Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan — Foster City City Council, August 3, 2026

Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Master Plan
Foster City
Draft as of 07/13/26
Submitted on:

Fehr & Peers
Prepared by:

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
Table of Contents
Contents
Chapter 1: The Vision ....................................................................................................................... 8 About the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan .................................................................................................... 8 BPMP Goals ................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 2: Network Today ............................................................................................................. 12 Vehicle Volumes .......................................................................................................................................................... 13 Posted Speed ................................................................................................................................................................ 15 Collision History ........................................................................................................................................................... 16 Where Do Collisions Occur? ............................................................................................................................ 16 Collision Severity .................................................................................................................................................. 17 Existing Facilities ......................................................................................................................................................... 18 Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................................................................... 18 Typical Pedestrian Crossing Conditions ...................................................................................................... 19 Typical Bicycle Facility Conditions ............................................................................................................... 20 Comfort and Connectivity ....................................................................................................................................... 22 Why Comfort and Connectivity Matter ....................................................................................................... 22 Understanding Comfort: Level of Traffic Stress ....................................................................................... 22 Understanding Connectivity: Existing Access to Everyday Destinations ........................................ 26 Chapter 3: Community Feedback ................................................................................................ 30 Phase 1: Understanding Existing Challenges and Needs ............................................................................... 30 Takeaways ............................................................................................................................................................. 32 Phase 2: Refining the Draft Network .................................................................................................................... 33 Takeaways ............................................................................................................................................................. 34 Informing the Plan ............................................................................................................................................... 34 Phase 3: Reviewing the Draft Plan [In Progress]............................................................................................... 34 Takeaways ............................................................................................................................................................. 34 Chapter 4: Policy Recommendations .......................................................................................... 36 Existing Policies and Programs .............................................................................................................................. 37 Policy Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................ 38 Goal 1: Safe Routes to Key Destinations ...................................................................................................... 38 Goal 2: Design with Intent ................................................................................................................................ 40 Goal 3: Develop a Connected and Flexible Network .............................................................................. 42 Chapter 5: Future Network .......................................................................................................... 45 Bicycle Network .......................................................................................................................................................... 45

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
Bicycle Boulevards ............................................................................................................................................. 47 Future Bicycle Network ............................................................................................................................................ 48 Future Pedestrian Network ...................................................................................................................................... 50 Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy ............................................................................................ 53 Project Prioritization .................................................................................................................................................. 53 Pedestrian Project Prioritization .................................................................................................................... 53 Bicycle Project Prioritization ........................................................................................................................... 55 Advancing Priority Projects ..................................................................................................................................... 58 Funding Strategy ........................................................................................................................................................ 73 Next Steps ..................................................................................................................................................................... 75

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
Appendices

Appendix A. Benchmarking Assessment
Appendix B. Engagement Summaries
Appendix C. LTS and Connectivity Methodology Memorandum Appendix D. Bicycle Facility Prioritization Results

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
List of Figures

Figure 1: Foster City Commute to Work Mode (U.S. Census, 2024) ................................................................. 12 Figure 2: Weekday Vehicle Volumes (Replica, 2024) ............................................................................................ 14 Figure 3: Posted Speeds (Foster City, 2024) ........................................................................................................... 15 Figure 4: Five-Year Collisions by Mode (Foster City, 2025) ............................................................................... 16 Figure 5: Five-Year Collisions by Severity (Foster City Police Department, 2025) .................................... 17 Figure 6: Existing Bicycle Facilities (Foster City, 2024) ....................................................................................... 18 Figure 7: Bicycle LTS Scoring ........................................................................................................................................ 23 Figure 8: Pedestrian Crossing LTS Scoring ............................................................................................................... 23 Figure 9: Bicycle LTS Results ......................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 10: Pedestrian Crossing LTS Results............................................................................................................... 25 Figure 11: Pedestrian Connectivity and LTS ............................................................................................................... 27 Figure 12: Bicycle Connectivity and LTS .................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 13: Phase 1 Pop-up Engagement Event ......................................................................................................... 30 Figure 14: Map of Community Comments Received During Phase 1 ................................................................. 31 Figure 15: Phase 1 Engagement Comment Categories .......................................................................................... 32 Figure 16: Process Used to Develop BPMP Goals, Policies, and Strategies ................................................... 36 Figure 17: Caltrans Design Information Bulletin-94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance .. 45 Figure 18: Bicycle Facility Types ................................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 19: Future Bicycle Network ................................................................................................................................ 49 Figure 20: Future Pedestrian Improvements Network .......................................................................................... 50 Figure 21: Menu of Example Intersection Improvements ....................................................................................... 51 Figure 22: Prioritized Pedestrian Improvements ..................................................................................................... 54

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
List of Tables

Table 1: Existing and Future Bicycle Mileage ............................................................................................................ 49 Table 2: Bicycle Projects Prioritization Criteria ....................................................................................................... 55 Table 3: Bicycle Project Prioritization Results .......................................................................................................... 56 Table 4. Potential Ways to Fund Priority Projects ................................................................................................... 74

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 7
z
Chapter 1
The Vision

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 8

Chapter 1: The Vision
About the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
Foster City possesses many characteristics that make walking and bicycling attractive ways to get around, including the close proximity of homes, schools, shops, parks, and waterfront trails. These features provide strong opportunities and desire for getting around using more active modes, but barriers such as California State Route 92 (SR 92), major roadways, wide intersections, high vehicle speeds, and gaps in the existing bicycle and pedestrian network can make some trips difficult or uncomfortable. As travel patterns and mobility needs continue to evolve, the City has an opportunity to build on its existing strengths while addressing these challenges.

The Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) Project identifies policies, programs, and projects that support walking and biking in Foster City. The BPMP is the City’s first unified effort to document walking and biking needs and opportunities citywide to guide future decision making to support access.

The BPMP provides a roadmap for improving connectivity, enhancing safety and comfort, and expanding transportation choices. The recommendations were developed through technical analysis and community engagement. Together, data analysis, community input, and industry best practices informed the vision presented in this plan.

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 9

Guiding Vision

The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
aims to make walking and biking in
Foster City safer, more convenient, and
accessible for everyone.

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 10
BPMP Goals
The following three goals provide an overarching guide for the development of short- and long-range strategies that encourage walking and biking in Foster City. The goals draw from existing plans and policies, public feedback received, and consider current needs, demands, and challenges within the transportation network.

Goal 1: Safe Routes to Key Destinations
Prioritize safe and comfortable walking and biking routes to schools, parks, the Bay Trail, and other key destinations for all ages and abilities.

Goal 2: Design with Intent
Enhance walking and biking options by tailoring designs to the function and context of each roadway, accounting for roadway classification, adjacent land uses, and key destinations to ensure safe, convenient, and comfortable travel for all.

Goal 3: Develop a Connected and Flexible Network
Advance a connected, adaptable, and regionally integrated system that supports walking and biking as an option for local travel and responds to evolving mobility needs.

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 11

Chapter 2
Network
Today

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 12
Chapter 2: Network Today
The first step in developing the BPMP is to understand Foster City’s existing transportation network and the unique conditions that shape how people travel presently. The City’s planned peninsula layout—characterized by limited access points, an extensive lagoon system, and a highly interconnected street network—creates both constraints and opportunities for mobility. Because travel routes are concentrated, predictable, and relatively flat, even small improvements to key corridors and crossings can have a significant, systemwide impact on safety and connectivity for people walking and biking. Additionally, as e-bikes continue to expand the distance and range of trips that can be made comfortably without a car, providing a safe and connected network will become increasingly important for residents traveling within the City and regionally.

Foster City’s demographics further
reinforce the importance of a multimodal
network that serves users of all ages and
abilities. Residents of Foster City include a
high proportion of both youth and seniors
with 22% of residents under the age of 18
and 18% over the age of 65

1. These groups
often have distinct mobility needs and
benefit from safe, comfortable, and
accessible walking and bicycling
infrastructure. At the same time, Foster
City is home to many families whose daily
travel patterns include a mix of local trips
and regional commuting. As shown in
Figure 1, while 59.3% of workers commute
by car, a notable 34.2% work from home
2,
increasing the likelihood of short, non-
work trips that rely on walking and biking
within the City. Additionally, the majority of
Foster City's public and private elementary and middle schools are located south of SR 92, making this area a focal point for daily school-related travel by students and families. An existing Safe Routes to School program led by parents, teachers, and community leaders is already working to encourage more families to walk or bike to school. These characteristics create a strong opportunity for more local trips to be made by walking and biking, particularly for access to schools, parks, commercial areas, and other key destinations.

To inform the BPMP, the City assessed safety, accessibility, and connectivity across the existing network. This evaluation established a baseline of current infrastructure conditions, travel behavior, and unmet needs for active transportation. These findings directly informed the development of the

1 American Community Survey Five-Year Population Estimates, U.S Census (Data from 2024), https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2024.S0101?g=160XX00US0625338&d=ACS+5- Year+Estimates+Subject+Tables
2 American Community Survey Five-Year Commuting Estimates, U.S Census (Data from 2024), https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2024.S0801?g=160XX00US0625338&d=ACS+5- Year+Estimates+Subject+Tables

51.8%

7.50%

2.90%

1.70%

1.80%

34.20%
Drive Alone Carpool
Public Transportation Walking
Other Work from Home
Figure 1: Foster City Commute to Work Mode (U.S.

Census, 2024)

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 13
future bicycle and pedestrian network, helping to guide facility selection, project prioritization, and implementation strategies that are responsive to Foster City’s unique context and mobility goals.

Vehicle Volumes
Vehicle volumes inform the comfort of people walking and biking. Vehicle volume is also one of two characteristics transportation planners and engineers use to select the appropriate type of treatments to create safe, comfortable walking and biking conditions. Caltrans’ Design Information Bulletin-94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance3 (DIB-94) provides recommended roadway treatments, such as bicycle facility types, based on vehicle speed and vehicle volume. The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations4 also uses vehicle speed and vehicle volume to indicate the types of appropriate crosswalk treatments.

Figure 2 shows weekday vehicle volumes (i.e., Annual Daily Traffic) based on the DIB-94 delineations of volume. High vehicular volumes in Foster City are concentrated on SR 92, Edgewater Boulevard, Foster City Boulevard, and E Hillsdale Boulevard.

3 Design Information Bulletin-94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance, Caltrans (2024), https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/dib-94-010224-a11y.pdf 4 Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, U.S. DOT (2022), https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022- 09/STEP_Guide_for_Improving_Ped_Safety_at_Unsig_Loc_3-2018_07_17-508compliant.pdf

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 14
Figure 2: Weekday Vehicle Volumes (Replica, 2024)

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 15
Posted Speed
The posted speeds in Foster City fall into three categories: 25 miles per hour (mph) on local roads, 35 mph on major roads, and 55 mph on freeways, as shown in Figure 3. Like vehicle volumes, posted speed is an indication of safety, roadway comfort and, therefore, appropriate treatments. Posted speed is the additional consideration in DIB-94 bicycle facility guidance and FHWA’s pedestrian crossing guidance.

Note: Posted speed limits are generalized for mapping purposes and may vary along individual corridor segments.

Figure 3: Posted Speeds (Foster City, 2024)

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 16
Collision History
Where Do Collisions Occur?
The City looked at collision locations for the most recent six years of data. There were a total of 59 collisions involving a pedestrian or bicycle between 2019-2024. During this period, collisions most often occur at intersections, along arterial roadways (i.e. major roadways that are typically wider and faster to efficiently move many vehicles) and near key destinations such as schools, parks, or business districts and commercial land use, as illustrated in Figure 4. Intersections bring together people driving, walking, and biking, while arterial roadways carry a large share of the community's traffic and often have higher travel speeds. As a result, these locations experience more collisions than other parts of the transportation network.

This same five-year dataset was also used to inform the project prioritization process outlined in Chapter 6.

Figure 4: Five-Year Collisions by Mode (Foster City, 2025)

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 17
Collision Severity
Over the past five years, 88% of collisions involving people walking and biking resulted in an injury.

This highlights the greater risk faced by these road users compared to people traveling in vehicles.

Because people walking and biking do not have the external protection of a vehicle, they are more likely to be seriously injured when a collision occurs.

The Safe System Approach, adopted by the U.S. Department of Transportation, recognizes that all road users make mistakes and that the transportation system should be designed and operated to reduce the likelihood of severe injuries and fatalities. Consistent with this approach, the BPMP prioritizes strategies that prevent collisions from occurring in the first place by reducing conflict points between roadway users, lowering vehicle speeds, and improving the design of streets, intersections, and crossings.

A Note on Injury Collisions: Foster City Police Department collision records are documented in accordance with the California Highway Patrol Collision Investigation Manual. They distinguish between injury and non-injury collisions. An injury collision includes any crash in which at least one person reports a physical injury, ranging from a complaint of pain or visible injuries to severe or fatal injuries. People walking and biking are especially vulnerable in collisions because they do not have the protection provided by a vehicle. As a result, even crashes that result in relatively minor physical injuries can have lasting impacts, including ongoing pain, emotional trauma, medical expenses, and reduced mobility. The high rate of injury among pedestrians and bicyclists underscores the importance of preventing these collisions from occurring in the first place.

Figure 5: Five-Year Collisions by Severity (Foster City Police Department, 2025)

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 18
Existing Facilities
Bicycle Facilities
The existing bicycle network in Foster City is comprised of a combination of bicycle route treatments on local roads and arterials, bike lanes on select arterials, and the levee/bay trail which encircles the perimeter of Foster City. As illustrated in Figure 6, there are 29 miles of existing bicycle facilities in Foster City:
• Class I Shared Use Paths: 12.4 miles of shared bi-directional space for people walking and biking. • Class II Bicycle Lanes: 5.7 miles of striped lanes for bikes next to vehicle travel lanes. • Class III Bicycle Routes: 11 miles of shared travel lanes for cars and bikes.

For more information on bicycle facility types and images, see Figure 18.

Figure 6: Existing Bicycle Facilities (Foster City, 2024)

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 19
Typical Pedestrian Crossing Conditions
Pedestrian crossings throughout Foster City vary in their design and level of comfort. The examples below highlight the range of existing conditions found today. Some crossings incorporate features that support comfortable and convenient access (shown on the right), while others highlight opportunities for improvement (shown on the left).

Uncontrolled intersection

Crane Avenue at Duck Court and Loon Court
Unmarked Pedestrian Crossing

Polaris Avenue at Castor Street
Highly visibility crosswalk and advanced yield
markings
Stop-Controlled Intersection

Altair Avenue at Leo Drive
Unmarked pedestrian crossing

Catamaran Street at Shell Boulevard
Visible (buffered) bike lane and standard
crosswalk striping
Signalized Intersection

Foster City Boulevard at Metro Center Boulevard
Limited crossings, long crossing distances, and
narrow pedestrian island

E Hillsdale Boulevard at Central Park Lane
Decorative intersection and crossings on all legs
No Crossing Marked
No Crossing Marked
Limited Crossings
Crossings Marked
Crossings Marked
Crossings Provided

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 20
Typical Bicycle Facility Conditions
People biking in Foster City encounter a variety of roadway conditions, from busy corridors to quieter neighborhood streets. The examples below showcase common bicycle facilities used within the City.

