine SamTrans routing may be restricted by driver shortages.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 31 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Figure 2-9 Mean Travel Time to Work
I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

REDWOOD CITY
SAN
CARLOS
Menlo
Oaks
Menlo Park
Caltrain Station
Palo Alto
Caltrain Station
Atherton Caltrain
Station
Redwood City
Caltrain Station
San Francisco
Bay
Long Distance Commute
Source: US Census 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates; PlaceWorks, 2019 0 1,600 3,200 800
Feet

PLACEWORKS
Study Area
Mean Travel Time to Work (minutes)
Per Census Tract
22 - 24 mins
25 - 27 mins
28 - 32 mins
San Mateo County
Incorporated
Unincorporated
I2 Caltrain Stations
Southeast San Mateo County CBTP
I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 32 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Figure 2-10 Existing Transit System
I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
University Dr
Hamilton Ave
Cooley Ave
Massachusetts Ave
Glenwood Ave
Encinal Ave
El Camino Real
Fair Oaks Ln
Coleman Ave
Alma St
W Bayshore Rd
Camino Al Lago
Ringwood Ave
Brewster Ave
Rolison Rd
Clarke Ave
Virginia Ave
Hopkins Ave
Middle Ave
Fernside St
Redwood Ave
Valota Rd
Pulgas Ave
E Bayshore Rd
Hudson St
Bay Rd
Selby Ln
Stockbridge Ave
Valparaiso Ave
Middlefield Rd
Veterans Blvd
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

REDWOOD CITY
SAN
CARLOS
Menlo
Oaks
Menlo Park
Caltrain Station
Palo Alto
Caltrain Station
Atherton
Caltrain
Station
Redwood City
Caltrain Station
San Francisco
Bay
Existing Transit Facilities
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019 0 800 1,600 3,200
Feet

PLACEWORKS
Study Area
Equity Priority Communities
Bus Stops
I2 Caltrain Stations
Caltrain
SamTrans Routes
AC Transit
Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority
Stanford Marguerite Shuttle
San Mateo County
Incorporated
Unincorporated
Southeast San Mateo County CBTP
I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
University Dr
Hamilton Ave
Cooley Ave
Massachusetts Ave
Glenwood Ave
Encinal Ave
El Camino Real
Fair Oaks Ln
Coleman Ave
Alma St
W Bayshore Rd
Camino Al Lago
Ringwood Ave
Brewster Ave
Rolison Rd
Clarke Ave
Virginia Ave
Hopkins Ave
Middle Ave
Fernside St
Redwood Ave
Valota Rd
Pulgas Ave
E Bayshore Rd
Hudson St
Bay Rd
Selby Ln
Stockbridge Ave
Valparaiso Ave
Middlefield Rd
Veterans Blvd
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 33 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County

2.3.2 Paratransit
The entire study area is served by SamTrans’ Redi-Wheels paratransit service. The service is for those with disabilities who are unable to use regular, accessible fixedroute transit service. SamTrans conducts in-person evaluations to determine full Redi-Wheels eligibility and issues a Redi-Wheels identification card to those deemed eligible.

Redi-Wheels rides are typically scheduled between one and seven days in advance, or by appointment times at medical and other facilities. Redi-Wheels riders may schedule transfers to other transit agency routes for travel outside San Mateo County. Paratransit customers may also ride all regularly scheduled SamTrans fixed-route buses for free using their Redi-Wheels identification card.

Redi-Wheels riders who receive Supplemental Security Income, General Assistance, or MediCal may also be eligible for Redi-Wheels Lifeline, the service’s reduced fare program.

2.3.3 Bicycle Network
Figure 2-11 illustrates regional bicycle facilities across the CBTP area as of 2019. It does not show all local bike infrastructure or new and recently proposed bike facilities within each jurisdiction. The figure shows that as of 2019, bikeways in the study area were primarily Class II or Class III routes, with the exception of the Bay Trail alignment, a Class I route that runs along the northern and eastern edge of the study area.

As noted above, jurisdictions with in the CBTP study area contain evolving, local bikeways networks that are not depicted in Figure 2-11. As examined further in Chapter 3, multiple jurisdictions have adopted local bicycle and pedestrian plans that propose new and more extensive bicycle infrastructure in the CBTP study area.

The following are summaries of local-level existing and future bike infrastructure.

Redwood City
Redwood City supports an extensive local bike network composed of Class III bike routes and a Class III bike boulevard in the central area of the city. Multiple Class II bike lanes are located in the western hills and eastern waterfront areas. A single Class IV cycle track is located along Middlefield Rd. from State Route 84 to Cassia St.

In addition, the recently adopted Redwood City Walk Bike Thrive Plan proposes an extensive expansion of bikeways, in the form of Class I shared-use pathways along the bayfront and adjacent to Stulsaft Park; Class IV cycle tracks on State Route 84, State Route 82, Brewster Ave., Main St. and other major rights-of-way; and numerous Class II/Class III bikeways in the center of the city.

East Palo Alto
In addition to the bikeways shown in Figure 2-11, East Palo Alto recently completed the 2022 Annual Street Resurfacing Project, which includes bikeways restriping on:
■ West Bayshore Rd., Manhattan Ave. And Woodland Ave.
■ Clarke Ave. from Bay Rd. to Tinsley St.
■ Cooley Ave. from University Ave. to Donohoe St.
■ Capitol Ave., West Bayshore Rd., and Newell Rd.
■ Euclid Ave. from Runnymede St. to Donohoe St.
■ Donohoe St. from East Bayshore Rd. to Clarke Ave.
■ Pulgas Ave. from Runnymede St. to O’Connor St.
■ East Bayshore Rd. from Bay Rd. to Euclid Ave.

The project also includes new Class II bike lanes on Fordham St. between Bay Rd. and Michigan Ave.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 34 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Figure 2-11 Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
I2
I2
I2
I2
Cooley Ave
Massachusetts Ave
Glenwood Ave
Encinal Ave
El Camino Real
Fair Oaks Ln
Alma St
W Bayshore Rd
Camino Al Lago
Ringwood Ave
Brewster Ave
Rolison Rd
evA ekralC
Virginia Ave
Hopkins Ave
Fernside St
Redwood Ave
Valota Rd
Pulgas Ave
E Bayshore Rd
Hudson St
Bay Rd
Selby Ln
Stockbridge Ave
Valparaiso Ave
Veterans Blvd
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

REDWOOD CITY
SAN
CARLOS
Menlo
Oaks
Palo Alto
Caltrain Sta�on
Atherton
Caltrain
Sta�on
Redwood City
Caltrain Sta�on
San Francisco
Bay
Regional Bicycling Facili�es
Source: Metropolitan Transporta�on Commission, 2018; SamTrans, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019 0 1,600 3,200 800
Feet

PLACEWORKS
Study Area
Equity Priority Communities
Existing Bikeways
Class I Bike Path
Class II Bike Path
Class III Bike Route
Proposed Bikeways
Proposed Class I Bike Path
Proposed Class II Bike Path
Proposed Class III Bike Route
San Mateo County
Incorporated
Unincorporated
I2 Caltrain Stations
Southeast San Mateo County CBTP
I2
Middlefield Rd
Menlo Park
Caltrain Sta�on University Dr
Middle Ave
Coleman Ave
Menlo Park
Caltrain Sta�on
Hamilton Ave
I2
I2
I2
I2
Cooley Ave
Massachusetts Ave
Glenwood Ave
Encinal Ave
El Camino Real
Fair Oaks Ln
Alma St
W Bayshore Rd
Camino Al Lago
Ringwood Ave
Brewster Ave
Rolison Rd
evA ekralC
Virginia Ave
Hopkins Ave
Fernside St
Redwood Ave
Valota Rd
Pulgas Ave
E Bayshore Rd
Hudson St
Bay Rd
Selby Ln
Stockbridge Ave
Valparaiso Ave
Veterans Blvd
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 35 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County

3. Previous and Current Studies
Agencies with jurisdiction in the CBTP study area have adopted studies that expose mobility gaps in the study area and establish projects, plans, and policies to fill those gaps. This section provides a review of these previous studies and the transportation gaps they highlight.

The results of these studies are valuable to understanding and assessing the community input and recommendations outlined in Chapter 5 of this plan.

3.1 General Plans

3.1.1 San Mateo County General Plan
The San Mateo County General Plan provides information on existing natural and man-made conditions of the physical environment. It identifies key plans, regulations and agencies that affect planning decisions and makes recommendations for improving coordination between them. The plan indicates the type of development that the County desires, where it should be located and how it should be regulated.

Chapter 12 of the General Plan contains Transportation Policies that establish the county’s transportation-related goals. These include the safe movement of people and goods; the creation of complete streets that serve all modes; increasing the use of transit and ridesharing; and minimizing adverse environmental impacts resulting from transportation system improvements, among others.

San Mateo County has also adopted a series of area, neighborhood and community plans that are considered part of the General Plan. These local documents guide decisions about physical development and circulation within a given community or district. They allow for local application of the broader policies contained in the General Plan.

3.1.2 Redwood City General Plan
Redwood City addresses transit needs in the Circulation Element of the Redwood City General Plan. Improvements to the bicycle and pedestrian network are recommended within the study area along Middlefield Road, at intersections with Chestnut Street, Woodside Road, Willow Street and Douglas Avenue. In addition, the Circulation Element considers a potential streetcar network along Middlefield Road and Broadway Avenue.

3.1.3 Menlo Park General Plan
The Circulation Element in the 2016 Menlo Park General Plan identifies focus areas for transportation change, some of which lie within the CBTP study area. Future paseos, multi-use pedestrian and bicycle pathways, Class III bikeways, and mixeduse collector streets are proposed to enhance the street network. The Circulation Element also maps shuttle routes and bus routes and the proposed Dumbarton Line through the Menlo Park EPCs.

3.1.4 East Palo Alto General Plan
The Transportation Element of the 2015 East Palo Alto General Plan discusses transportation network gaps and improvements throughout the city. The element proposes the Dumbarton Rail project, which would run through the northern edge of the East Palo Alto EPCs.

The Transportation Element describes a modest bicycle network impeded by Highway 101 and proposes bicycle connections across the highway and along Pulgas Avenue . It identifies numerous streets with sidewalk conditions that impede pedestrian mobility and recommends connecting existing sidewalk segments throughout the city to increase pedestrian safety and access.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 36 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County

3.2 Local Transportation and Land Use Plans

3.2.1 East Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Master Plan The 2017 East Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Master Plan establishes a citywide bicycle policy framework, a bike facilities network and outlines an implementation plan. The proposed bike network includes multiple and diverse bike facilities that serve the entire city, including:
■ A series of new Class I bike paths, most of which provide connections to the Bay Trail.
■ New Class II bike lanes on O’Connor Stret, Bay Road, New Bridge Street and Pulgas Avenue.
■ Multiple Class III bike paths on, among other rights-of-way, East and West Bayshore Road, Runnymede Street, Donohoe Street and Euclid Avenue

3.2.2 Ravenswood/ 4 Corners TOD Specific Plan
The City of East Palo Alto’s 2013 Ravenswood/ 4 Corners TOD Specific Plan includes provisions for pedestrian and bicycle circulation, vehicle circulation, and transit. The Plan aims to improve the pedestrian network and pedestrian safety and proposes bicycle facilities along key corridors. It recommends new or enhanced connections between Ravenswood and University Avenue, along Bay Road, on Fordham Street, and along Illinois Avenue.

Due to the uncertainty of the future Dumbarton Rail Corridor at the time this plan was drafted, transit improvements are recommended to provide flexible multimodal transportation options, pedestrian friendly environments, and mixed-use development. Alternative station sites for the Dumbarton Rail, as well as bus rapid transit (BRT) options, are provided to increase transit connections for individuals in the Specific Plan Area. Since 2013, the second alternative has been selected to locate the rail in Menlo Park. This alternative requires bus transit, private shuttle, and bicycle connections from the Specific Plan Area of East Palo Alto to the station.

3.2.3 Menlo Park Transportation Master Plan
In 2020, The City of Menlo Park developed its first Transportation Master Plan to provide a vision for mobility, establish metrics for network performance, and outline an implementation strategy for local and regional network improvements. Projects are prioritized via nine Prioritization Criteria, one of which is “Sensitive Populations” such as residents of EPCs. Projects in the Master Plan that fulfill the “Sensitive Populations” criterion include:
■ Reactivation of the Dumbarton Corridor Project.
■ Marsh Road Bicycle Network Improvement Project.
■ Willow Road Corridor Improvement Project, including pedestrian, bicycle and safety improvements.
■ Downtown Mobility Improvements, including conversion of existing crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks.
■ Middle Avenue Mobility Improvements, including new Class II Bicycle Lanes and new sidewalks on both sides of Middle Avenue.
■ West Menlo Mobility Improvements, including Class II Bicycle Lanes on Avy Avenue from Santa Cruz Avenue to Monte Rosa Drive.
■ An additional priority project is the Bayfront Expressway Multimodal Corridor Project along Haven Avenue in the study area.

3.2.4 Redwood City Moves: Citywide Transportation
Plan 2018
Redwood City Moves is a guide for future Redwood City transportation investment. It outlines a series of programs divided into seven categories: 1) Active transportation corridors; 2) Complete Street corridors and placemaking; 3) Transit accessibility and service enhancements; 4) Roadway congestion and delay improvements 5) Network gap closure; connectivity and safety; 6) Transportation technologies and innovations; and 7)Transportation Demand Management. There are multiple projects across all categories that would impact the Redwood City and North Fair Oaks EPCs. These include the Vera Avenue Bicycle Boulevard project and the Redwood City Transit Center Improvements project.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 37 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County

3.2.5 2022 RWC Walk Bike Thrive
Redwood City adopted the RWC Walk Bike Thrive plan in June 2022. The plan establishes a citywide bikeway network, pedestrian projects and associated policy framework The proposed bike network includes, among other projects:
■ A Class I bike trail running east of Highway 101 along the Baylands. ■ A series of Class IV cycle tracks running east-west along SR 84 and north-south along El Camino Real and on other segments.
■ Multiple Class II and III bike facilities and “gap fillers” throughout the City.

Proposed pedestrian projects include, but are not limited to:
■ Traffic calming and/or complete streets improvements along Jefferson Avene west of El Camino Real.
■ Safe Routes to School improvement plans at Hoover Elementary School, Taft Elementary School, McKinley Institute of Technology/North Star Academy and other schools.
■ Multiple intersection enhancements in the CBTP study area.

RWC Walk Bike Thrive also includes “Vision Zero” safety projects to work towards the goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries for all road users. Relevant projects are located on segments of Whipple Avenue, Broadway and Woodside Road, as well as at numerous crossings.

3.2.6 Redwood City Safe Routes to School
This plan identifies potential infrastructure projects and education and encouragement programs to improve student safety and support walking and biking to school.

In addition, it identifies and promotes walking and biking routes for students and parents to and from school at Hawes Community School, located in the Redwood City portion of the CBTP study area.

3.2.7 2021 Unincorporated San Mateo County Active
Transportation Plan
The County of San Mateo Office of Sustainability completed a framework to improve conditions for pedestrian and cyclists throughout unincorporated communities in 2021. Working towards the five major objectives of Access, Safety, Equity, Mode Share and Flexibility, the Plan establishes project and programmatic recommendations in 33 unincorporated areas. These were developed to connect 11 priority destinations for a safe and connected on-street active transportation network. The Plan includes:
■ Twenty-four pedestrian focus areas.
■ Fifty-two miles of protected bikeways and trails.
■ Twenty-nine programs and policies.

Bicycle recommendation, including proposed facilities, wayfinding resources and parking, were developed to benefit cyclists of all comfort levels. Similarity, proposed

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 38 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County ■ Lack of train stations within practical walking distance, despite two rail corridors through the community.

3.3 Countywide Plans and Studies

3.3.1 San Mateo County Transportation Plan for 2040
The San Mateo Countywide Transportation Plan for 2040 (SMCTP 2040) is a longrange, comprehensive transportation planning document that promotes consistency and compatibility among all transportation plans and programs within the county.

SMCTP 2040 outlines transportation issues associated with countywide growth and establishes overall strategies and programs to overcome the challenges.

SMCTP 2040 includes a list of Proposed Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Projects comprised of longer-term improvements encouraged by the MTC’s twenty-year RTP.

Some are located, or indicate potential transportation gaps, in the current study area. These include:
■ Extend Blomquist Street over Redwood Creek to East Bayshore and Bair Island Road: Project open date 2023.
■ U.S. 101/Woodside Road Interchange Improvement: Estimated project open date 2025.
■ Middlefield Road Streetscape: Completed February 2022. ■ US 101/University Avenue Interchange Improvements: Projected completion date November 2023.
■ University Avenue Complete Streets Pilot Project: In planning stage as part of citywide complete streets policy framework.
■ U.S. 101/Willow Road Interchange Reconstruction: Construction began in May 2017 and was completed in 2019.
■ Improve access to and from the west side of Dumbarton Bridge on Route 84 connecting to U.S. 101: In planning stage; opening date 2040. pedestrian projects respond to both existing safety data and community-identified gaps, with groups of recommendations developed to benefit rural, urban and suburban locations.

3.2.8 North Fair Oaks Community Plan
Chapter 3 of the 2011 North Fair Oaks (NFO) Community Plan evaluates circulation in NFO, the unincorporated community in the CBTP the study area. The Plan identifies the following gaps in in the transportation network:
■ Infrequent crossing locations along existing railroad lines that create barriers to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit circulation and neighborhood connectivity. ■ Narrow or missing sidewalks, inadequate curb ramps, and poor stormwater drainage.
■ Lack of designated bicycle facilities within the community. ■ Transit routes that are difficult to access from some areas of the community.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 39 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County

3.3.2 San Mateo County Transportation Plan Follow Up:

Final Action Plan
The SMCTP 2040 Follow-Up Plan (Final Action Plan) was developed by a multi-agency Working Group to ensure the that goals, projects and programs in SMCTP 2040 would be implemented appropriately. The Final Action Plan:
■ Establishes regional and local roles & responsibilities; ■ Assesses the effectiveness of performance measures in SMCTP 2040 and identifies accountability measures to ensure the Action Plan is reviewed and updated as needed;
■ Incudes recommendations for effective community outreach and equitable planning; and
■ Summarizes existing and potential funding sources at the local, state and federal levels.

The Final Action Plan prioritizes funding decisions that consider equity, and stresses that the results of County CBTPs should be used to inform the development of the next SMCTP update.

3.3.3 2021 San Mateo US 101 Express Lanes Equity
Study
This study, completed by the San Mateo County Express Lanes Joint Powers Authority (SMCEL-JPA), addresses longstanding racial inequities and community fracturing associated with the US 101 corridor in San Mateo County. The study establishes a Pilot Equity Program by which toll revenue from the new San Mateo US 101 Express Lanes will be invested to fund transportation benefits for historically underserved communities.

Following a series of technical analyses and a comprehensive community outreach process, The SMCEL-JPA developed a Recommended Equity Program designed to support underserved communities and encourage mode shift from single-occupancy vehicle to transit and other modes. It consists of the following four recommendations:

1. Pre-Loaded Toll Tags. Provide eligible recipients with a new FasTrak Flex toll tag that has been pre-loaded with $50 cash value.

2. Cash on Clipper. Provide eligible recipients with $50 cash value on a new or existing Clipper Card.

3. Clipper START and FasTrak START Enrollment. Enroll qualifying individuals in these regional programs that provide significant benefits to low-income travelers. ■ Clipper START. This regional transit fare discount program provides low-income individuals with up to a 50% discount on participating transit services. ■ FasTrak START. This program is currently under development by MTC. It proposes to provide discounted tolls on Express Lanes to qualifying low-income individuals.

4. Support for Local Organizations. Provide local service providers and community-based organizations with resources to extend awareness, reach and impact of the Pilot Equity Program.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 40 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County

3.3.4 Dumbarton Forward
Dumbarton Forward is a series of near-term, multi-modal strategies developed by Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to limit traffic congestion during peak periods in the State Route 84-Dumbarton Bridge-Bayfront Expressway corridor, between Interstate 880 in Fremont and Marsh Road in Menlo Park. Strategies include:
■ Part-Time Bus-Only Lane. This pilot would allow authorized bus operators to bypass peak period congestion for improved transit reliability. ■ Toll Plaza Operational Improvements. These changes would accommodate bus and carpool travel without stopping at the Dumbarton Bridge toll plaza, as well as activate metering lights, to better manage traffic downstream of the toll plaza. ■ Traffic Signal Improvements. These include transit signal priority, dedicated bus signals and an adaptive traffic signal system at the Bayfront Expressway intersection. ■ Off-Ramp Improvements. This strategy involves reconfiguring the Eastbound SR-84/Thornton Avenue off-ramp to accommodate an additional left-turn lane for added capacity.
■ Transit Improvements. In this strategy, improved service on AC Transit, Stanford and Union City Transit transbay routes would accommodate multi-modal bridge travel.
■ Bike Access Improvements. These improvements focus on completing critical gaps in existing bicycle networks along the corridor.

3.3.5 2021 C/CAG San Mateo County Comprehensive
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
The Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (CBPP) presents the network and policy recommendations for improving walking and biking in San Mateo County.

The plan provides recommendations to develop the Countywide Backbone Bicycling Network and Pedestrian Focus Areas, including a gap analysis identifying where new projects are needed, and provides a project list and map, and proposed programs.

Pedestrian Focus Areas are regionally significant areas within the county that are likely to have the highest walking activity. Candidate projects include transit access and Complete Street corridor improvements. Multiple Pedestrian Focus Areas are in the CBTP study area. Pedestrian Focus Areas are prioritized for funding through the CBPP, and the CBPP recommends relevant project and design.

The countywide bike network, called the Backbone Network, links regionally significant destinations across local jurisdictions with the goal of addressing gaps between city boundaries and providing continuous, low-stress bikeways across the county.

Public input received during the outreach process revealed strong support for improved connectivity, mode shift opportunities and safety, including:
■ A more continuous sidewalk network and safe crossings. ■ A more continuous regional bikeway network.
■ A countywide micromobility program.
■ Improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and comfort along arterials and highway crossings.
■ More separated bike lanes and facilities that create a stronger sense of safety and more protection from motor vehicles.

3.3.6 Reimagine SamTrans
The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) Board of Directors adopted the recommendations of a comprehensive operational analysis known as Reimagine SamTrans in 2022. The analysis was based on extensive public outreach and internal evaluation of the transit system to identify improvements for design, connections, routing, timing and other components. The following community priorities came out of the outreach process:
■ More frequent service
■ Faster routes with fewer stops
■ Better real-time arrival information
■ Batter connections to BART, Caltrain and other rail systems Reimagine SamTrans is designed to achieve goals of equity, efficiency and connectivity. The analysis found gaps related to route duplication, rail access and bus headways in the CBTP study area. As a result, it includes changes such as:

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 41 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County ■ A new door-to-door “on-demand zone” in East Palo Alto, in which riders call or use a mobile app to request picks up and drop off anywhere in the designated zone.
■ Increased weekday frequency of Route 278 to every 30 minutes during peak times, with hourly service starting on Sundays.
■ Change in Route 296 so that it only enters the VA Hospital on northbound trips heading toward Redwood City, to reduce travel time and reliability.

3.3.7 San Mateo County Senior Mobility Guide
The Senior Mobility Guide provides information about a wide range of programs and services to help San Mateo County residents remain mobile, active, and connected to their community as they age. The following programs identified in the guide are as follows:
■ East Palo Alto Caltrain Shuttle: The shuttle goes from Woodland-Bayshore neighborhood locations in East Palo Alto, such as the Ravenswood Health Clinic, to the Palo Alto Caltrain Station every day, with some late-night service. ■ Menlo Park Shoppers’ Shuttle: This ride-request service operates starting at 9:15 am and can take people to south San Mateo County destinations (times and days are variable).
■ Redwood City-Midpoint Caltrain Shuttle: This shuttle is available to all and runs on weekdays between Redwood City Caltrain and the Midpoint Technology Park on Broadway.
■ East Palo Alto Senior Shuttle: The Senior Center offers $0.50 weekday roundtrip rides for participants in the Senior Nutrition Lunch Program. ■ Menlo Park Senior Center: The Senior Center offers donation-based rides in Menlo Park and parts of East Palo Alto to Senior Center members over 60 years old. Vehicles are wheelchair accessible.
■ American Cancer Society – Road to Recovery: A program staffed by volunteer drivers who pick up cancer patients at their homes and take them to treatment related activities, including doctor’s appointments, radiation treatments, and chemotherapy.
■ Get Up & Go (PJCC): A door-to-door, wheelchair-accessible bus and car service for older adults who do not drive.
■ Kaiser Permanente Medical Center – Redwood City: This hospital offers limited transportation for patients to nearby areas in southern San Mateo County. ■ Go-Go Grandparent: This nationwide service offers rides 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to all. Vehicles can transport folding wheelchairs and passengers who are transferable, and fares are quoted based on distance traveled and time traveled. ■ Serra Yellow Cab: This program offers dispatch service to/from Daly City, Colma, Brisbane, Pacifica, Broadmoor, Millbrae, Burlingame, Hillsborough, Foster City, Belmont, San Carlos, Redwood City and SFO.
■ SilverRide: This TNC service is specifically designed to meet the transportation needs of older adults and people with ambulatory or other limitations. ■ SamTrans Redi-Wheels: This paratransit service is available for people whose disabilities or health conditions prevent them from using the bus.

3.3.8 San Mateo County Transportation Plan for LowIncome Populations The objective of the Countywide Transportation Plan for Low-Income Populations is to fulfill transportation needs of disadvantaged residents in the county. This Plan outlines the following barriers to project implementation based on analyses of previous planning efforts, including the 2008 Bayshore CBTP:
■ Lack of appropriate sustainable and stable funding sources. ■ The absence of a process to promote implementation of projects. ■ Projects that require unusual, complex, or difficult partnerships. ■ Projects that require a degree of administrative resources beyond that of sponsoring agencies.

A series of transportation improvement projects were developed based on a community outreach process. The following impact the study area directly:

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 42 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County ■ By-request bus service (East Palo Alto). As described above, Reimagine SamTrans includes a special “door to door” on-demand zone in East Palo Alto that, as proposed, would operate from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm, seven days a week.

This service would augment the current late-night and early morning service provided to East Palo Alto via Routes 397 and 2960.
■ Construct a bus shelter at Woodside Rd & El Camino Real (Redwood City) and at the Newbridge bus station (East Palo Alto). These have not been implemented. As of June 2022, SamTrans is embarking on a system-wide Bus Stop Improvement Plan (BSIP) that will assess the condition of all shelters. ■ Construct speed humps/tables, bulbouts, nose islands and speed feedback signs at Belle Haven Elementary School (Menlo Park). On April 16, 2019, the Menlo Park City Council and residents reviewed the Belle Haven Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan. A “Belle Haven Elementary Suggested Walk and Roll Map” was released in September 2019.
■ Add more pedestrian crosswalks at Broadway Street (Redwood City). Partially implemented, with new Caltrain grade crossing at Broadway in 2018. Intersection safety and traffic calming along Broadway adopted as part of the 2022 RWC Walk Bike Thrive plan.
■ Improve pedestrian safety and amenities: Improve landscaping, longer crosswalk time, widen sidewalks, and slow traffic on El Camino Real. The Redwood City El Camino Real Corridor Plan was adopted in 2017, and the Bike and Ped Safety Improvement Study: El Camino Real between Maple & Charter Streets, was completed in February 2019. Per C/CAG, the El Camino Real Road Diet project has an opening date of 2025.1 ■ Add bicycle lanes on El Camino Real. The Redwood City El Camino Real Corridor Plan was adopted in 2017, and Bike and Ped Safety Improvement Study:

El Camino Real between Maple & Charter Streets, was completed in February 2019. As previously noted, a Class IV cycle track running north-south along this segment of El Camino Real is a component of the bikeway network adopted under Redwood City’s 2022 RWC Walk Bike Thrive Plan.
1 City/County Association Of Governments of San Mateo, UPDATED - Draft List of Regionally Significant Projects, https:// ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Updated-Draft-PBA-2050-Project-List-CMEQ.pdf, accessed July 22, 2022.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 43 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County

4. Outreach and Engagement Summary
All CBTP recommendations for the Southeast San Mateo County (SESM) CBTP are based on a community outreach campaign consistent with Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Guidelines. The project and plans recommended in this CBTP are the result of outreach to communities in geographic and demographic cross-sections of the study area.

Outreach and engagement included the following:

1. Oversight by an Advisory Group (AG)

2. Development of a C/CAG- and MTC-approved Outreach Strategy

3. Creation and distribution of awareness materials

4. Coordination with various jurisdictional and community leadership bodies

5. Distribution of an online transportation survey

6. Interactive “Pop-Up” events at various events in the study area All materials and raw results of the outreach and engagement process are included in Appendix B to this Plan.

4.1 CBTP Advisory Group
As stated in Chapter 1, a combined AG was convened for C/CAG’s SESM and Daly City CBTPs. This was to coordinate an inclusive outreach process during COVID-19, provide direction on reaching specific groups in the community, review milestone materials, prioritize outreach opportunities and inform and prioritize final recommendations. Members of the AG who attended at least one of the meetings include:
■ Susy Kalkin, Transportation Systems Coordinator, C/CAG San Mateo County ■ Malahat Owrang, Senior Transportation Planner, City of Redwood City ■ Raleigh McCoy, Regional Planning Program, Metropolitan Transportation Commission ■ Vikrant Sood, Social Equity Principal Planner, Metropolitan Transportation Commission ■ Kevin Chen, Senior Transportation Engineer, City of Menlo Park ■ Gwen Buckley, Senior Planner, SamTrans
■ Chanda Singh, Senior Transportation Planner, County of San Mateo ■ Elena Lee, Planning Division Manager, City of East Palo Alto ■ Michelle Daher, Management Analyst, City of East Palo Alto ■ Batool Zaro, Assistant Engineer, City of East Palo Alto ■ Jean Higaki, Program Director, C/CAG San Mateo County ■ Sandhya Laddha, Policy Director, Silicon Valley Biking Coalition ■ David Pape, Senior Planner, SamTrans
■ Susan Houston, Vice President of Older Services, Peninsula Family Services ■ Will Gibson, Planner III, San Mateo County Planning & Building ■ Julia Malmo-Layock, Active Transportation Planner, County of San Mateo ■ John Ford, Executive Director, Commute.org
■ Rebecca Roberts, Employer Programs Representative, Commute.org ■ Joe LaClair, Planning Services Manager, San Mateo County ■ Eduardo Gonzalez, Program Manager, Youth Leadership Institute ■ Joel Slavit, Active/Transportation/Senior Sustainability Specialist, Livable Communities, County of San Mateo ■ Michael Van Lonkhuysen, Planning Manager, City of Daly City ■ Lenelle Suliguin, Senior Management Analyst, City of Daly City The AG met four times, including one traditional in-house meeting and three virtual meetings. The AG also completed online reviews of draft recommendations and reports. Meeting topics and dates are detailed in the following sections.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 44 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County

4.2 Outreach Process
The COVID-19 pandemic started immediately following C/CAG approval of the original CBTP Outreach Strategy. As such, the CBTP team and AG later adapted the components, timing and sequence of the Strategy to the health restrictions beginning in February 2020. In order to illustrate the relationship of COVID-19 and the community engagement process, the following outreach summary is organized chronologically.

4.2.1 August 2019 to February 2020: Initial Outreach
Strategy
The initial outreach strategy phase of the CBTP was from August 2019 to December 2020. During this time, the CBTP team coordinated with the AG to develop and review the Community Needs Assessment report (Appendix A of this study) and discuss early outreach strategies.

AG Meeting #1: Introduction and Outreach Planning
The first AG meeting was convened on August 20, 2019. The CBTP team introduced the CBTP process and Daly City study area, as well as key elements of Community Needs Assessment. The AG discussed challenges of to the engagement process such as the breadth of the study area, language barriers, and individual barriers to mobility in separate jurisdictions. Engagement resources and partnerships suggested by AG members include, but were not limited to:
■ North Fair Oaks ATP meetings
■ El Concilio non-profit
■ Fair Oaks Adult Activity Center
■ Second Harvest Food Bank
■ Shopping plazas in the study area
■ City of Menlo Park Pop-Up events
AG Meeting #2: Outreach Strategy Review
Using information and insight from Meeting #1, the CBTP Team completed the initial CBTP Outreach Strategy in October 2019. The foundation of this Strategy was a process of developing partnerships with community-based organizations (CBOs), completing face-to-face interviews and facilitating traditional community engagement events. The COVID-19 pandemic started during the early phase of strategy implementation.

The second AG meeting was held on February 14, 2020. The full impact of the pandemic, including shelter-in-place mandates, were not yet clear. AG members assisted the CBTP team in identifying potential outreach partners, including community stakeholders, community-based organizations (CBOs), and community events. The CBTP team began engaging with these potential partners in this phase, establishing contacts and additional resources.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 45 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County

4.2.2 March-November 2020: COVID-19 and Digital
Outreach
The impacts of COVID-19 on community health priorities and the need to rethink traditional engagement began in March 2020. At this time, the CBTP team reassessed traditional outreach strategies and the availability of community partnerships. In order to facilitate involvement by residents of SESM EPCs in this early period of shelter-in-place mandates, the CBTP developed a series of adaptable digital resources.