While these facilities support bicycle travel, many rely primarily on pavement markings and provide little physical separation from vehicle traffic.

An all ages and abilities bicycle network is designed to be comfortable for a broad range of users, including children, older adults, families, and people who may not currently bike. Facilities that provide greater separation from vehicle traffic are generally more comfortable and appeal to a wider range of riders

5. The examples below illustrate both the existing bicycle network and opportunities to create a more connected and comfortable bicycling experience.

Arterial Roads

E Hillsdale Boulevard at Edgewater Boulevard
Class II Bike Lanes with 40 mph speed limit

Local Roads

Marlin Avenue at Surfperch Street
Class III Bike Route with 30 mph posted speed limit

5 Urban Bikeway Design Guide, NACTO (2025), https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 21
Planning for the E-Bike Era
E-bikes are transforming how people travel. By reducing the physical effort required to ride, e-bikes make bicycling more accessible for people of all ages and abilities, enabling older adults, families with children, and others to travel farther, carry more, and choose bicycling for both everyday and recreational trips.

California law recognizes three classes of e-bikes, each with different operating characteristics and speed capabilities. Under state law, these e-bikes are generally treated as bicycles, meaning they are subject to the same rules of the road and are permitted on most bicycle facilities unless otherwise restricted. In Foster City, Class III e-bikes are prohibited on the Bay Levee Trail. During development of this BPMP, community members frequently raised concerns about interactions between people walking, bicycling, and riding e-bikes along the trail, highlighting the importance of designing and managing shared-use facilities that are safe and comfortable for all users.

A related challenge facing Foster City and communities across the country is the growing availability of higher-powered electric motorcycles ("e-motos") and other devices that are marketed or sold as e-bikes but do not meet California's legal e-bike definitions. These vehicles are capable of significantly higher speeds and have contributed to confusion around regulations, enforcement, and safe operation. In response, the California Legislature is considering measures to strengthen consumer protections, improve labeling requirements, and better distinguish legal e-bikes from non-compliant electric vehicles.

The community's feedback received as part of the BPMP reinforced that safely accommodating e-bikes requires a layered approach. The foundation is a connected, comfortable, and predictable network that reduces conflicts. Complementing these infrastructure improvements, the plan recommends education and outreach strategies to promote safe bicycling and micromobility, including education on the safe operation of e- bikes, electric scooters, and electric skateboards. The plan also recommends exploring partnerships with local schools to establish an e-bike education, skills training, and permit program to help young riders understand applicable laws, ride responsibly, and build confidence before riding independently.

While this BPMP is centered on improving conditions for people walking and bicycling, its recommendations also establish a strong foundation for accommodating the continued growth of e-bikes and other emerging micromobility devices. By prioritizing a connected, low-stress network and more comfortable crossings, the plan creates infrastructure that is resilient to changing travel behaviors and technologies. The City will continue to monitor travel and safety trends, including tracking e-bike and scooter-related collisions separately, to help guide future investments and adapt as new mobility options emerge.

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 22
Comfort and Connectivity
Why Comfort and Connectivity Matter
Creating a walking and biking network that people enjoy and choose to use requires more than simply providing facilities, it requires thinking critically about which destinations people want to reach and whether they can be reached through routes that feel safe, comfortable, and connected.

Evaluating both comfort and connectivity helps identify where existing conditions currently:
• Support walking and bicycling;
• Where barriers discourage travel; and
• Where investments can most effectively improve access to key destinations.

The following maps present the outcomes of a Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) and Connectivity Analysis.

Together these analyses identify destinations within the City where walking and biking improvements can expand access for all types of residents. By evaluating both the comfort of individual routes and how well those routes connect people to destinations, the analysis highlights gaps in the network and opportunities to create a more connected, accessible, and user-friendly transportation system.

Understanding Comfort: Level of Traffic Stress
Level of Traffic Stress is a framework used to evaluate how comfortable a roadway segment or crossing feels for people to walk or bike. The framework recognizes that many people are unlikely to walk or bike along routes that feel stressful or unsafe due to roadway or intersection factors, such as vehicle speeds, vehicle volumes, number of travel lanes, lack of barrier between vehicles, and marked crosswalks. Understanding stress levels helps identify facilities that are comfortable for a wide range of users, including children, older adults, and people who are less confident walking or bicycling in traffic.

The following section describes Bicycle LTS and Pedestrian Crossing LTS. Appendix C contains the full methodology of the LTS analysis. Bicycle LTS is assigned to roadway segments, while Pedestrian Crossing LTS is assigned to intersection crossings. LTS scores are classified into four categories, ranging from LTS 1 (lowest stress) to LTS 4 (highest stress), as shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8.

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 23
Figure 7: Bicycle LTS Scoring

Figure 8: Pedestrian Crossing LTS Scoring

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 24
Figure 9 displays the results of the bicycle LTS analysis. Most local neighborhood roads in Foster City have an LTS of 1 and are relatively comfortable for walking and biking. Major roadways such as Foster City Boulevard, E Hillsdale Boulevard, and Beach Park Boulevard have LTS scores of 4, and are very low comfort given the high speeds and vehicular volumes. While parts of Edgewater Road, Shell Boulevard, Marsh Drive, Vintage Park Drive, and E 3rd Avenue have LTS scores of 3, they are currently only comfortable for the very confident bicyclists.

Figure 9: Bicycle LTS Results

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 25
Figure 10 displays the results of the pedestrian crossing LTS analysis. The highest stress pedestrian crossings are largely located on Foster City Boulevard, E Hillsdale Boulevard, Shell Boulevard and Beach Park Boulevard. Most local crossings have an LTS score of two, meaning they are generally comfortable for people walking, but need improvements to provide the most comfort for children, seniors, and people with disabilities.

Figure 10: Pedestrian Crossing LTS Results

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 26
Understanding Connectivity: Existing Access to Everyday Destinations While LTS measures the comfort of individual routes and crossings, connectivity evaluates how effectively those routes enable people to reach destinations. A well-connected network allows people to travel between homes, schools, parks, shopping areas, and community facilities using comfortable and direct routes. Conversely, gaps in the network may limit access even when destinations are geographically close.

The connectivity analysis evaluates how accessible key destinations are from surrounding areas using the existing walking and biking network. For each destination, the areas that can be reached within 5 minutes, 5–15 minutes, and 15–30 minutes by walking or biking were mapped. These areas, called travel sheds, show how far someone can travel along the current street, trail, and path network within a given amount of time. Appendix C contains the full methodology of the connectivity analysis.

Combining connectivity with LTS helps identify destinations that are already well-served by low- stress facilities, as well as destinations where access is constrained by high-stress routes or missing connections.

The destinations included in the analysis were informed by community feedback collected during Phase 1 engagement and include:

Schools: Public and private schools

• Community Facilities: Access points to City
parks (including neighborhood and pocket parks) and
primary access points to regional parks/trails. The City’s Community Center, Community Center Annex, and
Library are all within or nearby a City park and are
included as part of this destination type.

• Shopping Areas: Grocery stores and small
commercial areas
The following analysis was completed on public right-of-way only. Private roads were excluded because they are not owned and managed by the City. Figure 11 and Figure 12show the results of the combined LTS and Connectivity analysis, highlighting areas where strong low-stress connections already exist and areas where improvements could significantly enhance access to key destinations.

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 27
Figure 11: Pedestrian Connectivity and LTS

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 28
Figure 12: Bicycle Connectivity and LTS

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 29

Chapter 3
Community
Feedback

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 30
Chapter 3: Community Feedback
Community input is a critical part of bicycle and pedestrian planning because it brings real-world experience into the planning and engineering process. While data can identify roadway characteristics, traffic conditions, and network gaps, community members provide insight into how those conditions affect travel choices, perceptions of safety, and access to destinations.

The BPMP aims to create a network that reflects the needs and priorities of people who live and travel through Foster City. Community feedback was conducted in three phases and directly informed the following elements of the BPMP:
• BPMP goals (see Chapter 4: Policy Recommendations)
• Future Network (see Chapter 5: Future Network)
• Key Destinations included in the Connectivity Analysis (see Chapter 2: Network Today, Comfort and Connectivity)
Phase 1: Understanding Existing Challenges and
Needs

The first phase of outreach occurred in
parallel with the existing conditions data
analysis. The project team sought feedback
about the most important concerns related
to walking and biking in Foster City, from
City-wide issues to spot-location concerns.

The Phase 1 engagement included an online
survey, one in-person public event, a
presentation to the City Council, and a
presentation to the Foster City Traffic
Review Committee. The survey was open
for six weeks, from May through mid-July
2025. Comments from the in-person event
were combined with the online survey
responses. Through the surveys and other
forms of engagement, 252 contribution
points were collected to show areas of
concerns within the City. Figure 14 shows
the areas of concerns based on the public
comments received. Comments are most
dense along major corridors such as Foster
City Boulevard and E Hillsdale Boulevard.

Figure 13: Phase 1 Pop-up Engagement Event

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 31
Figure 14: Map of Community Comments Received During Phase 1

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 32
Takeaways
The project team asked community members to provide feedback on the existing network. They chose to provide a comment within one of the five categories as shown in Figure 15.

Safety needs are where respondents noted concerns regarding safety for people walking and biking.

Pedestrian and biking gaps are where respondents noted a missing connection in facilities such as sidewalks, crosswalks, and bike lanes. Key destinations are where participants noted desired or missing access to a community destination such as a school or park. Other needs include all other comments related to walking and biking.

The community provided a broad range of feedback which followed five key themes.

1. Pedestrian Safety and Connectivity
Comments highlighted respondents urgent desire for more visible, safe, and accessible crosswalks— particularly along Edgewater Blvd and near parks, schools, and apartments—due to high vehicle speeds and missing pedestrian infrastructure such as curb ramps, refuge islands, and flashing beacons. Residents noted that long stretches of busy roads lack safe crossing options, forcing people walking to take risks.

2. Traffic Calming and Speed Reduction
Respondents requested measures such as stop signs, roundabouts, and lane reductions to address frequent speeding, rolling stops, and aggressive driving that endanger people walking and biking.

Specific corridors included Beach Park Boulevard, Foster City Boulevard, and Hillsdale Boulevard.

3. Conflicts and Confusion Around Shared Paths and Trail Etiquette Many respondents described “dangerous” or high-stress interactions on shared trails involving fast- moving e-bikes; however, community members often use the term "e-bike" broadly to describe a range of electric-powered devices, including higher-powered e-motos that are not legally classified 38%
19%
10%
6%
27%
Safety Need Pedestrian Gap Biking Gap Key Destinations Other Need Figure 15: Phase 1 Engagement Comment Categories

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 33
as e-bikes. They expressed desire for clearer signage, better enforcement, and separation between modes to reduce conflicts. Respondents’ concerns were especially focused on e-bike speeds on the levee and Bay Trail, with some users even suggesting restrictions on certain e-bike classes.

4. Protected and Connected Bike Infrastructure
Although some respondents opposed bike lanes on major roads, many respondents supported protected facilities, citing gaps in the network, abrupt lane endings, and missing protected crossings as major safety issues. Respondents frequently requested closing trail gaps around Harbor Cove, Isle Cove, and the Bay Trail, noting that more people would bike if they felt safer.

5. Impacts to Vehicle Traffic
Some respondents opposed adding or widening bike lanes if it requires removing vehicle travel lanes or parking; respondents cited concerns about increased congestion, reduced driving space, and safety issues on roads they believe are unsuitable for cycling. Roads such as Edgewater Boulevard, E Hillsdale Boulevard, and Beach Park Boulevard are frequently mentioned as poor candidates due to high vehicle speeds and traffic volumes, and bike lanes here are perceived to have an impact on driver experience. Informing the Plan
The five key themes above were instrumental in developing the goals and policies in Chapter 4 which aim to be responsive to the community’s needs and concerns, addressing the most critical barriers to a safe, connected, and accessible network. Phase 1 also provided context for the existing conditions analysis outlined in Chapter 2 and additional places residents want to walk, bike, and roll to, which were incorporated as key destinations in the connectivity analysis.

Phase 2: Refining the Draft Network
Phase 2 engagement sought feedback from the community on the proposed future bicycle and pedestrian networks. The network maps show the proposed walking and biking improvements, as outlined in Chapter 5. The methods of engagement included an online survey, an in-person pop-up, and a focus group meeting with members of the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) for several schools in Foster City.

The online survey consisted of an interactive feedback map that was available from September to October 2025. The interactive feedback map received 113 contributions from 41 contributors. The top two contributors made up 36% of all comments. On September 21, 2025, the project team, including City Staff and the consultant team attended the Foster City Family Bike Ride to collect in-person feedback. During the pop-up, the project team spoke with approximately 75 residents. The third and final engagement activity of Phase 2 was a focus group held on October 16, 2025. All schools were invited to participate, and two parents attended representing students from Kids Connection Private School, Bowditch Middle School, and Audubon Elementary School.

Phase 2 included presentations at two Traffic Review Committee (TRC) meetings and two City Council meetings. The first TRC meeting occurred at the beginning of the engagement process and focused on reviewing the planned outreach approach and providing input on the proposed future bicycle and pedestrian networks. The second TRC meeting presentation occurred after public engagement activities were completed, and concentrated on reviewing community feedback, discussing revisions to the proposed future networks, and reviewing the project prioritization approach and results. Two City Council meetings were also attended during Phase 2. The first

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 34
Council meeting occurred after public engagement activities and before project prioritization. The presentation focused on reviewing the proposed prioritization approach and confirming the goals and policies presented in Chapter 4. The second Council meeting occurred after project prioritization was complete and the presentation focused on reviewing the results and selecting the priority projects to advance for conceptual design.

Takeaways
Overall, Phase 2 engagement demonstrated the public’s consensus about the need for pedestrian crossing improvements as proposed across Foster City. Community members identified crossing locations they wanted to be added to the network or made a higher priority. Crossings near schools and parks were highlighted by community members as being their highest priorities.

Input on the proposed future bicycle network varied greatly based on the facility and corridor. The majority of comments were related to Foster City Boulevard, E Hillsdale Boulevard, Beach Park Boulevard, Shell Boulevard, and the Bay Trail/levee. Community members expressed interest in greater separation for bikes along Foster City Boulevard, and E Hillsdale Boulevard, which were previously planned to remain either Class II Bike Lanes or Class III Bike Routes. Community members largely supported the proposed separated bicycle (Class IV) facilities on Beach Park Boulevard and Shell Boulevard, while comments on the Bay Trail/levee centered on conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians and concerns about e-bike speeds.

Informing the Plan
The comments received on the proposed future networks directly influenced the final future bicycle network and priority pedestrian crossings presented in Chapter 5. Several changes were made to the proposed bicycle network, including revisions to the recommended facility types on Foster City Boulevard and Hillsdale Boulevard. Phase 2 also informed which proposed improvements would advance to conceptual design and helped identify potential implementation and funding strategies.

Phase 3: Reviewing the Draft Plan [In Progress]
Phase 3 engagement aims to share the results of previous engagement activities and gather feedback on the draft BPMP. The draft BPMP will be posted for public review on the project website.

Takeaways
This section will be updated after the draft BPMP public review period is completed in Summer 2026.

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 35

Chapter 4
Goals and Policies

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 36
Chapter 4: Policy Recommendations
The BPMP vision is supported by a set of goals, policies, and strategies that will guide future decisions, investments, and programs. Together, these recommendations provide a roadmap for improving safety, comfort, accessibility, and connectivity for people walking and biking throughout Foster City.

The goals and policies presented in this chapter reflect community priorities, City objectives, and transportation planning best practices. Figure 16 illustrates how these elements work together to support the long-term vision of the BPMP.

Figure 16: Process Used to Develop BPMP Goals, Policies, and Strategies

1. •Review and document City's existing bicycle and pedestrian efforts (plans, policies, and programs)

2. •Perform a benchmark assessment to evaluate existing efforts to date against current industry best practices

3. •Conduct public engagement to understand community needs and desires

4. •Identify key themes and community priorities from public engagement

5. •Re-evaluate project goals and develop policies and strategies to enhance bicycle and pedestrian activity/accessibility

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 37
Existing Policies and Programs
The Goals & Policies development began with a benchmarking assessment to gain a thorough understanding of the current bicycle and pedestrian efforts in Foster City. The goal of the assessment was to provide a snapshot of the current practices that influence planning and implementation decisions and identify opportunities to institutionalize practices that support and advance the goals of the BPMP.

The complete Benchmarking Assessment can be found in Appendix A. The assessment evaluates the following categories:

1. Vision & Leadership: City leadership and interagency coordination commit to support the overarching goals of the BPMP and have established processes which support project advancement.

2. Community Engagement: Establish avenues to communicate progress and receive feedback from community members on key projects.

3. Data Analysis: Leverage data analysis tools to support ongoing project identification, prioritization, and tracking.

4. Funding & Policy Integration: Strategize on funding opportunities to maximize safety and connectivity benefits.

5. Education & Enforcement: Organize educational efforts to target the most vulnerable communities and enforcement efforts to cover the most dangerous locations.

6. Infrastructure & Design: Develop projects to align with identified needs, integrate existing policies, and demonstrate potential improvements.

7. Speed & Operations: Align vehicle roadway classification with target speeds, facility selection, and context sensitive design.

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 38
Policy Recommendations

Goal 1: Safe Routes to Key Destinations
Prioritize safe and comfortable walking and biking routes to schools, parks, the Bay Trail, and other key destinations for all ages and abilities.

Policy 1.1 Eliminate bicycle and pedestrian crashes that cause fatalities and severe injuries.

Strategy 1.1.a: Prioritize projects on roadways identified on the City’s High Injury Network from the Local Roadway Safety Plan6 (LRSP), as updated, with particular focus on roads with high volumes of vulnerable road users such as school-aged children, seniors, and people walking or biking.

Strategy 1.1.b: Identify opportunities to align project improvements with project locations highlighted in the LRSP, as updated.

Policy 1.2 Build and maintain a dense, low-stress network of on-and off-street bicycle facilities that seamlessly connect to key destinations.

Strategy 1.2.a: Evaluate the lowering of speed limits (based on state guidance and speed studies) on roadways providing access to schools and parks and along the High Injury Network identified in the LRSP, as appropriate.

Strategy 1.2.b: Prioritize infrastructure projects that close key walking and biking gaps or enhance high stress roadsthat provide access to key destinations. Use public input to help identify gaps and barriers to access.

Strategy 1.2.c: Where feasible, implement traffic calming measures in locations identified through the LRSP and existing Safe Routes to School initiatives, with an emphasis on areas within a ¼ mile of schools. Collaborate with residents and school communities to identify priority locations for improvements. Explore opportunities to participate in quick-build or pilot projects to test and evaluate the effectiveness of potential infrastructure changes.

6 CCAG. Local Roadway Safety Plan. https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/28717_CCAG- Countywide-LRSP-Foster-City-Chapter.pdf

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 39
Policy 1.3 Reduce conflicts between bicycle and pedestrian facilities and other vehicular travel.

Strategy 1.3.a: Establish an internal process for selecting bikeway types based on the Caltrans Design Information Bulletin 94 (DIB 94) guidelines for Class I, II, III, and IV bikeways, including consideration of roadway context, user needs, and safety for people of all ages and abilities.

Strategy 1.3.b: Develop crosswalk guidelines for both controlled and uncontrolled intersections, incorporating FHWA’s Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations to inform improvements based on roadway context, traffic volumes, and pedestrian activity.

Strategy 1.3.c: Establish striping and signage standards for bikeway conflict zones at driveways, intersections, and loading zones, following guidance in the FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide.

Strategy 1.3.d: Continue efforts to implement Assembly Bill 413 (AB 413 - daylighting) by removing visual obstructions within 20 feet of the approach side of the crosswalks at intersections, in compliance with state law. Begin with locations near schools, parks, and areas with high volumes of vulnerable road users, and expand citywide with a commitment to daylight all intersections along the High Injury Network.

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 40

Policy 2.1 Ensure that walking and biking infrastructure reflects the needs and constraints of each neighborhood.

Strategy 2.1.a: Reference design context and modal priorities, in accordance with Caltrans DIB-94 and City Engineering Staff, when determining future roadway cross sections.

Strategy 2.1.b: Prioritize infrastructure upgrades that support children, older adults, and people with disabilities.

Strategy 2.1.c: Where feasible, coordinate infrastructure improvements with other relevant City planning efforts, such as Green Infrastructure, Parks Master Plan, and General Plan.

Policy 2.2 Engage residents in shaping active transportation solutions that work for their neighborhoods.

Strategy 2.2.a: Explore opportunities to host workshops or online surveys to gather input on preferred routes, safety concerns, and design ideas prior to project design. Look for ways to provide multiple opportunities for feedback throughout the planning and design process.

Strategy 2.2.b: Aim to partner with local schools, senior centers, neighborhood associations, and organized citizen groups to provide design input on improvements.

Policy 2.3 Direct resources to locations with the greatest network gaps or safety concerns for people walking and biking.

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 41

Strategy 2.3.a: Maintain an annually updated map of infrastructure priorities that account for needs and network gaps.

Strategy 2.3.b: Pursue local, regional, and other applicable grant and funding opportunities focused on active transportation and Safe Routes to School.

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 42

Policy 3.1 Support the use of walking and biking for local trips.

Strategy 3.1.a: Coordinate improvement projects with the ADA Transition Plan to maximize benefits and make sure every project includes accessible ramps.

Strategy 3.1.b: Promote safe bicycling and micromobility through outreach channels and partner agencies, including education on safely using e-bikes, electric scooters, and electric skateboards.

Strategy 3.1.c: Incorporate before and after studies on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects to evaluate changes in vehicle volumes and vehicle speeds.

Strategy 3.2.d: Create a comprehensive network map illustrating primary bicycle and pedestrian routes, key destinations, transit access points, and linkages to adjacent communities.

Policy 3.2 Coordinate with local and regional agencies to create a network that extends beyond the City’s limits and continuously connects to adjoining communities.

Strategy 3.2.a: Participate in countywide and regional gap analyses to support seamless network connectivity.

Strategy 3.2.b: Collaborate on cross-jurisdictional projects and pursue joint funding opportunities.

Strategy 3.2.c: Explore opportunities to provide safer and improved access to transit stops.

Policy 3.3 Encourage the integration of new and evolving transportation modes, considering safety, accessibility, and infrastructure compatibility.

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 43

Strategy 3.3.a: Explore the development of e-mobility design guidelines focused on defining appropriate areas for use, reducing conflicts for network users, and managing shared use paths with strategies such as minimum spacing for signage, supportive pavement markings, and recommended path speed limits.

Strategy 3.3.b: Look for ways to partner with schools to establish an e-bike training course and permit program.

Strategy 3.3.c: Identify opportunities to provide secure micromobility parking at key destinations like schools, parks, public buildings, apartments, and shopping centers. Collect input from residents and businesses to determine priority locations and other amenities of interest (e.g. bike repair stations).

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 44

Chapter 5
Future Network

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 45
Chapter 5: Future Network
This chapter presents the future bicycle and pedestrian networks for Foster City. The future networks build upon existing facilities and identifies opportunities to improve connections between neighborhoods, schools, parks, shopping areas, and other key destinations.

The recommendations include both near-term and long-term improvements designed to create a more comfortable and connected experience for people walking and biking throughout the City.

Bicycle Network
The future bicycle network establishes a
low-stress network of bicycle facilities
that build upon the existing network to
provide continuous connections across
major corridors and collector streets.

Low-stress facilities are intended to be
comfortable for everyone, regardless of
age or ability.

The recommended facility types in the
future bicycle network align with Caltrans
guidelines for low-stress facilities based
on roadway characteristics such as
speeds, volumes, number of lanes, and
other key contextual factors. Figure 17
shows a chart from the Caltrans Design
Information Bulletin-94 Complete
Streets: Contextual Design Guidance,
which informed the creation of the
Foster City future bicycle network. The
recommendations are also informed by
feedback from community engagement.

What do we mean by a low-stress and connected
network?
A low-stress and connected network is one that feels comfortable for all users. It provides convenient connections to key destinations, such as schools, parks, and shopping centers.

Different streets require different types of bicycle facilities. On busier streets with higher vehicle volumes and speeds, greater separation from vehicles is needed to create a comfortable bicycling experience. The future bicycle network reflects these differences and aims to provide connected, low-stress routes throughout Foster City.

Figure 17: Caltrans Design Information Bulletin-94 Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 46

Figure 18: Bicycle Facility Types

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 47
Bicycle Boulevards
Foster City currently has 11 miles of Class III Bicycle Routes, where bicycles share the travel lane with vehicles. While some of these routes will remain shared vehicle and bicycle lanes, the City intends to enhance them with features that improve comfort and better prioritize bicycle travel. These improvements may include traffic calming, speed and volume reduction measures, wayfinding signage, pavement markings, and intersection treatments. When a shared street is intentionally designed to create a more comfortable bicycling experience, it is commonly referred to as a bicycle boulevard.

Bicycle boulevards are low-speed, low-volume neighborhood streets designed to provide comfortable Class III bicycle connections between key destinations. Bicycle boulevards use a combination of improvements to enhance comfort and prioritize bicycle travel.

Common bicycle boulevard improvements are shown below.

Speed Reduction Measures to reduce vehicle
speeds
Volume Reduction Measures to encourage
traffic to use major roads
Wayfinding Signage to guide users along the
route
Bicycle Boulevard Pavement Markings to
identify the route and increase awareness

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 48
Future Bicycle Network
The future bicycle network builds upon Foster City's existing bicycle facilities and identifies opportunities to improve connectivity and comfort to key destinations throughout the City. The network includes existing facilities, recommended new facilities, and corridors that need additional study and public engagement before a preferred design can be identified and implemented.

Some future corridors may require changes to the existing roadway layout to provide bicycle facilities that better meet the needs of people of all ages and abilities. On Figure 19, existing facilities are shown with solid lines, while proposed facilities and corridors for future study are identified separately.

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 49
Table 1: Existing and Future Bicycle Mileage
Facility Type Existing Mileage Future Mileage
Class I Shared Use Path 12.4 12.4
Class II Bike Lanes 5.7 0.1
Class III Bike Route 11 4.8
Class IV Bikeways 0 13.4
Total Mileage 29.1 31.2

Figure 19: Future Bicycle Network

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 50
Future Pedestrian Network
The future pedestrian network shown in Figure 20 identifies intersections where targeted pedestrian improvements would enhance both comfort and connectivity. Rather than prescribing a single improvement at each location, the BPMP identifies candidate intersections for additional evaluation and investment. This provides the flexibility to implement improvements at each intersection based on its specific context.

Figure 20: Future Pedestrian Improvements Network

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 51
Pedestrian crossing improvements vary based on factors such as whether a traffic signal or stop sign are present, the number of vehicle lanes being crossed, the volume of vehicles, the speed of vehicles, and nearby destinations like bus stops, schools, parks, and stores. Figure 21 presents a menu of example improvements that may be considered to improve pedestrian safety, comfort, and accessibility at different crossing types. The improvements shown are illustrative and not intended to prescribe a specific treatment at each location. Final improvements selection should be determined during project development and design through site-specific engineering analysis and in accordance with applicable guidance, including FHWA’s Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations
7, the California MUTCD8, and City design standards9.

7 Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, U.S. DOT (2022), https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022- 09/STEP_Guide_for_Improving_Ped_Safety_at_Unsig_Loc_3-2018_07_17-508compliant.pdf 8 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans (2026), https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/safety-programs/documents/ca-mutcd/2026/camutcd-2026-all.pdf 9 Streets Standard Details, Foster City,
https://www.fostercity.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/public_works/page/13691/streets_details_foster_cit y.pdf
Figure 21: Menu of Example Intersection Improvements

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 52

Chapter 6
Implementation
Strategy

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 53
Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy
The BPMP identifies a vision for a safer, more comfortable, and more connected transportation network, and this chapter outlines the steps to turn that vision into reality.

Because not all improvements can be implemented at once, projects were prioritized to help guide future investments and funding decisions. This chapter presents the prioritization approach, identifies the design options for the highest-priority projects, and outlines potential funding opportunities to support implementation.

Project Prioritization
The project prioritization approach helps identify the improvements that would provide the greatest benefit to Foster City residents and guides future investment decisions.

Because pedestrian improvements primarily consist of localized crossing enhancements, they were grouped into three priority tiers based on their pathways to implementation (?). Bicycle corridors were evaluated using a project-level scoring framework that allowed projects to be ranked relative to one another.

Pedestrian Project Prioritization
Pedestrian improvements were grouped into three priority tiers to identify crossings where safety and accessibility improvements could provide the greatest benefit. Particular emphasis was placed on crossings near schools, parks, and along major roadways or the Bay Trail. Some pedestrian crossings that were not high stress, high connectivity, were added as priority improvements based on community feedback.