Project Webpage
The CBTP team developed a project webpage on the C/CAG website containing background information and to act as a clearing house for deliverables, outreach resources and associated external links. The webpage was initially populated with introductory text and the SESM Community Needs Assessment report. Links to the outreach survey (see below) and AG meeting presentations we added as they become available.

Outreach Flier
Working with the AG and C/CAG staff, the CBTP team developed a graphics-rich Outreach Awareness Flier to provide notice of future outreach opportunities. The flier was developed in English and Spanish (see Figures 4-1 and 4-2) to illustrate the CBTP study area and summarize the project intent. The flier was later uploaded to the C/ CAG webpage on websites of agencies and stakeholders involved in the project. The flier was also adapted for hard-copy distribution at live outreach events that were facilitated later in the CBTP process.

Transportation Survey
In November 2020, the CBTP team completed a bilingual on-line survey of mobility barriers (see Appendix B) designed to assess rates of active transportation and transit use, identify barriers to those options, and highlight community resources (hospitals, supermarkets, etc.) that are difficult to access. Working with MTC, the CBTP team ultimately added questions about mobility challenges associated with shelter-in-place restrictions and changing work conditions due to COVID-19. The digital survey was made available on the C/CAG project webpage and that of various jurisdictions. It was also noticed via the outreach flier described above.

AG Meeting #3: COVID-19 Assessment and Approach
The CBTP team presented to the AG at a third meeting on August 24, 2020. The topic of the meeting was new impacts to community participation resulting from COVID-19. The AG discussed the challenges of social distancing recommendations, health concerns for participants and facilitators, and changing priorities for potential CBOs partners such employment, childcare and medical assistance. The AG also agreed that EPC residents, whose input must shape CBTP recommendations, represented some of the populations most impacted by COVID-19.

Representatives from MTC attended the meeting. It was agreed that an entirely digital/online engagement strategy was not an adequate substitute for traditional community outreach, and that the next step would be a transitional approach of engaging community leadership groups to solicit ideas and input regarding current challenges of EPCs residents and ideas for soliciting meaningful feedback regarding mobility.

4.2.3 Early 2021: Virtual Outreach to Local Leaders
Implementation of an equitable and effective outreach plan remained challenging in the first half of 2021 due to COVID-19 surges and restrictions. Members of the AG and community leaders expressed concern that many residents of ECPs would not be adequately represented in the CBTP engagement process due to lack of digital resources and required focus on the daily challenges of living with the pandemic.

As a result of these challenges, the CBTP team coordinated directly with community leadership. The intent of the following virtual efforts was to:

1. Introduce the CBTP process and SESM study area community leaders.

2. Review the current outreach effort.

3. Summarize COVID-19-related mobility challenges and new barriers to meaningful outreach to EPCs.

4. Solicit input on new outreach approaches, timing and components.

The meetings were focused on equity issues associated with the “digital divide” and lack of broadband access; new commute challenges, economic and health challenges; and the impact of the pandemic on Community-Based Organizations (CBO). The CBTP team facilitated the following meetings on the following dates:

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 46 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Figure 4-1 Outreach Awareness Flier Figure 4-2 Outreach Awareness Flier (Spanish Version)

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 47 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County ■ East Palo Alto City Council. The CBTP team made a virtual presentation to the Council on March 2, 2021.
■ A video stream of the meeting is archived on the East Palo Alto City Council website:
http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx?field_microsite_tid_1=27 ■ Redwood City Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC). The CBTP team made a virtual presentation to the TAC on March 9, 2021.
■ Menlo Park Complete Streets Commission. The CBTP team made a virtual presentation to the Commission on March 10, 2021.
■ A video stream of the meeting is archived on the Menlo Park Complete Streets Commission website:
https://menlopark.gov/Agendas-and-minutes#section-3
■ North Fair Oaks Community Council. The CBTP team made a virtual presentation to the Council on February 25, 2021.

A video stream of the meeting is archived on the North Fair Oaks Community Council website: https://www.smcgov.org/ceo/north-fair-oaks-community-council Input from Local Leadership
Committee members provided input on COVID-19 conditions, CBTP outreach strategies, and existing mobility gaps. Prevalent themes included:
■ Concerns that COVID-19 would impede meaningful participation. ● “Zoom” outreach will not be sufficient to reach EPC residents due to broadband limitations and digital fluency. ● Whether the CBTP process could be delayed for 6-8 months pending COVID-19 restrictions.
● Limitations of such a large study area, and difficulty of knitting diverse communities together in one CBTP.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 48 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County ■ Value of recent community-driven plans such as:
● Redwood City Walk Bike Thrive
● 2021 San Mateo US 101 Express Lanes Equity Study
● City of Menlo Park Transportation Master Plan
● East Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Master Plan
■ Outreach strategies and resources to consider:
● Social media and community-oriented websites such as Facebook and NextDoor.com to locate gatherings and distribute information/surveys. ● Survey distribution at local vaccine clinics such as the facility at Ravenswood Health Clinic
● Coordination with local and ethnic grocery stores
● Outreach at senior centers and health clinics
● Facebook Farmers market and other markets
● Survey in food distribution meal box deliveries
■ Mobility conditions, challenges and gaps:
● Multi-jurisdictional nature of the study area.
● Caltrans-owned segment of Willow Road (SR 114) is dangerous and inhospitable to pedestrians, cyclist and surrounding students. ● Stretch of Willow Road that Caltrans controls is very inhospitable. ● Need for bike/ped improvements along Middlefield Road in Redwood City

4.2.4 Late 2021-2022: In-Person Outreach
Late 2021 saw increasing COVID-19 vaccination rates and relaxation of shelter-inplace mandates. At this time, the CBTP team utilized previous input from AG members, City leaders and community surveys to schedule a series of “Pop-Up” outreach sessions at pre-scheduled events in and near SESM EPCs.

The goals of these events were to collect detailed feedback about transportation challenges directly from EPC residents and record personal narratives describing how these challenges impact daily life. CBTP project staff set up information and feedback tables at each event, with the following visual elements to prompt discussion:
■ Project information and awareness flier
■ Poster-sized study area map boards
■ Hard copies of the transportation survey
■ Poster-sized existing transportation network boards
■ Existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian network maps CBTP members facilitated the following exercises with attendees to achieve the goals of the pop-up events. Raw results of these exercises are provided in Appendix B. ■ Map and Dot Exercises. CBTP team members used study area boards to allow participants to illustrate transportation gaps and challenges. Participants highlighted mobility challenges and recommendations with color-coded dot stickers and used markers to illustrate travel routes, gaps, and potential solutions. ● Open Comment Cards. CBTP team members used comment cards to allow participants to expand on map comments or record specific narratives about challenges and ideas for improvement.
● Survey Distribution. Facilitators passed out the transportation survey, as well as fliers with links to the digital survey, to event participants.

The CBTP team categorized feedback from these sessions into the following four groups of mobility challenges:

1. Pedestrian Mobility Challenges: These are challenges related to gaps in, and conditions of, pedestrian facilities and infrastructure. This category also includes physical barriers to pedestrian mobility, such as dangerous railroad and highway intersections.

2. Bicycle Mobility Challenges: These are challenges related to gaps in, and conditions of, bikeways. This category also includes physical barriers to bicycling, such as dangerous highway intersections.

3. Transit Challenges: Challenges related to transit access, bus stops, and shelters, fixed-route planning and service, paratransit service, and transit costs.

4. Safety and Other Challenges: These are challenges to safe and secure mobility, disabled access, and student access and safety.

The location of all outreach events described above are illustrated on Figure 4-3 (virtual events are shown as located at City Hall).

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 49 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County I2
I2
I2
I2
·|}þ84
·|þ}82
Æþ101
Menlo Park
Caltrain Station
Palo Alto
Caltrain Station
Atherton Caltrain
Station
Redwood City
Caltrain Station
Æþ101
Commission, 2018; PlaceWorks 2019.
0 0.375 0.75 1.5
Miles
San Francisco
Bay
I2

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

EAST PALO ALTO

MENLO PARK

ATHERTON

REDWOOD CITY
SAN
CARLOS
North Fair Oaks
Menlo
Oaks
Southeast San Mateo County Community Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) Study Area Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2018; Esri, 2013; PlaceWorks, 2019

PLACEWORKS
·|}þ84
CBTP Study Area
Equity Priority Community
I2 Caltrain Station
Outreach Event Location
Figure 4-3 Location of CBTP Outreach Events
Kiwanis Club of Redwood City
Farmer’s Market Pop-Up Event
Fair Oaks Adult Activity Center
Senior Lunch Program Outreach
East Palo Alto Farmer’s
Market Pop-Up Event
North Fair Oaks Community
Council, Virtual Hearing
Redwood City Transportation
Advisory Committee, Virtual Hearing
City of East Palo Alto City
Council, Virtual Hearing
Menlo Park Complete Streets
Commission, Virtual Hearing

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 50 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County The following event summaries include examples of comments recorded during the event. They have been clarified for readability and/or transferred from markings on maps. However, they include original insight and ideas, and have not been groundtruthed against current conditions and/or ongoing plans and projects. The latter process occurred during the evaluation and prioritization of CBTP recommendations presented in Chapter 5 of this study.

November 9, 2021: East Palo Alto Community Farmer’s Market The East Palo Alto Community Farmer’s Market is popular event held every Wednesday from 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM at 555 Pulgas Avenue in the Ravenswood neighborhood of East Palo Alto.

Participation
CBTP team members facilitated map exercises and/or discussions with just over 40 individuals and collected 20 comment cards. One hard copy transportation survey was also submitted at the Pop-Up. Participation is shown in Figure 4-4.

Summary of Results
Pop-up attendees described barriers to active transportation, transit use and safety. However, Figure 4-5 shows that nearly 90 percent of the comments were split evenly between pedestrian and safety challenges, with far fewer bicycle and transit comments.

Responses were generally focused on safety and pedestrian barriers on major streets surrounding the Farmer’s Market, such as Pulgas Avenue, O’Connor Street and Clarke Avenue. Major thoroughfares such as University Avenue were also represented. Comments about transit barriers were more general in nature, for example the need for a new BART tunnel and the desire to see all transit frequencies returned to pre-COVID conditions.
“Los carros en la University corren recio y no respetan los semaforos y no le dan el pase a la persones en cualquier calle qi sea. (Vehicles on University Avenue drive very fast and don’t respect or follow traffic signals and don’t give pedestrians the right of way. This also applies to other streets.)”

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 51 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Participant Input
The following comments are examples of mobility concerns and barriers recorded during the event.

Bicycle Challenges
Public comments include:
■ Belief that bikes should not be on the same roads as cars. All bike routes should be isolated.
■ The sidewalk is too narrow on University Avenue across 101. A cyclist and a person with a stroller cannot pass each other.
■ Woodland Avenue is perilous on a bike—until you get to Menlo Park. ■ Need to prioritize Garden Street for walk/bike to school improvements. ■ There should be a bike/ped lane along Pulgas Avenue.

Pedestrian Challenges
Public comments include:
■ Need for traffic calming and active transportation improvements along O’Connor Street. ■ Need for more pedestrian paths that are parallel to separate from main driving routes.
■ The sidewalk is too narrow on University Avenue across 101 for a bike and a person with a stroller.
■ Need for new signalization or a pedestrian overcrossing at Cooley Avenue and University Avenue.
■ The non-signalized multi-lane crosswalk at University Avenue and Weeks Street, in front of El Concilio, is dangerous.

Pedestrian Bicycle Transit Safety
41% 46%
9% 4%
Figure 4-5 East Palo Alto Community Farmer’s Market
Results Summary
Figure 4-4 East Palo Alto Community Farmer’s Market
Response Tally
0 5
10 15
30 35
40 45
20 25
Board and Dot
Feedback Participants
Survey
Responders
Written
Commenters
“Sidewalks along West Bayshore Rd between Cooley Avenue and Woodland Avenue are too narrow and incomplete in many locations. Cars are speeding and often park on the sidewalk/pedestrian ROW, forcing pedestrians into the streets.”

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 52 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County ■ Need for a signalized crosswalk at Clarke Avenue and Beech Street. ■ Need for better lighting and wider sidewalks along the bridge on Newell Road at Woodland Avenue. The existing trees add to the blind crosswalk and cars don’t see people trying to cross.
■ The 5-way stop at Newbridge Street, Ralmar Avenue, and Bay Road is confusing for drivers and dangerous for pedestrians.
■ Pulgas Avenue is unsafe to walk on for the entire length in both directions. Sidewalks are incomplete and narrow, and cars always speed. ■ People park in the pedestrian ROW on both sides of Pulgas Avenue. ■ Intersection at Michigan Avenue and University Avenue needs a signalized crosswalk. ■ Need better Sidewalks along many parts of West Bayshore Road.

Transit Challenges
Public comments include:
■ Need to restore pre-COVID bus frequencies.
■ Need for a 2nd BART tube for the South Bay.
■ Restore the shuttle that went from the train station at University Avenue around East Palo Alto.
■ Cars speed around bus pull-outs and could hit pedestrians crossing intersections.

Safety Challenges
Public comments include:
■ Traffic speeds are too high on:
● Woodland Avenue in both directions. There are also many semi-trucks here. ● Euclid Avenue between Woodland Avenue and Okeefe Street. ● Lincoln Street and on Bell Street turning off and on to Lincoln Street. ● University Avenue.
■ Police do not come when called and do not take calls seriously. ■ There have been various accidents on University Avenue in front of City Hall that have almost resulted in pedestrians getting ran over.
■ The school located at the end of Garden Street [KIPP Esperanza High School] has very dangerous traffic at the school’s exit. It is dangerous for both students and parents during pick-up and drop-off.
■ There should be more lighting on East Bayshore Road starting at Clark Avenue towards Embarcadero Road.
■ Accessing the Charter school at Runnymede Street is unsafe—there is no way to access this school by walking or biking.

November 27, 2021: Redwood City Kiwanis Farmer’s Market The Redwood City Kiwanis Farmer’s Market is held every Saturday from 8:00 AM to 12:00 PM. It is located on the 500 block of Arguello Street, in Downtown Redwood City near the Sequoia Train Station.

Participation
CBTP team members facilitated map exercises and sticker comments with 49 individuals.

Summary of Results
Comments received at this event were heavily-weighted toward active transportation, with 42 percent targeting bike barriers and 36 percent targeting pedestrian barriers. Commenters as a whole were familiar with bikeways in the area, and many identified the difficulty of crossing major throughfares such as El Camino Real, Woodside Road and Highway 101 on a bicycle. Participants also identified a series of major intersections as requiring pedestrian crossing and safety improvements.

Others used project maps to highlight poor sidewalk conditions on specific street segments.

As shown in Figure 4-6, just under 15 percent of comments were about transit barriers. Most were focused on SamTrans routes servicing downtown Redwood City and the Redwood City Transit Center, such as Routes 274 and 278. “We need more bike racks downtown. They don’t have to be cute or bikeshaped, just more of them!” “The fact is, there is no good public transit around North Fair Oaks.”

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 53 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Participant Input
The following comments are examples of mobility concerns and barriers recorded during the event.

Bicycle Challenges
Public comments include:
■ Highway 101 is an ongoing bike barrier:
● Visibility of the center bike lane on Whipple Avenue over Highway 101 is reduced visibility by roadway vegetation.
● Need for a bike lane crossing 101 (either bridge or underpass) that connects south of 101 to the Bay Trail and Marsh Rd/Bay Front Park. ■ The difficulty of cycling through downtown Redwood City due to wide roadways and lack of shade. This makes it unattractive and unsafe to cross most intersections. ■ El Camino Real as an ongoing bike barrier:
● It feels unsafe to cross any intersection on El Camino Real, but especially those between James Avenue and Redwood Avenue.
● Crossing El Camino Real via Oakwood Drive on a bike is dangerous. Also, the train tracks force cyclists trying to get to Middlefield from El Camino Real to use Fifth Avenue.
● There needs to be more safe crossings over Middlefield Road between Charter Street and 9th Avenue. Fifth Avenue is the only crossing around this area. ● Woodside Avenue and El Camino Real are the biggest barriers to biking. Both are difficult to cross. El Camino could have bike lanes on it but not Woodside. ● Drivers often run red lights at the intersection of El Camino and Broadway. ● We need for a bike path that runs parallel to the train tracks instead of on El Camino Real.
■ The mobile home parks on East Bayshore Avenue between Woodside Avenue and Haven Avenue are impossible to access by biking or walking. Access anything from that area is also difficult. ■ Sharrows on Harding Avenue and Jefferson Avenue are scary because there is parking on both sides of the street and people open car doors suddenly.

Pedestrian Bicycle Transit Safety
14%
36%
8%
42%
Figure 4-6 Redwood City Kiwanis Farmer’s Market Results Summary

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 54 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County ■ Need for a bike lane on the segment of Marsh Road between Middlefield and Bay Road.
■ Need for more bike racks in downtown Redwood City.
■ The bike lane on Whipple Avenue is terrifying.
■ Crossing Woodside Road is scary for cyclists coming from the Caltrain station and riding along Broadway. There should be a complete bike lane between the Caltrain station and Woodside Road.
■ Need for a bike lane on segment of Broadway Street between Woodside Road and Charter Street.

Pedestrian Challenges
Public comments include:
■ Need for pedestrian crossing improvements at the following intersections:
● Whipple Avenue across Highway 101 northbound on-ramp
● Jefferson Avenue and Alameda de las Pulgas.
● All crosswalks along Jefferson Avenue
● El Camino Real and Edgewood Road
● Broadway and 2nd Avenue.
● Broadway and Bay Road crossing
● Marsh Road and Bay Road
● Marsh Road and Middlefield Road
■ Unsafe or uneven sidewalks on:
● Bloomquist Street between Maple Street and Seaport Boulevard. ● The north side of Hopkins Avenue between Grand Street and Hudson Street ● The perimeter of Dingee Circle park, at Broadway and Hopkins. ● Maple Street from Marshall Street to Hilltop Street
● Brittan Avenue underpass intersecting El Camino Real
Transit Challenges
Public comments include:
● The need for a bus line between Downtown Redwood City and Edgewood Park.
● The need to reinstate SamTrans Route 274: It used to take 6 minutes to get between the Caltrain station and Alameda and Jefferson. Now it takes much longer to get between these two points since this bus was canceled. ● Use the freight train ROW to connect future ferry terminal to Redwood City Caltrain.
● Lack of good public transit around North Fair Oaks. Not enough frequency or routes.
● Need for a bus line connecting Middlefield Road to the ECR route along Fifth Avenue.
● Need for bus route along Jefferson Avenue after lines 274 and 278 stopped running there.

Safety Challenges
Public comments include:
■ Number of informal encampments along El Camino and Redwood Avenue (near interchange with Woodside Rd and El Camino Real) that can make pedestrians feel unsafe.
■ Need for improved safety and intersections around Redwood High School. ■ There is a lot of trash along Industrial Road.
■ Danger related to high auto speeds on Samson Street between Arguello Street and Allerton Street
■ Needs for traffic calming on segment of Whipple Avenue between East Bayshore Road and El Camino Real.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 55 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County February 17, 2022: Fair Oaks Adult Activity Center Senior Lunch Program
The CBTP team members introduced the Plan and facilitated a feedback session during the Senior Lunch Program at the Fair Oaks Adult Activity Center, at 2600 Middlefield Road in Redwood City.

Participation
CBTP team members recorded feedback from approximately 10 senior citizens during the lunch service program.

Summary of Results
Public feedback was consistent with the demographic of small group of seniors that participated in this event. Half of the comments were related to the challenges of using and accessing public transit and paratransit. Other comments were split evenly between pedestrian/sidewalk conditions and safety. As shown in Figure 4-7, there were no comments regarding bicycle mobility or barriers. “A lot of visitors to this place [Fair Oaks Adult Activity Center] and others need alternative transportation but can’t figure out who qualifies.” Participant Input
The following comments are examples of mobility concerns and barriers recorded during the event.

Pedestrian Challenges
Public comments include:
■ The need for better traffic controls at many Middlefield Road intersections , especially from about Woodside Road to Fifth Avenue.
■ The sidewalk quality in North Fair Oaks is only inconsistent; there are areas that need to be improved for the safety of all users.

Transit Challenges
Public comments include:
■ The need for additional, alternative transportation to the Fair Oaks Adult Activity Center and other senior centers for clients and visitors with health and mobility challenges.
■ The fact that some clients to the Fair Oaks Adult Activity Center are either not well enough to take public transit or don’t know how to ride paratransit, because program eligibility and access are confusing.
■ The fact that Fair Oaks Adult Activity Center staff are undertaking a process of identifying who qualifies for various paratransit services and informing clients and visitors of their likely eligibility status.
■ The lack of efficient transit access to Daly City, particularly that the combined SamTrans Routes ECR/ 296 itinerary to Daly City takes two hours. ■ The expense and difficulty of getting to San Mateo Medical Center and SamTrans Route ECR isn’t direct enough.
■ Confusion as to what paratransit service provides access to what medical centers.

Pedestrian Transit Safety
25% 20%
55%
Figure 4-7 Fair Oaks Adult Activity Center Results Summary

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 56 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Safety Challenges
Public comments include: ■ The increasing amount of vehicle drop-offs and pick-ups and idling on streets in the residential area southwest of the intersection of Middlefield Road and Charter Street, such as Douglas Avenue.
■ Decrease safety on Middlefield Road due to ongoing construction. ■ The fact that Middlefield Road is very busy and intimidating to walk on.

4.2.5 In-Person Feedback Summary
As shown in Figure 4-8, almost 160 individual comments were collected from EPC community members during the in-person CBTP outreach process. This does not include on-line transportation survey responders (see Section 4.3).

Figure 4-8 Total Pop-up Participation Rates 0
20 40
60 120
140
160
180
80 100
Board and
Dot Feedback
Participants
Survey
Responders
Written
Commenters
Total
Participants

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 57 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County As shown in Figure 4-9, pedestrian mobility and associated barriers were cited most frequently, at well over a third of all comments. Safety-related concerns followed at about 30 percent of the total, while transit and bicycle concerns shared the remaining third.

This may be partially attributed to the characteristics of the study area and the location of the pop-up events. For example:
■ As indicated by the results of the 2005 East Oalo Alto CBTP and other existing plans, the study area is intersected by a number of major thoroughfares that function as barriers to pedestrian mobility.
■ Many particpants of both farmer’s markets were family members. These indivuals are directly impacted by roadway and pedetrian safety, as well safe access to schools.
■ The pattern of feedback at the Fair Oaks Adult Activity Center leaned heavility toward walking and safety concerns, a function of the target participant.

Pedestrian Bicycle Transit Safety
17%
39%
28%
16%
Figure 4-9 Rate of Responses by Topic

4.3 Digital Survey Results
Over 60 percent of online survey responders were from the 94063 (Redwood City) and 94025 (Menlo Park) area codes. The rest were split evenly between other zip codes in the study area. Nearly half of all responders were above the age of 60, and about one-third in 30–44-year age range. About 16 percent of responders were aged 45-59, with a similar percentage in the 19-29 age group. Those younger than 19 are not represented in the survey results.

As shown in Figure 4-10, Caltrain was the most frequently cited transit system ridden by responders, at a rate of 35 precent. This was followed by “Other,” which was typically identified as “car” or “bike” in survey responses, and therefore is not a full reflection of transit system ridership habits. Senior ride programs were the most common “Other” transit resources cited.

Responders identified “Route design/location,” “Hours of operation” and “Delays/ unpredictability” as the main barriers to effective transit mobility (see Figure 4-11).

Figure 4 -10 Transit systems ridden by survey responders Figure 4 -11 Problems that make it hard to get around on transit 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Caltrain
BART
Samtrans
Other
Fares
Community Shu�le
Figure 4-10 Transit Systems Ridden by Survey Responders

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 58 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County ■ There are very few continuous bike routes that cross jurisdictions in any way that makes sense. For instance, biking from Redwood City to Palo Alto would be mostly OK on Middlefield, except that the road is terrifying through North Fair Oaks.
■ Improved Bike Lanes would be nice. North Fair Oaks is a pretty crummy area to ride in. Lots of broken glass. Middlefield Road is a slum, definitely needs improvement. Add some bike lanes, those green bike only ones that screw up traffic in SF.
■ Bike lanes on ECR, Middlefield in North Fair Oaks [are needed]. ■ A clear, safe bike route from the Bay Trail/Ravenswood Business District, to University Ave in EPA, to downtown EPA, to Stanford [is needed].

Walking is also a common mode of transportation for survey responders. Over 80 percent of responders selected “Daily” or “On occasion” as how often they walk.

As shown on Figure 4-13, responders selected “Poor sidewalk conditions,” “Poor lighting and safety” and “Difficult intersections” as problems that impede pedestrian mobility at approximately even rates.

Examples of specific transit barriers or needed improvements suggested by responders include:
■ Every Samtrans bus needs to be at each stop at the schedule time, not after and not before [unless they stay at the stop through the minute on the schedule]. That probably means lengthening the time between stops during the busy times of the day so the buses can spend more time at each stop and have a margin of error for dealing with the in inevitable delays that occur during commute times.
■ More frequent and reliable buses and last mile connections. Better bus stops to protect from weather (heat, rain).
■ Los buses deben parar cerca de la acera para las personas de la segunda y tercera edad y agacharse cuando el conductor ve a una persona major o alguin con baston, o que camina con dificultad.
● Buses should stop close to the sidewalk for folks of the second and third age [45-59 and 60+} and the bus driver should tilt the bus when they see an older person or someone with a cane or if they’re having difficulties walking.

A small percentage of responders answered that they rode paratransit and cited “Restricted Hours” and “Wait times” as the main impediment to paratransit mobility.

According to one responder:
■ Unpredictable delays and lengthy travel times make Paratransit unusable for medical and dental appointments. Finding the driver can be challenging for a blind individual leaving a large medical center or business.

Survey responders were a generally bicycle familiar group, including 65 percent who ride a bike either “On Occasion” or “Daily.” These responders named “Dangerous streets or intersections” and “Lack of bike lanes” as the main deterrents to bike mobility (see Figure 4-12). Responders described inadequate bike facilities on major throughfares such as Middlefield Road, Marsh Road El Camino Real, and in North Fair Oaks, as specific barriers:
■ There should be bike lanes on all popular roads, especially those leading to schools, parks, and public buildings
Figure 4 -11 Problems that make it hard to get around on transit 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Route design/loca�on
Loca�on and spacing of bus stops
Delays and unpredictability
Inadequate sta�ons or bus shelters
Hours of opera�on
Fares
Figure 4-11 Problems that Make it Hard to Get Around on Transit

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 59 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Examples of specific pedestrian improvements suggested by responders include:
■ Sight-impaired individual: Adequate time to cross the intersection [needed].

Crosswalks that are straight or are easily discernible when using a white cane.

This means that the surface of the crosswalk needs to be distinguishable from the surface of the road outside the crosswalk. Alternatively, the boundaries of the crosswalk need to be easily discernible. Bushes and other plant growth need to be clear of the sidewalk. Tables, chairs, and stands should be kept clear of the sidewalk. Tree branches, umbrellas, and banners should be more than 7 feet Above the sidewalk.
■ Lights are either not on or dim when turned on in North Fair Oaks area. ■ EPA [East Palo Alto} sidewalks are a work in progress. They are currently uneven and poorly lit. Some of the pedestrian bridges over 101 have had issues with crime.
■ ADA accessible sidewalks and more lighting [are needed].

According to survey responders, supermarkets and transit stations are the most difficult types of places to get to each day. Examples of specific barriers to these locations inputted by responders include:
■ Grocery store at Sharon Heights Shopping Center - Street lighting along Sand Hill Road to at least illuminate the rough paving on the sidewalk - Menlo Park Caltrain station - There is very little functional/reliable public transit there from west Menlo Park, but biking is fine.
■ For the clinics, there are NO shuttle services between Menlo Park and North Fair Oaks and Ravenswood Health Clinic.

Figure 4 -12 Problems that make it hard to get around on bikes Figure 4 -13 Problems that make it hard to get around on foot 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Lack of bike lanes
Gaps in exis�ng bike lanes
Dangerous streets or intersec�ons
Lack of secure bike parking
Cost of bike maintenance
Poor sidewalk condi�ons
Poor ligh�ng and safety
Difficult intersec�ons
Unsafe school access
Figure 4-13 Problems that Make it hard to Get Around on Foot Figure 4 -12 Problems that make it hard to get around on bikes Figure 4 -13 Problems that make it hard to get around on foot 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 3
Lack of bike lanes
Gaps in exis�ng bike lanes
Dangerous streets or intersec�ons
Lack of secure bike parking
Cost of bike maintenance
Poor sidewalk condi�ons
Poor ligh�ng and safety
Difficult intersec�ons
Unsafe school access
Figure 4-12 Problems that Make it Hard to Get Around on Bikes

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 60 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County This page intentionally left blank.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 61 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County

5. Methodology and Recommendations
This chapter identifies all recommended projects and plans for the Southeast San Mateo County CBTP. It outlines the evaluation criteria, evaluation methodology, and scoring approach used to identify and rank those recommendations. Potential funding sources, a key consideration in the evaluation process, are summarized.

5.1 Evaluation Criteria
The CBTP project team worked with the Advisory Group (AG) on April 14, 2022, to review four evaluation criteria deemed appropriate to rank projects by their ability to improve mobility. Criteria such as community benefit, degree of transportation improvement, current relevance, future technological challenges, usability and access, available funding, potential for cross-jurisdictional challenges, and ability to resolve mobility barriers were discussed.

Ultimately, the following four criteria were selected to score projects and plans:

1. Reflects Community Priorities

2. Increases Access

3. Is Financially Feasible

4. Ease of Implementation

5.1.1 Reflects Community priorities
This criterion is the degree to which a project or plan is consistent with the priorities and needs of residents, community stakeholders, and leaders in Equity Priority Communities (EPC). Projects were ranked highly under this criterion if they:
■ Reflect a theme in the community feedback collected during the CBTP outreach process described in Chapter 4;
■ Are consistent with community mobility challenges identified in past plans and studies and the existing conditions analysis prepared for this CBTP; ■ Support transportation goals established in current plans and studies; and ■ Are consistent with projects prioritized in the 2005 East Palo Alto CBTP, but are not yet implemented.

5.1.2 Increases Access
This criterion is the potential of a project to improve access to key facilities and locations across the study area. As noted in Chapter 1, the current CBTP study area is based on a large, contiguous EPC that spans four jurisdictions. Given the geographic scale and diversity of mobility gaps across the study area, projects with one of two benefits score highly under this criterion: those that would improve connectivity between systems and those that would facilitate mobility for groups challenged by limited options.

5.1.3 Is Financially Feasible
Cost and feasibility are important considerations for evaluating projects. This criterion considers more than the anticipated budget of a project, as one project may be more expensive than another but it may be eligible for a range of different funding sources, while the other project may be less expensive but does not fit into readily available funding categories.

MTC’s CBTP guidelines are developed to ensure that mobility recommendations are the result of community input. Assessing the financial feasibility of projects is a tool to identify projects that are likely to find further support and move quickly to implementation. Projects were ranked under this criterion by estimates of hard costs, analyzing the potential for funding based on project type, and reviewing historical financial challenges.

One of the most significant considerations in this criterion was revenue loss to transit providers resulting from COVID-19, which have impacted the current flexibility of providers to fund new projects. Many transit recommendations in this plan are outside committed funding sources, while project outreach and research indicate high transit needs within the community. This increases the feasibility of projects that are aligned with existing plans and studies. This Plan assumes that future conditions will

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 62 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County reposition the financial feasibility of transit projects and funding strategies for transit should continue to be developed.

Ranking projects under this criterion included reviewing potential funding sources for local and countywide mobility projects. These include:
■ Senate Bill 375. California Senate Bill (SB) 375, passed in 2008, directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to set up regional targets for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions with regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs).

The GHG targets are implemented through the MPO’s regional Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS). Below are a list of funding and grants offered by MTC as part of their SCS in fulfillment of SB 375.
● Lifeline Transportation Program. Funds offered by MTC for projects that are identified through a collaborative, inclusive, community-driven process, and that address transportation gaps and barriers identified in Community Based Transportation Plans or other local planning efforts in low-income neighborhoods. ● One Bay Area Grant Program (OBAG). These grants are awarded to transit-oriented development projects located in Priority Development Areas—areas targeted for compact growth identified in Plan Bay Area (MTC’s SCS). Priority is given to cities and counties that have been proactive in creating more housing and who have accepted a proportionally higher allocation of housing units through the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process. ● Caltrans Active Transportation, Complete Streets, and Safe Routes to School Programs. Active Transportation grants fund transportation improvements that foster healthy activity, namely walking and biking. Complete Streets grants improve sidewalks and curbs that connect to important destinations.