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 54
Whenever feasible, the City will seek to incorporate crossing improvements into larger roadway and bicycle projects. Tier 1 locations should generally be implemented in conjunction with bicycle facility projects, while Tier 2 and Tier 3 locations may be advanced independently to address specific community needs or take advantage of pedestrian-focused funding opportunities. • Tier 1: Priority crossings (high-stress, high connectivity crossings) on major roadways that provide access to schools, parks, the Bay Trail, and other key destinations. • Tier 2: Priority crossings (high stress, high connectivity) located along bicycle corridors where no bicycle facility upgrades are currently proposed.
• Tier 3: All remaining high stress, high connectivity crossings identified through the analysis.

Figure 22 displays the results of the pedestrian improvements prioritization.

Figure 22: Prioritized Pedestrian Improvements

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 55
Bicycle Project Prioritization
Bicycle projects were evaluated using a scoring framework that considered safety, connectivity, and implementation feasibility. Projects that improve access to key destinations, improve safety, strengthen connections across major roadways, and can be implemented efficiently received higher scores.

Table 2 displays the prioritization criteria.

Table 2: Bicycle Projects Prioritization Criteria
Category Criteria
Safety
Fatal or Injury Bicycle/Pedestrian Collision (Foster City PD, 2019-2024) All Bicycle/Pedestrian Collisions (Foster City PD, 2019-2024) Level of Traffic Stress
Connectivity
Connectivity Score
Tier 1 Priority Pedestrian Intersections
Increases Connectivity across Major Roads in Foster City (E Hillsdale Boulevard, Foster City Boulevard, SR 92) or Access to San Mateo Caltrain Access Project
Feasibility
Available Right-of-Way
Estimated Costs

Table 3 presents the prioritization results. Both new facilities and facility upgrades are included in the prioritization results.

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
Table 3: Bicycle Project Prioritization Results
Project ID Corridor From To Future
Facility Existing Facility Total Prioritization
Score
BPMP-06.a Beach Park Blvd Edgewater Blvd Shell Blvd Class IV Class II Bike Lane 8 BPMP-06.c Beach Park Blvd Foster City Blvd Gull Ave at 1900 block of Beach
Park Boulevard
Class IV Class III. Green-backed
sharrow
8 BPMP-05.a Edgewater Blvd /
Mariners Island
Blvd
City Limits E Hillsdale Blvd Class IV Class II Bike Lane 7 BPMP-07.a Shell Blvd Metro Center Blvd Bounty Dr Class IV Class II & IIB 7 BPMP-09 Catamaran St Shell Blvd Marlin Ave Class III None 7 BPMP-02.b Foster City Blvd E Hillsdale Blvd Beach Park Blvd Class IV pending
feasibility
None 6
BPMP-05.b Edgewater Blvd E Hillsdale Blvd Boothbay Ave Class IV Class II Bike Lane 6 BPMP-06.b Beach Park Blvd Shell Blvd Foster City Blvd Class IV Class III. Green-backed sharrow
6 BPMP-07.b Shell Blvd Bounty Dr Beach Park Blvd Class IV Class II & IIB 6 BPMP-08 E Hillsdale Blvd City Limits Beach Park Blvd Class IV pending
feasibility
Class II 6
BPMP-02.a Foster City Blvd E 3rd Ave E Hillsdale Blvd Class IV None 5 BPMP-04 Metro Center Blvd Edgewater Blvd Shell Blvd Class IV Class II Bike Lane 5 BPMP-10 Marlin Ave Catamaran St Beach Park Blvd Class III Class III. Green-backed sharrow
5 BPMP-14 Gull Ave Beach Park Blvd E Hillsdale Blvd Class III Class III. Green-backed sharrow
5 FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
Project ID Corridor From To Future
Facility Existing Facility Total Prioritization
Score
BPMP-03 Vintage Park Dr Metro Center Blvd Foster City Blvd Class IV Class III. Green-backed sharrow
4 BPMP-11 Tarpon St Marlin Ave Beach Park Blvd Class III Class III. Green-backed sharrow
4 BPMP-12 Swordfish St Marlin Ave Beach Park Blvd Class III Class III. Green-backed sharrow
4 BPMP-17 Polaris Ave Beach Park Blvd Sun Ave Class III None 4 BPMP-13 Grebe St Gull Ave Marlin Ave Class III None 3
BPMP-01 E 3rd Ave City Limits Levee/Bay Trail Class IV None 2 BPMP-05.c Edgewater Blvd Boothbay Ave Baffin St Class IV Class II Bike Lane 2 BPMP-15 Marsh Dr E 3rd Ave Vintage Park Dr Class III None 2 BPMP-16 Chess Dr Vintage Park Dr Foster City Blvd Class IV None 2 BPMP-06.d Beach Park Blvd /
Foster City
Elementary
Virgo Ln Polaris Ave Class IV None 1

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 58
Advancing Priority Projects
While project prioritization helped identify corridors with the greatest potential benefit, additional considerations were used to select projects for further development. These considerations included community feedback received throughout the planning process, coordination with planned roadway repaving projects, and opportunities to further refine and illustrate new facility types in the City, such as protected bikeways and bicycle boulevards. Based on these factors, City Council selected seven priority projects to advance.

The concept designs presented in this chapter demonstrate how the BPMP recommendations could be incorporated into Foster City's existing transportation network. These concepts are intended as a starting point for future project development rather than implementation-ready designs. Additional public engagement, engineering, analysis (such as parking and traffic operations), environmental review, and cost estimating will be required to refine each concept before implementation.

Advancement of these projects will also depend on future funding availability, including competitive grant awards, Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funding, and other available funding sources.

To support future project development, the concept designs were informed by industry guidance including:
• California Fire Code
• California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
• Caltrans DIB 94
• Caltrans Traffic Calming Guide
• FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide
• Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG)

Beach Park Boulevard
Gull Avenue to Foster City Boulevard
Existing
Design & Implementation Considerations
• Align bikeway design for Class IIB and parking
separated Class IV with Caltrans Design Informational
Bulletin 94.
• Lane reconﬁguration is considered feasible where
ADT falls below 25,000 ADT for a 4 to 3 lane
reconﬁguration.

Source: FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide
• Evaluate opportunities to reduce posted speed limit
by at least 5 mph.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Trafﬁc Control Devices • Raised crosswalks are appropriate on two-lane,
two-way streets with posted speed limits of 30 mph
or less, average daily trafﬁc volumes below 9,000
vehicles, and no direct access to a hospital.

Source: Caltrans Trafﬁc Calming Guide
• Curb extensions are appropriate where posted speed
is less than or equal to 30 mph and should be set
back 2’ from the travel lane
Source: Caltrans Trafﬁc Calming Guide
Beach Park Boulevard provides key connections to the
Bay Trail and several community destinations. The
current shared lane markings and four vehicle lanes on
Beach Park are high stress for people biking and rolling, and the existing crossings are long and uncontrolled
with high exposure for pedestrians.

Proposed
Cost Estimates
Planning
Study*
$250k
Engineering
Design
$260k
Construction
Cost
$900k
Cross sections are shown looking north along Beach Park Boulevard Parking
8’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Parking
8’
Curb-to-Curb: 62’
Parking
8’
Vehicle Lane
10’
Parking
8’
Curb-to-Curb: 62’
Turn Lane
10’
Vehicle Lane
10’
Bikeway
6’
Bikeway
6’

3’

3’
Proposed Corridor-Wide Improvements
Conflict markings through intersections and
across commercial or multifamily housing
driveways
Leverage AB 43 to reduce posted speed
limits
Separated bikeway on the northbound side
Buffered bikeway on the southbound side
Apply daylighting on approach to all crossings
Apply a four lane to three lane road diet and
narrow lane widths to manage vehicle speeds
*includes community engagement, operations analysis, and 10% design Gull Ave
Marlin Ave
Tarpon St
Swordﬁsh St
Halibut St
Foster City Blvd
Sanderling St
Egret St
Teal St
Gull Ave
N
Proposed Intersection Improvements
Gull Avenue (signal)
Curb extensions on Gull
Avenue
Leading pedestrian
intervals and bike signals
Two stage left turn box
Bay Trail Access
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
Advanced yield markings
and signage
Teal Street, Egret Street, &
Sanderling Street
Raised refuge island
Tarpon Street, Swordﬁsh Street,
and Halibut Street
Raised refuge island
Side-street stop-control with
existing RRFB
Side-street stop control with
existing RRFB
Gull Avenue & Marlin Avenue
Evaluate conversion to
all-way stop-control
Two stage left turn box
Curb extensions on Gull
and Marlin avenues
Side-street stop-control with
existing RRFB
Raised crosswalk
Raised crosswalk
Foster City Boulevard
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
All-way stop-control
Evaluate conversion to
Signal*
Raised crosswalk
*Cost for signal installation included in
estimates for Foster City Boulevard
Project
*Includes community engagement and 10% design
Cross sections are shown looking north along Gull Avenue Proposed Corridor-Wide Improvements
Design & Implementation Considerations
• Bike Boulevards are appropriate on streets with an
average of less than 2,500 vehicles per day and a
posted speed of 20 miles per hour or less.

Source: Caltrans Design Informational Bulletin 94
• Bike Boulevard treatments should include shared-lane
markings in the center of each lane, omit centerlines
along mid block, and include wayﬁnding signs.

Source: NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
• Speed Cushions are appropriate on two-lane,
two-way streets with an average of less than 3,500
vehicles per day and a posted speed limit of 30 mph
or less. Volume reduction can be achieved when
installed as a series, spaced every 260’-500‘.

Source: Caltrans Trafﬁc Calming Guide
• Curb extensions are appropriate where posted speed
is less than or equal to 30 mph and should be set
back 2’ from the travel lane.

Source: Caltrans Trafﬁc Calming Guide
Proposed
Gull Avenue, Marlin Avenue, and Grebe Street are
neighborhood streets which run through residential uses and provide access to several schools and connections
to the Bay Trail. The existing streets have shared lane markings for bicycles, but lack speed or volume
management measures to support low-stress travel.

There are several locations missing marked crosswalks.

Cost Estimates
Planning
Study*
$90k
Engineering
Design
$340k
Construction
Cost
$1.34M
Gull Avenue & Marlin Avenue
Connected via Grebe Street
• Minimum width for pedestrian refuge islands must
meet accessibility standards with a mimum width of
5’ and preferred width of 6’-8’.

Source: PROWAG
• Following implementation, collect updated speed data
to evaluate whether operating speeds have decreased
to support a lower posted speed limit.

Speed cushions with cutouts for transit &
emergency vehicles (apply every
260’-500’)
Apply daylighting on approach to all
crossings
BLVD Use bike boulevard pavement
markings and wayﬁnding
Existing
Parking
8’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Parking
8’
Curb-to-Curb: 40’
Parking
8’
Vehicle Lane
10’
Vehicle Lane
10’
Parking
8’
Curb-to-Curb: 40’
Gull Ave
Marlin Ave
Tarpon St
Swordﬁsh St
Halibut StFoster City Blvd
Gull Ave
Grebe St
Crane St
Swan St
Plover St
Ribbon St
Surfperch St
N
Cod St
Surfperch Street and Cod Street
Neighborhood Trafﬁc
Circle
Existing side-street stop-control
Foster City Boulevard to
Catamaran Street
Repurpose excess
pavement width with
5’ bike lanes and 2’
buffer on both sides
Crane Street
Evaluate conversion to
all-way stop-control*
Extend curb on northeast
corner to reduce receiving
lanes from 2 to 1
Existing side-street stop-control
High Visibility Crosswalks
Gull Avenue Midblock Crossing
Proposed Intersection Improvements
Advanced yield markings
and signage
Beach Park Boulevard
Evaluate conversion to
all-way stop-control
Existing side-street stop-control
Foster City Boulevard
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
across FCB
All-way stop-control
Evaluate conversion to
Signal*
Curb extensions along
Marlin Avenue
Plover Street, Pompano Circle,
and Halibut Street
Existing side-street stop control
Advanced yield markings
and signage
High Visibility Crosswalks
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
Raised refuge island
*Cost for signal installation included in
estimates for Foster City Boulevard
Project
*If trafﬁc volumes indicate queuing could
become an issue, consider a yield- or
stop-controlled trafﬁc circle at Mallard St.
*Includes community engagement, operations analysis, parking occupancy study, and 10% design
** Range reflects different building materials, with the low-end including quick build materials and the high-end including full build out of concrete and landscaping elements
While the existing width can accommodate
bike lanes without reducing travel lanes, a
road diet is feasible and offers greater safety
beneﬁts.

Edgewater Boulevard is a key north-south connector
and provides access to Edgewater Park, schools, and
residential uses. There are two distinct cross sections.

From East Hillsdale Boulevard to Beach Park Boulevard,
the street has four vehicle lanes, existing Class IIB
buffered bike lanes, parking, and limited marked
pedestrian crossings. The posted speed is 40 miles per
hour. From Beach Park Boulevard to Boothbay Avenue,
there are four vehicle lanes, parking on the west side, and existing Class II bike lanes. The posted speed is 35 miles per hour. For both sections, the existing bicycle facility does not align with the speeds along the street, as recommended by Caltrans DIB-94.

Edgewater Boulevard
East Hillsdale Boulevard to Boothbay Avenue
Design & Implementation Considerations
• Align bikeway design for Class II and Class IV with
Caltrans Design Informational Bulletin 94.
• Curb extensions are appropriate where posted speed
is less than or equal to 30 mph and should be set
back 2’ from the travel lane.

Source: Caltrans Trafﬁc Calming Guide
• To allow for emergency access, the horizontal clear
width between raised elements (e.g. curbs or parked
cars) must be greater than or equal to 20’ where
buildings are less than 30‘ tall, and 26’ where
buildings are greater than 30‘ tall.

Source: California Fire Code
• Minimum width for pedestrian refuge islands must
meet accessibility standards with a mimum width of
5’ and preferred width of 6’-8’.

Source: PROWAG
• A parking study may be conducted to assess whether
nearby streets can accommodate parking displaced
by the proposed removal of on-street parking.
• Following implementation, periodically collect
updated speed data to assess changes in operating
speeds. If operating speeds remain higher than
appropriate for a Class III facility, additional speed
management measures should be considered to
create a more comfortable shared roadway
environment. If operating speeds are lower, consider
additional reductions to posted speed limit.

Cost Estimates
Planning
Study*
$240k
Engineering
Design
$600k
Construction
Cost**
$1.7-3.0M
Separated bikeways on the both sides
Proposed Corridor-Wide Improvements
E. Hillsdale Boulevard to Beach Park Boulevard
Beach Park Boulevard to Boothbay Avenue
Leverage AB 43 to reduce posted speed limits
Leverage AB 43 to reduce posted speed limits
Conflict markings through intersections and
across commercial or multifamily housing
driveways
Conflict markings through intersections and
across commercial or multifamily housing
driveways
Apply daylighting on approach to all crossings
Apply daylighting on approach to all crossings
While the existing width can accommodate
bike lanes without reducing travel lanes, a
road diet is feasible and offers greater safety
beneﬁts.