Safe Routes to School grants fund projects that provide safe walking and biking routes between neighborhoods and local schools.
● Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Grants. BAAQMD offers a variety of funding sources for projects that reduce air pollution in the Bay Area, like their Carl Moyer Program, which provides grants to replace or upgrade heavy-duty diesel vehicles.
■ Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). HSIP offers grants for local roadway infrastructure projects with demonstrated crash reduction potential, located in areas with high crash rates or high risk for crashes. ■ FHWA Accelerating Safety Activities Program (ASAP). Funds demonstration projects less than $20,000 in FHWA Safety Focus states (CA is a bicycle and pedestrian focus state). ■ MTC Transportation Development Act Article 3 (TDA3) Local Transportation Fund. Fifty-percent match for planning and education projects only: Bicycle and pedestrian design and construction; bicycle and pedestrian education programs; comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian plans.
■ Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC). These funds are intended to support local efforts to achieve more compact, mixed-use development, and development that is pedestrian-friendly or linked into the overall transit system. ■ California Air Resources Board (CARB) Sustainable Transportation Equity Project (STEP). This program launched in 2020 that funds transportation and planning projects that reduce GHG emissions in California. ■ Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5310 - Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and People with Disabilities Program. Funds projects that improve mobility for seniors and people with disabilities by identifying and removing barriers and improving transportation services like paratransit. This project is part of the FAST Act of 2015.
■ Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Grants. Federal Highway Administration grants to fund projects that are meant to significantly reduce traffic fatalities on public roads. The HSIP program is a part of the 2015 FAST Act. ■ Regional Surface Transportation Block Grant. Grants provided by the FTA to states and localities for different transportation projects, including highway improvements, bridge or tunnel projects on public roads, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects.
■ Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program. San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA)-administered grants for new capital infrastructure based on readiness and need, effectiveness, policy consistency, sustainability, and funding leverage.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 63 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County ■ Measure W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program. 2019 SMCTA-administered grants to fund local street repair, grade separations for Caltrain tracks that intersect local streets, expanded bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and improved transit connections.

5.1.4 Ease of Implementation
Numerous factors influence the ease or difficulty of initiating, completing, and putting a project into action. While a recommended project or program may align with community priorities, likely benefit many and appear a candidate for funding, assessing the challenges of implementation remains critical. Determining that the challenges of implementation of a single project are significant, facilitates the identification of other, more implementable projects that achieve the same benefits.

Factors used to assess the ease of implementation of recommendations include:
■ Required cross-agency coordination
■ Cross-jurisdictional physical footprint
■ Engineering complexity
■ Lack of technological “future proofing;” i.e., the potential that a project will become obsolete due to new technologies

5.2 Evaluation Process
As noted, the evaluation criteria outlined in Section 5.2 were developed in consultation with the AG and MTC and then applied to candidate projects. This was part of a larger evaluation process that included:

1. Developing lists of potential projects and plans directly from community members during the outreach process. Not all qualitative community feedback collected during the outreach process, including comment responses, map-based inputs, and written survey responses (see Appendix B), translated directly into the lists of recommended projects and plans in this CBTP.

2. Working with the AG to develop the evaluation criteria outlined in Section 5.2.

3. Applying the four criteria to potential projects and plans, including:
● Assessing candidate projects against existing mobility plans to identify those supportive of relevant mobility goals or redundant with implemented projects. ● Assessing the feasibility of candidate projects in terms of required agency coordination, funding potential, and historic implementation challenges.

4. Distributing an initial version of the ranked recommended projects to the AG for review and revision.

5. Revising and finalizing priority projects and plans based on comments of the AG.

5.2.1 Criteria Scoring Categories
Recommendations were scored one through five for each evaluation criterion. A score of one reflects the lowest potential for fulfillment of that category; five the highest. For all project and plans, the following score averages were calculated:
■ Average Score: The average score of Criteria 1 through 4. ■ Area Need Score: The average score of Criterion 1 (Reflects Community Priorities) and Criterion 2 (Increases Access) ■ Project Potential Score: The average score of Criterion 3 (Financial Feasibility) and Criterion 4 (Ease of Implementation)
The four criteria were organized into the above two scores to improve the implementability of the CBTP as a whole. Identifying those recommendations with the highest and/or most immediate potential to get funded and built will support the grant selection, timing and planning processes. It will facilitate improved, more informed decision-making, and/or awareness of potential challenges in the future.

5.2.2 Implementation TimeFrame
Each of the following recommendations is assigned one the following three implementation timeframes based on community priority:

Short Term (ST). These recommendations are assumed to be implemented in one to three years.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 64 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Medium Term (MT). These recommendations are assumed to be implemented in three to eight years.

Long Term (LT). These recommendations are assumed to be implemented in eight or more years.

5.2.3 Project Types
Recommendations fall within the following four types of projects and plans:

1. Active Transportation. These projects are generally new and improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities and micromobility programs. Examples include separated bike paths and cycle tracks; intersection signalization improvements; sidewalk audit and repair programs; and bike storage at important destinations like job centers and transit hubs. Micromobility refers to the use of individual, lightweight vehicles, such as bikeshares and e-scooters, typically over short distances and on a per-ride basis.

2. Transit and Paratransit. These projects may include new routes, expanding operating hours of certain lines, increasing transit line frequency, or improving transit stops with lighting, shelter, and seating.

3. Safety. Safety projects decrease danger and potential for harm for all residents EPCs. Examples of safety projects include improvements to school access and student safety, traffic calming on streets with high rates of pedestrians, neighborhood lighting improvements and poorly-secured transit facilities.

5.3 Recommended Projects and Plans
According to a CBTP program evaluation performed by MTC in 2022, overly-general CBTP recommendations developed without input from cities face implementation challenges.1
The following section includes tables of recommended projects and plans across the three project categories. The recommendations generally reflect location- , route- or resource- specific barriers rather systemwide or topical improvements. 1 Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments, Community-Based Transportation
Planning (CBTP) Program Evaluation, April 8, 2022.

In each table, the average score, area need score and project potential score are shown for recommendations. Tables also include cost estimates, implementation timeframe and responsible agency or agencies. All recommendations are considered viable options that reflect community priorities.

5.3.1 Active Transportation Projects and Plans
Pedestrian projects are shown in Table 5-1. Bicycle and micromobility projects are shown in Table 5-2. All projects are presented in descending order of average score.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 65 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Table 5-1 Recommended Pedestrian Projects and Plans
Recommendation Average
Score
Area
Need Score
Project
Potential
Score
Estimated
Cost
Implementation
Timeframe
Responsible
Agency
Close all sidewalk gaps on East Bayshore Road from Poplar Avenue to Euclid Avenue in response to pedestrian fatalities. 4.75 5 4.5 $50,000 to $75,000 ST East Palo Alto Perform safety audits and install intersection safety improvements such as signalization controls, pedestrian islands, flashing beacons, high-visibility crosswalks and/or physical traffic calming elements, at the following intersections:
● University Ave. and Runnymede St.
● Marsh Rd. and Bay Rd.
● Marsh Rd. and Middlefield Rd.
● Cooley Ave. and University Ave.
● Oakwood Dr. and East Bayshore Rd.
● Newbridge St. and Willow Rd.
● Willow Rd. and Ivy Dr.
● Willow Rd. and O’Brien Dr.
4 4.5 3.5 $4,000 to $15,000 per
intersection
ST
East Palo Alto,
Redwood City, City
of Menlo Park, San
Mateo County
Widen sidewalks, close all sidewalk gaps and install parking controls along West Bayshore Rd. between Cooley Ave. and Woodland Ave. in East Palo Alto. 4 4 4 $75,000 to $125,000 ST East Palo Alto Assess sidewalk deficiencies and implement feasible recommendations for new sidewalks on the west side of Pulgas Ave. from East Bayshore Rd. to University Avenue in East Palo Alto.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 66 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Table 5-2 Recommended Bicycle and Micromobility Projects and Plans Recommendation Average
Score
Area
Need
Score
Project
Potential
Score
Estimated
Cost
Implementation
Timeframe
Responsible
Agency
Implement the North Fair Oaks bicycle boulevards network in the area between Middlefield Rd., 5th Ave., El Camino Real and the unincorporated County/ Redwood City limits, per the North Fair Oaks Bicycle and Pedestrian Railroad Crossing and Community Connections Study.

4.25 4.5 4 $3.5M to
$7M MT San Mateo County
Improve bike facilities on Seaport Blvd. by installing a Class I bike path from Broadway to East Bayshore Road, per the 2021 C/CAG San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and from Veterans Boulevard Highway 101 per RWC Moves. 4 4.5 3.5 $1M to $1.25M ST San Mateo County, Redwood City Install grade- separated pedestrian/bicycle crossing of Caltrain tracks in North Fair Oaks between 5th Avenue and Redwood City limits, labeled high-priority project in the 2021 Unincorporated San Mateo County Active Transportation Plan. 4 4.5 3.5 $10M-$15M LT San Mateo County, Caltrain Install Class IV cycle track on SR 82 (El Camino Real) between Finger Ave. and north of Berkshire Avenue per RWC Walk Bike Thrive. 4 5 3 $2.5M to $4M MT Redwood City
Install a Class IV bikeway on the segment of SR 82 (El Camino Real) that forms the border of North Fair Oaks, per the Unincorporated San Mateo County Active Transportation Plan. 4 5 3 $750,000 to $1.5M MT San Mateo County Fill missing bikeways gap on Middlefield Rd. between 5th Ave. and Town of Atherton with a Class II bikeway, per the Unincorporated San Mateo County Active Transportation Plan. 4 5 3 $500,000 to $750,000 ST San Mateo County Install Class IV facility on Brewster Avenue from Main St. to King St. to connect Sequoia High School and Caltrain transit center, per RWC Walk Bike Thrive. 3.75 4 3.5 $1M to
$1.5M ST Redwood City
Study upgrading the existing Class III bike route along Woodland Avenue in East Palo Alto to a Class IV or other separated bike facility and implement the most feasible option. 3.75 4 3.5 $750,000 to $2M ST East Palo Alto
Study bicycle and pedestrian network conditions and conflicts within ½ mile of Caltrain stations and major transit stops in the study area. Include recommendations for active transportation network improvements, infrastructure projects and micromobility programs designed to increase bike/ped safety and close “first-mile-last-mile” gaps.

3.5 3.5 3.5 $325,000 ST C/CAG

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan 67 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Table 5-2 Recommended Bicycle and Micromobility Projects and Plans (Continued) Recommendation Average
Score
Area
Need
Score
Project
Potential
Score
Estimated
Cost
Implementation
Timeframe
Responsible
Agency
Upgrade the existing bike facility on Willow Road between Bayfront Expressway and Highway 101 to a Class IV separated bikeway, per the City of Menlo Park Transportation Master Plan. 3.5 3.5 3.5 $1M to $1.5 M MT City of Menlo Park Implement City of Menlo Park Transportation Master Plan project #178 and Catrans District 4 Bike Plan Project Number SM-101-X14: Design and develop a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Highway 101 north of Marsh Road, with connections to Bay Trail and Bedwell/Bay Front Park.

3.5 4.5 3 $30M to
$35M LT Caltrans, Menlo Park
Install Class II buffered bike lanes on Marsh Road from Bay Road to Scott Drive in the City of San Mateo, per the 2020 San Mateo Transportation Master Plan. 3.5 3.5 3.5 $1.5M to $2M MT City of San Mateo Improve access to electronic bikes via equity programs for both shared e-bikes and individually owned e-bikes. 3.5 3.5 3.5 $50,000 to $500,000 MT
C/CAG, San Mateo
County, Redwood
City, East Palo Alto,
Menlo Park
Install buffered bike lanes on Alameda de las Pulgas, from Brewster Avenue to De Anza Avenue in Redwood City, as considered in RWC Walk Bike Thrive. 3.5 3.5 3.5 $500,000 to $1M MT City of Redwood City Install Class IV bikeways on Bay Rd. and Marsh Rd. in North Fair Oaks per the 2021 Unincorporated San Mateo County Active Transportation Plan. 3.25 4.5 2 $1.5M to $2M MT San Mateo County

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 68 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County

5.3.2 Transit and Paratransit Projects and Plans
The overall potential for new transit projects decreased with declines in systemwide revenues from COVID-19. However, SamTrans adopted major improvement plans in 2022, including adoption of final new Reimagine SamTrans projects by the SamTrans’ Board of Directors. The Reimagine SamTrans Final Network includes changes consistent with community feedback collected during this CBTP process, including increased service on weekends and on weekends of Route 296, and the post-COVID return of Route 276 with increased frequency.

The following 10 projects and plans in Table 5-3 are shown in descending order of average score. The recommendations indicate community preference for increased cross-town and San Francisco-based bus routes, the desire for a more robust program of transit options in Bayshore, and improved bus shelters on near popular shopping and resources. The projects were identified by the community, in current studies and during AG review and coordination. In addition, funding for transit and multi-modal safety remains available in the wake of COVID-19 mobility changes.

5.3.3 Safety Projects
The following projects and plans in Table 5-4 are shown in descending order of average score. These projects do not include non-schools related pedestrian or bicycle safety improvements, which are categorized as Active Transportation projects.

5.4 Evaluation and Monitoring
This CBTP update contains a diverse list of recommended projects, including capital improvements, programmatic studies, and informational campaigns. Each of these is associated with a unique set of funding challenges and opportunities. The manner in which the projects are integrated into local programming also differs, whether via inclusion in a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) or adoption as local policy. Limited staff resources and multijurisdictional coordination are historic challenges to CBTP progress across the project spectrum.

Implementation of this Plan will require ongoing commitment by the local jurisdictions included in the CBTP study area and partner agencies to move recommendations forward. Success will also depend on the ability of C/CAG to regularly monitor CBTP progress, maintain a record of project milestones, and offer support to responsible agencies.

In order to facilitate monitoring by C/CAG, this CBTP contains an Annual CBTP Tracking Checklist (Appendix A) to be completed by each CBTP study area jurisdiction each year (beginning with adoption date of the CBTP) and submitted to C/CAG. The Checklist will help:
■ Facilitate communication between CBTP jurisdictions and C/CAG. ■ Document individual project progress.
■ Tally all “In Progress” CBTP projects.
■ Evaluate overall CBTP implementation.

As shown in Appendix A, the Checklist begins with a summary of total recommendations in the CBTP. It allows staff to list all CBTP projects for which one or more milestones have been reached, “check” the category of each milestone, and briefly describe and date the milestone. The three categories of milestones are:

1. Funding. Examples of these milestones include grant submissions, receipt or allocation of funds, completion of detailed expenditure plans and others.

2. Local Adoption/Programming. Examples of these milestones include the addition of project(s) into a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) or budgetary document, formalization of a project as policy or action in a local planning document and others.

3. Implementation. These are milestones representative of upcoming or ongoing official use of project funds, such as RFP release; execution of outside contracts; and project kick-off, internal milestones and completion.

The Checklist closes with a tally of the total number of projects tracked for the year.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- Table 5-3 Recommended Transit and Paratransit Projects and Plans Recommendation Average
Score
Area
Need
Score
Project
Potential
Score
Estimated
Cost
Implementation
Timeframe
Responsible
Agency
Broaden awareness campaign of Clipper START program to include multi-lingual information at transit stops, stations and high-activity destinations in SESM Equity Priority Communities. 4.25 4 4.5 $15,000 to $30,000 ST MTC Implement a multi-lingual awareness campaign of SamTrans’ new East Palo Alto On-Demand Zone.

3.75 3 4.5 $20,000 to $40,000 ST SamTrans
Develop implementation strategies for equity mobility programs that encourage mode shift, such as the 2021 101 Express Lanes Community Benefits Program. 3.75 4 3 $20,000 to $35,000 MT C/CAG, San Mateo County,
Redwood City, East Palo Alto,
Menlo Park
Add shelters to SamTrans route 296 stops at Middlefield Road and Fifth Avenue to improve shopping experience for those at Chavez Supermarket at 3282 Middlefield Rd., Menlo Park 3.75 3 4.5 $20,000 to $30,000 per stop ST SamTrans, City of Menlo Park
Survey physically and sensory-impaired visitors to hospitals, senior centers and social service facilities in SamTrans’ SESM Equity Priority Area to identify drop-off-to-destination (and reverse) wayfinding and access challenges and solutions.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- 70 Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Table 5-4 Recommended Safety Projects and Plans
Recommendation Average
Score
Area Need
Score
Project
Potential
Score
Estimated
Cost
Implementation
Timeframe Responsible Agency
Assess queuing impacts to public streets during peak drop-off/pick-up hours at:
● Belle Haven Elementary School
● Garfield Community School
● North Star Academy/McKinley
● Aspire East Palo Alto Charter School
● TIDE Academy

3.25 3.5 3 $3M TO
$6M ST San Mateo County

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- ........................................................................................................................

A PPENDIX A

A NNUAL CBTP T RACKING

C HECKLIST

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) ........................................................................................................................

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) Southeast San Mateo County CBTP Annual Tracking Worksheet CBTP Adoption Date:

Number of Pedestrian Projects: 14
Tracking Start Date:

Number of Bicycle and Micromobility Projects: 16
Number of Transit and Paratransit Projects: 11 Tracking End Date:

Number of Safety Projects: 5
Jurisdiction: Total Number of Recommended Projects: 46
Project Actions or Milestones
Project Name
(Projects may be repeated to accommodate
multiple milestones)
Category (Check 1 for each row)
Milestone Description and Date
Funding Local Adoption/
Programming Implementation
Total Projects Currently Tracked:

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- ........................................................................................................................

A PPENDIX B

C OMMUNITY N EEDS A SSESSMENT

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) ........................................................................................................................

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) PLACEWORKS 1
Southeast San Mateo County CBTP Community
Needs Assessment

INTRODUCTION
This report documents existing demographic and transportation conditions in transportation-challenged communities in Southeast San Mateo County. The information will inform the Southeast San Mateo County Community Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) to be prepared by the San Mateo City/County Council of Governments (C/CAG).

CBTPS AND THE LIFELINE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
In 2001, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) concluded that community-oriented planning was required to address the travel needs of residents in low-income Bay Area neighborhoods.

MTC implemented two complimentary programs designed to allocate funding for transportation improvement projects that are based on intensive outreach to low-income communities.

The goal of the CBTP program is to improve mobility in “Communities of Concern” (COCs). These are neighborhoods defined by census tract-level factors that increase susceptibility to transportation access gaps such as high rates of minorities, low-income residents, seniors, and lack of car ownership. Per MTC guidelines, CBTPs require a diverse outreach plan to multiple community stakeholders, as well as coordination with local advisory committees.

CBTPs facilitate the identification of projects that are eligible for funding under the Lifeline Transportation Program (LTP). The LTP was designed to fund projects that result in improved mobility for low-income and other challenged communities. Per its 2018 guidelines, projects that are eligible for funding by the LTP must:
 Be developed through an inclusive planning process that engages a broad range of stakeholders.  Improve a range of transportation choices by adding new or expanded services.  Address transportation gaps and/or barriers identified in CBTPs or other substantive local planning efforts involving focused outreach to low-income populations.

The Southeast San Mateo County CBTP will include a serious of project and program recommendations developed according to the program outreach guidelines, and consistent with the funding requirements established in the LTP.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2 DECEMBER 2019
2005 EAST PALO ALTO CBTP
The most recent CBTP for southeast San Mateo County was adopted in 2005. The 2005 East Palo Alto CBTP included a study area comprised of the entire city of East Palo Alto, approximatley 2.5 square miles of land between Highway 101 and the San Francisco Bay with the Dumbarton Bridge as the northeastern boundary and Palo Alto to the south, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 2005 East Palo Alto CBTP Study Area

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PLA CEWORKS 3
The 2005 East Palo Alto CBTP recommended a series of operations-based and capital programs for improved mobility in the study area. The degree to which these recommendations have been implemented and the resulting lessons learned for the current CBTP are discussed in the final sections of this document.

Significant changes in demographics, land use and transit options have occurred in the last 14 years throughout the greater southeast San Mateo County area, prompting initiation of the current Southeast San Mateo County CBTP and revised study area.

CURRENT SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY CBTP STUDY AREA
The current Southeast San Mateo County CBTP study area (herein referred to as “study area”) is determined primarily by the location of 12 contiguous tract-level COCs. As shown in Figure 2, the eastwest running study area includes COCs south of Highway 101 in Redwood City; south of Middlefield Road and north of Florence Street in North Fair Oaks, north of Highway 101 in Menlo Park; and throughout most of East Palo Alto. This study area includes the Redwood City Caltrain Station.

Figure 2 also illustrates that the study area boundary does not entirely conform to COC boundaries. This is because the community focus, reliance on outreach, and potential transit solutions, programs and projects that result from the CBTP will not be limited to the census tract level.

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
This demographic profile compares census tract data from the previous and current U.S. Census and American Community Survey 5-year estimates (2006-2010 and 2013-2017) to show trends since the last CBTP. In addition, future projections are provided from the 2017 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which MTC published in July 2017. Also known as Plan Bay Area (PBA) 2040, this RTP contains forecasts for population, housing, and employment for the horizon year of 2040. For purposes of this analysis, data shown for the study area is limited to the census tracts that make up the COCs shown in Figure 2.

TOTAL POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE
According to the 2013-2017 ACS 5-year estimates, the population of the study area in 2017 was approximately 78,495 people, having increased 8 percent from the 2010 Census, when the population of the study area was 72,204. The rate of population increase in the study area is mirrored by the growth experienced over the past seven years countywide in San Mateo County, which grew from 704,327 residents in 2010 to 767,450 in 2017, a rate of about 9 percent. Growth trends in the study area are predicted to be stable through 2040, by which time the study area is projected to grow by 28 percent to 98,851 residents. This growth rate is significantly higher than the rate of population growth countywide, which is expected to increase 19 percent from 2017 to 2040 to a population of 916,590.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
4 DECEMBER 2019
This page left intentionally blank.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Chestnut St
Menlo Park
Caltrain Station
Palo Alto
Caltrain Station
Atherton Caltrain
Station
Redwood City
Caltrain Station
Æþ101
2nd Ave
Euclid Ave
Broadway
Barry Ln
Florence St
High Rd
Blomquist St
University Dr
E Okeefe St
Newbridge St Lincoln Ave
Arguello St
Elena Ave
Ravenswood Ave
Santa Clara Ave
Cooley Ave
Fair Oaks Ln
Oak Grove Ave
Lytton Ave
Marsh Rd
Chilco St
Quarry Rd
Churchill Ave
Camino Al Lago
Newell Rd
Main St
Ringwood Ave
Woodside Dr
Virginia Ave
Saint Francis Way
Whipple Ave
Willow Rd
Alameda de Las Pulgas
Middle Ave
Oregon Expy
5th Ave
Seaport Blvd
Sand Hill Rd
Santa Cruz Ave
Woodland Ave
Atherton Ave
E Bayshore Rd
Alma St
Embarcadero Rd
Hudson St
Old County Rd
Bay Rd
Selby Ln
Valparaiso Ave
Channing Ave
University Ave
Middlefield Rd
Veterans Blvd
Woodside Rd
El Camino Real
0 0.375 0.75 1.5
Miles
San Francisco
Bay
Stu
Co
Eas
Me
Red
Ot
San
I2 Ca

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

EAST PALO ALTO

MENLO PARK

ATHERTON

REDWOOD CITY
SAN
CARLOS
North Fair Oaks
Menlo
Oaks
Southeast San Mateo County CBTP Study Area
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2018; Esri, 2013; PlaceWorks, 2019

PLACEWORKS
·|}þ84
o
Study Area
Communities of Concern
East Palo Alto
Menlo Park
Redwood City
Other Jurisdictions
San Mateo County
I2 Caltrain Stations
Figure 2
CBTP Study Area
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2018; Esri, 2013; PlaceWorks, 2019. 0 Scale (Miles)

1.5 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT

S O U T H E A S T S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y C O M M U N I T Y B A S E D T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N

C I T Y / C O U N T Y A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S O F S A N M A T E O

PLACEWORKS

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
6 DECEMBER 2019
This page left intentionally blank.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PLA CEWORKS 7
Average household size in the study area in 2017 was 3.55 persons, which is about 19 percent larger than San Mateo County overall, at 2.88 persons. Household size in the study area has increased 4 percent since 2010, when households averaged 3.40 persons. This is compared to the countywide increase of 5 percent during the same timeframe, from 2.72 persons. By 2040, household size in the study area is expected to be 3.20 people per household. This is 11 percent higher than the rest of the county, which is projected to remain stable at 2.84 persons people per household.

RACE AND ETHNICITY
The study area contains higher percentages of Hispanic or Latino, Black or African American, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander residents compared to San Mateo County, while having approximately one quarter of the percentage of Asian residents and less than half of the percentage of white residents compared to the County (see Table 2). According to 2013–2017 ACS 5-year estimates, 15 percent of study area residents were white non-Hispanic or Latino compared to about 40 percent countywide. The Black or African American population is approximately 7 percent in the study area compared to 2 percent countywide. Approximately 64 percent of the study area population is Hispanic or Latino compared to approximately 25 percent in the County.

Table 1: Race and Ethnicity
2017 ACS % of Population
Race Category Study Area San Mateo County
White 15% 40%
Black or African American 7% 2%
American Indian or Alaska Native <1% <1%
Asian 6% 27%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 5% 1%
Other <1% <1%
Two or More Races 2% 4%
Hispanic or Latino 64% 25%
Total 100% 100%
Source: US Census 2013-2017 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates.

AGE DISTRIBUTION
Seniors
Figure 3 shows the percentage of seniors (65 years of age and older) in the study area by census tract. The senior population reaches a high at 12 percent of the total population in the northern half of Redwood City’s COCs. In contrast, the senior population is lowest in the southern half of Redwood City’s COCs and in East Palo Alto south of Highway 101. The senior population in the study area overall constitutes 7 percent of the study area’s total population, compared to 15 percent in San Mateo County.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
8 DECEMBER 2019
Youth
According to 2013-2017 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates, approximately 27 percent of the population in the study area—or around 20,800 people—are under 18 years of age. This is higher than the countywide youth segment consisting of 21 percent of the County population. As shown in Figure 4, the dominant pattern of youth population in the CBTP study area is the relatively low rate, 11 to 16 percent, of young people in the northwest, immediately southwest of Highway 101. The percentage is skewed upward to the west, where census tracts from North Fair Oaks to East Palo Alto reach 25 to 32 percent. There are more moderate rates of young people in the COCs in Redwood City.

DISABLED POPULATIONS
The percent disabled population is one of seven tract-level variables that, when paired with a high rate of low-income households, may factor into the establishment of a COC, per MTC guidelines. The following discussion includes rates of both physical disabilities as well as sensory disabilities, including visual and hearing impairment.

Physical Disability
As shown in Figure 5, the rate of individuals with physical disabilities, defined as disabilities that restrict motor capacity, varies across the study area. The rate of these populations in COCs in and around East Palo Alto are widely varied, at about 5 to 6 percent in southeast East Palo Alto and up to 10 percent in the north section East Palo Alto. About 9 to 10 percent of residents living in COCs in Downtown Redwood City have a physical disability as well. People residing in the southern tip of Redwood City or the COCs in North Fair Oaks have a consistently lower 6 to 8 percent of the population restricted by a physical disability.

The rates of physical disabilities across the study area are generally higher than the countywide rate, which is 4.5 percent.

Sensory Disability
According to 2013-2017 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates, the COCs in Redwood City and northern North Fair Oaks have the highest incidences of residents with sensory disabilities in the CBTP study area, at 6 percent of the total population in some census tracts (see Figure 6). Menlo Park and southern North Fair Oaks have a relatively moderate amount of people with sensory disabilities, with a rate of 3 to 4 percent. The COCs in the eastern half of East Palo Alto and central North Fair Oaks have the lowest rate of persons with sensory disabilities, at less than 2 percent.

The average rates of physical disabilities across the study area are similar to the countywide average, which is 4 percent.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

PLACEWORKS
S
Percenta
Per Census
4 7
9 1
San Mate
I
U
I2 C
Southeast San Mateo County CBTP
Study Area
Percentage of Seniors (65 or Older)
Per Census Tract
4% - 6%
7% - 8%
9% - 10%
11% - 12%
San Mateo County
Incorporated
Unincorporated
I2 Caltrain Stations
Figure 3
Population Age 65 and Older
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2018; Esri, 2013; PlaceWorks, 2019. 0 Scale (Miles)

1.5 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT

S O U T H E A S T S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y C O M M U N I T Y B A S E D T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N

C I T Y / C O U N T Y A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S O F S A N M A T E O

PLACEWORKS

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

REDWOOD CITY
SAN
CARLOS
Menlo
Oaks
Menlo Park
Caltrain Station
Palo Alto
Caltrain Station
Atherton Caltrain
Station
Redwood City
Caltrain Station
San Francisco
Bay
Population Under 18 Years of Age
Source: US Census 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019 0 800 1,600 3,200
Feet

PLACEWORKS
S
Percentag
Per Census
1 2
2 2
San Mateo
In
U
I2 C
Southeast San Mateo County CBTP
Study Area
Percentage of Youth (Under Age 18)
Per Census Tract
11% - 16%
21% - 24%
25% - 28%
29% - 32%
San Mateo County
Incorporated
Unincorporated
I2 Caltrain Stations
Figure 4
Population Age 18 years and Younger
Source: US Census 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019. 0 Scale (Miles)

1.5 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT

S O U T H E A S T S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y C O M M U N I T Y B A S E D T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N

C I T Y / C O U N T Y A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S O F S A N M A T E O

PLACEWORKS

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

REDWOOD CITY
San Francisco
Bay
SAN
CARLOS
Menlo
Oaks
Menlo Park
Caltrain Station
Palo Alto
Caltrain Station
Atherton Caltrain
Station
Redwood City
Caltrain Station
Percentage of Population with Physical Disabilities
Source: US Census 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019 0 800 1,600 3,200
Feet

PLACEWORKS
St
Percentag
Disabilities
Per Census
5%

6. 7.

8. 9.

San Mateo
In
Un
I2 Ca
Southeast San Mateo County CBTP
o
Study Area
Percentage of People with Physical
Disabilities
Per Census Tract
5% - 6%

6.1% - 7%

7.1% - 8%

8.1% - 9%

9.1% - 10%
San Mateo County
Incorporated
Unincorporated
I2 Caltrain Stations
Figure 5
Percent of Population with Physical Disability
Source: US Census 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019. 0 Scale (Miles)

1.5 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT

S O U T H E A S T S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y C O M M U N I T Y B A S E D T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N

C I T Y / C O U N T Y A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S O F S A N M A T E O

PLACEWORKS

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

PLACEWORKS
St
Percentag
Disabilities
Per Census T
1%

2. 3.

4. 5.

San Mateo
In
Un
I2 Ca
Southeast San Mateo County CBTP
o
Study Area
Percentage of People with Sensory
Disabilities (Hearing and Visual)
Per Census Tract
1% - 2%

2.1% - 3%

3.1% - 4%

4.1% - 5%

5.1% - 6%
San Mateo County
Incorporated
Unincorporated
I2 Caltrain Stations
Figure 6
Percent of Population with Sensory Disability
Source: US Census 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019. 0 Scale (Miles)

1.5 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT

S O U T H E A S T S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y C O M M U N I T Y B A S E D T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N

C I T Y / C O U N T Y A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S O F S A N M A T E O

PLACEWORKS

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PLA CEWORKS 13

LANGUAGE LIMITATIONS
On average, the census tracts that comprise the Southeast San Mateo County CBTP study area struggle with over double the rate of limited English proficiency than the countywide population. As shown in Figure 7, approximately 4,100 households in the CBTP study area, or about 19 percent of total households, are designated as “Limited English-Speaking Households”. These are households in which all members 14 years and over speak a non-English language, with varying degrees of difficulty with English.

This is compared to the countywide rate of 9 percent of total households.

COCs in Redwood City have the highest rate of limited English-speaking households, followed by those in East Palo Alto in the area south of Highway 101.

Figure 7 Limited English Proficiency, CBTP Study Area and San Mateo County Source: 2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates (2013-2017).

POVERTY STATUS
The U.S. Census Bureau uses a set of income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine the population living in poverty. If a family’s total income is less than the poverty threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered to be living in poverty. To reflect high living costs and wages in the Bay Area, the poverty threshold used in the CBTP analysis is 200 percent of the federal poverty threshold. These 200 percent thresholds for the 2013- 2017 ACS 5-year estimates range from $31,754 for a family of two to $101,362 for the largest families (nine people or more).

According to 2013-2017 ACS 5-year estimates, approximately 42 percent of residents in the study area were living in poverty, varying by COC. This number is significant when compared to 19 percent in San Mateo County as a whole. Figure 8 shows the percent of population in poverty for each census tract area 19%
9%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
CBTP Area San Mateo County
Limited English Proficiency

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
14 DECEMBER 2019
This page left intentionally blank.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

REDWOOD CITY
SAN
CARLOS
Menlo
Oaks
Menlo Park
Caltrain Station
Palo Alto
Caltrain Station
Atherton Caltrain
Station
Redwood City
Caltrain Station
San Francisco
Bay
Population in Poverty (200% of Federal Poverty Level)
Source: US Census 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019 0 800 1,600 3,200
Feet

PLACEWORKS
St
Percent Po
200 Percen
Per Census T
31 36
46 San Mateo
In
Un
I2 Ca
Southeast San Mateo County CBTP
Study Area
Percent Population with Income Below
200 Percent of Poverty Level
Per Census Tract
31% - 35%
36% - 45%
46% - 55%
San Mateo County
Incorporated
Unincorporated
I2 Caltrain Stations
Figure 8
Population in Poverty (200% of Federal Poverty Level)
Source: US Census 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019. 0 Scale (Miles)

1.5 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT

S O U T H E A S T S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y C O M M U N I T Y B A S E D T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N

C I T Y / C O U N T Y A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S O F S A N M A T E O

PLACEWORKS

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
16 DECEMBER 2019
This page left intentionally blank.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PLA CEWORKS 17
in the study area, based on the 200 percent of federal poverty threshold. North Fair Oaks and East Palo Alto south of Highway 101 have the highest rate of households within 200 percent of the federal poverty threshold. Menlo Park has the lowest incidence of households within 200 percent of the federal poverty threshold, comprising between 31 to 35 percent of each census tract population.

MOBILITY CHARACTERISTICS

VEHICLE AVAILABILITY
Vehicle availability in the study area is slightly less than in San Mateo County as a whole. Four percent of households in the study area are without a private vehicle, compared to 3 percent countywide. Similarly, 21 percent have just one vehicle, as compared to 18 percent countywide. The percentage of households in the study area with two or more vehicles is 75 percent; that figure is 79 percent in the County (see Figures 9 and 10).

Figure 11 illustrates households with no vehicle available by census tract for the study area. As evident in Figure 11, COCs in Downtown and southern Redwood City as well as south North Fair Oaks, have the highest concentrations of households without vehicles.

Figure 9
Household Vehicle Availability in Study Area

Figure 10
Household Vehicle Availability Countywide

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

PLACEWORKS
St
Percentag
Vehicles
Per Census T
0%
3%
6%
9%
San Mateo
In
Un
I2 Ca
Southeast San Mateo County CBTP
Study Area
Percentage of Households with No
Vehicles
Per Census Tract
0% - 2%
3% - 5%
6% - 8%
9% - 11%
San Mateo County
Incorporated
Unincorporated
I2 Caltrain Stations
Figure 11
Household Vehicle Availability
Source: US Census 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019. 0 Scale (Miles)

1.5 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT

S O U T H E A S T S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y C O M M U N I T Y B A S E D T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N

C I T Y / C O U N T Y A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S O F S A N M A T E O

PLACEWORKS

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PLA CEWORKS 19
This page left intentionally blank.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
20 DECEMBER 2019

TRAVEL PATTERN
Commute Mode
Out of the approximately 40,000 workers aged 16 years and over in the study area, approximately 81 percent primarily travel to work by car, truck, or van (see Table 2). Approximately 67 percent of these individuals drive alone, while 14 percent carpool. Vehicle use as the primary means of transportation to work is slightly higher in the study area than countywide (81 percent versus 79 percent).

The rate of public transportation use in the study area is 30 percent less than San Mateo County overall (7 percent versus 10 percent). However, the rate of workers who bike or walk to work in the study area is double the rate in San Mateo County overall. In addition, while almost 5 percent of San Mateo County residents works from home, only 2 percent work from home in the study area.

Table 2 Mode of Travel to Work for Study Area and San Mateo County 2017 ACS (% of Total)
Means of Transportation to Work Study Area San Mateo County Car, Truck or Van 81% 79%
Drove Alone 67% 69%
Carpooled 14% 10%
Public Transportation 6% 10%
Bicycle 3% 1%
Walk 5% 3%
Other 3% 1%
Worked at Home 2% 5%
Total Workers 16 and Over 100% 100%
Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimate Commute Travel Time
The average time spent commuting by employees in the study area is 24.9 minutes, slightly less than the commute time of 28.2 minutes in San Mateo County as a whole. In the study area shown in Figure 12, COCs in Redwood City generally have the highest average commute time of 28 to 32 minutes. The COCs in North Fair Oaks have the lowest average commute time, ranging from 22 to 24 minutes, while COCs in Menlo Park and northern East Palo Alto have relatively moderate average commute times, ranging from 25 to 27 minutes to work

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

PLACEWORKS
S
Mean Tra
Per Census
2 2
2 San Mate
I
U
I2 C
Southeast San Mateo County CBTP
Study Area
Mean Travel Time to Work (minutes)
Per Census Tract
22 - 24 mins
25 - 27 mins
28 - 32 mins
San Mateo County
Incorporated
Unincorporated
I2 Caltrain Stations
Figure 12
Travel Time to Work
Source: US Census 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019. 0 Scale (Miles)

1.5 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT

S O U T H E A S T S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y C O M M U N I T Y B A S E D T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N

C I T Y / C O U N T Y A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S O F S A N M A T E O

PLACEWORKS

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community- I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

1.5 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT

S O U T H E A S T S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y C O M M U N I T Y B A S E D T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N

C I T Y / C O U N T Y A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S O F S A N M A T E O

PLACEWORKS

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PLA CEWORKS 23
This page left intentionally blank.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
24 DECEMBER 2019

EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
The following sections describe existing mobility services and infrastructure in the study area and summarize gaps in the transportation network, as identified in relevant countywide and local plans.

There are multiple transit options in the Southeast San Mateo County study area. The area is served by bus and rail systems managed by several agencies. The existing transportation network in the East Palo Alto and Redwood City communities are shown in Figure 13.

RAIL LINES (CALTRAIN)
Commuter rail system Caltrain provides regional connectivity from Downtown San Francisco, through San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties to the City of Gilroy in southern Santa Clara County. Caltrain is routed through Redwood City in the western portion of the CBTP study area, including a Caltrain Station in Downtown Redwood City. The location of this rail line and station with respect to the study area is displayed in Figure 13.

BUS ROUTES
As shown on Figure 13 and listed in Table 3, below, the CBTP study area is served primarily by bus routes managed by the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans). The study area is served by a single Alameda County Transit District (AC Transit) Transbay route as well. COCs in North Fair Oaks and Menlo Park have fewer bus stops and routes, which primarily traverse diagonally across the communities and leave pockets of underserved areas. COCs in Redwood City and East Palo Alto are served by multiple bus lines and stops. As evident in Figure 13, there is comparatively less bus service in the northern half of East Palo Alto, which is primarily single-family housing, industrial uses, and offices.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) provides indirect service to the study area via bus routes to the Palo Alto Caltrain Station, where transfers to SamTrans routes are available.

PARATRANSIT
The entire Southeast San Mateo County CBTP study area is served by SamTrans’ Redi-Wheels paratransit service, which covers the Bayside of San Mateo County and Pacifica. According to SamTrans’ San Mateo County Paratransit Rider’s Guide, eligibility for the service is based on those with disabilities who are unable to use regular, accessible fixed-route transit service. SamTrans conducts in-person evaluations to determine full Redi-Wheels eligibility and issues a Redi-Wheels identification card to those deemed eligible.

Redi-Wheels rides are typically scheduled between one and seven days in advance, or by appointment times at medical and other facilities. Redi-Wheels riders may also schedule transfers to other transit agency routes for travel outside San Mateo County. Paratransit customers may also ride all regularly scheduled SamTrans fixed-route buses for free using their Redi-Wheels identification card.

In addition, Redi-Wheels riders who receive Supplemental Security Income, General Assistance, or MediCal may also be eligible for Redi-Wheels Lifeline, the service’s reduced fare program.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PLA CEWORKS 25
TABLE 3 TRANSIT ROUTES IN STUDY AREA
Transit Route Route Description
SamTrans
ERC Redwood City and North Fair Oaks; SamTrans Route connecting to BART and Caltrain Stations 79 Redwood City and Menlo Park; SamTrans School-day Only Route 72 Redwood City; SamTrans School-day Only Route
275 Redwood City; SamTrans Route connecting to Caltrain Stations 278 Redwood City; SamTrans Route connecting to Caltrain Stations 296 North Fair Oaks, Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto; SamTrans Route connecting to Caltrain Stations 397 North Fair Oaks, Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto; SamTrans School-day Only Route 270 Menlo Park; SamTrans Route connecting to Caltrain Stations 82 Menlo Park and East Palo Alto; SamTrans School-day Only Route 88 Menlo Park and East Palo Alto; SamTrans School-day Only Route 83 Menlo Park and East Palo Alto; SamTrans School-day Only Route 281 East Palo Alto; SamTrans Route connecting to Caltrain Stations 280 East Palo Alto; SamTrans Route connecting to Caltrain Stations 81 East Palo Alto; SamTrans School-day Only Route
84 East Palo Alto; SamTrans School-day Only Route
U East Palo Alto; VTA Transit Route
DB, DB1 East Palo Alto; Dumbarton Express Service
AC Transit
U Fremont BART to Stanford University via the Dumbarton Bridge Source: SamTrans, 2018; SFMTA, 2018.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
University Dr
Hamilton Ave
Cooley Ave
Massachusetts Ave
Glenwood Ave
Encinal Ave
El Camino Real
Fair Oaks Ln
Coleman Ave
Alma St
W Bayshore Rd
Camino Al Lago
Ringwood Ave
Brewster Ave
Rolison Rd
Clarke Ave
Virginia Ave
Hopkins Ave
Middle Ave
Fernside St
Redwood Ave
Valota Rd
Pulgas Ave
E Bayshore Rd
Hudson St
Bay Rd
Selby Ln
Stockbridge Ave
Valparaiso Ave
Middlefield Rd
Veterans Blvd
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

REDWOOD CITY
SAN
CARLOS
Menlo
Oaks
Menlo Park
Caltrain Station
Palo Alto
Caltrain Station
Atherton
Caltrain
Station
Redwood City
Caltrain Station
San Francisco
Bay
Public Transportation
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019 0 800 1,600 3,200
Feet

PLACEWORKS
S
C
B
I2 C
C
S
A
S
A
S
San Mateo
In
U
Southeast San Mateo County CBTP
Study Area
Communities of Concern
Bus Stops
I2 Caltrain Stations
Caltrain
SamTrans Routes
AC Transit
Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority
Stanford Marguerite Shuttle
San Mateo County
Incorporated
Unincorporated
Figure 13
Existing Transportation System
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2018; PlaceWorks 2019. 0 Scale (Miles)

1.5 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT

S O U T H E A S T S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y C O M M U N I T Y B A S E D T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N

C I T Y / C O U N T Y A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S O F S A N M A T E O

PLACEWORKS

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PLA CEWORKS 27
This page left intentionally blank.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
28 DECEMBER 2019

BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE
Bicycle facilities are described as falling into one of four classes that are regulated by Caltrans: Class I, Class II, Class III and Class IV.
 Class I multi-use paths allow bicycle and pedestrian travel in both directions on paved rights of way, completely separated from a road or highway.
 Class II facilities are on-street bicycle lanes that are shared-use and allow for one-way travel in the same direction as vehicle traffic. Class II bicycle lanes are separated from vehicle lanes with striping.  Class III bicycle facilities are shared-use bicycle routes that allow for vehicles and bicycles to share the right of way. Class III bicycle routes typically provide connections between other bikeways or designate preferred bicycle routes along low-stress neighborhood streets.  Class IV bicycle facilities are within or adjacent to a roadway and separated from traffic by a physical barrier such as bollards, on-street parking, or planters. This design allows an exclusive right-of-way for bicycle travel.

The existing and proposed bicycle network for the study area is shown in Figure 14.

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CONSTRAINTS
The existing bicycle network includes a mix of bicycle facility types that provides some connectivity with transit. Bicycle routes in the study area are limited to Class II or Class III routes, with the exception of the Bay Trail alignment, a Class I route that runs along the northern and eastern edge of the study area.

As illustrated in Figure 14, the entire CBTP study area lacks exclusive bike infrastructure in the form of Class IV bike facilities. The central, North Fair Oaks portion of the study area contains a minimal bicycle network of any facility type, leaving most of that community inaccessible by bicycle. The COCs in Redwood City have a variety of Class II and Class III bikeways that traverse the community in multiple directions. The community has two Class III bike paths, one along El Camino Real and one along Middlefield Road, and there are two proposed Class II and Class III facilities. Bicycle facilities in the Menlo Park portion of the study area are primarily along major transportation corridors, which inhibits comfortable bicycle access to surface streets and residential neighborhoods for all levels of riders. East Palo Alto has multiple bicycle facilities that transect the COC in many directions, providing inroads to many local neighborhoods.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PLA CEWORKS 29
This page left intentionally blank.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
University Dr
Hamilton Ave
Cooley Ave
Massachusetts Ave
Glenwood Ave
Encinal Ave
El Camino Real
Fair Oaks Ln
Coleman Ave
Alma St
W Bayshore Rd
Camino Al Lago
Ringwood Ave
Brewster Ave
Rolison Rd
Clarke Ave
Virginia Ave
Hopkins Ave
Middle Ave
Fernside St
Redwood Ave
Valota Rd
Pulgas Ave
E Bayshore Rd
Hudson St
Bay Rd
Selby Ln
Stockbridge Ave
Valparaiso Ave
Middlefield Rd
Veterans Blvd
·|}þ84
·|}þ82
Æþ101
Æþ101

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

ATHERTON

MENLO PARK

EAST PALO ALTO
North Fair Oaks

REDWOOD CITY
SAN
CARLOS
Menlo
Oaks
Menlo Park
Caltrain Station
Palo Alto
Caltrain Station
Atherton
Caltrain
Station
Redwood City
Caltrain Station
San Francisco
Bay
Regional Bicycling Facilities
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2018; SamTrans, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2019 0 800 1,600 3,200
Feet

PLACEWORKS
S
C
Existing B
C
C
C
Proposed
P
P
P
San Mate
I
U
I2 C
Southeast San Mateo County CBTP
Study Area
Communities of Concern
Existing Bikeways
Class I Bike Path
Class II Bike Path
Class III Bike Route
Proposed Bikeways
Proposed Class I Bike Path
Proposed Class II Bike Path
Proposed Class III Bike Route
San Mateo County
Incorporated
Unincorporated
I2 Caltrain Stations
Figure 14
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2018; PlaceWorks 2019. 0 Scale (Miles)

1.5 COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT

S O U T H E A S T S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y C O M M U N I T Y B A S E D T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N

C I T Y / C O U N T Y A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S O F S A N M A T E O

PLACEWORKS

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PLA CEWORKS 31
This page left intentionally blank.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
32 DECEMBER 2019

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AND PLANNING STUDIES
To better understand gaps in the CBTP study area transportation network, projects, plans and programs identified in the following policy documents were evaluated:
 SamTrans Strategic Plan
 San Mateo County Senior Mobility Guide
 San Mateo County Transportation Plan
 San Mateo County Transportation Plan Follow Up: Final Action Plan  San Mateo County Human Services Agency (HSA) Transportation Programs  Ravenswood/ 4 Corners TOD Specific Plan
 Dumbarton Transportation Corridor Study
 North Fair Oaks Community Plan
 Redwood City, Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto General Plans  San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan  San Mateo County Shuttle Program Call for Projects
 San Mateo County Transportation Plan for Low-Income Populations  East Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Master Plan
 Menlo Park Transportation Master Plan
 RWC Moves: Citywide Transportation Plan
 Redwood City Safe Routes to School Report

SAMTRANS STRATEGIC PLAN
The SamTrans Strategic Plan (Plan) is a blueprint for SamTrans growth and fiscal policy from 2015 through 2019. The Plan identifies three priorities: expand mobility options for customers, strengthen fiscal health, and become a more effective organization. It includes the following actions to improve service in the general CBTP study area:
 Work with community partners on synergistic land use development policies that support transit investments through the Grand Boulevard Initiative.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PLA CEWORKS 33
 Work with its partners on the Grand Boulevard Initiative to revitalize the El Camino Real corridor and promote transit-oriented development.
 Consider implementing select El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) enhancements as early as 2017.

The Plan also documented early results of the SamTrans Service Plan, which suggest that there is a demand for increased route frequency in the study area. Over the course of one year, weekday ridership increased by 13 percent on Route ERC and by 12 percent on Route 120, both of which serve the study area.

SAN MATEO COUNTY SENIOR MOBILITY GUIDE
The Senior Mobility Guide provides information about a wide range of programs and services to help San Mateo County residents remain mobile, active, and connected to their community as they age. Programs are provided through a range of agencies in the county to ensure seniors remain safe when driving and retain their access to resources and amenities. This guide provides transit service information, a program for Mobility Ambassadors to familiarize older adults and people with disabilities with transportation options, and information about local shuttles. The following programs identified in the guide are as follows:
 East Palo Alto Caltrain Shuttle: The shuttle goes from Woodland-Bayshore neighborhood locations in East Palo Alto, such as the Ravenswood Health Clinic, to the Palo Alto Caltrain Station every day, with some late-night service.
 Menlo Park Shoppers’ Shuttle: This ride-request service operates starting at 9:15 am and can take people to south San Mateo County destinations (times and days are variable).  Redwood City-Midpoint Caltrain Shuttle: This shuttle is available to all and runs on weekdays between Redwood City Caltrain and the Midpoint Technology Park on Broadway.  East Palo Alto Senior Shuttle: The Senior Center offers $0.50 weekday roundtrip rides for participants in the Senior Nutrition Lunch Program.
 Menlo Park Senior Center: The Senior Center offers donation-based rides in Menlo Park and parts of East Palo Alto to Senior Center members over 60 years old. Vehicles are wheelchair accessible.  American Cancer Society – Road to Recovery: A program staffed by volunteer drivers who pick up cancer patients at their homes and take them to treatment related activities, including doctor’s appointments, radiation treatments, and chemotherapy.
 Get Up & Go (PJCC): A door-to-door, wheelchair-accessible bus and car service for older adults who do not drive.
 Kaiser Permanente Medical Center – Redwood City: This hospital offers limited transportation for patients to nearby areas in southern San Mateo County.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
34 DECEMBER 2019
 Go-Go Grandparent: This nationwide service offers rides 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to all.

Vehicles can transport folding wheelchairs and passengers who are transferable, and fares are quoted based on distance traveled and time traveled.
 Serra Yellow Cab: This program offers dispatch service to/from Daly City, Colma, Brisbane, Pacifica, Broadmoor, Millbrae, Burlingame, Hillsborough, Foster City, Belmont, San Carlos, Redwood City and SFO.
 SilverRide: This TNC service is specifically designed to meet the transportation needs of older adults and people with ambulatory or other limitations
 SamTrans Redi-Wheels: This paratransit service is available for people whose disabilities or health conditions prevent them from using the bus.

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The San Mateo Countywide Transportation Plan for 2040 (SMCTP 2040) is a long-range, comprehensive transportation planning document that promotes consistency and compatibility among all transportation plans and programs within the county. The SMCTP 2040 outlines transportation issues associated with countywide growth and establishes overall strategies and programs to overcome the challenges.

The SMCTP 2040 includes a list of Proposed Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Projects comprised of longer-term improvements encouraged by the MTC’s twenty-year RTP. Some are located, or indicate potential transportation gaps, in the current study area. These include the following projects, with status updates per C/CAG’s 2019 Updated Draft List of Regionally Significant Projects1 and other referenced sources.
 Extend Blomquist Street over Redwood Creek to East Bayshore and Bair Island Road: Construction to start January 2020; project open date 2023.
 Improve U.S. 101/Woodside Road interchange: Final design as of November 2019, project open date 2025.
 Middlefield Road Streetscape. Design complete 2018, construction not initiated.  US 101/University Avenue Interchange Improvements: East Palo Alto working on Funding and Cooperative Agreements with Caltrans and SMCTA,
2 project open date 2021.
1 C/CAG, April 29, 2019, UPDATED - Draft List of Regionally Significant Projects, https://ccag.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2019/04/Updated-Draft-PBA-2050-Project-List-CMEQ.pdf, accessed December 11, 2019. 2 City of East Palo Alto, Capitol Improvement Project in Progress webpage, http://www.ci.east-paloalto.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=183, accessed December 11, 2019.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PLA CEWORKS 35
 Bay Road Improvement Phases II & III. Request for Proposals for construction management services released September 2019, construction work start December 2019.3

 University Avenue Complete Streets Pilot Project. In planning stage as part of citywide complete streets policy framework.
 Reconstruct U.S. 101/Willow Road interchange. Construction began in May 2017, City of Menlo Park Environmental Quality Commission to present to Council in early 2020.4

 Improve access to and from the west side of Dumbarton Bridge on Route 84 connecting to U.S. 101.

In planning stage; opening date 2040.

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOLLOW UP: FINAL

ACTION PLAN
The SMCTP 2040 Follow-Up Plan (Final Action Plan) was developed by a multi-agency Working Group to ensure the that goals, projects and programs in SMCTP 2040 would be implemented appropriately. The Final Action Plan:
 Establishes regional and local roles & responsibilities;  Assesses the effectiveness of performance measures in SMCTP 2040 and identifies accountability measures to ensure the Action Plan is reviewed and updated as needed;  Incudes recommendations for effective community outreach and equitable planning; and  Summarizes existing and potential funding sources on the local, state and federal level.

The Final Action Plan prioritizes funding decisions that consider equity, and stresses that the results of County CBTPs should be used to inform the development of the next SMCTP update.

SAN MATEO COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY TRANSPORTATION

PROGRAMS
The County of San Mateo’s Human Services Agency (HSA) provides services that vary from public assistance programs for the homeless to child protective services. HSA also implements the following transportation assistance programs, each of which demonstrates a gap in mobility options for challenged populations.
3 City of East Palo Alto, September 2019, https://www.ci.east-palo-alto.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/4152, accessed December 11, 2019.
4 City of Menlo Park, Willow Road/U.S. 101 Interchange webpage, https://www.menlopark.org/1127/Willow-RoadUS-101- Interchange, accessed December 11, 2019.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
36 DECEMBER 2019
 Service Connect: This program provides a range of services aimed at supporting former inmates as they re-enter the community, including emergency housing, transportation vouchers, and other basic needs assistance.
 Health Plan of San Mateo: Through Medi-Cal, Health Plan of San Mateo (HPSM) provides a managed care insurance plan with benefits for people with Medi-Cal Coverage or through the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. One benefit includes the Nonmedical Transportation (NMT) service, which provides rides to HPSM members to outpatient health care services throughout the county.

This program is provided through the American Logistics Company, which provides the free ride to participating members.
 Subsidized SamTrans Tickets: The HSA purchases $1 million in tickets and bus passes annually from SamTrans to serve low-income individuals, as well as passes for youth, child welfare cases, and those on juvenile probation.

RAVENSWOOD/ 4 CORNERS TOD SPECIFIC PLAN
The City of East Palo Alto’s 2013 Ravenswood/ 4 Corners TOD Specific Plan includes provisions for pedestrian and bicycle circulation, vehicle circulation, and transit. The Plan aims to improve the pedestrian network and pedestrian safety and proposes bicycle facilities along key corridors. It recommends new or enhanced connections between Ravenswood and University Avenue, along Bay Road, on Fordham Street, and along Illinois Avenue.

Due to the uncertainty of the future Dumbarton Rail Corridor at the time this plan was drafted, transit improvements are recommended to provide flexible multimodal transportation options, pedestrianfriendly environments, and mixed-use development. Alternative station sites for the Dumbarton Rail, as well as bus rapid transit (BRT) options, are provided to increase transit connections for individuals in the Specific Plan Area. Since 2013, the second alternative has been selected to locate the rail in Menlo Park.

This alternative requires bus transit, private shuttle, and bicycle connections from the Specific Plan Area of East Palo Alto to the station.

DUMBARTON TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR STUDY
This 2017 study of the feasibility of multimodal transportation improvements in the Dumbarton Corridor was conducted as a follow-up to the Ravenswood / 4 Corners TOD Specific Plan. The Study recommends a phased program of operational and infrastructure improvements that enhance mobility between Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. The western portion of the Corridor passes through the Redwood City, North Fair Oaks, Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto COCs. The study found that improving corridor efficiency and travel time reliability with enhanced bus services, roadway improvements, and rail service would benefit commuters in the Peninsula, including those in the study area. Recommendations from this study are currently being implemented to enhance the Dumbarton Rail Corridor.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PLA CEWORKS 37

NORTH FAIR OAKS COMMUNITY PLAN
Chapter 3 of the 2011 North Fair Oaks (NFO) Community Plan evaluates circulation in NFO, the unincorporated community in the CBTP the study area. The Plan identifies the following gaps in in the transportation network:
 Infrequent crossing locations along existing railroad lines create barriers to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit circulation and neighborhood connectivity.
 Narrow or missing sidewalks, inadequate curb ramps, and poor stormwater drainage.  Lack of designated bicycle facilities within the community.  Transit routes are difficult to access from some areas of the community.  There are no train stations within practical walking distance, despite two rail corridors through the community.

The following implementation action has been planned, but have not yet been completed:
 Proposed traffic signal Redwood Junction (Middlefield rail crossing) intersection The following implementation action was implemented in 2016, but taken out of service in 2018 due to declining ridership:
 NFO Parks shuttle to County Parks

REDWOOD CITY GENERAL PLAN
Redwood City addresses transit needs in the Circulation Element of the Redwood City General Plan.

Improvements to the bicycle and pedestrian network are recommended within the study area along Middlefield Road, at intersections with Chestnut Street, Woodside Road, Willow Street and Douglas Avenue. In addition, the Circulation Element considers a potential streetcar network along Middlefield Road and Broadway Avenue through Redwood City’s COCs.

MENLO PARK GENERAL PLAN
The Circulation Element in the Menlo Park General Plan, adopted in 2016, identifies focus areas for transportation change, some of which lie within the CBTP study area. Future paseos, multi-use pedestrian and bicycle pathways, Class III bikeways, and mixed-use collector streets are proposed to enhance the street network. The Circulation Element also maps shuttle routes and bus routes and the proposed Dumbarton Line through the Menlo Park COCs.

EAST PALO ALTO GENERAL PLAN
The 2015 East Palo Alto General Plan discusses transportation network gaps and improvements throughout the city in the Transportation Element. The element notes that the existing transit network in

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
38 DECEMBER 2019
the city is extensive with frequent, convenient connections throughout most of the city. The only new transit route proposed in East Palo Alto is the Dumbarton Rail, which will run through the northern edge of the East Palo Alto COCs.

The Transportation Element finds that the existing bicycle network is relatively modest, particularly lacking access across Highway 101, and numerous streets lack sidewalks altogether for pedestrian mobility. The element recommends connecting existing sidewalk segments throughout the city to increase pedestrian safety and access. In addition, the element proposes bicycle connections across Highway 101 and along Pulgas Avenue to improve connectivity. As of 2019, the Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Project has been completed.

SAN MATEO COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN
PLAN
C/CAG’s 2011 Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (CBPP) recommends bikeways and Pedestrian Focus Areas—defined as areas of high pedestrian demand where pedestrian improvements of countywide significance can be located—to close gaps in the bicycle and pedestrian network. Multiple Pedestrian Focus Areas are in the CBTP study area.

Pedestrian Focus Areas are prioritized for funding through the CBPP, and the CBPP recommends relevant project and design improvements such as:
 Downtown Area Improvements: Sidewalks, walking pathways and crossing improvements.  El Camino Real Corridor Improvements: Walking pathways and crossing improvements, including Grand Boulevard Initiative projects.
 Major Barrier Crossings: Bicyclist and pedestrian crossings of major transportation barriers, including freeway crossings; over/under crossing projects and major arterial crossings; and intersection crossing/signalization improvements.
 Safe Routes to School: Walking pathways, sidewalks and intersection improvements near K-12 schools, designed to encourage and enable school children to safely walk, bicycle, carpool, and utilize transit to get to school.
 Safe Routes to Transit: Sidewalks and pedestrian intersection improvements within ½ mile of a Caltrain station or BART station or within ¼ mile of a major bus line.  Access to County/Regional Activity Centers: Sidewalks and pedestrian intersection improvements connecting to activity centers of county or regional significance.

SAN MATEO COUNTY SHUTTLE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS
The San Mateo County Transportation Authority and C/CAG initiated a joint call for projects in late 2017 to provide funding for the operation of local shuttle services. Eligible projects must serve county residents and employees and provide access to regional transit and/or meet local mobility needs. The scoring

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PLA CEWORKS 39
system includes the following “Project Need” criteria in order to ensure that projects serve transitchallenged communities:
 Provides service to an area underserved by transit.
 Provides service to special populations (e.g. transit dependent, seniors).

The current call for projects deadline is February 21, 2020.5

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR LOW-INCOME

POPULATIONS
The objective of the Countywide Transportation Plan for Low-Income Populations is to fulfill transportation needs of disadvantaged residents in the county. This Plan outlines the following barriers to project implementation based on analyses of previous planning efforts, including the 2008 Bayshore CBTP:
 Lack of appropriate sustainable and stable funding sources.  The absence of a process to promote implementation of projects.  Projects that require unusual, complex, or difficult partnerships.  Projects that require a degree of administrative resources beyond that of sponsoring agencies.

A series of transportation improvement projects was developed based on a community outreach process.

The following impact the study area directly:
 Implement 24-hour bus service (East Palo Alto). This has been implemented, with Samtrans’ Route 297 providing overnight service between the Palo Alto Transit Center and the Redwood City Transit Center via East Palo Alto
 Construct a bus shelter at Woodside Rd & El Camino Real (Redwood City) and at the Newbridge bus station (East Palo Alto). These have not been implemented.  Develop additional amenities at Bay Rd and University Ave, University Ave and Runnymead St, and Willow Rd (East Palo Alto) and Belle Haven (Menlo Park). These have not been implemented.  Construct speed bumps, lower speed limit, and flashing crosswalks at Belle Haven Elementary School (Menlo Park). On April 16, 2019, the Menlo Park City Council and residents reviewed the Belle Haven Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan.
5 C/CAG Technical Advisory Committee, November 21, 2019, San Mateo County Shuttle Program Call For Projects, https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Shuttle-Prgm-FY-20-21-21-22-TAC-Mtg-112119-1.pdf, accessed December 11, 2019.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
40 DECEMBER 2019
 Provide more lighting at El Camino and 5th intersection (North Fair Oaks). Lighting policies in NFO have been established in 2017 Neighborhood Street Enhancement Program.  Add more pedestrian crosswalks at Broadway Street (Redwood City). Partially implemented, with new Caltrain grade crossing at Broadway in 2018.
 Improve pedestrian safety and amenities: Improve landscaping, longer crosswalk time, widen sidewalks, and slow traffic on El Camino Real. The Redwood City El Camino Real Corridor Plan was adopted in 2017, and the Bike and Ped Safety Improvement Study: El Camino Real between Maple & Charter Streets, was completed in February 2019. The latter includes conceptual design drawings for bike and pedestrian safety improvements on El Camino Real. 6  Construct a better sight line for left turning cars at Clark and Myrtle intersection (East Palo Alto).

Not yet implemented.
 Add bicycle lanes on El Camino Real. The Redwood City El Camino Real Corridor Plan was adopted in 2017, and Bike and Ped Safety Improvement Study: El Camino Real between Maple & Charter Streets, was completed in February 2019. The latter includes conceptual design drawings for bike and pedestrian safety improvements on El Camino Real.

EAST PALO ALTO BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
The 2017 East Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Master Plan (EPATMP) identifies existing and proposed routes throughout the study area. The bicycle network consists of Class II bike lanes along collector roads and a Class I off-street bicycle path near the shoreline. Proposed routes run primarily north-south to connect existing path segments.

MENLO PARK TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
The City of Menlo Park is currently developing its first Transportation Master Plan (TMP) to provide a vision for mobility, establish metrics for network performance, and outline an implementation strategy for local and regional network improvements. One major priority is the Bayfront Expressway Multimodal Corridor Project along Haven Avenue in the study area. Projects are prioritized via nine Prioritization Criteria, one of which is “Sensitive Populations” such as residents of COCs. Projects in the not-yet adopted Master Plan that fulfill the “Sensitive Populations” criterion include:
 Reactivation of the Dumbarton Corridor Project.
 Marsh Road Bicycle Network Improvement Project.
6 City of Redwood City, El Camino Real Corridor Plan webpage, https://www.redwoodcity.org/departments/communitydevelopment-department/planning-housing/planning-services/general-plan-precise-plans/el-camino-real-corridorplan#Background,accessed December 11, 2019.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PLA CEWORKS 41
 Willow Road Corridor Improvement Project, including pedestrian, bicycle and safety improvements.  Downtown Mobility Improvements, including conversion of existing crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks.
 Middle Avenue Mobility Improvements, including new Class II Bicycle Lanes and new sidewalks on both sides of Middle Avenue.
 West Menlo Mobility Improvements, including Class II Bicycle Lanes on Avy Avenue from Santa Cruz Avenue to Monte Rosa Drive.

REDWOOD CITY MOVES: CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
2018 RWC Moves is a guide for future Redwood City transportation investment. It outlines a series of programs divided into seven categories: Active transportation, Complete Street corridors and placemaking, transit access and service enhancements, roadway congestion and delay improvements, network gap closure, connectivity and safety, transportation technologies and innovations, and Transportation Demand Management. There are multiple projects across all categories that would impact the Redwood City and North Fair Oaks COCs. These include the Vera Avenue Bicycle Boulevard project and the Redwood City Transit Center Improvements project.