Cross sections are shown looking north along Edgewater Boulevard Bikeway
8’
Curb-to-Curb: 36’
Median
16’
Vehicle Lane
11’
Vehicle Lane
11’ 6’
Bikeway
8’
Curb-to-Curb: 36’
Vehicle Lane
11’
Vehicle Lane
11’6’
Existing (E. Hillsdale Boulevard to Beach Park Boulevard) Parking
8’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Curb-to-Curb: 36’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Bike
Lane
7’
Median
16’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Bike
Lane
7’
Parking
8’
Curb-to-Curb: 36’
Existing to Remain (Beach Park Boulevard to Boothbay Avenue) Bike
Lane
6’
Curb-to-Curb: 34’
Median
14’
Bike
Lane
5’
Curb-to-Curb: 26’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Parking
7’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Proposed (Regulus Street to Beach Park Boulevard)
Bike
Lane
5’
Curb-to-Curb: 36’
Median
16’
Parking
7’
Bike
Lane
5’
Curb-to-Curb: 36’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Parking
7’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’ 3’3’
E Hillsdale Blvd
N
Altair Ave
Regulus St
Beach Park Blvd
Port Royal Ave
Boothbay Ave
Dorado Ln
Proposed Intersection Improvements
E Hillsdale Boulevard
Existing signal
Leading pedestrian
intervals and bike signals
Two stage left turn boxes
Separate conflicting
movements in time
Altair Avenue, Regulus Street
& Dorado Lane
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
Advanced yield markings
and signage
Existing side-street stop-control
Beach Park Boulevard
Existing signal
Leading pedestrian
intervals and bike signals
Two stage left turn boxes
Separate conflicting
movements in time
Boothbay Avenue
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
Advanced yield markings
and signage
Advanced yield markings
and signage
Existing side-street stop-control
Port Royal Avenue
Existing signal
Leading pedestrian
intervals and bike signals
Separate conflicting
movements in time
Remove pork chop and
acceleration lane, subject to
conﬁrmation of adequate
intersection sight distance
*Includes community engagement, operations analysis, and 10% design. ** Range reflects different building materials, with the low-end including quick build materials and the high-end including full build out.

Proposed Corridor-Wide Improvements
The northern portion of Edgewater Boulevard is a six
lane arterial which connects Foster City to State Route

92. The current bike lanes are high stress for people
biking and rolling given that the posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour and there are three vehicle lanes in each direction. The existing sidewalks are comfortable, but
crossings are long and lack separation in time for
pedestrians to cross Edgwater Blvd.

Design and Implementation Considerations
• Align bikeway design for Class IV facilities with
Caltrans Design Informational Bulletin 94.
• To allow for emergency access, the horizontal clear
width between raised elements (e.g. curbs or parked
cars) must be greater than or equal to 20’ where
buildings are less than 30‘ tall, and 26’ where buildings are greater than 30‘ tall.

Source: California Fire Code
• While this segment provides direct access to SR-92,
trafﬁc volumes should be evaluated to determine
whether a reduced cross section is feasible, creating
greater consistency with adjacent roadway segments
and potentially improving safety outcomes.
• Evaluate opportunities to reduce the posted speed
limit by at least 5 mph.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Trafﬁc Control Devices Edgewater Boulevard
City Limits to East Hillsdale Boulevard
Cost Estimates
Existing
Planning
Study*
$80k
Engineering
Design
$230k
Construction
Cost**
$750k-1.26M
Proposed
• Minimum width for pedestrian refuge islands must
meet accessibility standards with a mimum width
of 5’ and preferred width of 6’-8’.

Source: PROWAG
Cross sections are shown looking north along Edgwater Boulevard Bike
Lane
6’
Vehicle Lane
11’
Curb-to-Curb: 40’
Vehicle Lane
11’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Bike
Lane
6’
Vehicle Lane
11’
Curb-to-Curb: 40’
Vehicle Lane
11’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Bike
Lane

6.5’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Curb-to-Curb: 40’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’

2’
Median
16’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Vehicle Lane

10.5’
Bike
Lane

6.5’

2’
Median
16’
Curb-to-Curb: 40’
Conflict markings through intersections and
across commercial or multifamily housing
driveways
Leverage AB 43 to reduce posted speed
limits
Implement separated bikeways
Narrow lane widths to encourage slower
speeds

Hillsdale Blvd
SR 92 Ramps
N
Metro Center Blvd
Gateway Dr
City Limits
Proposed Intersection Improvements
E Hillsdale Boulevard
Existing signal
Leading pedestrian
intervals and bike signals
Two stage left turn boxes
Separate conflicting
movements in time
Gateway Drive
Existing side-street stop control
Apply yield markings across
conflicting westbound right
turn.

Metro Center Boulevard
Existing signal
Leading pedestrian
intervals and bike signals
Separate conflicting right
turn movement in time
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
State Route 92 Ramps
Existing signal
Leading pedestrian
intervals and bike signals
Separate conflicting right
turn movement in time
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island

*Includes community engagement, operations analysis, parking study, and 10% design.
** Range reflects potential implementation of new signals, with the low end including no new signals and the high end including two new signals:
one at Marlin Avenue and one at Beach Park Boulevard.

Foster City Boulevard
E. Hillsdale Boulevard to Beach Park Boulevard
Cost Estimates
Planning
Study*
$330k
Engineering
Design
$1.1M
Construction
Cost**
$3.4-5.7M
Foster City Boulevard is a key north-south connector
and provides access to commercial and residential uses.

There are two distinct cross sections. From E. Hillsdale Boulevard to Bounty Drive the street has four vehicle
lanes and parking lanes that transition to turn lanes at major intersections. The posted speed is 40 miles per
hour. From Bounty Drive to Beach Park Boulevard there
are four vehicle lanes. For both sections, Class III Bike Route signs are present; however, this is not considered an appropriate facility under Caltrans DIB-94.

Design & Implementation Considerations
• Align bikeway design for Class IV with Caltrans Design Informational Bulletin 94.
• Lane reconﬁguration is considered feasible where ADT
falls below 25,000 ADT for a 4 to 3 lane
reconﬁguration. Weekday ADT on Foster City
Boulevard ranges from approximately 10,000 vehicles
per day at the north end of the corridor to 2,500
vehicles per day at the south end (see Figure 2).

Source: FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide
• While this segment provides access to SR-92, trafﬁc
volumes should be evaluated to determine whether a
reduced cross section is feasible, creating greater
consistency with adjacent roadway segments and
potentially improving safety outcomes.
• To allow for emergency access, the horizontal clear
width between raised elements (e.g. curbs or parked
cars) must be greater than or equal to 20’ where
buildings are less than 30‘ tall, and 26’ where buildings are greater than 30‘ tall.

Source: California Fire Code
• Curb extensions are appropriate where posted speed
is less than or equal to 30 mph and should be set back
2’ from the travel lane
Source: Caltrans Trafﬁc Calming Guide
• Minimum width for pedestrian refuge islands must
meet accessibility standards with a mimum width of 5’
and preferred width of 6’-8’.

Source: PROWAG
Proposed Corridor-Wide Improvements
Conflict markings through intersections and
across commercial or multifamily housing
driveways
Leverage AB 43 to reduce posted speed
limits
Implement separated bikeways
Narrow lane widths to encourage slower
speeds
Apply a four lane to two lane road diet
south of Bounty Drive
E. Hillsdale Boulevard to Bounty Drive
Conflict markings through intersections and
across commercial or multifamily housing
driveways
Leverage AB 43 to reduce posted speed
limits
Implement separated bikeways with low,
traversable curb or separator which provides
seperation while maintaining emergency
access.

Narrow lane widths to encourage slower
speeds
Bounty Drive to Beach Park Boulevard
Cross sections are shown looking north along Foster City Boulevard Bike
Lane
7’
Existing (Hillsdale Blvd to Bounty Drive)
Proposed (Hillsdale Blvd to Bounty Drive)
Existing (Bounty Drive to Beach Park Blvd)
Proposed (Bounty Drive to Beach Park Blvd)
Shoulder
11’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Curb-to-Curb: 35’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Median
16’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Parking
11’
Curb-to-Curb: 35’
Bikeway
7’
Curb-to-Curb: 35’
Median
16’
Vehicle Lane
11’
Vehicle Lane
11’ 6’
Bikeway
7’
Curb-to-Curb: 35’
Vehicle Lane
11’
Vehicle Lane
11’6’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Curb-to-Curb: 24’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Median
16’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Curb-to-Curb: 24’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Curb-to-Curb: 24’
Median
16’
Vehicle Lane
12’

5’
Curb-to-Curb: 24’

5’
Bike
Lane
7’
E Hillsdale Blvd
N
Beach Park Blvd
Balclutha Dr
Polynesia Dr
Bounty Drive
Marlin Ave
E Hillsdale Boulevard
Existing signal
Leading pedestrian
intervals and bike signals
Two stage left turn boxes
Separate conflicting
movements in time
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
Balclutha Drive & Polynesia Drive,
& Bounty Drive
Existing signal
Leading pedestrian
intervals and bike signals
Remove right turn pocket
and prohibit right on red
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
Marlin Avenue
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
All-way stop-control
Evaluate conversion to
Signal
Curb extensions along
Marlin Avenue
Beach Park Boulevard
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
All-way stop-control
Evaluate conversion to
Signal
Proposed Intersection Improvements
*Includes community engagement, operations analysis, and 10% design Cross sections are shown looking east along Beach Park Boulevard Proposed Corridor-Wide Improvements
Leverage AB 43 to reduce posted speed
limits
Narrow lane widths to encourage slower
speeds
Conflict markings through intersections and
across commercial or multifamily housing
driveways
Implement separated bikeways with low,
traversable curb or separator which provides
seperation while maintaining emergency
access.

Beach Park Boulevard
Shell Boulevard to Foster City Boulevard
Cost Estimates
• Align bikeway design for Class IV facilities with
Caltrans Design Informational Bulletin 94.
• Lane reconﬁguration is considered feasible where
ADT falls below 25,000 ADT for a 4 to 3 lane
reconﬁguration. Weekday ADT is approximately less
than 2,500 vehicles per day (see Figure 2).

Source: FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide
• To allow for emergency access, the horizontal clear
width between raised elements (e.g. curbs or parked
cars) must be greater than or equal to 20’ where
buildings are less than 30‘ tall, and 26’ where
buildings are greater than 30‘ tall.

Source: California Fire Code
• Evaluate opportunities to reduce the posted speed
limit by at least 5 mph.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Trafﬁc Control Devices • Install marked crosswalks and associated crossing
treatments approximately every 500 feet and
consider crossings at locations with concentrated
pedestrian demand, such as trail connections, parks,
Planning
Study*
$140k
Engineering
Design
$700k
Construction
Cost
$3.9M
Bike
Lane
7’
Existing
Proposed
Vehicle Lane
12’
Curb-to-Curb: 24’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Median
16’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Curb-to-Curb: 24’
Vehicle Lane
12’
Curb-to-Curb: 24’
Median
16’
Vehicle Lane
12’

5’
Curb-to-Curb: 24’

5’
Bike
Lane
7’
Beach Park Boulevard west of Foster City Boulevard is a key east-west connector and provides access to
commercial and residential uses, as well as schools.

From Shell Boulevard to Foster City Boulevard the street has four vehicle lanes and existing Class III bicycle
facilities. The posted speed is 35 miles per hour.

Design & Implementation Considerations
schools, transit stops, and commercial destinations.

Source: Caltrans Design Informational Bulletin 94
• Minimum width for pedestrian refuge islands must
meet accessibility standards with a minimum width of
5’ and preferred width of 6’-8’.

Source: PROWAG
Proposed Intersection Improvements
Shell Blvd
N
Barkentine St
Cutter St
Wheel House Ln
Foster City Blvd
Shell Boulevard
Existing signal
Leading pedestrian
intervals and bike signals
Prohibit right on red
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
Two stage left turn boxes
Barkentine Street, Cutter Street,
& Wheel House Lane
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
Advanced yield markings
and signage
Existing side-street stop-control
Foster City Boulevard
High visibility crosswalk
and raised refuge island
All-way stop-control
Evaluate conversion to
Signal*
*Cost for signal installation included
in costs for Foster City Boulevard
Project.

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 73
Funding Strategy
Implementing the BPMP will require a combination of local funding, competitive grants, and strategic coordination with other planned projects and investments. While project prioritization helps identify the improvements that would provide the greatest benefit, implementation opportunities often depend on factors such as roadway maintenance schedules, capital improvement projects, redevelopment activity, and available funding programs.

Table 4 identifies potential pathways for advancing a select number of priority projects and highlights opportunities to coordinate improvements with existing City projects, private development, quick- build implementation strategies, and county, regional, state, and federal funding sources. • 5-Year Maintenance Alignment: Identifies whether pavement rehabilitation or other planned maintenance activities are anticipated within the next five years, creating opportunities to implement improvements more efficiently and at a lower cost. • Pursue Grant Funding: Identifies whether the project is well suited for competitive state, regional, or federal grant programs based on project type, scale, and anticipated benefits. • Program in Future CIP: Identifies whether the project is appropriate for implementation through the City's future CIP, either as a standalone capital project or in coordination with other planned improvements.
• Quick-Build Opportunity: Identifies whether all or portions of a project could be implemented using lower-cost improvements such as pavement markings, signage, delineators, or temporary materials prior to full reconstruction.

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 74
Table 4. Potential Ways to Fund Priority Projects
Project
Corridor
Project
Limits
5-Year
Maintenance
Alignment1
Pursue Grant
Funding
Program in
Future CIP
Quick Build
Opportunity
Beach Park
Blvd
Foster City
Blvd to Gull
Ave
X X
Beach Park
Blvd
Edgewater
Blvd to Shell
Blvd
X X
Edgewater
Blvd /
Mariners
Island Blvd
City Limits
to E
Hillsdale
Blvd
X X
Edgewater
Blvd
E Hillsdale
Blvd to
Boothbay
Ave
X X
Foster City
Blvd
E Hillsdale
Blvd to
Beach Park
Blvd
X X
Gull Ave
Beach Park
Blvd to E
Hillsdale
Blvd
X X
Marlin Ave
Catamaran
St to Beach
Park Blvd
X X
1 Reflects the City's repaving plan as of July 2026. Planned maintenance activities are subject to change.

In addition to the funding opportunities listed above, there are competitive regional and countywide grants that the City may be well-positioned for, including C/CAG Bicycle & Pedestrian Program, C/CAG Local Transportation Services & System Management (TSSM) Program, and SMCTA Measure A Local Streets & Transportation Program. For state and federal grant opportunities, the City may be more competitive by partnering with neighboring jurisdictions and regional agencies.

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 75
Next Steps
Foster City is already well positioned to begin implementation. Through the City’s Capital Improvement Program, upcoming roadway maintenance projects, redevelopment opportunities, and potential competitive grant funding, the City has multiple pathways to advance some of the improvements identified in this plan. The prioritization scoring developed through the BPMP provide a starting point for future project development.

Community engagement throughout the BPMP planning process has revealed strong support for additional bicycle and pedestrian improvements in Foster City. Residents are highly invested in their City and want to make walking and biking easier for everyone. The City is exploring ways to continue to share updates and progress with the community through their website and other means. As implementation moves forward, the City will continue to seek opportunities for community input to help shape and refine future walking and biking improvements.

Implementation will not happen all at once. Instead, each completed crossing improvement, bicycle boulevard, protected bikeway, and trail connection will contribute to a larger network that is safer, more comfortable, and more connected than it is today. As projects are delivered, residents will experience improved access to schools, parks, shopping areas, neighborhoods, and regional destinations.

The BPMP is not the end of a planning process; it is the beginning of a long-term investment in Foster City's future. By continuing to advance priority projects, pursue funding opportunities, and integrate bicycle and pedestrian improvements into everyday City projects, Foster City can deliver meaningful near-term improvements while building toward a community where walking and biking are safe, convenient, and accessible choices for everyone.

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 76

Appendices

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
Appendix A.

Benchmarking Assessment

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) Benchmarking Assessment Not a Current
Practice
Occasional/
Partial
Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Accomplish
with the
BPMP
Advance Following
BPMP Adoption
The City and its leaders publicly commit to a “Zero” goal for traffic fatalities and serious injuries within a specific timeframe through media, public events, and support for related policies and programs.

City committed to eliminating all traffic fatalities and reducing non-fatal crashes by 50% by 2050. LRSP X X
Establish performance indicators and implement a monitoring process to evaluate progress towards completion of the proposed network and implementation of programs and policies.

City does not appear to have performance metrics established for bike/ped projects completed, network mileage, and/or other performance metrics established.

City committed to updating LRSP every 5 years, reporting to TSAC (Transportation Safety Advisory Committee) annually, and providing updates to Foster City Council. LRSP includes various metrics like crash data, # of trainings by city staff, # of LRSP project locations advanced through project development etc

LRSP X X
Interagency Coordination
Convene and participate in a multi-agency working group tasked with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan's development, implementation, and monitoring, including representation from all relevant departments.

TRC is charged with development, implementation and monitoring of BPMP.

City PW Directors is part of the C/CAG TAC. The TAC oversaw the development of the City's LRSP (along with other cities in SMC).

As part of the TAC, the City also engaged with Caltrans in discussions and review of the draft D4 Bike Plan
City participates in MTC Quarterly Joint Partnership Local Streets and Roads Meetings.

City Staff
X X X
Maintain an up-to-date website with implementation progress and provide opportunities for public input throughout all planning phases.

City recently launched a Social Pinpoint website that includes project information, schedule, upcoming events, and interactive map to provide feedback.

City also has a BPMP site that can be leveraged in the long-term to support engagement, provide project updates, and monitor progress.

Social Pinpoint X X X
Integrate proactive and transparent safety analysis into all phases of facility design and implementation.

The LRSP includes proactive and transparent safety analysis, however, its not clear yet if this is informing facility design and implementation.

General Plan, Bike Network
Assessment, LRSP x X
Establish a process for public comment throughout the planning process.

Public engagement will be collected at multiple phases throughout the BPMP project.

Engagement is often tailored by audience and topic. Focused on explanation and education.

Social Pinpoint
City Staff X X X
Path to Institutionalization
Core Element Category Revised Benchmark Summary of State of Current Practice in Foster City (FP Input) Link/Source Existing Assessed Level of
Commitment/Implementation
Vision & Leadership
Leadership Commitment

Public Engagement
Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) Benchmarking Assessment Not a Current
Practice
Occasional/
Partial
Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Accomplish
with the
BPMP
Advance Following
BPMP Adoption
Path to Institutionalization
Core Element Category Revised Benchmark Summary of State of Current Practice in Foster City (FP Input) Link/Source Existing Assessed Level of
Commitment/Implementation

School & Youth Engagement Establish an ongoing Safe Routes to Schools program with dedicated funding and stakeholder engagement.

Foster City participates in the San Mateo County Safe Routes to School Program, which is a partnership between C/CAG and the San Mateo County Office of Education (SMCOE).

Conducted MTC Safe Routes to Schools Parent Survey in 2012 and 2016, with resulting recommendations tailored to each school.

Completed SRTS Study in 2018 and identified safety improvements at schools in Foster City.

Safe Routes to School program included as a goal in the following documents: General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and LRSP.

LRSP outlines recommendations to continue participation in school safety assessments and School Travel Fellowship Program (funded through C/CAG, OTS, and San Mateo County Public Health). As well as developing implementation plans for improvements up to 1/4 mile from schools.

Climate Action Plan,
Local Roadway Safety Plan,
Foster City Bike Network
Assessment,
Safe Routes to School Study
Foster City Community
Development Page
(https://www.fostercity.org/co
mmdev/page/efficient-
transportation), Safe Routes to
School Program website
(https://ccag.ca.gov/programs
/transportation-programs/safe-
routes-to-school/)
X X X
Network Monitoring Maintain a GIS inventory of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and establish performance indicators to track plan implementation.

City has data on traffic controls, posted speeds, and roadway classification, but is missing some key spatial datasets, such as volumes, # of lanes, dedicated crossings/crosswalks, observed speeds.

X X X
Proactively evaluate locations with high levels of traffic stress or known crash risk and prioritize improvements.

LRSP identified High-Injury Network for each mode and Priority locations (at intersections and segment level).

Bike Network Assessment has map of existing bicycle facilities and level of traffic stress network map.

LRSP, Foster City Bike
Network Assessment X X
Leverage community-input to supplement data and identify missing pieces of users safety and comfort experiences (e.g. near miss experiences).

City leverages SeeClickFix for community input. SeeClickFix X X X Apply for grant programs and institutionalize funding for active transportation through CIP and other long-term budgeting tools.

General Plan identifies Capital Improvement Program as primary source for projects. Other plans mention federal, state, county and district funding programs for street and other transportation improvements.

Potential funding sources mentioned in Caltrans D4 Bike Plan include:

SHOPP (State Highway Operation and Protection Program) funding, One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Program, the Active Transportation Program and Regional Measure 3
Land Use and Circulation
Element, LRSP X X X
Prioritize implementation of projects that have the greatest potential to improve safety and increase walking and biking.

LRSP calls for emphasizing social equity and priority communities in funding prioritization of safety projects. Unclear based on document review, whether projects with greatest opportunity to improve or increase walking and biking are prioritized.

City prioritizes student travel, but does not have dedicated CIP funds for implementing bike/ped improvements.

LRSP
X X X
Safety & Risk Assessment

Capital Planning & Grants
Community Engagement
Data Analysis
Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) Benchmarking Assessment Not a Current
Practice
Occasional/
Partial
Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Accomplish
with the
BPMP
Advance Following
BPMP Adoption
Path to Institutionalization
Core Element Category Revised Benchmark Summary of State of Current Practice in Foster City (FP Input) Link/Source Existing Assessed Level of
Commitment/Implementation

Development & Repaving
Coordination
Leverage private development and repaving projects to implement planned bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

Goal LUC-E-8-a. Bicycle and Pedestrian Access. Make it a condition of approval that new, large-scale developments address transit, biking and walking access to the site.

Goal LUC-E-8-b. The City will establish standards for new development and redevelopment projects to support bicycle use. a. Develop standards for safe pedestrian and bicyclist
accommodations, including:
i. “Complete Streets” policies that foster equal access by all users in the roadway design; (Complete)
ii. Bicycle and pedestrian access internally and in connection to other areas through easements; (In practice)
iii. Safe access to public transportation and other non-motorized uses through construction of dedicated paths; (Bus stops are on busiest streets with sidewalks connecting to "town center" area) iv. Safe road crossings at major intersections. (All our major intersections are signalized)
Land Use and Circulation
Element X X
Manage or fund education programs targeted at reaching the most vulnerable users.

City grant funds roadway safety education in schools (School Travel Fellowship Program).

City Communications team has produced Rules of Road video.

LRSP
City Staff X X X
Leverage local partnerships with advocacy groups and local organizations to develop context-sensitive safety education and programs.

County Public Health and Police Department identified in LRSP. No reference to non-government agencies in documents reviewed. LRSP X X X
Targeted Enforcement
Reallocate enforcement efforts to locations and behaviors most associated with crashes and serious injuries.

The Police Department is charged with enforcing policies and is as key partner with PW staff, however, capacity is generally enforcement is focused citywide and targeted enforcements are generally reactive (resident complaints, crash review, then targeted enforcement).

Additionally, LRSP outlines targeted strategies, such as monitoring speeds on streets to raise awareness of speeding.

City Staff

LRSP X X
Designate modal priorities for corridors to guide selection of appropriate bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Not current practice X X X
Funding & Policy Integration
Education & Enforcement
Outreach & Behavior Change
Infrastructure & Design
Facility Implementation
Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) Benchmarking Assessment Not a Current
Practice
Occasional/
Partial
Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Institutionalized
Practice
Accomplish
with the
BPMP
Advance Following
BPMP Adoption
Path to Institutionalization
Core Element Category Revised Benchmark Summary of State of Current Practice in Foster City (FP Input) Link/Source Existing Assessed Level of
Commitment/Implementation

Ensure cyclist and pedestrian accessibility is maintained and user safety prioritized during construction and road maintenance activities.

Contractors are always required to maintain ped/bike access and provide detours. Detailed in construction manuals and encroachment permits.

Construction Manual &
Encroachment Permit
Conditions
X X
Demonstration & Innovation
Use demonstration projects to test new facility types, gather feedback, and build support for permanent implementation.

School Travel Fellowship Program allows groups to receive technical assistance on pilot projects and communication with the public, however, unclear not currently used in the City.

SRTS Annual Report
(https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2024/05/2.1-
A1-2022-2023-SRTS-Annual-
Report_Final.pdf)
X X
Implement curbside and micromobility management strategies that support pedestrian and bicycle safety.

City identified goals to launch pilot a program to provide free or reduced-price access to e-bikes or other micro-mobility options to low-income residents and students. Minimal mention of parking or other curbside management strategies that impact safety and comfort for biking and walking.

Climate Action Plan
X X
Leverage routine resurfacing projects to implement planned bike/ped facilities and network connectivity.

The Complete Streets Policy lists resurfacing, restriping, utility projects, signalization operations or modifications, and maintenance of landscaping/related features as strategies for implementing bike/ped projects.

Land Use and Circulation
Element X X X X
Speed Policy & Evaluation Evaluate speed setting opportunities using state or local guidance before design to ensure compatibility with safety goals.

LRSP lists assessing posted speeds based on new allowable criteria as a goal, but not currently being implemented. LRSP
X X X
Align bicycle and pedestrian facility selection and design with targeted vehicle speed outcomes using context-sensitive geometric design.

Is there a way to rephrase this benchmark?
Not current practice
X X X
Adopt bikeway design standards that consider facility selection and design based on roadway classification, volumes, and observed speeds.

City does not have specific bikeway design standards, but uses Highway Design Manual as standard operating practice.

X X
Speed & Operations
Street Design for Speed

Policy Integration

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
Appendix B.

Engagement Summaries

Foster City Bicycle & Pedestrian Master
Plan Phase 1 Engagement Summary
Overview
Phase 1 engagement included a Social Pinpoint survey and one in-person event. The survey was open for six weeks, from May through mid-July 2025. On June 12, 2025, the project team attended Foster City Family Movie Night, where participants completed an interactive map activity featuring the same questions as the online survey. Results from the event were combined with the online survey responses.

This survey gathered 252 contributions from 49 unique IP Addresses (proxy for contributors). The five most frequent IP Addresses represent 138 contributions, or 54.7% of total contributions. The mapping activity during the in-person event collected an additional 27 responses.

Figure 1: Comment Density from Phase 1 Engagement (All Categories)

Feedback was organized into the following categories:
• Safety Need: 38% (illustrated in Figure 2)
• Pedestrian Gap: 19% (illustrated in Figure 3)
• Biking Gap: 10% (illustrated in Figure 4)
• Key Destinations: 6%
• Other Need: 27%

Figures on the following pages illustrate the specific locations where feedback was identified. Areas identified as ‘Key Destinations’ were incorporated into the Connectivity Analysis to help the Project Team better understand where people want to walk or bike in Foster City. These locations were an input to the analysis which was the primary input for network development.

Figure 2: Map of Identified Safety Needs

Figure 3: Map of Identified Pedestrian Gaps

Figure 4: Map of Identified Bike Facility Gaps
Comment Themes
The following five comment themes were developed by reviewing and categorizing each comment by their primary sentiment. In instances when one contributor left several similar or duplicative comments, we consolidated such sentiments to one comment to avoid weighing any individual’s feedback heavier than others. Comments which did not pertain directly to the focus of this project were omitted from the development of the themes.

1. Pedestrian Safety and Connectivity
• There are many comments calling for more visible and safer crosswalks, especially along Edgewater Blvd, near parks, schools, and apartment complexes. • Missing or Inaccessible Crosswalks: Many high-traffic corridors lack safe, high-visibility crossings, especially Edgewater Blvd.

• Many noted dangerous crossing conditions, with high vehicle speeds and a lack of pedestrian infrastructure like curb ramps, refuge islands, or flashing beacons. • Several comments emphasize the urgent need for crossings on long stretches of busy roads where pedestrians currently take risks.

2. Traffic Calming and Speed Reduction
• Comments request stop signs, roundabouts, lane reductions, and other measures to slow down vehicles, especially near schools and residential areas. • Speeding, rolling stops, and aggressive driving behavior were cited as regular threats to safety for people walking and biking.
• Comments identify several roads that have a speeding problem, including Beach Park Boulevard, Foster City Boulevard, and Hillsdale Boulevard.

3. Conflicts and Confusion Around Shared Paths and Trail Etiquette • Several comments describe dangerous interactions on shared trails, especially involving fast- moving e-bikes, scooters, and unaware pedestrians.
• Users call for clearer signage, better enforcement, and separation between modes to avoid conflicts.
• There’s widespread concern about e-bike speeds on the levee trail and Bay Trail, with some suggesting banning certain classes of e-bikes.