REDWOOD CITY SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL
This plan identifies potential infrastructure projects and education and encouragement programs to improve student safety and support walking and biking to school. In addition, it identifies and promotes walking and biking routes for students and parents to and from school at Hawes Community School, located in the Redwood City portion of the CBTP study area. 2005 CBTP IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
As noted above, the last update to a CBTP in the Southeast San Mateo County area was the 2005 East Palo Alto CBTP, which included a study area limited to the City of East Palo Alto. The 2005 CBTP recommended 13 projects, programs and plans categorized by implementation timeline, including Short-Term, Mid-Term and Long-Term efforts. Table 5 tallies each of these projects and plans by the degree to which they have been implemented. It also includes information regarding factors that influenced the success or failure of each.

As shown in Table 4, six of the 14 CBTP recommendations have been fully implemented, a success rate of about 43 percent. Three of the recommendations have been partially implemented and four have not been implemented, rates of about 21 and 36 percent, respectively.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
42 DECEMBER 2019
Table 4 Status of 2005 East Palo Alto CBTP Recommendations

Recommended
Project/Plan/Program
Level of Implementation Notes
Fully
Implemented
Partially
Implemented
Not
Implemented
Short-Term
Improve the Scheduling
and Connectivity of
Transit Service
✔ Transit Study completed.

Subsidize Monthly
Transit Passes for Low
Income Residents
✔ Transit Fare Assistance program (CalWORKS) in
County Welfare to Work Transportation Plan.

Provide Demand
Response Transit Service ✔ Hindered by low ridership, redundancy with SamTrans routes Provide More Bus Pass
Vendor Outlets ✔ New Clipper vendor outlets installed at regional drug stores Provide a City
Transportation Systems
Management
Coordinator
✔ Hindered by city budget constraints and human
resource challenges.

Enhance Transit
Information in Spanish ✔
Printed materials now obsolete with online
translation resources and smartphone
availability
Implement a Transit
Oriented Development
Program
✔ TOD Program adopted as part of Ravenswood/
4 Corners TOD Specific Plan
Relocate School Bus
Stops ✔ Facilities Master Plan focused on bus stops at school campuses, not routes Provide Community
Shuttle Services at Night ✔ Hindered by low ridership and redundancy with SamTrans routes Mid-Term
Provide Enhanced Transit
Transfer Sites ✔
Hindered by limiting site conditions, permit and
power requirements, lack of responsible agency
accountability
Increase Frequency of
Transit Service ✔ SamTrans increased frequency of Route 281 and Route 296 Extend SamTrans Routes
297/397 into
Neighborhoods or Extend
Hours of Route 296
✔ SamTrans implemented
Long-Term
Provide a Transit Center
in East Palo Alto ✔
Dumbarton Rail project has overshadowed this
project and highlighted a potential redundancy
with an independent transit station

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PLA CEWORKS 43

KEY FINDINGS AND TRENDS
Based on the demographic and transportation analysis outlined in this assessment, the study area has underserved populations when compared to San Mateo County overall. Resources and services are less accessible for residents in these neighborhoods which may be influenced by the key findings identified below.
 COCs east of Redwood City in the study area have shorter average commute times than the Redwood City COCs and countywide. Longer commutes in the Redwood City study area may be partially attributed to the nearby Caltrain station, which provides connections to destinations such as San Francisco, the Peninsula, and San Jose. Residents in COCs without a Caltrain station may live closer to their workplace due to lack of regional transit access to facilitate longer trips.  Lower-income and vehicle-restricted COCs tend to be close to public transit hubs. Nearby transit centers provide access to work and amenities without need for a car. This reflects the potential value of CBTP transit connectivity projects and resulting decrease in auto-dependency.  Language limitation is associated with poverty rates in the study area. Both of these factors may be improved through informational and education -based transportation projects, as well as projects providing improved access to learning and social support facilities.  North Fair Oaks has a higher rate of young people, a sector traditionally more reliant on non-auto modes of travel and the focus of safety programs. However, this COC has few transit routes and bike facilities. These gaps are access and safety liabilities, solutions to which should be explored.  East Palo Alto is the only COC included in the 2005 CBTP. The factors that define a COC and other demographic challenges still frustrate equitable transportation here. This area has the most youths and least elderly, indicating that young families are prevalent. This area has more households with non-English speakers and higher rates of households at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty threshold. Parts of East Palo Alto have high rates of those with physical disabilities, and the community is distanced from regional transit services like Caltrain. The success rate of recommendations from the 2005 CBTP should be assessed carefully in the development of new projects and programs.

Analysis of the 2005 CBTP recommendations and their varying degrees of success revealed trends for consideration when developing updated programs and policies in this study area. The trends are discussed below.
 Relatively High Rate of Implementation
As shown in Table 4, recommendations identified in the 2005 East Palo Alto CBTP have an implementation rate of 43 percent. This is relatively successful as compared to previous CBTPs in San Mateo County. Five of the six implemented projects directly addressed SamTrans accessibility — either route improvements or subsidized ridership. SamTrans improvements should remain a

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
44 DECEMBER 2019
priority of outreach and recommendations for the current Southeast San Mateo CBTP. However, strategies and projects must be responsive to current conditions.  Technological Advancements Rendering Programs Obsolete.

Online tools and engagement have become more accessible as smartphones have become ubiquitous. Recommendations should anticipate emerging and evolving technologies by devising programs and policies that are flexible and applicable in the changing technological landscape of today.
 Program Redundancy with Multi-Agency Coordination.

CBTP recommendations must consider the challenges of multi-agency coordination. The study area is targeted for proposed and adopted transportation programming sponsored by various local and regional agencies. Implementation of CBTP projects will require careful allocation of responsibility and thoughtful planning to ensure resources are allocated efficiently and without redundancy.  Unidentified Funding/Responsible Agency to Research Funding.

When programs fail to identify a secured funding source, the first challenge in implementation becomes identifying a funding source. Adding an extra step of attempting to obtain funding increases the project timeline and decreases the likelihood of timely and effective program implementation. Furthermore, some programs may identify a potential funding source but fail to indicate a party to pursue and obtain the funding. A lack of responsible agency leaves the policy without actionable next steps to mobilize implementation. All recommendations should identify a clear, available funding source and assign an agency responsible for the pursuit and preservation of the funds for the project.
 Targeted Use of Printed Materials
The previous CBTP recommended Spanish translation of SamTrans route maps, general information guides, local shuttle maps, and schedules. However, printed materials were not created due to perceptions that they are redundant with increasing popularity of mobile phones. SamTrans’ website uses Google Translate to provide resources in Spanish, but user feedback indicates that the translation provided online is not understandable. While SamTrans uses the automatic translator because it is an affordable, practical way to translate pages, it is ineffective if non-English speaking households cannot understand the information. Due to the key finding’s indication that non-English speaking households also tend to be lower income, these COCs may have difficulty accessing understandable online resources. Printed materials featuring routes and schedules should be provided in Spanish, especially in Redwood City and other COCs with a large Spanish speaker population, to address inequality gaps related to language barriers and web access.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) ........................................................................................................................

A PPENDIX C

C OMMUNITY O UTREACH

D OCUMENTATION

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) ........................................................................................................................

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|þ}84
·|þ}82
Æþ101
Æ101
Chestnut St
2nd Ave
Galvez St
Euclid Ave
Broadway
Barry Ln
Florence St
Holly St
High Rd
Blomquist St
University Dr
E Okeefe St
Newbridge St
Lincoln Ave
Arguello St
Elena Ave
Ravenswood Ave
Campus Dr
Santa Clara Ave
Cooley Ave
Fair Oaks Ln
Oak Grove Ave
Lytton Ave
Cedar St
Marsh Rd
Chilco St
Quarry
Rd
Canada Rd
Churchill Ave
Camino Al Lago
Newell Rd
Main St
Ringwood Ave
Woodside Dr Virginia Ave
Saint Francis Way
Whipple Ave
Willow
Rd
Alameda de Las Pulgas
Middle Ave
Oregon Expy
5th Ave
Edgewood Rd
Seaport Blvd
Sand Hill Rd
Santa Cruz Ave
Woodland Ave
Atherton Ave
E Bayshore Rd
Alma St
Embarcadero Rd
Hudson St
Waverley St
Old County Rd
Bay Rd
Selby Ln
Valparaiso Ave
Channing Ave
evAytisrevi nU
Middlefield Rd
Veterans Blvd
Woodside Rd
El Camino Real
Southeast San Mateo County CBTP Study Area
Source: Metropolitan Transporta�on Commission, 2018; PlaceWorks 2019.

COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLANS FOR C/CAG OF SAN MATEO COUNTY 0 0.375 0.75 1.5
Miles
San
Francisco
Bay

ALAMEDA
COUNTY

EAST PALO ALTO

MENLO PARK

ATHERTON

REDWOOD CITY

SAN CARLOS
North Fair Oaks
Menlo
Oaks

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY
Study Area
Community of Concern
East Palo Alto
Menlo Park
Redwood City
Other Jurisdic�ons
San Mateo County
I2 CalTrain Sta�on

HELP IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS

IN SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY

PARTICIPATE IN THE

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY

COMMUNITY-BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The CBTP will:
• Evaluate transportation gaps and barriers identified by the community
• Develop solutions & projects to address these
challenges
• Identify possible funding sources to pay for these
solutions & projects

HOW TO PARTICIPATE
Community Feedback Events:

We will be hosting a series of project
“Pop-Ups” at community events
throughout Southeast San Mateo
County. Please stop by and tell us about
your transportation challenges and
ideas.
0 Scale (Miles)

1.5 PLAN STUDY AREA

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|þ}84
·|þ}82
Æþ101
Æ101
Chestnut St
2nd Ave
Galvez St
Euclid Ave
Broadway
Barry Ln
Florence St
Holly St
High Rd
Blomquist St
University Dr
E Okeefe St
Newbridge St
Lincoln Ave
Arguello St
Elena Ave
Ravenswood Ave
Campus Dr
Santa Clara Ave
Cooley Ave
Fair Oaks Ln
Oak Grove Ave
Lytton Ave
Cedar St
Marsh Rd
Chilco St
Quarry
Rd
Canada Rd
Churchill Ave
Camino Al Lago
Newell Rd
Main St
Ringwood Ave
Woodside Dr Virginia Ave
Saint Francis Way
Whipple Ave
Willow
Rd
Alameda de Las Pulgas
Middle Ave
Oregon Expy
5th Ave
Edgewood Rd
Seaport Blvd
Sand Hill Rd
Santa Cruz Ave
Woodland Ave
Atherton Ave
E Bayshore Rd
Alma St
Embarcadero Rd
Hudson St
Waverley St
Old County Rd
Bay Rd
Selby Ln
Valparaiso Ave
Channing Ave
evAytisrevi nU
Middlefield Rd
Veterans Blvd
Woodside Rd
El Camino Real
Southeast San Mateo County CBTP Study Area
Source: Metropolitan Transporta�on Commission, 2018; PlaceWorks 2019.

COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLANS FOR C/CAG OF SAN MATEO COUNTY 0 0.375 0.75 1.5
Miles
San
Francisco
Bay

ALAMEDA
COUNTY

EAST PALO ALTO

MENLO PARK

ATHERTON

REDWOOD CITY

SAN CARLOS
North Fair Oaks
Menlo
Oaks

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY
Área de Estudio
Comunidad de Preocupación
East Pal Alto
Menlo Park
Redwood City
Other Jurisdic�ons
Condado de San Mateo
I2 Estación Caltrain

AYUDA A MEJORAR LAS OPCIONES DE

TRANSPORTE EN SUR ESTE SAN MATEO COUNTY

PARTICIPE EN EL PLAN CONDADO

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO PLAN DE

TRANSPORTE BASADO EN LA COMUNIDAD
El CBTP hará:
• Evaluar las brechas de transporte y las barreras
identificadas por la comunidad
• Desarrollar soluciones y proyectos para solucionar
estos desafiós
• Identificar posibles fuentes de financiación para pagar esas soluciones y proyectos
CÓMO PARTICIPAR
Eventos de Comentarios Para
la Comunidad:

Vamos a organizar una serie de
proyectos “Pop-Ups” en eventos
comunitarios a lo largo de Daly City.

Por favor, pasa a uno de los eventos y
cuétanos sobre tus desafíos e ideas de
transporte.
0 Scala (Millas)

1.5 ÁREA DE ESTUDIO DEL PLAN

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

PLEASE TAKE OUR SURVEY
Your feedback
will shape the Plan:

The results of this short survey about
existing transportation problems will
allow us to create meaningful solutions:
https://arcg.is/j00jb
I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|þ}84
·|þ}82
Æþ101
Æ101
Chestnut St
2nd Ave
Galvez St
Euclid Ave
Broadway
Barry Ln
Florence St
Holly St
High Rd
Blomquist St
University Dr
E Okeefe St
Newbridge St
Lincoln Ave
Arguello St
Elena Ave
Ravenswood Ave
Campus Dr
Santa Clara Ave
Cooley Ave
Fair Oaks Ln
Oak Grove Ave
Lytton Ave
Cedar St
Marsh Rd
Chilco St
Quarry
Rd
Canada Rd
Churchill Ave
Camino Al Lago
Newell Rd
Main St
Ringwood Ave
Woodside Dr Virginia Ave
Saint Francis Way
Whipple Ave
Willow
Rd
Alameda de Las Pulgas
Middle Ave
Oregon Expy
5th Ave
Edgewood Rd
Seaport Blvd
Sand Hill Rd
Santa Cruz Ave
Woodland Ave
Atherton Ave
E Bayshore Rd
Alma St
Embarcadero Rd
Hudson St
Waverley St
Old County Rd
Bay Rd
Selby Ln
Valparaiso Ave
Channing Ave
evAytisrevi nU
Middlefield Rd
Veterans Blvd
Woodside Rd
El Camino Real
Southeast San Mateo County CBTP Study Area
Source: Metropolitan Transporta�on Commission, 2018; PlaceWorks 2019.

COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLANS FOR C/CAG OF SAN MATEO COUNTY 0 0.375 0.75 1.5
Miles
San
Francisco
Bay

ALAMEDA
COUNTY

EAST PALO ALTO

MENLO PARK

ATHERTON

REDWOOD CITY

SAN CARLOS
North Fair Oaks
Menlo
Oaks

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY
Study Area
Community of Concern
East Palo Alto
Menlo Park
Redwood City
Other Jurisdic�ons
San Mateo County
I2 CalTrain Sta�on
Área de Estudio
Comunidad de Preocupación
East Pal Alto
Menlo Park
Redwood City
Other Jurisdic�ons
Condado de San Mateo
I2 Estación Caltrain

HELP IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS

IN SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY

PARTICIPATE IN THE

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY

1.5 PLAN STUDY AREA

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
·|þ}84
·|þ}82
Æþ101
Æ101
Chestnut St
2nd Ave
Galvez St
Euclid Ave
Broadway
Barry Ln
Florence St
Holly St
High Rd
Blomquist St
University Dr
E Okeefe St
Newbridge St Lincoln Ave
Arguello St
Elena Ave
Ravenswood Ave
Campus Dr
Santa Clara Ave
Cooley Ave
Fair Oaks Ln
Oak Grove Ave
Lytton Ave
Cedar St
Marsh Rd
Chilco St
Quarry Rd
Canada Rd
Churchill Ave
Camino Al Lago
Newell Rd
Main St
Ringwood Ave
Woodside Dr
Virginia Ave
Saint Francis Way
Whipple Ave
Willow Rd
Alameda de Las Pulgas
Middle Ave
Oregon Expy
5th Ave
Edgewood Rd
Seaport Blvd
Sand Hill Rd
Santa Cruz Ave
Woodland Ave
Atherton Ave
E Bayshore Rd
Alma St
Embarcadero Rd
Hudson St
Waverley St
Old County Rd
Bay Rd
Selby Ln
Valparaiso Ave
Channing Ave
evA ytisrevinU
Middlefield Rd
Veterans Blvd
Woodside Rd
El Camino Real
Southeast San Mateo County CBTP Study Area
Source: Metropolitan Transporta�on Commission, 2018; PlaceWorks 2019.

COMMUNITY BASED TRANSPORTATION PLANS FOR C/CAG OF SAN MATEO COUNTY 0 0.375 0.75 1.5
Miles
San
Francisco
Bay

ALAMEDA
COUNTY

EAST PALO ALTO

MENLO PARK

ATHERTON

REDWOOD CITY

SAN CARLOS
North Fair Oaks
Menlo
Oaks

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY
Área de Estudio
Comunidad de Preocupación
East Pal Alto
Menlo Park
Redwood City
Other Jurisdic�ons
Condado de San Mateo
I2 Estación Caltrain

AYUDA A MEJORAR LAS OPCIONES DE

TRANSPORTE EN SUR ESTE SAN MATEO COUNTY

PARTICIPE EN EL PLAN CONDADO

SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO PLAN DE

POR FAVOR,

TOME NUESTRA ENCUESTA
Sus comentarios darán
forma al Plan:

Los resultados de esta breve encuesta
sobre los problemas de transporte
existentes nos permitirán crear
soluciones significativas:
https://arcg.is/G1WiX
0 Scala (Millas)

1.5 ÁREA DE ESTUDIO DEL PLAN

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

1. The traffic calming and active transportation improvements along O’Connor St from Clark Ave have been very beneficial in making this area safer to walk to the boys and girls club on O’Connor St.

Similar improvements should be made all the way to Wisteria Dr.

2. The Intersection of Cooley Ave and University Ave should have a signalized crosswalk or pedestrian over-crossing. The nearby non-signalized multi-lane crosswalk at University Ave and Weeks St is very dangerous and cars do not stop for pedestrians. This is right in front of El Concilio.

3. Vehicle speeds on University Ave are too fast in both directions. This is especially true in the northern segment, north of Michigan Ave, but is still true for the entire length of University Ave in both directions all the way to 101.

4. Cars do not stop for pedestrians at the crosswalk on Clark Ave and Beech St; there should be a signalized crosswalk here.

5. Need better lighting and wider sidewalks along the bridge on Newell Rd at Woodland Ave There should be a signal, or the trees should be cleared somewhat because there is a blind crosswalk and cars don’t see people trying to cross (x2). One new mom waits for cars before picking up her dog and dashing across the crosswalk with her two-week old baby in one arm and dog in the other arm.

6. Speeds are too fast on Lincoln St and on Bell St turning off and on to Lincoln St. This is a residential area and people are going up to 60 mph.

7. Pulgas Ave is unsafe to walk on for the entire length in both directions. Sidewalks are incomplete and narrow, and cars speed very fast.

8. Runnymede St needs sidewalks between Pulgas Ave and University Ave. (X3)

9. See comment card (Esp.)

10. See comment card (Esp.)

11. The intersection at Gloria way and Ursula Way is wide and very dangerous for pedestrians.

12. The T-intersection of Oakwood Dr at East Bayshore Rd should have a light. There have been fatalities there (there is a memorial at this location visible on Google Street View).

13. Oakwood Dr going north from East Bayshore Rd should have sidewalks on both sides of the street.

Cars still speed up and down Oakwood Dr despite some speed bumps, and cars park in the pedestrian ROW.

14. It is unsafe to cross in any direction at the intersection of University Ave and Bay Rd. Traffic speeds are too fast, and people drive through even signalized crosswalks. Drivers do donuts (stunts) at this East Palo Alto Farmers market Pop-Up Feedback

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) location.

15. The Charter school at Runnymede St needs walk/bike access—there is no way to access this school by walking or biking. Prioritize Garden St for walk/bike to school improvement

16. People keep parking in the pedestrian ROW on both sides of Pulgas Ave. There should be a bike/ped lane along Pulgas Ave.

17. There are many accidents at the intersection of University Ave and Runnymede St and crossing University at Runnymede feels unsafe. Runnymede needs sidewalks (see comment 15).

18. The sidewalks along West Bayshore Rd between Cooley Ave and Woodland Ave are too narrow and incomplete in many locations. Cars are speeding and often park on the sidewalk/pedestrian ROW, forcing pedestrians into the streets.

19. Driving speeds are too fast in both directions along East Okeefe St. (between Willow Rd and Euclid Ave). Speed bumps would be beneficial here.

20. Green St (between Cooley Ave and Clark Ave) is prone to flooding.

21. The pedestrian overcrossing at E Bayshore Rd and Pulgas Ave is slow because pedestrians don’t have priority. There are no sidewalks on the west side of Pulgas Ave, going north from E Bayshore Rd (towards the liquor store).

22. Traffic speeds are too high on West Bayshore Rd along the entire length in both directions (similar to comment 18).

23. There should be better signage for 101 on-ramps going southbound from University Ave.

24. Drivers park on the side of the road and their cars stick out into the lane at Oak Ct. between Woodland Ave and Menalto Ave It is dangerous.

25. There should be safer sidewalks on West Bayshore Rd between University Ave and Newell Rd (similar to comment 18).

26. There should be better way finding at all the intersections surrounding the shopping center where Ikea is along East Bayshore Rd and Donohoe St.

27. a. (Note: there are two #27’s on the map; this is the northern one) Drivers use Kavanaugh Dr. to get to University Ave (to avoid going on O’Brien Dr. when it is congested during rush hour periods), and traffic speeds are too fast on Kavanaugh Dr. The eastbound stop sign on Kavanaugh at this intersection should be located one block east on Kavanaugh and Gloria Way instead, because people use Gloria Way to get to Kavanaugh Dr.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) b. (Note: two #27’s on the map; this is the southern one one). The intersection of Newbridge Street and Willow Road is dangerous for pedestrians to cross in any direction.

28. The 5-way stop at Newbridge St, Ralmar Ave, and Bay Rd is confusing. Drivers get competitive and are confused about who has the ROW and it is dangerous for pedestrians. As a driver, it is hard to see other cars because of the angle of approach too

29. Cars speed in both directions all along Clark Ave (from 101 to Bay Rd).

Comments without Map Numbers
• It is very dangerous to cross Newbridge St at Menalto Ave The bus stop on eastbound Newbridge St between Mello St and Menalto Ave does not have a pullout lane, so cars speed around it and could hit pedestrians crossing Newbridge St at Menalto Ave. • Traffic speeds are too high on Woodland Ave in both directions. There are many semi-trucks. • Traffic speeds are too high on Euclid Ave between Woodland Ave and Okeefe St. • We need a 2nd BART tube for the South Bay.
• Police do not come when called and do not take calls seriously. • The intersection at Michigan Ave and University Ave needs a signalized crosswalk near the library.
• Restore pre-COVID bus frequencies!
• The sidewalk is too narrow on University Ave across 101. If I’m on my bike and another person has a stroller, we cannot pass each other.
• We should not be putting pedestrians and bikes on the same roads as cars. There should be alternate bike/ped paths that are parallel to but totally separate from main driving routes. • Woodland Ave is perilous on a bike—until you get to Menlo Park. • Restore the shuttle that went from the train station at University Ave around East Palo Alto. • There should be more lighting and sidewalk space along East Bayshore Rd starting at Clark Ave towards Embarcadero Rd.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) Comment Card #14
There have been various accidents on University Ave in front of City Hall that have almost resulted in pedestrians getting ran over.

Comment Card #15
Vehicles on University Ave drive very fast and don’t respect or follow traffic signals and don’t give pedestrians the right of way. This also applies to any other street.

Comment Card #16
The school located at the end of Garden St. has very dangerous traffic at the school’s exit for both the students and parents picking up their kids.

This may not be related to the subject at hand, but we don’t want another sex offender in our neighborhood, I live in Terra Villa and they’re thinking about letting the individual live between the streets Clark and Beech with another individual that already lives there for the last 10 years.

Comment Card #17
We need pedestrian signals and sidewalks
Comment Card #18
Manhattan Ave and Woodland Ave need sidewalks on the left side as well as better lighting.

Comment Card #19
Vallent Esperansa High School has sidewalks for students to walk on safely. We want safe walkways for our students.

Comment card #20 seemed to just ask questions but here they are anyways.

Where are there places that you’d like to see sidewalks, traffic signals, and better lighting in East Palo Alto?
Where are do cars drive very fast?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) North Fair Oaks
Community
Center
City of Redwood
City
10:30 - 1 pm

1. Middlefield Road is very busy

2. ECR/ 296 to Menlo College. It takes 2 hrs to get to Daly City. Difficult in reaching costo because the commenter has to take the 296; the commenter wants more faster/cheaper travel to Daly City; they have to take 3 buses to get to Costco and el ecamino to safeway to 296 -> costco; this commenter says that it is too expensive to get to San Mateo Medical because the bus is too expensive and their free fare is about to expire

3. On Douglas Ave; people are idling too much on the street; people going inside and dropping stuff off (hence idling) or picking people up

4. Sidewalk quality is ok, soso; can be improved for safety;

5. Stop sign; construction occurs a lot; better control in woodside after construction from woodside to Downtown; woodside to fift avenue.

6. Middlefield Road is very busy/Wickle on the other side; more traffic calming measures; clients should have alternative transportation for health reasons; some clients aren't well enough to take publiuc transit or don't know how to ride; sometimes the distance between spots are hard for patrons; Director of the Center are trying to figure out who qualfies for paratransit services

7. Traffic scary at Middlefield Road intersections --Woodside Road to Fifth Avenue.

8. Bad sidewalk quality in North Fair Oaks is only inconsistent; sometiome4s cross street

9. How about better options for transportation to the Fair Oaks Adult Activity Center and us

10. I never deal with public transit or paratransit my son says he doesn’t know how.

11. Staff: In process of identifying who qualifies for various paratransit services and informing visitors/locals of status.

12. I like to shop in Daly City malls but cant get there on trabnsit, although im sure theres a way.

13. SamTrans Routes ECR/ 296 itinerary to Daly City takes two hours.

14. What about hospitals?? San Mateo Medical Center and SamTrans Route ECR isn’t direct enough—also is there specialized para buses to hospitals?

15. paratransit service provides access to what medical centers.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

16. The increasing amount of vehicle drop-offs and pick-ups and idling on streets in the residential area southwest of the intersection of Middlefield Road and Charter Street, such as Douglas Avenue.

17. There’s always construction in Middlefield, but I guess that’s temporary and a good thing.

18. increase safety on Middlefield Road due to ongoing construction.

19. Middlefield Road is very busy and intimidating to walk on.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

1. There is lots of homelessness and uneven sidewalks on Bloomquist St. between Maple St and Seaport Blvd. There should be formal housing and services there. Maple St. also is unsafe and has uneven sidewalks.

2. There are lots of informal encampments along El Camino and Redwood Ave (near interchange with Woodside Rd and El Camino Real).

3. Drivers speed on both Arguello St and Allerton St, including large work vehicles. Mezes Park has a great 4-way intersection. There should be more stops like this one around the school in the centennial district (Redwood High School).

4. There is a pedestrian crossing at Whipple Ave crossing over Highway 101 and drivers do not stop for pedestrians there. The bike lane here is in the middle of the road and vegetation reduces visibility.

5. Cycling through downtown is difficult. The roadways are wide and there is no shade on the corners for pedestrians, making it unattractive, and it feels unsafe to cross the intersections. It feels unsafe to cross any intersection on El Camino Real, but especially those between James Ave and Redwood Ave.

6. The mobile home parks on East Bayshore Ave between Woodside Ave and Haven Ave are impossible to access by biking or walking (or to access anything from there).

7. The crosswalk paint is fading and hard to see at the intersection of Jefferson Ave and Alameda de las Pulgas. The crosswalks along Jefferson should all be signalized because cars do not stop at any of them when there are pedestrians waiting.

8. Both Harding Ave and Jefferson Ave are scary to bike on because of car doors opening. There are sharrows on these streets, but also parking on both sides of the street.

9. (18) We need a bike lane crossing 101 (either bridge or underpass) that connects south of 101 to the Bay Trail and Marsh Rd/Bay Front Park.

10. (24) There is a park near Hopkins and Broadway (Dingee Circle?) where the sidewalk abruptly ends.

It should run all the way around the park. There is also no safe way to cross the street around this park.

11. The sidewalks along the north side of Hopkins Ave are uneven between Grand St and Hudson St.

12. It is difficult for motorists to see the speed hump at Hopkins Ave and King St. (next to Stafford Park), mostly westbound.

13. (15) There is a lot of trash and speeding along Industrial Rd.

14. There needs to be a pedestrian signal for the crosswalk at the intersection of El Camino Real and Edgewood Road, very wide multi-lane crosswalk with just a stop sign for drivers.

15. (26) the intersection of Broadway and 2nd Ave is unsafe for pedestrian crossings in all directions.

Drivers coming down Broadway and turning onto 2nd don’t see pedestrians. Motorists are impatient and the crossing is very wide.

16. (28) The lanes are too narrow on Marsh Rd between Middlefield and Bay Rd, and it is scary for cyclists. There should be a bike lane here or near here.

17. (29) Crossing El Camino Real via Oakwood Drive on a bike is dangerous. Also, the train tracks force cyclists trying to get to Middlefield from El Camino Real to use Fifth Ave. There needs to be more safe crossings over Middlefield Rd between Charter St and 9th Ave. Fifth Ave is the only crossing around this area.

Redwood City Kiwanis Farmners Market, November 27, 2021

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) Comments without Map Numbers

1. Maple St. from Marshall St to Hilltop St is unsafe and has uneven sidewalks

2. Traffic speeds are too fast on Samson St between Arguello St and Allerton St.

3. Sidewalks should be widened at the Brittan Ave underpass intersecting El Camino Real.

4. More bike racks downtown and at stores. They don’t need to be cute and bike-shaped, just more of them at major retail areas.

5. Streamline crossings for bikes so the rider does not have to get off and press the button. Or install censors for bikes.

6. Construction creates traffic on El Camino. When will it be finished?

7. The bike lane on Whipple Ave is terrifying.

8. Traffic flow should be timed along Jefferson Ave, particularly at Cleveland St. Censors get tripped by cars on Cleveland turning onto Jefferson, interrupting flow. The City should incorporate smart flow like they have in the Netherlands and Germany (different from timed traffic lights?) Can implement on Cal Trans property but would need coordination and reducing the number of organizations involved

9. There should be timed traffic lights on El Camino Real.

10. There needs to be traffic calming implemented on Whipple Ave between East Bayshore Rd and El Camino Real.

11. There should be a bus line going between Downtown Redwood City and Edgewood Park

12. Woodside Ave and El Camino Real are the biggest barriers to biking. Both are difficult to cross. El Camino could have bike lanes on it but not Woodside.

13. A bike path should run parallel to the train tracks instead of on El Camino. Priority routes for bikes should not be on the same streets as major driving arterials.

14. There should be more safe/signalized crossings on Woodside Ave between Linden St and E Bayshore Rd.

15. El Camino and Woodside Ave interchange is a highway-style on-ramp that is dangerous on a bike. It would be great to have better bike and pedestrian crossing infrastructure here

16. Connect Redwood Village to the other side of Woodside Ave.

17. Drivers often run red lights at the intersection of El Camino and Broadway.

18. There needs to be more security at Sequoia Station.

19. Hudson St is often used as a cut-through street, and drivers are speeding.

20. Drivers are speeding on Roosevelt Ave. Traffic calming is needed here.

21. Middlefield Rd is a good street. All streets should be modeled after Middlefield. This is comfortable to walk on.

22. The 274 bus used to take 6 minutes to get between the Caltrain station and Alameda and Jefferson. Now it takes much longer to get between these two points since this bus was canceled.

23. Connect future ferry terminal to Redwood City Caltrain—use Freight ROW.

24. There is no good public transit around North Fair Oaks. There should be more frequency and more routes

25. Cyclists coming from Caltrain riding along Broadway: crossing Woodside is scary for cyclists coming from the Caltrain station and riding along Broadway. There should be a complete bike lane between the Caltrain station and Woodside Rd.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

26. Pedestrians crossing Broadway or Bay Rd are ignored by motorists even where crosswalks are marked (e.g. at Warrington Ave and Bay Rd). Cars will not stop for pedestrians crossing.

27. The improvements done to Page St and Fifth Avenue are ideal. This is a good model for other streets in Redwood City.

28. There needs to be a bus line connecting Middlefield Rd to the ECR route along Fifth Ave.

29. There should be a better bus along Jefferson Ave. Lines 274 and 278 stopped running there.

30. The intersection of Marsh Rd and Bay Rd is dangerous to cross as a pedestrian.

31. Marsh Rd and Middlefield Rd is also dangerous to cross as a pedestrian.

32. There needs to be a bike lane installed on Broadway St between Woodside Rd and Charter St.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) 1) What is your zip code?
2) What is your age range?
⬜ 18 and under ⬜ 30-44 years ⬜ 60 and over
⬜ 19-29 years ⬜ 45-59 years
3) What is the primary language spoken in your home?
4) Before COVID-19, what transit systems did you ride regularly? (Check all that apply.) ⬜ Samtrans ⬜ Caltrain ⬜ Other
⬜ BART ⬜ Community Shuttle
5) What transit problems make it hard for you to get around? (Check all that apply.) ⬜ Route design/location ⬜ Delays and unpredictability ⬜ Hours of operation ⬜ Location and spacing of bus stops ⬜ Inadequate stations or bus shelters ⬜ Fares 6) Briefly describe transit improvements that are needed:
7) How often do you ride a bike?
⬜ Daily ⬜ On occasion ⬜ Rarely ⬜ Never
8) What bike-related problems make it hard for you to get around? (Check all that apply.) ⬜ Lack of bike lanes ⬜ Dangerous streets or intersections ⬜ Cost of bike maintenance ⬜ Gaps in existing bike lanes ⬜ Lack of secure bike parking This survey will be used to identify transportation improvements in parts of Southeast San Mateo that need them most. Your answers will help shape the Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan, which will recommend projects like new bus shelters, improved bike lanes, safer intersections, better bus routes, better BART access and others. We also want to understand how the COVID-19 pandemic has changed your transportation needs and priorities.

HELP MAKE IT EASIER TO GET AROUND
IN SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY!

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) 9) Briefly describe bike improvements that are needed:
10) How often do you ride paratransit?
⬜ Daily ⬜ Regularly ⬜ Rarely ⬜ Never
11) What paratransit problems make it hard for you to get around? (Check all that apply.) ⬜ Eligibility and sign-up difficulties ⬜ Wait times
⬜ Restricted hours of operation ⬜ Fares
12) Briefly describe paratransit improvements that are needed:
13) How often do you walk in your community?
⬜ Daily ⬜ On occasion ⬜ Rarely ⬜ Never
14) What problems with the pedestrian network make it hard for you to get around? (Check all that apply.) ⬜ Poor sidewalk conditions ⬜ Difficult intersections
⬜ Poor lighting and safety ⬜ Unsafe school access
15) Briefly describe pedestrian improvements that are needed:
16) What specific places are hard to get to each day?
⬜ Work ⬜ Hospital/medical center ⬜ Transit Station
⬜ School ⬜ Supermarket ⬜ None
⬜ Other
17) What are these places and what would make it easier to get to them? 18) Which of the above challenges still make it hard for you to get around during COVID-19? (Check all that apply.) ⬜ Public Transit challenges ⬜ Paratransit challenges ⬜ None ⬜ Bike challenges ⬜ Walking challenges
19) What new transportation challenges do you face because of COVID-19? ⬜ I feel unsafe on transit ⬜ I don’t own a car but I need one to get around ⬜ None ⬜ Reduced transit schedules ⬜ I can’t afford a car or transit fares ⬜ Other
20) If you would like updates on this project, including future opportunities to participate, please provide your email address:

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) 1) ¿Cuál es su código postal?
2) ¿Cuál major captura tu edad?
⬜ 18 o menos ⬜ 30-44 ⬜ 60 o mas
⬜ 19-29 ⬜ 45-59
3) ¿Cuál es el idioma principal que se habla en su hogar? 4) Antes de COVID-19, ¿qué sistemas de tránsito montabas regularmente? (Marque todo lo que corresponda.) ⬜ Samtrans ⬜ Caltrain ⬜ Otro
⬜ BART ⬜ Translado comunitario
5) ¿Qué problemas de tránsito te dificultan moverte? (Marque todo los que corresponda.) ⬜ Diseño/ubicación de la ruta ⬜ Estaciones o refugios de autobuses inadecuados ⬜ Ubicación y espaciado de las paradas de autobús ⬜ Horas de funcionamiento ⬜ Retrasos e imprevisibilidad ⬜ Tarifas
6) Describa brevemente las mejoras de tránsito que se necesitan:
7) ¿Con qué frecuencia andas en bicicleta?
⬜ Diario ⬜ En ocasiones ⬜ Raramente ⬜ Nunca
8) ¿Qué problemas relacionados con la Bicicleta te dificultan moverte? (Marque todo lo que corresponda.) ⬜ Falta de carriles de bici ⬜ Calles o intersecciones peligrosas ⬜ Costo de mantenimiento de bicicleta ⬜ Brechas en los carriles de bici existentes ⬜ Falta de estacionamiento seguro para bicicletas Esta encuesta se utilizará para identificar las mejoras de transporte en las partes de Southeast San Mateo que más las necesitan. Sus respuestas ayudarán a dar forma al Plan de Transporte Basado en la Comunidad de Southeast San Mateo, que recomendará proyectos como nuevos refugios de autobuses, carriles de bicicletas mejorados, intersecciones más seguras, mejores rutas de autobús, mejor acceso a BART y otros. También queremos entender cómo la pandemia COVID-19 ha cambiado sus necesidades y prioridades de transporte. ¡AYUDA A QUE SEA MÁS FÁCIL MOVERSE
EN SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY!

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) 9) Describa brevemente las mejoras de bicicleta que se necesitan:
10) ¿Conqué frecuencia montas montas paratránsito?
⬜ Diario ⬜ Regularmente ⬜ Raramente ⬜ Nunca
11) ¿Qué problemas de paratránsito te dificultan moverte? (Marque todo lo que corresponda.) ⬜ Dificultad de elegibilidad y registro ⬜ Tiempos de espera ⬜ Horas restringidas de funcionamiento ⬜ Tarifas
12) Describa brevemente las mejoras de paratránsito que se necesitan:
13) ¿Con qué frecuencia camina en su comunidad?
⬜ Diario ⬜ En ocasiones ⬜ Raramente ⬜ Nunca
14) ¿Qué problemas con la red peatonal dificultan su habilidad de pasear? (Marque todo lo que corresponda.) ⬜ Malas condiciones de la acera ⬜ Intersecciones difíciles ⬜ Iluminación y seguridad deficientes ⬜ Acceso escolar inseguro 15) Describa brevemente las mejoras de los peatones que se necesitan:
16) ¿Qué lugares específicos son difíciles de llegar cada día? ⬜ Trabajo ⬜ Hospital/centro medico ⬜ Parada de tránsito ⬜ Escuela ⬜ Supermercado ⬜ Ninguno
⬜ Otro
17) ¿Cuáles son estos lugares y qué facilitaría el acceso a ellos? 18) ¿Cuáles de los desafíos anteriores todavía hacen que sea difícil para usted moverse durante COVID-19? (Marque todo lo que corresponda.)
⬜ Desafíos con el transporte público ⬜ Desafíos con el paratránsito ⬜ Ninguno ⬜ Desafíos con la bicicleta ⬜ Desafíos para caminar
19) ¿Qué nuevos desafíos de transporte enfrenta debido a COVID-19? ⬜ Me siento inseguro en el tránsito ⬜ No tengo coche, pero necesito uno para moverme ⬜ Ninguno ⬜ Horarios de tránsito reducidos ⬜ No puedo pagar un auto o tarifas de tránsito ⬜ Otro
20) Si desea recibir actualizaciones sobre este proyecto, incluidas las oportunidades futuras de participar, proporcione su dirección de correo electrónico:

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) The attached flier is an introduction to the Southeast San Mateo County Community-Based Transportation Plan. This is a public project that evaluates transportation problems identified by the community. The Plan will develop solutions to make it easier to get around.

Please complete our online survey to let us know about day-to-day transportation problems you experience in the North Fair Oaks and/or Redwood City community.

Visit the survey at https://arcg.is/j00jb, or by using the QR code below:

El anuncio adjuntado es una introducción al Plan de Transporte Comunitario del Condado de San Mateo Sureste. Este es un proyecto público que evalúa los problemas de transporte identificados por la comunidad y desarrollará soluciones para que sea más fácil moverse.

Complete nuestra encuesta en línea para informarnos sobre los problemas de transporte diarios que experimenta en la comunidad de North Fair Oaks y/o Redwood City en https://arcg.is/G1WiX, o utilizando el siguiente código QR:

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) CCAG-Community Survey-Southeast San Mateo County
Submitted By: Anonymous user

1. What is your zip code?
94063

2. What is your age range?
60-over

3. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
English

4. Before COVID-19, what transit systems did you ride
regularly?
BART

5. What transit problems make it hard for you to get
around?
Route design/location, Location and spacing of bus stops, Delays and unpredictability , Inadequate stations or bus shelters , Hours of operation

6. Briefly describe transit improvements that are needed:

Transit option must be (a) affordable and (b) more convenient than driving.

None of these options are present in San Mateo County transit. Driving is faster and more convenient than any transit options presently available.

7. How often do you ride a bike?
Daily

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

8. What bike-related problems make it hard for you to get around?
Lack of bike lanes , Dangerous streets or intersections

9. Briefly describe bike improvements that are needed:

Secure bike lanes are essential. I regularly see cars veer into my bike lane - scary. I also see cars that are turning right on a red light just blow through the red light when I'm in the intersection.

10. How often do you ride paratransit?
Never

11. What paratransit problems make it hard for you to get around?

12. Briefly describe paratransit improvements that are
needed:

13. How often do you walk in your community?
On occasion

14. What problems with the pedestrian network make it
hard for you to get around?
Poor sidewalk conditions , Difficult intersections

15. Briefly describe pedestrian improvements that are
needed:

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) In North Fair Oaks, sidewalks are too narrow and don't allow for safe walking without up/down in driveways; sidewalks are in terrible condition

16. What specific places are hard to get to each day?
Transit Station

17. What are these places and what would make it easier to get to them?
Regular connection service to BART and CalTrain

18. Which of the above challenges still make it hard for you to get around during COVID-19?
None

19. What new transportation challenges do you face
because of (COVID-19)?
I feel unsafe on transit

20. If you would like updates on this project, including future opportunities to participate, please provide your email address
[email protected]
CCAG-Community Survey-Southeast San Mateo County
Submitted By: Anonymous user
Submitted Time: October 25, 2022 8:21 PM

1. What is your zip code?
94063

2. What is your age range?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) 19-29

3. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
English

4. Before COVID-19, what transit systems did you ride
regularly?
Samtrans , BART, Caltrain

5. What transit problems make it hard for you to get
around?
Delays and unpredictability

6. Briefly describe transit improvements that are needed:

Dedicated transit lanes on El Camino Real. Higher frequency on ECR.

7. How often do you ride a bike?
Rarely

8. What bike-related problems make it hard for you to get around?
Lack of bike lanes

9. Briefly describe bike improvements that are needed:

10. How often do you ride paratransit?
Never

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

11. What paratransit problems make it hard for you to get around?

12. Briefly describe paratransit improvements that are
needed:

13. How often do you walk in your community?
Daily

14. What problems with the pedestrian network make it
hard for you to get around?
Difficult intersections

15. Briefly describe pedestrian improvements that are
needed:

Please add more HAWK beacons on El Camino Real and pedestrian crossings over the CalTrain tracks.

16. What specific places are hard to get to each day?
Work, Supermarket , Transit Station

17. What are these places and what would make it easier to get to them?
Higher frequency bus service.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

18. Which of the above challenges still make it hard for you to get around during COVID-19?
Public Transit challenges, Walking challenges

19. What new transportation challenges do you face
because of (COVID-19)?
Reduced transit schedules

1. What is your zip code?
94063

2. What is your age range?
60-over

3. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
Chinese

4. Before COVID-19, what transit systems did you ride
regularly?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

5. What transit problems make it hard for you to get
around?
Location and spacing of bus stops

6. Briefly describe transit improvements that are needed:

More buses near Marshall Street.

7. How often do you ride a bike?
Never

8. What bike-related problems make it hard for you to get around?

9. Briefly describe bike improvements that are needed:

The Bike lane needs to be on the crosswalk

10. How often do you ride paratransit?
Never

11. What paratransit problems make it hard for you to get around?
Wait times

12. Briefly describe paratransit improvements that are
needed:

13. How often do you walk in your community?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) Rarely

14. What problems with the pedestrian network make it
hard for you to get around?
Poor lighting and safety

15. Briefly describe pedestrian improvements that are
needed:

16. What specific places are hard to get to each day?
None

17. What are these places and what would make it easier to get to them?

18. Which of the above challenges still make it hard for you to get around during COVID-19?
Walking challenges

19. What new transportation challenges do you face
because of (COVID-19)?
None

20. If you would like updates on this project, including future opportunities to participate, please provide your email address

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) CCAG-Community Survey-Southeast San Mateo County
Submitted By: Anonymous user
Submitted Time: January 26, 2022 8:53 AM

1. What is your zip code?
94063

2. What is your age range?
30-44

3. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
English

4. Before COVID-19, what transit systems did you ride
regularly?
Car

5. What transit problems make it hard for you to get
around?

6. Briefly describe transit improvements that are needed:

7. How often do you ride a bike?
On occasion

8. What bike-related problems make it hard for you to get around?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) Lack of bike lanes , Gaps in existing bike lanes , Dangerous streets or intersections , Lack of secure bike parking

9. Briefly describe bike improvements that are needed:

10. How often do you ride paratransit?
Never

11. What paratransit problems make it hard for you to get around?

12. Briefly describe paratransit improvements that are
needed:

13. How often do you walk in your community?
On occasion

14. What problems with the pedestrian network make it
hard for you to get around?
Poor sidewalk conditions , Poor lighting and safety, Difficult intersections

15. Briefly describe pedestrian improvements that are
needed:

16. What specific places are hard to get to each day?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) Work, School

17. What are these places and what would make it easier to get to them?

18. Which of the above challenges still make it hard for you to get around during COVID-19?
None

19. What new transportation challenges do you face
because of (COVID-19)?

20. If you would like updates on this project, including future opportunities to participate, please provide your email address
CCAG-Community Survey-Southeast San Mateo County
Submitted By: Anonymous user
Submitted Time: December 18, 2021 3:46 PM

1. What is your zip code?
94063

2. What is your age range?
60-over

3. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
English

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

4. Before COVID-19, what transit systems did you ride
regularly?
BART, Caltrain

5. What transit problems make it hard for you to get
around?

6. Briefly describe transit improvements that are needed:

More bike lanes, less cars.

7. How often do you ride a bike?
Daily

8. What bike-related problems make it hard for you to get around?
Lack of bike lanes , Gaps in existing bike lanes , Dangerous streets or intersections

9. Briefly describe bike improvements that are needed:

Make biking a priority over cars. Less car parking on streets, which will force people to get rid of junk cars just stored on the streets and not driven.

10. How often do you ride paratransit?
Never

11. What paratransit problems make it hard for you to get around?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

12. Briefly describe paratransit improvements that are
needed:

13. How often do you walk in your community?
Daily

14. What problems with the pedestrian network make it
hard for you to get around?
Poor sidewalk conditions , Poor lighting and safety, Difficult intersections

15. Briefly describe pedestrian improvements that are
needed:

Wide sidewalks, give tickets to cars blocking or parked on the sidewalks, more sidewalks.

16. What specific places are hard to get to each day?
Work, Supermarket

17. What are these places and what would make it easier to get to them?
Wider sidewalks and bike lanes

18. Which of the above challenges still make it hard for you to get around during COVID-19?
Bike challenges, Walking challenges

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

19. What new transportation challenges do you face
because of (COVID-19)?
I feel unsafe on transit

1. What is your zip code?
94063

2. What is your age range?
30-44

3. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
english

4. Before COVID-19, what transit systems did you ride
regularly?
Samtrans , BART, Caltrain

5. What transit problems make it hard for you to get
around?
Route design/location, Inadequate stations or bus shelters

6. Briefly describe transit improvements that are needed:

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) more frequent and reliable buses and last mile connections. Better bus stops to protect from weather (heat, rain)

7. How often do you ride a bike?
On occasion

8. What bike-related problems make it hard for you to get around?
Lack of bike lanes , Dangerous streets or intersections

9. Briefly describe bike improvements that are needed:
safe bike lanes in el camino real and connectivity to East and West

10. How often do you ride paratransit?
Never

11. What paratransit problems make it hard for you to get around?

12. Briefly describe paratransit improvements that are
needed:

13. How often do you walk in your community?
Daily

14. What problems with the pedestrian network make it
hard for you to get around?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) Poor sidewalk conditions , Poor lighting and safety, Difficult intersections

15. Briefly describe pedestrian improvements that are
needed:

ADA accessible sidewalks and more lighting

16. What specific places are hard to get to each day?
School, Supermarket

17. What are these places and what would make it easier to get to them?

18. Which of the above challenges still make it hard for you to get around during COVID-19?
Public Transit challenges

19. What new transportation challenges do you face
because of (COVID-19)?
I feel unsafe on transit, Reduced transit schedules

1. What is your zip code?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) 94063

2. What is your age range?
19-29

3. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
Spanish

4. Before COVID-19, what transit systems did you ride
regularly?
Samtrans , Community Shuttle

5. What transit problems make it hard for you to get
around?
Fares

6. Briefly describe transit improvements that are needed:

More connection between Downtown Redwood City and Redwood Shores neighborhood.

7. How often do you ride a bike?
On occasion

8. What bike-related problems make it hard for you to get around?
Lack of bike lanes , Gaps in existing bike lanes , Dangerous streets or intersections , Lack of secure bike parking , Cost of bike maintenance

9. Briefly describe bike improvements that are needed:

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) Delays in underpass connecting the Peninsula Boardwalk shopping center and Boardwalk Auto Mall in Redwood City. Also, lack of bike lanes in the North Fair Oaks neighborhood.

10. How often do you ride paratransit?
Never

11. What paratransit problems make it hard for you to get around?

12. Briefly describe paratransit improvements that are
needed:

13. How often do you walk in your community?
On occasion

14. What problems with the pedestrian network make it
hard for you to get around?
Poor sidewalk conditions , Poor lighting and safety

15. Briefly describe pedestrian improvements that are
needed:

Lights are either not on or dim when turned on in North Fair Oaks area.

16. What specific places are hard to get to each day?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

17. What are these places and what would make it easier to get to them?

18. Which of the above challenges still make it hard for you to get around during COVID-19?
Public Transit challenges, Bike challenges

19. What new transportation challenges do you face
because of (COVID-19)?
i_don't_own_a_car_but_i_need_on, i_can't_afford_a_car_or_transit

1. What is your zip code?
94063

2. What is your age range?
30-44

3. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
English

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

4. Before COVID-19, what transit systems did you ride
regularly?
BART, Caltrain

5. What transit problems make it hard for you to get
around?
Delays and unpredictability , Hours of operation

6. Briefly describe transit improvements that are needed:

Caltrain gets often delayed due to accidents and wouldn't inform the passengers on time. While I use bicycles between my home to the caltrain station, it limits my option (even Uber/Lyft) when I wanted to get back home with my bicycle when Caltrain get stuck due to accidents.

7. How often do you ride a bike?
Daily

8. What bike-related problems make it hard for you to get around?
Lack of bike lanes , Dangerous streets or intersections

9. Briefly describe bike improvements that are needed:

I was very happy to see the new bike lanes set-up as part of the middlefield road improvement project from woodside road to downtown RWC, and I know there's a project coming in downtown North Fair Oaks area.

However, Middlefield road section between 'Hurlingame Ave' to 'Woodside road' is still a very dangerous section to bike. Since the bike road shares a busy road with a car, I've faced several dangerous situations while commuting. Would be great if we get to see an overall pedestrian & bicycle friendly project happening that section which is not part of either RWC's middlefield road improvement project nor NFO's project.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

10. How often do you ride paratransit?
Never

11. What paratransit problems make it hard for you to get around?

12. Briefly describe paratransit improvements that are
needed:

13. How often do you walk in your community?
On occasion

14. What problems with the pedestrian network make it
hard for you to get around?
Poor sidewalk conditions , Poor lighting and safety, Difficult intersections , Unsafe school access

15. Briefly describe pedestrian improvements that are
needed:

Redwood Village/North Fair Oaks industrial area concerns me with dirty & dangerous sidewalk conditions and environment. There's a lot of debris on the sidewalk and several homeless emcampments happening near Hoover school & Hoover park.

Crossing Bay road is also difficult because lacks cross walks.

Pedestrian sidewalks are too narrow and some sidewalks gets even narrower due to cars parking half way across the sidewalks making difficult for the strollers and wheelchairs to pass by.

16. What specific places are hard to get to each day?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) Work, Supermarket , Transit Station

17. What are these places and what would make it easier to get to them?

18. Which of the above challenges still make it hard for you to get around during COVID-19?
Bike challenges, Walking challenges

19. What new transportation challenges do you face
because of (COVID-19)?

1. What is your zip code?
94035

2. What is your age range?
30-44

3. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
English

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

4. Before COVID-19, what transit systems did you ride
regularly?
Caltrain

5. What transit problems make it hard for you to get
around?
Route design/location

6. Briefly describe transit improvements that are needed:

The Atherton Caltrain stop rarely operates, its a long drive during normal commuting trafic (20 minutes) to other Caltrain stops with steep parking fees.

7. How often do you ride a bike?
On occasion

8. What bike-related problems make it hard for you to get around?
Lack of bike lanes , Dangerous streets or intersections

9. Briefly describe bike improvements that are needed:

No bike lanes on Marsh road

10. How often do you ride paratransit?
Never

11. What paratransit problems make it hard for you to get around?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

12. Briefly describe paratransit improvements that are
needed:

13. How often do you walk in your community?
On occasion

14. What problems with the pedestrian network make it
hard for you to get around?
Poor sidewalk conditions

15. Briefly describe pedestrian improvements that are
needed:

NO SIDEWALKS should be a selection choice, but that isn't an option. This survey is a classic example of the NFO community counsel ignoring the fact that it is supposed to represent the NFO area of Menlo Park too. How can you claim to represent all NFO residents when the survey question suggests that the counsel isn't even aware that at least 50% of NFO Menlo streets don't even have sidewalks? The poor sidewalk condition is that they don't exist....

16. What specific places are hard to get to each day?
Work, School, Transit Station

17. What are these places and what would make it easier to get to them?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

18. Which of the above challenges still make it hard for you to get around during COVID-19?
Public Transit challenges, Bike challenges, Walking challenges

19. What new transportation challenges do you face
because of (COVID-19)?
I feel unsafe on transit

1. What is your zip code?
94063

2. What is your age range?
19-29

3. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
Spanish

4. Before COVID-19, what transit systems did you ride
regularly?
Samtrans , Community Shuttle

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

5. What transit problems make it hard for you to get
around?
Location and spacing of bus stops, Inadequate stations or bus shelters , Hours of operation, Fares

6. Briefly describe transit improvements that are needed:

7. How often do you ride a bike?
On occasion

8. What bike-related problems make it hard for you to get around?
Lack of bike lanes , Gaps in existing bike lanes , Dangerous streets or intersections , Lack of secure bike parking

9. Briefly describe bike improvements that are needed:

10. How often do you ride paratransit?
Never

11. What paratransit problems make it hard for you to get around?

12. Briefly describe paratransit improvements that are
needed:

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

13. How often do you walk in your community?
On occasion

14. What problems with the pedestrian network make it
hard for you to get around?
Poor lighting and safety, Difficult intersections

15. Briefly describe pedestrian improvements that are
needed:

16. What specific places are hard to get to each day?
Work, School, Hospital/medical center

17. What are these places and what would make it easier to get to them?

18. Which of the above challenges still make it hard for you to get around during COVID-19?
Public Transit challenges, Bike challenges, Walking challenges

19. What new transportation challenges do you face
because of (COVID-19)?
I feel unsafe on transit, Reduced transit schedules

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

1. What is your zip code?
94025

2. What is your age range?
30-44

3. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
English

4. Before COVID-19, what transit systems did you ride
regularly?

5. What transit problems make it hard for you to get
around?

6. Briefly describe transit improvements that are needed:

I'm mostly here to tell you that the express lanes on 101 are a bad idea.

Like, a really bad idea. We love to talk about equity these days- meanwhile, we're gonna build a private lane for rich white people with disposable income? Lame.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

7. How often do you ride a bike?
Daily

8. What bike-related problems make it hard for you to get around?
Lack of bike lanes , Gaps in existing bike lanes , Dangerous streets or intersections

9. Briefly describe bike improvements that are needed:

Improved Bike Lanes would be nice. North Fair Oaks is a pretty crummy area to ride in. Lots of broken glass. Middlefield Road is a slum, definitely needs improvement. Add some bike lanes, those green bike only ones that screw up traffic in SF.

10. How often do you ride paratransit?
Never

11. What paratransit problems make it hard for you to get around?

12. Briefly describe paratransit improvements that are
needed:

13. How often do you walk in your community?
Rarely

14. What problems with the pedestrian network make it
hard for you to get around?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) Poor lighting and safety

15. Briefly describe pedestrian improvements that are
needed:

North Fair Oaks- wayyyy too many drug addicts and criminals to walk around after dark.

16. What specific places are hard to get to each day?

17. What are these places and what would make it easier to get to them?

18. Which of the above challenges still make it hard for you to get around during COVID-19?

19. What new transportation challenges do you face
because of (COVID-19)?
I feel unsafe on transit

1. What is your zip code?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) 94303

2. What is your age range?
45-59

3. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
English

4. Before COVID-19, what transit systems did you ride
regularly?
BART, Caltrain

5. What transit problems make it hard for you to get
around?
Route design/location, Delays and unpredictability , Inadequate stations or bus shelters

6. Briefly describe transit improvements that are needed:

Need to run transit where people go and eliminate the cut-through traffic in East Palo Alto which is choking this town in non-COVID times. Run light rail straight up University Ave to downtown Palo Alto and Stanford. Let Palo Alto decide if they want to pay for tunneling the line under the rich neighborhood.

At very least, run the line to the Four Seasons complex which is still EPA.

Build park and ride at the other end until Dumbarton rail is connected. Run another line around or through the Baylands, perhaps stopping by the new Bay road development and Cooley Landing to connect to downtown Mountain View. Run ferry to Cooley Landing. Buses don't work because they get stuck in same traffic unless you have dedicated bus lanes -- probably a good idea for University Ave, but make corporate buses pay a fee to use.

7. How often do you ride a bike?
On occasion

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

8. What bike-related problems make it hard for you to get around?
Lack of bike lanes , Dangerous streets or intersections , Lack of secure bike parking

9. Briefly describe bike improvements that are needed:

Don't feel safe riding through some neighborhoods in EPA. Street riding also feels unsafe due to the crazy drivers around here.

10. How often do you ride paratransit?
Never

11. What paratransit problems make it hard for you to get around?

12. Briefly describe paratransit improvements that are
needed:

13. How often do you walk in your community?
Daily

14. What problems with the pedestrian network make it
hard for you to get around?
Poor sidewalk conditions , Poor lighting and safety

15. Briefly describe pedestrian improvements that are
needed:

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) Easements need to be purchased to create proper sidewalks in EPA.

16. What specific places are hard to get to each day?
Work, School

17. What are these places and what would make it easier to get to them?
Less cut-through traffic in East Palo Alto from East Bay commuters going to their jobs on the Peninsula. Need to provide those folks with a transit solution that doesn't impede locals from basic getting around.

18. Which of the above challenges still make it hard for you to get around during COVID-19?
None

19. What new transportation challenges do you face
because of (COVID-19)?
None

1. What is your zip code?
94303

2. What is your age range?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) 30-44

3. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
English

4. Before COVID-19, what transit systems did you ride
regularly?
BART, Caltrain

5. What transit problems make it hard for you to get
around?
Route design/location, Inadequate stations or bus shelters

6. Briefly describe transit improvements that are needed:

East Palo Alto needs a train station and ferry landing. An east-west train line connecting EPA to transit in east bay, as well as a connection to Redwood City's line, would go a long way to support the residential communities of EPA, especially as the city moves to higher density housing. Buses are not sufficient - they get stuck in the safe traffic as cars. We need rail, and we need it now.

7. How often do you ride a bike?
Never

8. What bike-related problems make it hard for you to get around?
Dangerous streets or intersections

9. Briefly describe bike improvements that are needed:

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) A clear, safe bike route from the Bay Trail/Ravenswood Business District, to University Ave in EPA, to downtown EPA, to Stanford. A growing high-density residential outlook for EPA is already attracting Stanford graduate students and downtown Palo Alto techies; they would bike and walk if it were safe.

Right now, a clear, open route is not available.

10. How often do you ride paratransit?
Never

11. What paratransit problems make it hard for you to get around?

12. Briefly describe paratransit improvements that are
needed:

13. How often do you walk in your community?
Daily

14. What problems with the pedestrian network make it
hard for you to get around?
Poor sidewalk conditions , Poor lighting and safety

15. Briefly describe pedestrian improvements that are
needed:

EPA sidewalks are a work in progress. They are currently uneven and poorly lit. Some of the pedestrian bridges over 101 have had issues with crime.

16. What specific places are hard to get to each day?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) Work, School, Transit Station

17. What are these places and what would make it easier to get to them?
The nearest train station for EPA residents is in Palo Alto, and getting over 101, through Palo Neighborhoods, and through downtown PA to get to the train station - that's a lot of driving to take public transportation. Buses get stuck too.

18. Which of the above challenges still make it hard for you to get around during COVID-19?
Public Transit challenges

19. What new transportation challenges do you face
because of (COVID-19)?
I feel unsafe on transit

1. What is your zip code?
94061

2. What is your age range?
19-29

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

3. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
English

4. Before COVID-19, what transit systems did you ride
regularly?
Caltrain

5. What transit problems make it hard for you to get
around?
Route design/location, Hours of operation

6. Briefly describe transit improvements that are needed:

Caltrain should run more often during non-commute hours.

7. How often do you ride a bike?
Daily

8. What bike-related problems make it hard for you to get around?
Lack of bike lanes , Dangerous streets or intersections , Lack of secure bike parking

9. Briefly describe bike improvements that are needed:

Connected, continuous bike routes that get me where I want to go.

Sometimes there are nice bike lanes, but there is not enough coverage.

Every single route I take requires me to go on a dangerous road.

10. How often do you ride paratransit?
Never

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

11. What paratransit problems make it hard for you to get around?

12. Briefly describe paratransit improvements that are
needed:

13. How often do you walk in your community?
Daily

14. What problems with the pedestrian network make it
hard for you to get around?
Poor sidewalk conditions

15. Briefly describe pedestrian improvements that are
needed:

Lack of sidewalks, cars parking on sidewalk, sidewalks blocked

16. What specific places are hard to get to each day?
Work, Supermarket , Transit Station

17. What are these places and what would make it easier to get to them?

18. Which of the above challenges still make it hard for you to get around during COVID-19?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) Bike challenges, Walking challenges

19. What new transportation challenges do you face
because of (COVID-19)?
Reduced transit schedules

1. What is your zip code?
94025

2. What is your age range?
30-44

3. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
English

4. Before COVID-19, what transit systems did you ride
regularly?
Caltrain

5. What transit problems make it hard for you to get
around?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) Route design/location, Inadequate stations or bus shelters , Hours of operation

6. Briefly describe transit improvements that are needed:

If there were a more convenient and reliable bus route to get between my home and Caltrain, I would use it.

7. How often do you ride a bike?
Daily

8. What bike-related problems make it hard for you to get around?
Gaps in existing bike lanes , Dangerous streets or intersections , Lack of secure bike parking

9. Briefly describe bike improvements that are needed:

Improvements to the presently poor routes North/South between Marsh Road and downtown Redwood City / Caltrain.

10. How often do you ride paratransit?
Never

11. What paratransit problems make it hard for you to get around?
Eligibility and sign-up difficulties

12. Briefly describe paratransit improvements that are
needed:

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

13. How often do you walk in your community?
Daily

14. What problems with the pedestrian network make it
hard for you to get around?

15. Briefly describe pedestrian improvements that are
needed:

16. What specific places are hard to get to each day?
Work, Transit Station

17. What are these places and what would make it easier to get to them?

18. Which of the above challenges still make it hard for you to get around during COVID-19?
None

19. What new transportation challenges do you face
because of (COVID-19)?
I feel unsafe on transit

20. If you would like updates on this project, including future opportunities to participate, please provide your email address

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) CCAG-Community Survey-Southeast San Mateo County
Submitted By: Anonymous user
Submitted Time: January 23, 2021 11:19 PM

1. What is your zip code?
94025

2. What is your age range?
45-59

3. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
English

4. Before COVID-19, what transit systems did you ride
regularly?
BART

6. Briefly describe transit improvements that are needed:

A lens of access and inclusion.

7. How often do you ride a bike?
Rarely

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

8. What bike-related problems make it hard for you to get around?
Lack of bike lanes , Dangerous streets or intersections

9. Briefly describe bike improvements that are needed:

10. How often do you ride paratransit?
Never

11. What paratransit problems make it hard for you to get around?

12. Briefly describe paratransit improvements that are
needed:

13. How often do you walk in your community?
Daily

14. What problems with the pedestrian network make it
hard for you to get around?
Poor sidewalk conditions , Poor lighting and safety, Difficult intersections , Unsafe school access

15. Briefly describe pedestrian improvements that are
needed:

Everything. There is a clear difference between infrastructure in District 1 in Menlo Park and other areas of the city.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

16. What specific places are hard to get to each day?
Hospital/medical center , Supermarket , Transit Station

17. What are these places and what would make it easier to get to them?
For the clinics, there are NO shuttle services between MP and NFO and MP and Ravenswood Health Clinic.

18. Which of the above challenges still make it hard for you to get around during COVID-19?
Public Transit challenges, Walking challenges

19. What new transportation challenges do you face
because of (COVID-19)?
I feel unsafe on transit

1. What is your zip code?
94025

2. What is your age range?
60-over

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

3. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
English

4. Before COVID-19, what transit systems did you ride
regularly?
Samtrans , BART, Caltrain

5. What transit problems make it hard for you to get
around?
Delays and unpredictability

6. Briefly describe transit improvements that are needed:

Every Samtrans bus needs to be at each stop at the schedule time, not after and not before [unless they stay at the stop through the minute on the schedule]. That probably means lengthening the time between stops during the busy times of the day so the buses can spend more time at each stop and have a margin of error for dealing with the in inevitable delays that occur during commute times.