4. Protected and Connected Bike Infrastructure
• While there is opposition to bike lanes on main roads, many cyclists advocate for protected bike lanes, especially on bridges and connections to the Bay Trail. • Gaps in the network, abrupt lane endings, and lack of protected crossings are seen as major safety issues.
• Requests to close trail gaps—especially around Harbor Cove, Isle Cove, and the Bay Trail. • Supportive comments often note that more people would bike if they felt safer.

5. Impacts to Vehicle Traffic
• Several responses oppose adding or widening bike lanes, especially if it means removing car lanes or parking.
• Common reasons for opposing bike lanes include increased traffic congestion, reduced driving space, and perceived safety hazards for both drivers and cyclists. Some respondents believe that FC is not suited for bike commuting and perceive that bike lanes are underused compared to the impacts on vehicle traffic
• Roads like Edgewater, Hillsdale, and Beach Park Blvd are cited as poor candidates for bike lanes due to high vehicle speeds and volumes.

The findings from this outreach will not only inform network development, but as the Goals and Policies identified for the final plan.

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 1
Foster City Bicycle Pedestrian Master
Plan Phase 2 Engagement Summary
October 27, 2025
Overview
Phase 2 engagement sought feedback from the communi ty on the future proposed bicycle and pedestrian networks. The methods of engagement incl uded an online Social Pinpoint interactive mapping exercise, an in-person pop-up, and a focus group meeting with members of the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) for several schools in Fo ster City.

The Social Pinpoint interactive map was active for a month, launching on September 19, 2025 and closing October 20, 2025. The interactive mapping e xercise received 113 contributions from 41 contributors. The top two contributors made up 36% of all comments. On September 21,2025, the project team, including City Staff and the consultant team attended the Foster City Family Bike Ride to collect in-person feedback. During the pop-up, the project team spoke with approximately 75 residents. The third and final engagement activity of Phase 2 was a focus group held on October 16, 2025. All schools were invited to participate, and two parents attended representing students from Kids Connection Private School, Bowditch Middle Sch ool, and Audubon Elementary School.

Engagement Findings
The following summary of engagement findings includ es feedback from all engagement activities.

Comments which were not directly relevant to feedba ck about the proposed network were omitted from this summary.

Pedestrian Network Comments
Overall, there was consensus about the need for ped estrian crossing improvements as proposed across Foster City. Fehr 7 Peers organized the feed back into five categories: agreement with the crossing tier, disagreement with the proposed cross ing tier, requests to add a crossing to the proposed future network, and segment-related commen ts.

Agreement with Crossing Tier:

Defined as an intersection location that received a positive response for crossing improvements in proposed future network.
• Beach Park Blvd and Catamaran St
• Proposed crossing locations identified along Beach Park Blvd between Shell Blvd and Foster City Blvd
• Beach Park Blvd crossings near the Bay Trail
• E Hillsdale Blvd and Shell Blvd (+1)
• Marlin Avenue and Pompano Cir
Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 2
• Foster City Blvd and Marlin Ave
• Foster City Blvd and Bounty Dr
• Proposed crossing locations identified along Edgewa ter between Hillsdale Blvd and Beach Park Blvd
• Edgewater Blvd and Beach Park Blvd (+1)
• Edgewater Blvd and Apollo Ln
• Tarpon St and Beach Park Blvd
• Swordfish St and Beach Park Blvd
• E Hillsdale Blvd and Edgewater Blvd
Disagreement with Crossing Tier
Defined as an intersection location that received a response to adjust the identified priority in proposed future network.
• Hillsdale and Foster City should be moved to Tier 1
• Metro Center and the 92 Ramps should be removed fro m the prioritization tiers. • Metro Center and Foster City should be Tier 1
• Killdeer and Gull should be moved to Tier 1
Request to add a location to the proposed future network:

Defined as an intersection location not currently listed within the proposed future network and received request to be included. Note: All locations except Polaris Ave received only one (1) response to be added.
• Tarpon St and Ribbon St
• Polaris Ave at the school crossing (midblock crossing likely not included in LTS and connectivity analysis)
• Edgewater Blvd and Baffin St
• Crane Ave and Egret St
• Crane Ave and Swan St
• Swan St and Avocet Ct
• Marlin Ave and Grebe St
• Beach Park Blvd and Compass Ln
• Pilgrim Dr and Grand Ln
• Port Royal Park Entrance
• Pilgrim Dr and Metro Center Blvd
• Marlin Ave and Cod St
• Marlin Ave and Grebe St
Additional segment-level considerations identified:
• Desire for wider sidewalks along Edgewater Blvd
• Desire to formalize a pedestrian connection from the Lagoon Apartments to Boat Park/Foster City Dog Park
• Improve comfort for pedestrians along Foster City B lvd and address goose problems along path (+3)
• Improve sidewalks on Vintage Park through the 92 Ov erpass

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 3
Bicycle Network Comments
The following table summarizes the feedback received for each facility on the proposed bicycle network. The comments fall into three categories: Agreement with the proposed facility, disagreement with the proposed facility, or something missing from the network recommendations.

Table 1. Feedback on Future Proposed Bike Network
Street Name Proposed
Facility Agree Disagree Something Missing or Misc Comment Beach Park Boulevard Class IV 10 people 1 person
Bay Trail/Levee Trail Maintain existing
Class I
3 people asked for wider facilities and
better striping
3 people requested wayfinding
improvements
2 people raised concerns about e - bikes
Foster City Boulevard Class III 9 people requested a
Class IV
1 person requested better connection for
bikes over the bridge
East Hillsdale Boulevard
Class II to the
bridge, Class III
from bridge to
Beach Park

5 people requested
continuous class IV
2 people requested
continuous Class II
3 people requested Class IV over the
bridge
Edgewater Boulevard Class IV 3 people
2 people requested a
Class III
1 person requested a
Class II

Shell Blvd Class IV 1 person
Chess Drive Class IV 1 Person
Metro Center Boulevard Class IV 1 person
Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 4
Street Name Proposed
Facility Agree Disagree Something Missing or Misc Comment Crane Avenue None 2 people requested traffic calming
measures
Pitcairn Drive Class III 1 person
2 people asked this not to
be a bike route
1 person asked for Class
IV

Catamaran Street Class III 1 person requested traffic calming measures
Gull Avenue Class III 1 person requested traffic calming Vintage Park Drive Class IV 1 person
Polaris Avenue None
1 person requested
consideration for Bike
lanes

East 3 rd Street Class IV 1 person
Pilgrim Drive Class II 1 person disagrees with
need for bike facility
Swordfish Class III 1 person requested Class
II facilities
Marlin Class III 1 person requested Class
II facilities
Tarpon Class III 2 people requested Class
II facilities

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 5
Summary of Feedback from Focus Group Meeting
The focus group meeting with members of the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) from several Foster City schools followed a different format than the interactive mapping exercise and pop-up event. Key insights from the discussion are summarized below:
• Priority Segments for School Safety
o Hillsdale Blvd: Vehicle speeding is a top concern. The corridor provides direct access to Kids Connection School and the main shopping are as and library which are both areas frequently visited by youth on bikes.
o Beach Park Blvd: An important student route where m any currently ride on the sidewalk or along the levee, but only where ramps p rovide access. Participants noted that adding more ramps would improve accessibility.
o Gull Ave: Traffic calming is needed, especially near the mid-block crossing by Audubon Elementary School. There is no traffic control between Hillsdale Blvd and the mid-block crossing, leading to dangerously high vehicle speeds. • Crossings Identified as Dangerous or in Need of Imp rovement:
o Mid-block crossing on Swan St
o Intersection of Duck Ct and Crave Ave
o Mid-block crossing on Gull Ave, where parents reported that a school crossing guard has been struck multiple times.

Next Steps
The project team will present the feedback to City Council and City staff. City staff will then determine whether the input should inform any changes to the final future network. A final future network will be determined in late Winter 2025/2026 .

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
Appendix C.

LTS and Connectivity
Methodology Memorandum

Memo
Date: 7/21/2025 (revised 8/14/2025)
To: Foster City; Claire McWilliams
From: Fehr & Peers; Angelica Rocha and Erin Ferguson
Subject: Methodology – Level of Traffic Stress and Connectivity Analysis (DRAFT)

Introduction
The following memo details the Foster City (herein referred to as “the City”) Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) Level of Traffic Stress and Connectivity Analysis. This analysis was conducted to identify locations within the City where bicycle and pedestrian facilities and network enhancements can provide the greatest connectivity to key everyday destinations. The analysis results highlight bicycle segments and pedestrian crossings with high levels of connectivity to a variety of destinations or attractions via low stress facilities, and parts of the City that may have high levels of destinations or attractions, but along high-stress facilities.

Level of Traffic Stress
The first analysis performed included the Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), which is a framework for evaluating the suitability and comfort level of routes for vulnerable network users. It is based on the understanding that people are unlikely to use routes that feel too stressful or unsafe due to roadway or intersection conditions. The following section describes Bicycle LTS and Pedestrian Crossing LTS.

Bicycle LTS is assigned to roadway segments, whereas Pedestrian Crossing LTS is assigned to intersection crossings.

LTS scoring is classified into four (4) categories ranging from LTS 1 (lowest stress) to LTS 4 (highest stress), as described in Figure 1 and Figure 2. LTS 1 and 2 are considered generally low-stress, and LTS 1 is considered appropriate for all ages and abilities. LTS 3 and 4 represent higher stress bicycle facilities and pedestrian crossings. LTS scores are calculated separately for bicycle facilities as segments and pedestrian crossings as intersections.

The Bicycle LTS methodology used was developed by Dr. Peter G. Furth of Northeastern University.1 It considers existing roadway characteristics such as speed limits, the amount of motor vehicle traffic, the number of travel lanes, bikeway(s), and on-street parking characteristics. The Pedestrian LTS

1Furth, Peter, Northeastern University (2022) https://peterfurth.sites.northeastern.edu/level-of-traffic-stress/ Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 2
methodology used was developed by the Center for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety.2 It considers existing roadway characteristics such as the number of travel lanes, motor vehicle traffic, crossing treatments, and ADA-accessible ramps.

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Bicycle LTS analysis is an approach to mapping the suitability of streets and off-street paths based on the perceived stress levels of riding on the existing conditions present along all roadway segments in the network. There are several methodology approaches available, however Northeastern University’s methodology was determined feasible given the City’s data availability.3 Figure 1. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress

Data Used
There are six roadway characteristics used as variables to determine the Bicycle LTS segment score.

These variables and sources are listed in Table 1.

2 https://www.pedbikesafety.org/_files/ugd/71d50c_45338ef866774d978fcc08cbe750b6b1.pdf 3 https://peterfurth.sites.northeastern.edu/level-of-traffic-stress/

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 3
Table 1: Bicycle LTS Variables
Variable Source
ADT Replica Transportation Data
# of Travel Lanes City of Foster City
Bikeway Facility
City/County Association of Governments
(C/CAG) of San Mateo County and City of
Foster City
Bike Lane Width Fehr & Peers
Parking Lane Width (Adjacent to a Bike Lane) Fehr & Peers Posted Speed1 City of Foster City (Speed Limit)
1 The LTS methodology requires prevailing speed data, which the City does not currently have readily available.

As a result, the analysis will initially rely on posted speed limits. Fehr & Peers is exploring the possibility of validating arterial speeds using E&TS data, but this will be determined following the initial run of the analysis.

LTS Score Assignment
The tables below, from Dr. Peter G. Furth of Northeastern University LTS Methodology, were used to classify roadway segment stress in Foster City based on the variables described.

Table 2: Bikes in Mixed Traffic
Posted Speed (mph)
Number of Lanes ADT 0 - 23.5 23.5 - 28.5 28.5 - 33.5 33.5 - 38.5 38.5 - 43.5 43.5 - 48.5 48.5 + Unlaned 2-way street (no
centerline)
0 - 750 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
751 - 1,500 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
1,501 -
3,000 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
3,001 + LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
2-way with 1 lane per direction
and centerline
0 - 1,000 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
1,001 -
1,500 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 4
1,501 + LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
2 thru lanes per direction
0 - 8,000 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
8,001 + LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
3+ thru lanes per direction any ADT LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 Source: Furth, Peter, Northeastern University (2022)
Table 3: Conventional Bike Lanes, Advisory Bike Lanes, and Shoulders Not Adjacent to a Parking Lane
Posted Speed (mph)
Number of Lanes Bike lane
width 0 - 28.5 28.5 - 33.5 33.5 - 38.5 38.5 - 43.5 43.5 - 48.5 48.5 + 1 thru lane per direction or
contraflow lane
6 + ft LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
< 6 ft LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
2 thru lanes per direction
6 + ft LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
< 6 ft LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
3+ lanes per direction Any width LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 Source: Furth, Peter, Northeastern University (2022)
Table 4: Conventional Bike Lanes and Advisory Bike Lanes alongside a Parking Lane Posted Speed (mph)
Number of lanes
Bike lane reach =
bike + parking lane
width
0 - 28.5 28.5 - 33.5 33.5 - 38.5 38.5 +
1 thru lane per direction or contraflow lane
15 + ft LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3
< 15 ft LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
1-way multilane
15 + ft LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
< 15 ft LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
2-way, 2 lanes per direction
15 + ft LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
< 15 ft LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
other 2-way multilane any LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
Source: Furth, Peter, Northeastern University (2022)
Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 5
Pedestrian Crossing Level of Traffic Stress
Pedestrian Crossing LTS analysis is an approach to mapping the suitability of pedestrian crossings based on the perceived stress levels of crossing a street based on the existing conditions present at all intersections in the network. Like the Bicycle LTS methodology, there are several pedestrian crossing LTS methodologies used in practice. The methodology developed by the Center for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety, published in July 2024, is currently the best state of the practice given the data availability for this project.4
Figure 2. Pedestrian Crossing Level of Traffic Stress

Data Used
There are six (6) intersection characteristics used as variables to determine the Pedestrian Crossing LTS score. These variables and their sources are listed in Table 5.

Table 5: Pedestrian Crossing LTS Variables
Variable Source
Traffic Control City of Foster City
Crossing Treatments City of Foster City / Fehr & Peers
Crossing Width (Lanes) City of Foster City

4 https://www.pedbikesafety.org/_files/ugd/71d50c_45338ef866774d978fcc08cbe750b6b1.pdf

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 6
ADT Replica Transportation Data
Crossing Locations Open Street Map
ADA Accessible Ramps City of Foster City
LTS Score Assignment
The tables on the following pages were used to classify segment stress in Foster City based on the variables described in the section above.

Table 6 Pedestrian LTS for Controlled Roadway Crossing: Low traffic Volume (<2,500 AADT)
Crossing Treatments
Traffic Control Crossing Width Raised Refuge Island
and Curb Extension(s)1
Raised Refuge Island
only
Curb extension
only None
Traffic Signal

1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
3 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2
4 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
5+ lanes LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
Stop Sign

1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
3 lanes LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon
1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
3 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
1 Raised refuge islands must be 6 feet wide with a physical (raised) barrier.