7. How often do you ride a bike?
Rarely

8. What bike-related problems make it hard for you to get around?

9. Briefly describe bike improvements that are needed:

There should be bike lanes on all popular roads [e.g., Fair Oaks Lane], especially those leading to schools, parks, and public buildings.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

10. How often do you ride paratransit?
Never

11. What paratransit problems make it hard for you to get around?

12. Briefly describe paratransit improvements that are
needed:

13. How often do you walk in your community?
Rarely

14. What problems with the pedestrian network make it
hard for you to get around?

15. Briefly describe pedestrian improvements that are
needed:

16. What specific places are hard to get to each day?

17. What are these places and what would make it easier to get to them?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

18. Which of the above challenges still make it hard for you to get around during COVID-19?

19. What new transportation challenges do you face
because of (COVID-19)?

1. What is your zip code?
94927

2. What is your age range?
60-over

3. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
English

4. Before COVID-19, what transit systems did you ride
regularly?
Caltrain

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

5. What transit problems make it hard for you to get
around?
Route design/location, Location and spacing of bus stops

6. Briefly describe transit improvements that are needed:

Smaller buses that can safely negotiate neighborhood roads so that more neighborhoods can be servy

7. How often do you ride a bike?
On occasion

8. What bike-related problems make it hard for you to get around?
Lack of bike lanes , Dangerous streets or intersections

9. Briefly describe bike improvements that are needed:

Wider roads

10. How often do you ride paratransit?
Never

11. What paratransit problems make it hard for you to get around?
Wait times

12. Briefly describe paratransit improvements that are
needed:

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

13. How often do you walk in your community?
Daily

14. What problems with the pedestrian network make it
hard for you to get around?
Poor sidewalk conditions , Poor lighting and safety, Difficult intersections

15. Briefly describe pedestrian improvements that are
needed:

Slow down cars

16. What specific places are hard to get to each day?
Supermarket , Parks

17. What are these places and what would make it easier to get to them?
Area parks need speed control on roads leading to them

18. Which of the above challenges still make it hard for you to get around during COVID-19?
None

19. What new transportation challenges do you face
because of (COVID-19)?
I feel unsafe on transit

20. If you would like updates on this project, including future opportunities to participate, please provide your email address

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) CCAG-Community Survey-Southeast San Mateo County
Submitted By: Anonymous user
Submitted Time: January 22, 2021 6:04 PM

1. What is your zip code?
94025

2. What is your age range?
60-over

3. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
English

4. Before COVID-19, what transit systems did you ride
regularly?

5. What transit problems make it hard for you to get
around?

6. Briefly describe transit improvements that are needed:

Please utilize smaller busses. Most of the busses I see are carrying very few people and yet these mammoth vehicles are the standard for the fleet.

They’re unnecessary for most routes, are a huge cost, block roadways at some stops, require more driver training, probably result in more accidents, and are less efficient. Thanks for listening.

7. How often do you ride a bike?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

8. What bike-related problems make it hard for you to get around?

9. Briefly describe bike improvements that are needed:

10. How often do you ride paratransit?

11. What paratransit problems make it hard for you to get around?

12. Briefly describe paratransit improvements that are
needed:

13. How often do you walk in your community?

14. What problems with the pedestrian network make it
hard for you to get around?

15. Briefly describe pedestrian improvements that are
needed:

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

16. What specific places are hard to get to each day?

17. What are these places and what would make it easier to get to them?

18. Which of the above challenges still make it hard for you to get around during COVID-19?

19. What new transportation challenges do you face
because of (COVID-19)?

1. What is your zip code?
94025

2. What is your age range?
60-over

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

3. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
English

4. Before COVID-19, what transit systems did you ride
regularly?
Bicycle routes

5. What transit problems make it hard for you to get
around?
Route design/location

6. Briefly describe transit improvements that are needed:

More off road or separate bike routes especially from Menlo Park through San Mateo county

7. How often do you ride a bike?
Daily

8. What bike-related problems make it hard for you to get around?
Lack of bike lanes , Gaps in existing bike lanes , Dangerous streets or intersections , Lack of secure bike parking

9. Briefly describe bike improvements that are needed:

A more direct protected route through San Mateo county that isn’t on El Camino, Middlefield or other heavily trafficked route. Perhaps a bike path along side the train tracks. Also, maintenance stations located in public and safe areas such as gas stations, city halls, libraries, schools, etc. Safety is the greatest concern. We saw a cyclist get grazed by car that for an unknown reason crossed the median and drove into the bike lane. Barriers are needed between cyclists and motor vehicles

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

10. How often do you ride paratransit?
Never

11. What paratransit problems make it hard for you to get around?

12. Briefly describe paratransit improvements that are
needed:

13. How often do you walk in your community?
Daily

14. What problems with the pedestrian network make it
hard for you to get around?
Poor sidewalk conditions , Difficult intersections

15. Briefly describe pedestrian improvements that are
needed:

Intersection of woodland and middlefield at the border of San Mateo and San Clara county needs a safe cross walk. It is heavily used by pedestrians and cyclists but is a dangerous intersection with a blinds hairpin turn from middlefield to woodland. Some sidewalks are in terrible condition as trip hazards.

16. What specific places are hard to get to each day?
Hospital/medical center , Supermarket

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

17. What are these places and what would make it easier to get to them?
The el Camino intersection at alma and sand hill road is heavily trafficked with motor vehicles so a overpass for pedestrians and cyclists would make it much safer and more convenient. That traffic signal doesn’t always function well making the wait for pedestrians and cyclists excessively long which is especially difficult in heat and sun. We would travel to the west side at night more often if we didn’t have to cross El Camino with cars

18. Which of the above challenges still make it hard for you to get around during COVID-19?
Bike challenges, Walking challenges

19. What new transportation challenges do you face
because of (COVID-19)?
None

1. What is your zip code?
94025

2. What is your age range?
45-59

3. What is the primary language spoken in your home?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) English

4. Before COVID-19, what transit systems did you ride
regularly?
Caltrain

5. What transit problems make it hard for you to get
around?
Route design/location

6. Briefly describe transit improvements that are needed:

Secure bike parking, enough spaces on bike cars during rush hour (this is pre-pandemic).

7. How often do you ride a bike?
On occasion

8. What bike-related problems make it hard for you to get around?
Lack of bike lanes , Gaps in existing bike lanes , Dangerous streets or intersections , Lack of secure bike parking

9. Briefly describe bike improvements that are needed:

Biking between towns on the Peninsula can be very difficult. For example, there is lousy bike connectivity between Menlo Park and Redwood City.

Having a continuous bike path along the Caltrain route would be ideal (like in Palo Alto). Alternatively, bike lanes along El Camino Real also make a lot of sense but would require some serious safety infrastructure.

10. How often do you ride paratransit?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) Never

11. What paratransit problems make it hard for you to get around?

12. Briefly describe paratransit improvements that are
needed:

13. How often do you walk in your community?
On occasion

14. What problems with the pedestrian network make it
hard for you to get around?
Poor sidewalk conditions , Poor lighting and safety, Difficult intersections , Unsafe school access

15. Briefly describe pedestrian improvements that are
needed:

Consistent, wide sidewalks.

16. What specific places are hard to get to each day?
Work, School, Hospital/medical center , Supermarket , Transit Station

17. What are these places and what would make it easier to get to them?
It's physically possible to get to most places on a bike, it's just unnecessarily convoluted/difficult/stressful/lengthy. Every place requires a complex

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) calculation: will there be traffic? enough daylight? is it ok for me? ok for my kids?

18. Which of the above challenges still make it hard for you to get around during COVID-19?

19. What new transportation challenges do you face
because of (COVID-19)?

1. What is your zip code?
94025

2. What is your age range?
19-29

3. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
English

4. Before COVID-19, what transit systems did you ride
regularly?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) BART, Caltrain

5. What transit problems make it hard for you to get
around?
Route design/location, Delays and unpredictability , Hours of operation

6. Briefly describe transit improvements that are needed:

There seems to be very little coordination between BART and Caltrain schedules, especially on weekends. It's pretty uncomfortable to have to wait hours in Millbrae to catch the next Caltrain south. In addition, I know there is an airport shuttle, but there are generally too many extra steps needed to get to SFO on public transit from anywhere south of Millbrae. The Dumbarton Rail line would be great too.

7. How often do you ride a bike?
On occasion

8. What bike-related problems make it hard for you to get around?
Lack of bike lanes , Gaps in existing bike lanes , Dangerous streets or intersections

9. Briefly describe bike improvements that are needed:

There are very few continuous bike routes that cross jurisdictions in any way that makes sense. For instance, biking from Redwood City to Palo Alto would be mostly OK on Middlefield, except that the road is terrifying through North Fair Oaks.

10. How often do you ride paratransit?
Never

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

11. What paratransit problems make it hard for you to get around?

12. Briefly describe paratransit improvements that are
needed:

13. How often do you walk in your community?
Daily

14. What problems with the pedestrian network make it
hard for you to get around?
Poor sidewalk conditions , Poor lighting and safety, Difficult intersections

15. Briefly describe pedestrian improvements that are
needed:
- Any lighting at all for pedestrians along Sand Hill Road between Santa Cruz and Sharon Road would be nice (It is a popular pedestrian route for grocery shoppers, etc.)
- Many intersections have crosswalks on three of four sides that force pedestrians to wait for three lights instead of one, which seems unnecessary. (ex. Ravenswood @ El Camino Real)
- Sidewalks wider than 2-3 feet along the Alameda in unincorporated West Menlo Park

16. What specific places are hard to get to each day?
Supermarket , Transit Station

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

17. What are these places and what would make it easier to get to them?
- Grocery store at Sharon Heights Shopping Center - Street lighting along Sand Hill Road to at least illuminate the rough paving on the sidewalk - Menlo Park Caltrain station - There is very little functional/reliable public transit there from west Menlo Park, but biking is fine

18. Which of the above challenges still make it hard for you to get around during COVID-19?
None

19. What new transportation challenges do you face
because of (COVID-19)?
I feel unsafe on transit

1. What is your zip code?
94025

2. What is your age range?
60-over

3. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
English

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

4. Before COVID-19, what transit systems did you ride
regularly?
Caltrain , Community Shuttle , Senior ride program operated through Little House in Menlo Park

5. What transit problems make it hard for you to get
around?
Route design/location, Hours of operation

6. Briefly describe transit improvements that are needed:

The frequency of service and the M1 line needs to be significantly improved.

It is difficult to arrange medical and dental appointments when each run is separated by more than one hour. You should be able to arrive shortly before The Menlo Clinic opens and should get you back shortly after it closes. It should be possible for a blind individual to excessively monitor the current location of the shuttle and it’s expected arrival time at a specific location via an app on a smart phone.

7. How often do you ride a bike?
Never

8. What bike-related problems make it hard for you to get around?

9. Briefly describe bike improvements that are needed:

I am blind and therefore unable to ride a bike

10. How often do you ride paratransit?
Rarely

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

11. What paratransit problems make it hard for you to get around?
Wait times

12. Briefly describe paratransit improvements that are
needed:

Unpredictable delays and lengthy travel times make Paratransit unusable for medical and dental appointments. Finding the driver can be challenging for a blind individual leaving a large medical center or business.

13. How often do you walk in your community?
On occasion

14. What problems with the pedestrian network make it
hard for you to get around?
Difficult intersections

15. Briefly describe pedestrian improvements that are
needed:

Quiet audible pedestrian signals at intersections that are either wide, complex, or busy. Adequate time to cross the intersection. Crosswalks that are straight or are easily discernible when using a white cane. This means that the surface of the crosswalk needs to be distinguishable from the surface of the road outside the crosswalk. Alternatively, the boundaries of the crosswalk need to be easily discernible. Bushes and other plant growth need to be clear of the sidewalk. Tables, chairs, and stands should be kept clear of the sidewalk. Tree branches, umbrellas, and banners should be more than 7 feet Above the sidewalk. When there is plant growth adjacent to the sidewalk, a raised Wooden edge is helpful to keep the cane from getting tangled in it. When a parking lot is adjacent to the sidewalk, it would be extremely helpful if the sidewalk surface is easily distinguishable from that of the parking lot. Avoid curved sidewalks whenever possible.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

16. What specific places are hard to get to each day?
Hospital/medical center , Supermarket , Transit Station

17. What are these places and what would make it easier to get to them?
Destinations where there are multiple buildings. Buildings separated from the sidewalk by a Parking lot. Buildings lacking an entrance adjacent to the sidewalk. Bus terminals requiring you to stand at different locations for buses traveling in the same general direction.

18. Which of the above challenges still make it hard for you to get around during COVID-19?
Public Transit challenges, Paratransit challenges, Walking challenges

19. What new transportation challenges do you face
because of (COVID-19)?
I feel unsafe on transit, Reduced transit schedules, It is very difficult for a blind individual to maintain social distancing. Additionally, it is Not possible to determine whether the other person is wearing a face mask.

1. What is your zip code?
94061

2. What is your age range?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) 45-59

3. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
English

4. Before COVID-19, what transit systems did you ride
regularly?

5. What transit problems make it hard for you to get
around?
Route design/location, Delays and unpredictability

6. Briefly describe transit improvements that are needed:

Better service between Redwood City and the East Bay.

7. How often do you ride a bike?
On occasion

8. What bike-related problems make it hard for you to get around?
Lack of bike lanes , Gaps in existing bike lanes , Dangerous streets or intersections

9. Briefly describe bike improvements that are needed:

Bike lanes along/ parallel to El Camino Real.

10. How often do you ride paratransit?
Never

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

11. What paratransit problems make it hard for you to get around?

12. Briefly describe paratransit improvements that are
needed:

13. How often do you walk in your community?
Daily

14. What problems with the pedestrian network make it
hard for you to get around?
Poor sidewalk conditions , Difficult intersections

15. Briefly describe pedestrian improvements that are
needed:

There is a lack of effective ways of slowing cars down in neighborhood streets.

16. What specific places are hard to get to each day?
Supermarket , Transit Station

17. What are these places and what would make it easier to get to them?
El Camino Real divides Redwood City in two and is a real barrier to pedestrian/bike mobility.

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

18. Which of the above challenges still make it hard for you to get around during COVID-19?
None

19. What new transportation challenges do you face
because of (COVID-19)?
None

1. What is your zip code?
94025

2. What is your age range?
60-over

3. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
English

4. Before COVID-19, what transit systems did you ride
regularly?
Samtrans , Caltrain

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

5. What transit problems make it hard for you to get
around?

6. Briefly describe transit improvements that are needed:

Caltrain needs more frequent service.

7. How often do you ride a bike?
Daily

8. What bike-related problems make it hard for you to get around?
Gaps in existing bike lanes

9. Briefly describe bike improvements that are needed:

Bike lanes on ECR, Middlefield in North Fair Oaks.

10. How often do you ride paratransit?
Never

11. What paratransit problems make it hard for you to get around?

12. Briefly describe paratransit improvements that are
needed:

13. How often do you walk in your community?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) On occasion

14. What problems with the pedestrian network make it
hard for you to get around?

15. Briefly describe pedestrian improvements that are
needed:

16. What specific places are hard to get to each day?
None

17. What are these places and what would make it easier to get to them?

18. Which of the above challenges still make it hard for you to get around during COVID-19?
None

19. What new transportation challenges do you face
because of (COVID-19)?
None

20. If you would like updates on this project, including future opportunities to participate, please provide your email address
[email protected]

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

!

"#$
%
# % "&"%

"$
"

'(

)*+,-./012345/67289:

;$ <

$"
=>?@A =>?BD =>?BC
=>?CA =>C?C
=>=@E
F#" "
F#"& F
F#"&
F#"
F#"
F#F

G*+,-./01234-H94-IH9:
"

#
&

"

$$FF"### F&"

$$ ""J
FF "J
"##
J
# F #&J
+248 K23I.

LI0M940 K23I. N9479I.-H9

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

!

"#$
%
# % "&"%

"$
"

'(

)$ *

$"
&" +&,
-./012342056738179:1;<=1<546>?5;3;9>=70>85@

)$ *

ABCDEHIFJBEFGGKGEBLFL
M!'

N.O5P>75QRSTUVWXYZ012271;4324942584[3[9>=73[575<=:17:9@

)$*

$
"
"

\
]^

'

_

&#,
\
]^ "#",

'
&",

' ,
_ ",
`./012271;43267>a:58481?532017[P>79>=2><5217>=;[@ />7[ Q>=;2
b;4Z574 Q>=;2 c57d5;21<5

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

!

"#$
%
# % "&"%

"$
"

'(

)$"*

$
"

"

+$
!'
,

$

-'

$

.
$/

0
%

+$
!'
# &2
,

$

!%3

"2
-'

$
$
3' 2
.
$/

3

'

2
0
%

2
1
2
456789:;<=9>?78@9A7BC>8A8DE7FG9D9CA>AHBAB79C99=9=I

JKLMNKOPLOPQ

NRPMNKPTOMSRTQT

MOUQ NKOL
TMVW

TMVWTXOYQ ZKTM
[KLV
\LMV
XRT
LKPQT
]Q^_VV^ `VPaQPOQPM
WQVWLQ
cV_PMV_P MNKbbO`
TMR`Y JOMd eVUQ VWMOVP
fKP VWMOVPT
gKMQV
`VRPMd
TeRMMLQ
cRUXKNMVP
bNQhRQP`d
TQNaO`Q
TeVNMLd
gQPLV
XK`Y
LV`KMOVP
LVPi
WKNYOPi

TUKLLQN
NVRMQT
K``O^QPMT
MOUQTj
kPOaQNTOMd \aQ WKd
NO`e
PQOieXVNeVV^j
XROL^
[KNY
XKd JVVLQdNVK^
bQNNd
LKP^OPij
cQ^O`KMQ^
bNQhRQPM

NQLOKXLQ
`VPPQ`MOVP
`KNTj
XK^
O^QKj
MNKOP

TMKMOVP
Z[\
lOieQN ^RQ
mnm
oKp
KbbVN^KXLQ
oXp ^NOaOPij

WNQTQPM
MNKPTOMj
cNOaOPi
bKTMQN
WNQTQPMLd
KaKOLKXLQj
`VVN^OPKMOVP
S\]q
T`eQ^RLQT
_QQYQP^Tj
WNQMMd
_KOM RP`VUbVNMKXLQ eVRNT
gOLLXNKQ
`KM`e
TVRMej
K^^OMOVP

KONWVNM
QrMNK iQPQNKLLd
TMQWT
PQQ^Q^
fst
WRXLO`
TVRMe
gOLLXNKQj
iNQKM
MVVj
gm
TOiPObO`KPMLd
OUWNVaQ^j
^ObbO`RLM
KNNKPiQ
UQ^O`KL
^QPMKL

KWWVOPMUQPMT
TQWKNKMQ^
KNNOaQ
JLOPO`
OMuT
KWW
^NOaQ
PVNUKL
ovn
bQQTj
NRTe
eVRN
oMeOT
NQTRLM
LOieM
^Q`O^Q
Z[\j
NO^Q
QP^
ww
RTQj
oeQKM
LVaQ
LKPQ
OMj
w
TKbQ
ZL
]QKLj
x

3y
z
%%$
3'
$y3z
$!{%

-!
%

$

'

'
3'

x

3'' $
3)|
+x
$

'

$'

'')*$
.
}

%
3'
)

''3

~

'

.
$$.*)

'3
!
''
~

$$!1
3'

%
)
%
''3
x-3
+
'')'$3!

C>97> FCA 97?9CAB
9 9>EFC>9 FCA

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

!

"#$
%
# % "&"%

"$
"

'(#
)%* %

$
'$
+
!%
'
$,
$%% '

!$
'

$$
'

$+
.
'$+
+'

'+%)
'
'

$
'$!+
/
'
% '

,
'$+

+'%

+'$$$
'0

' '
%
'
$1
0
$

'

% '

)

'

'

'!$$!
' !
% 2"
3

/!%

''+

%'!
!+$
$

!+$

+
+/

/!!

+/

$!
2

$ 3 4'

'(

''+

,

!%-

'
$

'

$
$%%')1

%

!
+' /
$-

*$
!
+
+'
'
$

$
'

%% )

/
%'
!

5$

-

'!
$'
!
%% 6

4
'
'-
/!

-
78,9
:'!
'

!
;

$--4
'
'
$
%$<
4
'
'$ $%-

%'!'$ !+$
'

'0-

''64
>'$

/
$$
$'9+

'
$:
'
$!>
'
$

!+->

$
$'

$
'<
$! $--

8-:%
'<
$!>

$?-/+

!
/

%% '

$$
$+
'

+
+'
!
$$
%;

+
/

+

%%
$

''%
'4
/!

%*
$'
+'+

$'

'
>+

%-
2

3

+-9--:$-$

$:$-$
!+$
+

+/'

'

,?
'''
0

'

"

+
$$
</

''+
$$
@'

'/
+*
$

-'-?!
+'$

'
% -

'-$

+
' A<

,%-

$'
+'+
!+-
$

'
,-'$
6

+
$
+

$'
%
$+%B'

!
$'C)

+
+'

'!!+-

$!+

%$

+

$

$

!%
%$
'!-
+'$'

$!

6 4
'
'$

$%'
$!

-

' !64

-''

:$-$
?
'-'$!
'!-

$
'
%64

!$

!>

%% !

/

%
%%

@$
'
$-$-

9$
$

'

6'

:
'D!%* 6
:

'

'$%$!

'
$
%*

'
!
%$'
$$
$

$-'$?%

!
@',
+ '

+-
'

'

2;+<%3-,-
$!+
/
-+ '-

'
!
/$
$

>
+-:$-$

$6

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

!

"#$
%
# % "&"%

"$
"

'(

)$*

'
%

$ '

+,-./.01234.5.678429:8;2<

)$#*

$
=

>
'
? '
@
=

"#"A
>
' A
?
' A
@ A
B,CD91:8;2E72F9124G7.:F2HIH9;281D9740.75.61.J2197.634<

)$*

$#
"

"

"
K
*%L*'

M
>
!

K
*%

%L*
K
*%L*'

A

M
!L*'

##A
>
!

N
&A
K
*%
L*

*! A

%L*

#A
O3I/27I P.631 Q27R2319J2
O3I/27I P.631 Q27R2319J2

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

!

"#$
%
# % "&"%

"$
"

'(&
)*+,-./012.34,-5.5-6.-78,9:.7.;<3<=><>,.;..2.2?
@ABC
DEFCG
HIEJ

KAJJDCLACDJ MEAH
NIHOP

JIQFOIQF
HIROC
SEBG

TCJQIIJ
GELC
UD
VEWAFI

XHIYCZO

ZIFOAFRIRG
HIROCG
[ABAF\
ZAO]
^EDI
ZEHG
ZEH

GCZOAIF
JEF\CHIRG
U^_
HIEJG

GZPIIDG
XR@DAZ
_DOI
SEBG`
DEFC
HCJ DA\PO
TCED
ZIFFCZOAaAO]
KEHGP
WEBC

GOHCCOG
HAJC
XEHO
AWXHIaCWCFO
HAJAF\
^CFAFGRDE
[IEHJQEDB
VAO]`
XEOP
bELCO]

GOEOAIFG
ZDCEH
cAJCH

XIXRDEH
dC`\` eEFCf
DCEJAF\
XEHBG
@RADJAF\G`
ZHIGG

YRHAGJAZOAIFG
GCFGC` WEBCG

AFGOEFZC
OCHHAL]AF\

ZHIGGQEDB
bCZRHC
CGGCFOAED`
HC\RDEHD]
aCCH
g
GZEH]`
ORHFAF\
@DIQ
AFOCHGCZOAIF`
UEGO
cCGO
XHAIHAO]
ZEHG`
XEHBAF\
LIHZC
XCIXDC
HAJ
YRFB
GOIHCJ JHAaCF`
hWXHIaCWCFOG
XHCGCFOD]
XIIH
NIHOPibIROP
i
VEDOHEAF`
hWXHIaCJ
FAZC`
XHCOO]
ZHRWW] EHCE
AF`
eIOG
@HIBCF
\DEGG`
GDRW
AWXHIaCWCFO`
_JJ
\HCCF
GZHCQ

OHELLAZ
PEXX] bM`
GCOgRX

QIIJGAJC
TcV ZIWAF\
EHCE`
jkRHDAF\EWC
_aCj
jcIIJGAJC
HIEJj
@ABC`
GPEHCG
@RG]
LEZCJ

GAOREOAIFG
ZIWWROAF\`
\HCEO

XCJCGOHAEF
l
@AZ]ZDC
LHACFJD]
PEXXCFAF\
TcVjG
NMSjG
XHIYCZO` @DAFJ
RFE@DC
LCCD
FCA\P@IHPIIJG U^_`
bOHCCO
LCCDG
RFGELC
JRC
ZHEm]
JHAaCHG
PCHC`
nCDE]G

RFJCHXEGG
ZIFFCZOAF\ GPIXXAF\
ZCFOCH
_ROI KEDD
DEZB
FCA\P@IHPIIJ`

VIFFCZOCJ
\I`
FAZC
ZIaCHE\C`
GAF\DC
HCoRAHCG
HIEJ`
OIQFG
JALLAZRDO`
DIRG]
KCFDI
^EHB

VEDOHEAF
AJCED
pDABC
_DOIq`
_DOCHFEOAaCD]
DIO
GCFGC HCoRAHC
AFLHEGOHRZORHC`
UVT
EDIF\i
TCED` XEHEDDCD
bEF
GAJC AGFrO PEDDG
DEFC`
[E]
_aC
GELC`
s$
$

t
'$uuv'

''

'

$
w!x
y
v
z
{

''
'
$!
'

v

$
u' u'$!

t
%|
uv

}
$

|

v

x

uv!%~$|$

'
'|'$u
'y
$$'%'$

$
%
!!x
y
v

tv'
$
u

|
'v uv'

'!'
'

uv'

'

!!
$'!}
u'|!$'!|

%uv'

'

'
$

$s
uv'

vuv!

z

v!

| |''%

'!$%}v

}

$

$$

'

u|

~
$
$$||~$|$

'

$vz

|'$u x
y
v

$z
%uv!'

$$'%'$~
$

'$%'$

$$
uv'

!uv'

|

%% x

|

|uv'

%$$'%'$
$

} %
|$
$
$$||~s

$v|

} !$||x
y
v

|
$$'%'$
$
u|
'!

s$
$
$

''
$
!

uv uv
$

u

$|

%
$

'$
!

|'
!s'$u!
%|!

''
$

u '%$'
}

%~s

$$'%'$
$

} xy

}

u'$
$%
u'$
uv
%'

%$!!
!u$

$!
'
%'

%$
($

$

'

$

!
'

$|
'v

!
$
$|
'v

''~$
|$

'
'
v%uv'

x
y
v
!u$

$
uv

!||
!

uv'

u

!
!
!'
v
!
$
!

$

.389;3. 9;<

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

!

"#$
%
# % "&"%

"$
"

'(

)$"*

$
+*!,))
-
'

,$%% './

'
'
,* ,
)
'-
*
$0$)$
1
!

,*

'
)'$,$

'2'*-
'
'3
'
',*'

'!4'

0
'
'

*
'%

,)'$5

+*'

4
0
$$'%'$6.
7
*
+*'

'!

'''4'

0
'
$
$!

84'

$$'%'$
'

%% *$-

'!
$

*

'

'
$
,'

''
',

'

%
!

9

)
'
!!
($,

%
*)

$$

$$,*'
+

$$,) '

$ '

%,*%+
:
'0

)$+

;
<

4-
$)
)4-

%$
!)!!$

$
''*%4-

'
$

!
%$!
$

$

$$))-
'
'
=)'$,*
$)
'*%)

%0!)
'

'
,'

>?@ABCBDEFGHBIBJKLHFMNKNEKNGOLEP

)$#*

$
6
0 '
;
'
0!'
'
6 QR
0 ' #R
;
' ""R
0!'
' ""R
>>@STNEMNKNEKNGOLEMKBUVFWOWNXFLETNKHDBKIBJEBYFENKBJGHP ZGOCFKO [BJGE \FK]FGENYF

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

!

"#$
%
# % "&"%

"$
"

'(

)$#*

$
"

+'!,'
-
$ .

/

+'!,'
$
!
$%% '
#0
-
$
%

""0
.

0
/

""0
123456789:;7<=56>7?@5@A5@B<6A6C?5DE7C7BA<AF@A@57B77;7;G

)$*

$#
H)$ '$I

'

"

)

)
J
$
,'$'

$'!
'

*K

,'%$
'
$$
'

/$!$
,
''!!%
,'$$$
''
!
'
!$
' ,

1L3MDND8A7B;D:DON@9P6B:DO5=DCCOB6A:Q
R
'
S

-
'
T
R
' #0
S

U&0
-
' 0
VB<N75< WDOBA X75=7BA@Y7
Z7<?DB<7 WDOBA
VB<N75< WDOBA X75=7BA@Y7

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

!

"#$
%
# % "&"%

"$
"

'()

*$#+

$
, ""-
./0123456789:;<=>4242:5:?:<46>3@@:4=76A;3A:>4236?B76C7D47E:4367D@?F

*$+

$#
"
"
"

G
$*
'+G'!!H%% 'I

%
'
G
$*
'+ $
&&#-
G'!!
$

%# &-
H%% '

# &-
I

%
'

-
.J0K6>:B9C?:<L6>8:5:?:<46>3@>;567M:;:@4<423436:@::?:?N O*$ '$P

'

"

*

*
Q$
$*
'+
! +

R' +!

+$
$*
'+

$*
'+
O

'
+%%% *

%
'*!

$*!R$

'*$*

S$*$T''
!,U
V
+
$

'

*$W$
!

$*
'+ $

$OX

'%$R

$*
'+
$

''

Y
'WY

!Z

$

'
$%% 'R

'
+

*
'+
G$

$*
'+

*
$

$*
'+
!

*$

+!
'%*

$*
'+

+!$%% '%
''

$*'

R

[
$R'
$

!
'

*$
'\R

$P

*
'+

!

'$
R'*
!
*
O

%
%

*
'+$
R$
!

R'%
%
%
$
$

*
'+
'
'R$

%

*
'+$R

'$
R'Z

$
'

!*$R '
%
$*
'+O
R'

$

$

'$R+
'
%
$*
'+O
R

R''

$R

'$R

%
R
$*
'+Q

'
!
*
$]

$*
'+

$Q$$!
'
%'+

%!!
!'$
Q

+!'

$]

$*
'+*'$R\''
%'%
$*
'+
%

'
$
!

R'%
%

+!'
$ $
$*
'+
*

R'

G'

$$Y
Q^R

_'

S
'
$
$

'O

+

`@<=:6< a7D@4 b:6L:@43E:
c:<57@<: a7D@4

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

!

"#$
%
# % "&"%

"$
"

'("

)$*

+,
-
*
)

$!
$$

$
'
)
'*
$
%$
* +-./01
23
'$4

' 4

5

6

'

7

'%
+,-
'!!%

$

+,-

%
'8
*
9)
'

''+,-
$
)
:

!!

'

5
)

'

";%+,-
'

$5

$)
'*
<6

$)
'* $

$57

2!

$)$+,
-
*

2
*%
$)
'*

*!
$)
'*
$)
'*
4' *$ .
%)$'
$
$$$'%'$
4$%

$

'

$

)
'*.

'
$4
$

$ '

4

$
!

)
4'$

%$$'%'$)$'
$
$)
'*

4' $

(
$

.+,
-
*

$)
'*

)
$$5
'')%

%)
'*!)
$)$)

=

$)
'*

4' $

0!6

'
$%% 4)%

/

'8
*
$

%

08
$)
'*

)*
!

6
'
$
''%
$

4$
!
"

$

)

0
$4

$

$)
'*
08

)$
$)
'*

4'
$)
'*

$'!!
'!!

''%
$

'!
$9''>
$4)

(
$
>
$)'$4
?.

'

$

%!

)
'*

%%
$

%
$

)
%'!

$%)

?7
>

)$A0'

>
'@$)
'*
)$
%
'!
'
$

$1

'8
*

BCDEFGHIJKLMNMLJOGLKIGPKFGPQHRSKHHRKGLFQGTU
"

"

1*
'
9

'$

*
6

+
-
1* ##;
'
;
9

'$
' ";

*#;
VWIXKPI YRZWH [KPLKWHGSK

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

!

"#$
%
# % "&"%

"$
"

'(

)$*

$#
+

#,
- ,
. ,
/012345467537879:4;784<=>345>?@:=A4B7C5748C765?D755?537AE

)$*

$
+)$ '$F

'

"

)

)
G$
$)
'*

$H*'

+

%IJ

$

J
'
'
$!!"!J
'-!H$

$!$))J
!

K

'%$!
*
H'

!
*

+'

'

$

$''
$

'
%% *$) '

%
$

$ '

)'$
*

%
$ +

%%
!
'$
M
')

% )''
*!)
%
$

$ '

N

''!)

''$%% '

$
G)'$
')

$
!%%)$$M

)

O!'

L
O+
$

'+
P

!
%% I

J
'
'%I

L

!!QH
J
'
-
$
$
%'*
)

'
$
K
$'
'
%H

!!
$

RK

''

H'!

'

H*K
Q

' '$$%% '

%''
!I
'
F

'N
' '
)''H
%% S!$
'!S
*%S*%
*$
S

T!%F H

U '

-.
'

H)
J
$-U.
$
J
$O

)$T
'
' I'

O
'$$
O$)$
)
$

'H

$

H*H' V

)
'
'H'$!
L'$!

$%
$)
'*H
J
*!'L'
$!
'
*!

$Q

$)
'*L

'
F!

$
$%%'

%H

'!

!
'$

*
$

$ '
$
'
$!

T!

!
'!!
'!
$T''O
$
'

!
$)
'*
'J
*

'

+
''%
''
H'
H'

%)

'J
*HH*!
%

/W123C;3?X5374Y?Z7;34::7<D7885C::A4B7C5346=X?6[?@5?D7546?@<==@6C<D\]^_`a/bE c789?<87 \?@<5

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

!

"#$
%
# % "&"%

"$
"

'(

)$*

$#
"

#
&

"
+,' -

.*
''!+

/
'*!
''0
+,' -

''!
1
.*
''!

1
+

''!
#1
/
'*!
''!
"#"1
0 1
23456789:;8<79=>?<878@?9A67BB:9C:=D?E?FG7A:H:A7F=:?GIJKLMNO23PQ

)$"*

$
"

#
&

"

R%'

%S$ $

R$T)
R
T
%%$0 U
R%'

%

#1
S$ $

$'
"1
R$T)

,R$!
$" "1
R
T
%%$

%

""1
0 "1
U #1
VW4MGE?F;?FBDB@X:F>D78:=?986@=><?Y:A8Z@9ABFD@9CGF8F<:?>>?<8F9@8@:=8?>7<8@A@>78:Z>B:7=:[ \9=;:<= J?F98 ]:<A:987C:
\9=;:<= J?F98 ]:<A:987C:

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

!

"#$
%
# % "&"%

"$
"

'(

)$
*

$
+)$ '$,

'

"

)

)
-*'.

$
'.!
' .
'$
)'.!
' *.*/! (
'.!
'
.!
'
0123 41567

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) 1) ¿Cuál es su código postal?
2) ¿Cuál major captura tu edad?
⬜ 18 o menos ⬜ 30-44 ⬜ 60 o mas
⬜ 19-29 ⬜ 45-59
3) ¿Cuál es el idioma principal que se habla en su hogar? 4) Antes de COVID-19, ¿qué sistemas de tránsito montabas regularmente? (Marque todo lo que corresponda.) ⬜ Samtrans ⬜ Caltrain ⬜ Otro
⬜ BART ⬜ Translado comunitario
5) ¿Qué problemas de tránsito te dificultan moverte? (Marque todo los que corresponda.) ⬜ Diseño/ubicación de la ruta ⬜ Estaciones o refugios de autobuses inadecuados ⬜ Ubicación y espaciado de las paradas de autobús ⬜ Horas de funcionamiento ⬜ Retrasos e imprevisibilidad ⬜ Tarifas
6) Describa brevemente las mejoras de tránsito que se necesitan:
7) ¿Con qué frecuencia andas en bicicleta?
⬜ Diario ⬜ En ocasiones ⬜ Raramente ⬜ Nunca
8) ¿Qué problemas relacionados con la Bicicleta te dificultan moverte? (Marque todo lo que corresponda.) ⬜ Falta de carriles de bici ⬜ Calles o intersecciones peligrosas ⬜ Costo de mantenimiento de bicicleta ⬜ Brechas en los carriles de bici existentes ⬜ Falta de estacionamiento seguro para bicicletas Esta encuesta se utilizará para identificar las mejoras de transporte en las partes de Southeast San Mateo que más las necesitan. Sus respuestas ayudarán a dar forma al Plan de Transporte Basado en la Comunidad de Southeast San Mateo, que recomendará proyectos como nuevos refugios de autobuses, carriles de bicicletas mejorados, intersecciones más seguras, mejores rutas de autobús, mejor acceso a BART y otros. También queremos entender cómo la pandemia COVID-19 ha cambiado sus necesidades y prioridades de transporte. ¡AYUDA A QUE SEA MÁS FÁCIL MOVERSE
EN SOUTHEAST SAN MATEO COUNTY!

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) 9) Describa brevemente las mejoras de bicicleta que se necesitan:
10) ¿Conqué frecuencia montas montas paratránsito?
⬜ Diario ⬜ Regularmente ⬜ Raramente ⬜ Nunca
11) ¿Qué problemas de paratránsito te dificultan moverte? (Marque todo lo que corresponda.) ⬜ Dificultad de elegibilidad y registro ⬜ Tiempos de espera ⬜ Horas restringidas de funcionamiento ⬜ Tarifas
12) Describa brevemente las mejoras de paratránsito que se necesitan:
13) ¿Con qué frecuencia camina en su comunidad?
⬜ Diario ⬜ En ocasiones ⬜ Raramente ⬜ Nunca
14) ¿Qué problemas con la red peatonal dificultan su habilidad de pasear? (Marque todo lo que corresponda.) ⬜ Malas condiciones de la acera ⬜ Intersecciones difíciles ⬜ Iluminación y seguridad deficientes ⬜ Acceso escolar inseguro 15) Describa brevemente las mejoras de los peatones que se necesitan:
16) ¿Qué lugares específicos son difíciles de llegar cada día? ⬜ Trabajo ⬜ Hospital/centro medico ⬜ Parada de tránsito ⬜ Escuela ⬜ Supermercado ⬜ Ninguno
⬜ Otro
17) ¿Cuáles son estos lugares y qué facilitaría el acceso a ellos? 18) ¿Cuáles de los desafíos anteriores todavía hacen que sea difícil para usted moverse durante COVID-19? (Marque todo lo que corresponda.)
⬜ Desafíos con el transporte público ⬜ Desafíos con el paratránsito ⬜ Ninguno ⬜ Desafíos con la bicicleta ⬜ Desafíos para caminar
19) ¿Qué nuevos desafíos de transporte enfrenta debido a COVID-19? ⬜ Me siento inseguro en el tránsito ⬜ No tengo coche, pero necesito uno para moverme ⬜ Ninguno ⬜ Horarios de tránsito reducidos ⬜ No puedo pagar un auto o tarifas de tránsito ⬜ Otro
20) Si desea recibir actualizaciones sobre este proyecto, incluidas las oportunidades futuras de participar, proporcione su dirección de correo electrónico:

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) CCAG-Community Survey-Southeast San Mateo CountySpanish Submitted By: Anonymous user
Submitted Time: March 1, 2022 2:43 PM

1. ¿Cuál es su código postal?
94063

2. ¿Cuál mejor captura su edad?
18 o menos

3. ¿Cuál es el idioma principal que se habla en su hogar? Español / Spanish

4. Antes de COVID-19, ¿qué sistemas de tránsito montabas regularmente?

5. ¿Qué problemas de tránsito te dificultan moverte?
Ubicación y espaciado de las paradas de autobús

6. Describa brevemente las mejoras de tránsito que se
necesitan:

Mejoramiento de las calles que usamos trafico y que aiga letrero de stop para los camiones para las personas que andan con sillas de rueda.

Improvements to streets that are used by traffic and there should be a stop sign for buses for people in wheelchairs.

7. ¿Con qué frecuencia andas en bicicleta?
Diario

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

8. ¿Qué problemas relacionados con la bicicleta te
dificultan moverte?

9. Describa brevemente las mejoras de bicicleta que se
necesitan:

Que respeten el trafico y que anden con luces.

That they respect traffic and use a light.

10. ¿Con qué frecuencia montas paratránsito?
Diario

11. ¿Qué problemas de paratránsito te dificultan moverte? Horas restringidas de funcionamiento

12. Describa brevemente las mejoras de paratránsito que se necesitan:

Que pacen cada media hora.

That they pass by every half hour.

13. ¿Con qué frecuencia camina en su comunidad?
Diario

14. ¿Qué problemas con la red peatonal dificultan su
habilidad de pasear?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

15. Describa brevemente las mejoras de los peatones que se necesitan:

Que necesitamos los peatones una calle
Pedestrians need a street

16. ¿Qué lugares específicos son difíciles de llegar cada día?
Trabajo

17. ¿Qué haría más fácil llegar a estos lugares:

Llegar al trabajo a tiempo
Arrive at work on time

18. ¿Cuáles de los desafíos anteriores todavía hacen que sea difícil para usted moverse durante COVID-19?
Desafíos para caminar

19. ¿Qué nuevos desafíos de transporte enfrenta debido a COVID-19?
Horarios de tránsito reducidos , Caminar con cuidado / walk carefully

20. Si desea recibir actualizaciones sobre este proyecto, incluyendo las oportunidades futuras de participar,
proporcione su dirección de correo electrónico:

Claro
Of course
CCAG-Community Survey-Southeast San Mateo CountySpanish

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) Submitted By: Anonymous user
Submitted Time: March 1, 2022 2:26 PM

1. ¿Cuál es su código postal?
94063

2. ¿Cuál mejor captura su edad?
60 o mas

3. ¿Cuál es el idioma principal que se habla en su hogar? Español / Spanish

4. Antes de COVID-19, ¿qué sistemas de tránsito montabas regularmente?
Samtrans

5. ¿Qué problemas de tránsito te dificultan moverte?
Ubicación y espaciado de las paradas de autobús, Retrasos e imprevisibilidad, Estaciones o refugios de autobuses inadecuados

6. Describa brevemente las mejoras de tránsito que se
necesitan:

Bancas, refugios, mejor disenos, mas practicos no tan caros. La linea roja de las paradas tienen que mantenerse al igual del piso donde estan las paradas.

Benches, shelter, better designs, convenient and not too expensive. The red curb at the bus stops should be maintained as well as the ground is at the stops.

7. ¿Con qué frecuencia andas en bicicleta?
Nunca

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

8. ¿Qué problemas relacionados con la bicicleta te
dificultan moverte?

9. Describa brevemente las mejoras de bicicleta que se
necesitan:

N/A

10. ¿Con qué frecuencia montas paratránsito?
Nunca

11. ¿Qué problemas de paratránsito te dificultan moverte?

12. Describa brevemente las mejoras de paratránsito que se necesitan:

13. ¿Con qué frecuencia camina en su comunidad?
Diario

14. ¿Qué problemas con la red peatonal dificultan su
habilidad de pasear?
Malas condiciones de la acera, Iluminación y seguridad deficientes , Intersecciones difíciles, Acceso escolar inseguro

15. Describa brevemente las mejoras de los peatones que se necesitan:

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) Los buses deben parar cerca de la acera para las personas de la segunda y tercera edad y agacharse cuando el conductor ve a una persona major o alguin con baston, o que camina con dificultad.

Buses should stop close to the sidewalk for folks of the second and third age and the bus driver should tilt the bus when they see an older person or someone with a cane or if they're having difficulties walking.

16. ¿Qué lugares específicos son difíciles de llegar cada día?
Ninguno

17. ¿Qué haría más fácil llegar a estos lugares:

18. ¿Cuáles de los desafíos anteriores todavía hacen que sea difícil para usted moverse durante COVID-19?
Desafíos con el transporte público

19. ¿Qué nuevos desafíos de transporte enfrenta debido a COVID-19?
Horarios de tránsito reducidos

20. Si desea recibir actualizaciones sobre este proyecto, incluyendo las oportunidades futuras de participar,
proporcione su dirección de correo electrónico:
[email protected]
CCAG-Community Survey-Southeast San Mateo CountySpanish Submitted By: Anonymous user
Submitted Time: February 28, 2022 12:39 PM

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

1. ¿Cuál es su código postal?
94063

2. ¿Cuál mejor captura su edad?
60 o mas

3. ¿Cuál es el idioma principal que se habla en su hogar? espanol

4. Antes de COVID-19, ¿qué sistemas de tránsito montabas regularmente?

5. ¿Qué problemas de tránsito te dificultan moverte?

6. Describa brevemente las mejoras de tránsito que se
necesitan:

7. ¿Con qué frecuencia andas en bicicleta?
Diario

8. ¿Qué problemas relacionados con la bicicleta te
dificultan moverte?

9. Describa brevemente las mejoras de bicicleta que se
necesitan:

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

10. ¿Con qué frecuencia montas paratránsito?
Nunca

11. ¿Qué problemas de paratránsito te dificultan moverte? Tiempos de espera

12. Describa brevemente las mejoras de paratránsito que se necesitan:

13. ¿Con qué frecuencia camina en su comunidad?
Diario

14. ¿Qué problemas con la red peatonal dificultan su
habilidad de pasear?
Intersecciones difíciles

15. Describa brevemente las mejoras de los peatones que se necesitan:

16. ¿Qué lugares específicos son difíciles de llegar cada día?
Ninguno

17. ¿Qué haría más fácil llegar a estos lugares:

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

18. ¿Cuáles de los desafíos anteriores todavía hacen que sea difícil para usted moverse durante COVID-19?
Ninguno

19. ¿Qué nuevos desafíos de transporte enfrenta debido a COVID-19?

20. Si desea recibir actualizaciones sobre este proyecto, incluyendo las oportunidades futuras de participar,
proporcione su dirección de correo electrónico:

CCAG-Community Survey-Southeast San Mateo CountySpanish Submitted By: Anonymous user
Submitted Time: February 28, 2022 12:35 PM

1. ¿Cuál es su código postal?
94063

2. ¿Cuál mejor captura su edad?
60 o mas

3. ¿Cuál es el idioma principal que se habla en su hogar? English-Espanol

4. Antes de COVID-19, ¿qué sistemas de tránsito montabas regularmente?
Samtrans , Caltrain

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

5. ¿Qué problemas de tránsito te dificultan moverte?
Ubicación y espaciado de las paradas de autobús, Horas de funcionamiento , Tarifas

6. Describa brevemente las mejoras de tránsito que se
necesitan:

More time during traffic signals

7. ¿Con qué frecuencia andas en bicicleta?
En ocasiones

8. ¿Qué problemas relacionados con la bicicleta te
dificultan moverte?
Brechas en los carriles de bici existentes, Calles o intersecciones peligrosas

9. Describa brevemente las mejoras de bicicleta que se
necesitan:

Signal

10. ¿Con qué frecuencia montas paratránsito?
Regularmente

11. ¿Qué problemas de paratránsito te dificultan moverte?

12. Describa brevemente las mejoras de paratránsito que se necesitan:

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

13. ¿Con qué frecuencia camina en su comunidad?
Diario

14. ¿Qué problemas con la red peatonal dificultan su
habilidad de pasear?
Malas condiciones de la acera, Acceso escolar inseguro

15. Describa brevemente las mejoras de los peatones que se necesitan:

16. ¿Qué lugares específicos son difíciles de llegar cada día?
Hospital/centro medico

17. ¿Qué haría más fácil llegar a estos lugares:

School

18. ¿Cuáles de los desafíos anteriores todavía hacen que sea difícil para usted moverse durante COVID-19?
Desafíos para caminar

19. ¿Qué nuevos desafíos de transporte enfrenta debido a COVID-19?
Horarios de tránsito reducidos

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

1. ¿Cuál es su código postal?
94421

2. ¿Cuál mejor captura su edad?
60 o mas

3. ¿Cuál es el idioma principal que se habla en su hogar?

4. Antes de COVID-19, ¿qué sistemas de tránsito montabas regularmente?
Samtrans

5. ¿Qué problemas de tránsito te dificultan moverte?
Horas de funcionamiento

6. Describa brevemente las mejoras de tránsito que se
necesitan:
sillas de pasajeros, exclusivos para seniors, incapacitados o damas embarazadas
Passanger seats, exclusive for seniors, disabled, or pregnant folks

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

7. ¿Con qué frecuencia andas en bicicleta?
Raramente

8. ¿Qué problemas relacionados con la bicicleta te
dificultan moverte?
Costo de mantenimiento de bicicleta

9. Describa brevemente las mejoras de bicicleta que se
necesitan:
bike paths

10. ¿Con qué frecuencia montas paratránsito?
Raramente

11. ¿Qué problemas de paratránsito te dificultan moverte? Dificultad de elegibilidad y registro , Horas restringidas de funcionamiento

12. Describa brevemente las mejoras de paratránsito que se necesitan:

13. ¿Con qué frecuencia camina en su comunidad?

14. ¿Qué problemas con la red peatonal dificultan su
habilidad de pasear?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

15. Describa brevemente las mejoras de los peatones que se necesitan:

16. ¿Qué lugares específicos son difíciles de llegar cada día?

17. ¿Qué haría más fácil llegar a estos lugares:

18. ¿Cuáles de los desafíos anteriores todavía hacen que sea difícil para usted moverse durante COVID-19?

19. ¿Qué nuevos desafíos de transporte enfrenta debido a COVID-19?

20. Si desea recibir actualizaciones sobre este proyecto, incluyendo las oportunidades futuras de participar,
proporcione su dirección de correo electrónico:

CCAG-Community Survey-Southeast San Mateo CountySpanish Submitted By: Anonymous user
Submitted Time: February 28, 2022 12:31 PM

1. ¿Cuál es su código postal?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

2. ¿Cuál mejor captura su edad?
60 o mas

3. ¿Cuál es el idioma principal que se habla en su hogar?

4. Antes de COVID-19, ¿qué sistemas de tránsito montabas regularmente?

5. ¿Qué problemas de tránsito te dificultan moverte?
Horas de funcionamiento , Tarifas

6. Describa brevemente las mejoras de tránsito que se
necesitan:

7. ¿Con qué frecuencia andas en bicicleta?
Nunca

8. ¿Qué problemas relacionados con la bicicleta te
dificultan moverte?
Falta de carriles de bici, Brechas en los carriles de bici existentes, Falta de estacionamiento seguro para bicicletas

9. Describa brevemente las mejoras de bicicleta que se
necesitan:

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

10. ¿Con qué frecuencia montas paratránsito?
Raramente

11. ¿Qué problemas de paratránsito te dificultan moverte? Tarifas

12. Describa brevemente las mejoras de paratránsito que se necesitan:

13. ¿Con qué frecuencia camina en su comunidad?

14. ¿Qué problemas con la red peatonal dificultan su
habilidad de pasear?

15. Describa brevemente las mejoras de los peatones que se necesitan:

16. ¿Qué lugares específicos son difíciles de llegar cada día?
Hospital/centro medico

17. ¿Qué haría más fácil llegar a estos lugares:

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

18. ¿Cuáles de los desafíos anteriores todavía hacen que sea difícil para usted moverse durante COVID-19?
Desafíos con el transporte público, Desafíos con la bicicleta

19. ¿Qué nuevos desafíos de transporte enfrenta debido a COVID-19?
Ninguno

20. Si desea recibir actualizaciones sobre este proyecto, incluyendo las oportunidades futuras de participar,
proporcione su dirección de correo electrónico:

CCAG-Community Survey-Southeast San Mateo CountySpanish Submitted By: Anonymous user
Submitted Time: February 28, 2022 12:30 PM

1. ¿Cuál es su código postal?
94063

2. ¿Cuál mejor captura su edad?
60 o mas

3. ¿Cuál es el idioma principal que se habla en su hogar?

4. Antes de COVID-19, ¿qué sistemas de tránsito montabas regularmente?
Caltrain , unsure

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

5. ¿Qué problemas de tránsito te dificultan moverte?
Retrasos e imprevisibilidad, Horas de funcionamiento

6. Describa brevemente las mejoras de tránsito que se
necesitan:

7. ¿Con qué frecuencia andas en bicicleta?
En ocasiones

8. ¿Qué problemas relacionados con la bicicleta te
dificultan moverte?
Falta de carriles de bici

9. Describa brevemente las mejoras de bicicleta que se
necesitan:

10. ¿Con qué frecuencia montas paratránsito?

11. ¿Qué problemas de paratránsito te dificultan moverte?

12. Describa brevemente las mejoras de paratránsito que se necesitan:

13. ¿Con qué frecuencia camina en su comunidad?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

14. ¿Qué problemas con la red peatonal dificultan su
habilidad de pasear?

15. Describa brevemente las mejoras de los peatones que se necesitan:

16. ¿Qué lugares específicos son difíciles de llegar cada día?

17. ¿Qué haría más fácil llegar a estos lugares:

18. ¿Cuáles de los desafíos anteriores todavía hacen que sea difícil para usted moverse durante COVID-19?

19. ¿Qué nuevos desafíos de transporte enfrenta debido a COVID-19?

20. Si desea recibir actualizaciones sobre este proyecto, incluyendo las oportunidades futuras de participar,
proporcione su dirección de correo electrónico:

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) CCAG-Community Survey-Southeast San Mateo CountySpanish Submitted By: Anonymous user
Submitted Time: February 28, 2022 12:29 PM

1. ¿Cuál es su código postal?
94103

2. ¿Cuál mejor captura su edad?

3. ¿Cuál es el idioma principal que se habla en su hogar? Espanol

4. Antes de COVID-19, ¿qué sistemas de tránsito montabas regularmente?
Samtrans

5. ¿Qué problemas de tránsito te dificultan moverte?

6. Describa brevemente las mejoras de tránsito que se
necesitan:
more buses stopping at their designated line.

7. ¿Con qué frecuencia andas en bicicleta?
Nunca

8. ¿Qué problemas relacionados con la bicicleta te
dificultan moverte?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan) Falta de carriles de bici

9. Describa brevemente las mejoras de bicicleta que se
necesitan:

10. ¿Con qué frecuencia montas paratránsito?

11. ¿Qué problemas de paratránsito te dificultan moverte?

12. Describa brevemente las mejoras de paratránsito que se necesitan:

13. ¿Con qué frecuencia camina en su comunidad?

14. ¿Qué problemas con la red peatonal dificultan su
habilidad de pasear?

15. Describa brevemente las mejoras de los peatones que se necesitan:

16. ¿Qué lugares específicos son difíciles de llegar cada día?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

17. ¿Qué haría más fácil llegar a estos lugares:

18. ¿Cuáles de los desafíos anteriores todavía hacen que sea difícil para usted moverse durante COVID-19?

19. ¿Qué nuevos desafíos de transporte enfrenta debido a COVID-19?

20. Si desea recibir actualizaciones sobre este proyecto, incluyendo las oportunidades futuras de participar,
proporcione su dirección de correo electrónico:

CCAG-Community Survey-Southeast San Mateo CountySpanish Submitted By: Anonymous user
Submitted Time: February 22, 2022 4:00 PM

1. ¿Cuál es su código postal?
94063

2. ¿Cuál mejor captura su edad?
60 o mas

3. ¿Cuál es el idioma principal que se habla en su hogar? Espanol

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

4. Antes de COVID-19, ¿qué sistemas de tránsito montabas regularmente?

5. ¿Qué problemas de tránsito te dificultan moverte?

6. Describa brevemente las mejoras de tránsito que se
necesitan:
mas bright lights y stop signs
mas bus transportacion

7. ¿Con qué frecuencia andas en bicicleta?
Nunca

8. ¿Qué problemas relacionados con la bicicleta te
dificultan moverte?

9. Describa brevemente las mejoras de bicicleta que se
necesitan:

10. ¿Con qué frecuencia montas paratránsito?
Raramente

11. ¿Qué problemas de paratránsito te dificultan moverte?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

12. Describa brevemente las mejoras de paratránsito que se necesitan:

13. ¿Con qué frecuencia camina en su comunidad?
Diario

14. ¿Qué problemas con la red peatonal dificultan su
habilidad de pasear?
Iluminación y seguridad deficientes

15. Describa brevemente las mejoras de los peatones que se necesitan:

16. ¿Qué lugares específicos son difíciles de llegar cada día?

17. ¿Qué haría más fácil llegar a estos lugares:

18. ¿Cuáles de los desafíos anteriores todavía hacen que sea difícil para usted moverse durante COVID-19?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

19. ¿Qué nuevos desafíos de transporte enfrenta debido a COVID-19?

20. Si desea recibir actualizaciones sobre este proyecto, incluyendo las oportunidades futuras de participar,
proporcione su dirección de correo electrónico:
712 Charter St. Redwood City CA 94063
CCAG-Community Survey-Southeast San Mateo CountySpanish Submitted By: Anonymous user
Submitted Time: February 22, 2022 3:54 PM

1. ¿Cuál es su código postal?
94063

2. ¿Cuál mejor captura su edad?

3. ¿Cuál es el idioma principal que se habla en su hogar? Espanol

4. Antes de COVID-19, ¿qué sistemas de tránsito montabas regularmente?

5. ¿Qué problemas de tránsito te dificultan moverte?
Diseño/ubicación de la ruta

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

6. Describa brevemente las mejoras de tránsito que se
necesitan:

7. ¿Con qué frecuencia andas en bicicleta?
Nunca

8. ¿Qué problemas relacionados con la bicicleta te
dificultan moverte?

9. Describa brevemente las mejoras de bicicleta que se
necesitan:

10. ¿Con qué frecuencia montas paratránsito?
Nunca

11. ¿Qué problemas de paratránsito te dificultan moverte? Tiempos de espera

12. Describa brevemente las mejoras de paratránsito que se necesitan:

13. ¿Con qué frecuencia camina en su comunidad?
Diario

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

14. ¿Qué problemas con la red peatonal dificultan su
habilidad de pasear?

15. Describa brevemente las mejoras de los peatones que se necesitan:

16. ¿Qué lugares específicos son difíciles de llegar cada día?
Ninguno

17. ¿Qué haría más fácil llegar a estos lugares:

18. ¿Cuáles de los desafíos anteriores todavía hacen que sea difícil para usted moverse durante COVID-19?
Ninguno

19. ¿Qué nuevos desafíos de transporte enfrenta debido a COVID-19?
Me siento inseguro en el tránsito

20. Si desea recibir actualizaciones sobre este proyecto, incluyendo las oportunidades futuras de participar,
proporcione su dirección de correo electrónico:

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

!"
!

#$%
&#!$

$&!
'
(%$#$$

)*

+,-./01233/456789:93;<1=

>?&@?
A
>?!)?B

)

>
&
$ #
&

&

C,-./01D2E9F4<:;/F<3/26<6=

>?@?

G
&& G

''& G
$

## G
H,-./0123217679D<:F7I47:<1J/232K<L1<2I3/K98<F= A
>?!)?B

)

)
M

N)
O9F6 .9/I;
PI3Q2F3 .9/I; R2F42I;<82
O9F6 .9/I;

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

!"
!

#$%
&#!$

$&!
'
(%$#$$

)*

+,#-,

.")

) /01234564789:;<=>?@ABC5D534EF5643GH25D3IEI23FJF5G4KBLFGE4234M
+, -,

'
$

NOP

)
P

)
,! Q

R
NOP R

)
R
P

)
,!
R
Q $$ R
S0@TBCUGIJL4EF5643GH25D3I346DVDWBL3F2EIX4G34M

Y
Z%!
! [%!
!\
O

.

!
]

,(! P
(

Y
Z%!
!\,)

R
[%!
!\

!
,,)

,
%^
R
O

%),
, R
.

!
("
,
%

,!
,
R
125_4G5 7IB23 `4GW423FK4
125_4G5 7IB23 `4GW423FK4

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

!"
!

#$%
&#!$

$&!
'
(%$#$$

)*

+,#-,
.

,(!

/
0 (

/
123456789:974;4<4=>4?:5<4@A7:5B4>7C=58>ADE454=46458>:=F 0 +,!),G

)

+
, '
)

))

((!
%

H
I!)

!

!
,
,

%

*
,

"

I!)
,

%), "
()-

"
)

" ,
"
, )

H
!
))

JA7B KAE=>

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

!"
!

#$%
&#!$

$&!
'
(%$#$$

)*

"

)
)

!

+

!
+

,

"
)
-
)!

%"

)"

"

! .
!

("
/
+

!!

!

0
)

/

)
"
)
+)

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

!"
!

#$%
&#!$

$&!
'
(%$#$$

)*'

+,$-,

) ,
"
! /
,
!%

, ",

0123456789:;<7;5<=>>5?>@;5A=<=<B;C>D

+, -,
E!

F

G!

H

E!
'' I
F
I
G!

I
H

I
J12K78L:4AB;M>@:;B><=45>?4@<45B>A=<=<B;C>C;?=9=<7BC>5M4N;:C;D O5@P;:@ 3475C Q;:<;5C>R;

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

!"
!

#$%
&#!$

$&!
'
(%$#$$

)*$

+,'-,'

.
)
,!
/!

)

))
.
)
,

!

,

.
)
,!
)
,%! 0
/!

)
!
)
,%!1

0 ))

!!
)"

0
.
)
,

!

"

%!!)

,
,%!!)
0
23456789:;:85<5=5>?5@;6=5AB8;6C5:9797@5?;DE565>57569?;>F
+,
-,$
G
+,!),H

)

+
"
)

)

(!

,
!
)!

!
((!
)"

I
%-

JK3LMB>DENO857E5>79;=B>?;6P;8;?8Q>69?BR
S>6T586 MBE>? U5875>?;V5
WB8C MBE>?

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

!"
!

#$%
&#!$

$&!
'
(%$#$$

)*#

+,-,
.

/!

0

.")

.

1
/!
1
0
1
.")
1
223456789:;<=>?@A=8?9?B9CD@EB:B=AEFEG6<B?D>:H=9B=I
+,'-,'

0(!)
,, J

" K
,
K
(

0(!)
,,)"%),
,"
1
J

,(!
1
K
,

1 K
(

1
2L3M=@G9E;?;9=H=>=DB=<?@>=N:9?@A=8?9?B9CD@EB:O6=@=D=G=@EB?DP K
+,!),Q

)

+
R
!!
,
,

K

)(

SD@T=9@ U:6DB V=9G=DB?W=
SD@T=9@ U:6DB V=9G=DB?W=
X=@8:D@= U:6DB

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

!"
!

#$%
&#!$

$&!
'
(%$#$$

)*

+,-,&
./0123456789:;6:4;<=;=><4=:4?6;3>64<@=@A

+,$-,

B

C!

D

E!

B
$$ F
C!

F
D

F
E!
F
.G01H67I93JK:>=?;34K=9:@I:=L34=K@<8<;6KL=4?6M=J<K<@=@@:I=?:=9A
+,
-,$

)

!,! N)
!O N
!!
!!

!)

)

!,!
,)

!
F
N)
!O
",
,,(!
F
N
!!
,(P!)
F
!!

!)

" F
.Q0R:?;9<J=J9:S:>:4L:K=?>:T39=?@:K3?I:=L34:?56:?:4:;:?<L=4U V
+,!),W

)

+
X4?Y:9? 2364L Z:9;:4L=[:

X4?Y:9? 2364L Z:9;:4L=[:

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

!"
!

#$%
&#!$

$&!
'
(%$#$$

)*&

+,-,
.!

)

!
))
,

,

/
%

,%

!!
,)

!

)

,)

",
!
,
,
"
!

,)!,!

0
)"!%

1!

!,(!)
, 2

),

!)

,+
)-(()-
(

!,
,
,
"
,
%
,

),)
%
+

),

+

!
(
3

",((!)
+
)-"

456789:;9<=>?@?@A?BCDEBF@@FGHEDCBE;?@H?;;?<=>B=H=HC=I
+,$-,

J
%
0K
!)

L

)!
!
,

,
,M
N"
O
J
%
0 P
K
!)
P
L

)!,! P
!
, P

,
,M
P
N" P
O P
4Q6789:R=>C=ST@DTBE;;;?<=>=?@UF@;9<=>?@V
J
+,!),1

)

+
!
) /)"

)

%
0

W?@AFG@? XF9GU
YG@Z?>@ XF9GU [?>B?GU=<?
\F>H XF9GU

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

!"
!

#$%
&#!$

$&!
'
(%$#$$

)*

+,-,
+-
./0123456786597867:;<97:=>6?@9?67>98:A<:B:C6=D3676:8@;<C@5E:?:37>68F9A6?7683?:=G
+,$-,

(I
! H

(I
!) H

(I
! H

(I

J"
H

(I
!)

K%)! L
H

(I
!)
%!!)
L
H

(I
!)

M
L
H

(I

!

L
J" L
.N01O3P=36A97867:;<9786>?:=7E9?>66=;?6=>:86Q@89:2RSTUV.NW

X

,
J"!!

J,
"

J"
Y

")M
L
X

,M
,!,
L
J"!!
!

L
J,
"

(

,M
L
Z=7[6?7 293=> \6?C6=>:]6
Z=7[6?7 293=> \6?C6=>:]6

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

!"
!

#$%
&#!$

$&!
'
(%$#$$

)*

+,'-,'
." /
0 /
1234567879:7;5<5:9;=>9?5@9;5AB788A<:778=7C:AD7;=AE5B;?>D7B6A?98ACA:=>B569678F>=>:986G
+,
-,$
H
+,!),I

)

+
#
&
$
)

))

& J"
) ! ,! J"
) !
)

K,+,

LA:6 MA>B=

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-Based Transportation Plan)

12.2.b
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: SSMC Community Based Transportation Plan (2687 : 2023 Southeast San Mateo Community-

East Palo Alto City CouncilJune 20, 2023

East Palo Alto City Council
June 20, 2023