Source: (Sydney Swift,Robert J. Schneider,Kyle Nelson, 2024) Table 7 Pedestrian LTS for Controlled Roadway Crossing: High traffic Volume (>7,500 AADT)
Crossing Treatments
Traffic Control Crossing Width Raised Refuge Island
and Curb Extension(s)
Raised Refuge Island
only
Curb extension
only None
Traffic Signal
1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2
Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 7

3 lanes LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2
4 lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
5+ lanes LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
Stop Sign

1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2
3 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon

1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2
3 lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
4+ lanes LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
Source: (Sydney Swift,Robert J. Schneider,Kyle Nelson, 2024) Table 8 Pedestrian LTS for Uncontrolled Roadway Crossing: Low traffic Volume (<2,500 AADT)
Crossing Treatments
Traffic Control Traffic Speed1 Crossing Width
Raised Refuge
Island and Curb
Extension(s)
Raised Refuge
Island only
Curb extension
only2 None
No Traffic Control
≤ 20 mph

1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1
3 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2
21-25 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
3 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
26-30 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2
3 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
>30 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3
3 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
4+ lanes LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
Rapid Flashing
Beacons
≤ 20 mph

1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
3 lanes LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2
Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 8
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
21-25 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2
3 lanes LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
26-30 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
3 lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
>30 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3
3 lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
4+ lanes LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
1 Prevailing (actual) 85th percentile speed should be used if available data exists. If not, use an estimate of prevailing speed based on the posted speed limit.
2 High visibility crosswalks include continental, ladder, and zebra style markings. Solid bars that run perpendicular to traffic are not considered to be high visibility markings Source: (Sydney Swift,Robert J. Schneider,Kyle Nelson, 2024)

Table 9 Pedestrian LTS for Uncontrolled Roadway Crossing: Medium traffic Volume (2,500-7,500 AADT)
Crossing Treatments
Traffic Control Traffic Speed1 Crossing Width
Raised Refuge
Island and Curb
Extension(s)
Raised Refuge
Island only
Curb extension
only2 None
No Traffic Control
≤ 25 mph

1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
3 lanes LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
26-30 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3
3 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
>30 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3
3 lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
4+ lanes LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
Rapid Flashing
Beacons
≤ 25 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2
Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 9
Crossing Treatments
3 lanes LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
26-30 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
3 lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
>30 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
3 lanes LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
4+ lanes LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
Source: (Sydney Swift,Robert J. Schneider,Kyle Nelson, 2024) Table 10 Pedestrian LTS for Uncontrolled Roadway Crossing: High traffic Volume (>7,500 AADT)
Crossing Treatments
Traffic Control Traffic Speed1 Crossing Width
Raised Refuge
Island and Curb
Extension(s)
Raised Refuge
Island only
Curb extension
only2 None
No Traffic Control
≤ 25 mph

1-2 lanes LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2
3 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
4+ lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
26-30 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3
3 lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
4+ lanes LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
>30 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
3 lanes LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
4+ lanes LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
Rapid Flashing
Beacons
≤ 25 mph

1-2 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3
3 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3
4+ lanes LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
26-30 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3
3 lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 10
4+ lanes LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
>30 mph
1-2 lanes LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
3 lanes LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
4+ lanes LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
Source: (Sydney Swift,Robert J. Schneider,Kyle Nelson, 2024) Data Gaps & Assumptions Made
The following section describes gaps in the City-provided data and assumptions applied to the data to complete the LTS analysis.
• Bike Lane Width: Width and buffer determined based on Google Earth desktop review. • On-Street Parking Presence and Width: Determined based on Google Earth desktop review. • Marked Crossings: Open Street Map, a crowdsource dataset, was used as the base. City Staff validated and revised each marked crossing based on a Google Earth desktop review and institutional knowledge of infrastructure on the ground. • Average Daily Traffic (ADT): Leveraged a big data vendor dataset, which provided an aggregated count of vehicles along roadway segments. Arterials were validated with counts as availab.e • Number of Lanes: Applied a universal assumption that all arterials have 4 lane cross-sections with 2 lanes in each direction and local roads have a 2 lane cross section with 1 lane in each direction).

City Staff validated and revised all assignments through a Google Earth desktop review and institutional knowledge of infrastructure on the ground. • Limited-access highways and ramps (e.g. Caltrans facilities) were excluded because they prohibit pedestrian and bicycle access.

Connectivity Analysis
Once the LTS analysis was completed, it served as a key input for the subsequent Connectivity Analysis.

This analysis evaluates how accessible a variety of key destinations are from surrounding areas, or "travel sheds." The following destination types were used to identify where access and connectivity via low-stress segments and crossings should be prioritized:
• Schools: Public and private schools
• Community Facilities: Access points to city parks (including neighborhood and pocket parks) and primary access points to regional parks/trails. The City’s one Recreation Center, one Community Center, and one Library are all within or nearby a City park and are included as part of this destination type.
• Shopping Areas: Grocery stores and small commercial areas

Bicycle LTS and Pedestrian Crossing LTS are analyzed for connectivity separately. The connectivity analysis performed for Bicycle LTS assumed an average biking speed of 10 miles per hour, meaning the analysis assumed the average person will travel five miles on their bicycle in 30 minutes. While actual speeds may vary from person to person, this average was selected for planning purposes and aligns with best practices for considering all ages and abilities. Given the constrained resources, the City’s small size, and the limited number of destination types included in the analysis, the pedestrian Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 11
crossing was assigned the connectivity score of the nearest roadway segment. This approach accounts for the highest concentration of destinations within a given area.

For each destination type, three travel sheds were assessed and scored. Bike trips within each travel shed were assigned to all roads with or without bike facilities (since bicyclists could presumably share the road with vehicles).

Analysis Inputs
The connectivity analysis uses two primary inputs: LTS (described above) travel sheds and destination types.

Destination Types are comprised of specific land uses or places that attract people and generate trips.

See Table 6 for the destination types selected and their sources. Three (3) destination types were selected to represent everyday places where people may currently bike/walk to or would more likely bike/walk to if they could get to the destination on a low stress bicycle or pedestrian network.

Table 11: Data Sources for Destination Types
Destination Type Layer Name Source
Schools Schools City of Foster City
Community Facilities
Parks City of Foster City
Libraries City of Foster City
Community/Recreation Centers City of Foster City
Shopping Areas
Grocery Stores Fehr & Peers
Key Shopping Areas City of Foster City
As part of Phase 1 engagement activities, the Project Team collected community input on key destinations they access by walking or cycling. These destination types were then validated against locations provided by residents through digital and in-person engagement tactics.

Analysis Approach
The connectivity analysis was conducted using the following steps:
• Step 1: Develop bicycle and pedestrian travel sheds for all three (3) destination types. Travel sheds were developed based on the centroid of a destination.

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 12
• Step 2: Calculate a “travel shed score” for each roadway segment and crossing within the travel shed of a destination type.
• Step 3: Calculate a normalized segment and intersection score by destination type between 0-1
• Step 4: Combine each destination type’s normalized segment and intersection score to arrive at the “connectivity score” for each segment. Since there are three (3) destination types, the maximum score for any segment is 3.5 Note: In the weighted example, where schools are weighted twice, the maximum score is four (4).

Steps 1 through 4 are described in detail in the sections below.

Step 1: Develop Travel Sheds for all Destinations
The following three bicycle and pedestrian travel sheds were developed for all three(3) destination types throughout the City: 0-5 minutes, >5-15 minutes, and >15-30 minutes. Travel sheds are drawn around the land use centroid.

See Figure 1 for an example three travel sheds developed for a library destination.

Figure 3: Example Pulled from Previous Project of a Bicycle Travel Sheds for a City Library, Light Blue = 0 -5 minutes, Dark Blue = >5-15 minutes, and Magenta = >15-30 minutes

5 Note that all roadway segments and intersections received a connectivity score for each destination type between 0-1. The scores are then summed up for the three (3) destination types. This process represents equal weight placed on each destination type. It is possible to weight destination types differently if community values indicate a higher emphasis is placed on a certain destination type.

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 13
Step 2: Travel Shed Scores by Destination Type
The next step was performed for each of the three (3) destination types separately. Since there are many travel sheds for each destination type, there are many travel sheds that overlap one another.

For each individual destination (in the schools, parks, libraries, and shopping area types), the roadway segments and intersections within that destination’s travel shed were assigned a travel shed score as follows:

Travel Shed Score for Each Segment and Intersection
• 0 – 5 minutes travel sheds = All segments and intersections within a 5-minute travel shed are assigned a Travel Shed Score of 3
• >5 – 15 minutes travel sheds = All segments and intersections within the greater than 5 – 15- minute travel shed are assigned a Score of 2
• >15 – 30 minutes travel sheds = All segments and intersections within the greater than 15 – 30- minute travel shed are assigned a Score of 1
Step 3: Calculate Normalized Segment Score
For each destination type, the travel shed scores were summed for each individual road segment and intersection in the network. Because there are numerous destinations for each destination type, an individual roadway segment and intersection likely falls into travel sheds for several destinations within the same destination type, receiving points for each travel shed.

For illustration, consider a roadway segment near multiple schools. Suppose that the roadway segment is within the travel sheds of six (6) school destination types, resulting in the following travel sheds:
• Within 0-5 min. = 1 destination(s)
• Within >5-15 min. =2 destinations
• Within >15-30 min. = 3 destinations
The process of calculating the total travel shed score for this roadway segment is described in Table

7. Table 12: Total Travel Shed Score for a Roadway Segment in the Described Example Travel
Shed
Score for each Segment in
Travel Shed Quantity of Destinations within
Travel Shed Total Travel
Shed Score
0-5 mins 3 * 1 = 3
>5-15
mins 2 * 2 = 4
>15-30
mins 1 * 3 = 3
Travel Shed Score 10
Source: Fehr & Peers (2024)
In this example, the segment would receive a school destination type total travel shed score of 10.

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 14
Once this summation process is complete for all segments and intersections by destination type, the total score for each segment and intersection is normalized by dividing the total travel shed score by the highest total travel shed score for each destination type. The result will arrive at a score between 0-1.

Continuing with the example above, suppose the highest total segment travel shed score is 20 for the schools destination type, then the example roadway segment above would have a normalized score of 10/20=0.5.

All segments and intersections will be assigned a normalized score for each destination type.

Step 4: Calculate the Connectivity Score
To calculate the connectivity score for each roadway segment and intersection, the normalized travel shed scores for each destination type are summed. To understand how this process is applied to a roadway segment, see example below:

For illustration, consider the roadway segment from above may have received the following normalized scores by destination type:

Table 13: Normalized Score by Destination Type for Described Example Destination Type Normalized Score
Schools 0.5
Community Facilities 0.1
Shopping Areas 0.25
Total Connectivity Score 0.85
In this example, the sample roadway segment has a connectivity score of 0.85 out of a total of 3, with a score of 3 being the highest preferred score when all destination types are weighted equally.

The Project Team has outlined two potential approaches: Weighted, where schools are weighted higher than the other destination types, and Unweighted, where equal weight is placed on each destination type. Table 9 describes how this approach impacts the highest possible score and median score.

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 15

Table 14: Results for Connectivity Analysis by Approach, Weighted vs Unweighted

Analysis Type
Unweighted; Max Possible Score=3 Weighted; Max Possible Score=4 Highest
Score Median Score Highest Score Median Score
Bike LTS/Connectivity 2.83 1.23 3.83 1.63
Ped LTS/Connectivity 1.92 0.80 2.66 1.11
Analyzing Connectivity By LTS
A primary purpose of developing connectivity scores for roadway segments and intersections is to understand which segments and intersections provide connections to high levels of (or many) everyday destinations and to what extent people can walk or bike to those destinations. Connectivity scores for each segment and intersection can be further contextualized through their respective LTS scores to provide this additional layer of information.

Ideally, roadways that have high levels of connectivity would be comfortable to walk or bike on or have a comfortable parallel route and crossing when riders or walkers have to approach high stress facilities.

This combination of high connectivity and high comfort (LTS 1 or 2) results in walking and cycling as a viable and attractive travel option.

High LTS (or uncomfortable walking and cycling conditions) was defined as an LTS score greater than 2, and low LTS (comfortable walking and cycling conditions) was defined as less than or equal to 2.

High connectivity was defined as a connectivity score above average (3), and low connectivity as a score below average.

Segments and intersections were sorted into one of four categories:
• High Connectivity and High LTS: Roadway segments and intersections where there are many destinations near, but the route is uncomfortable.
• High Connectivity and Low LTS: Roadway segments and intersections where there are many destinations near, and the route is comfortable.
• Low Connectivity and High LTS: Roadways where there are few destinations near the segment and intersection, and the route is uncomfortable.
• Low Connectivity and Low LTS: Roadways where there are few destinations near the segment and intersection, but the route is comfortable.

In general, improving the LTS in the high connectivity/high LTS category would likely result in the greatest shift from driving to walking and cycling.

Foster City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan | 16
Next Steps
The purpose of this analysis is to identify locations in the City where bicycle and pedestrian facilities or network enhancements can provide the greatest connectivity to everyday destinations. The analysis highlights segments and intersections with high connectivity to destinations and identifies if there is a low stress network available to access these areas.

As part of the next steps, the Project Team will be evaluating the connectivity analysis with existing network data to understand gaps and opportunities in the current network. The primary intent will be to understand if areas with high connectivity are accessible via a low stress network, either along the high connectivity segment or via a low stress parallel street. This will be a critical input to network development to be completed as part of Task 6.

FOSTER CITY
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
Appendix D.

Bicycle Facility
Prioritization Results

Corridor Begin End Type of Facility Existing Facility Project Type Fatal or Injury
Bicycle/Pedestrian
Collision
Bicycle Pedestrian
Collision
Level of Traffic
Stress
Connectivity
Priority
Intersections
Major Roads
Connections
Right-of-
Way
Estimated
Costs
Total Score
Beach Park Blvd Edgewater Blvd Shell Blvd Class IV Class II Bike Lane Upgrade 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Beach Park Blvd Foster City Blvd Gull Ave Class IV Class III. Green-backed sharrow Upgrade 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Edgewater Blvd /
Mariners Island Blvd
City Limits E Hillsdale Blvd Class IV Class II Bike Lane Upgrade 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 7 Shell Blvd
Metro Center
Blvd
Bounty Dr Class IV Class II & IIB Upgrade 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7 Catamaran St Shell Blvd Marlin Ave Class III N/A New Facility 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 7 Foster City Blvd E Hillsdale Beach Park Blvd Class IV pending feasibility N/A New Facility 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 Edgewater Blvd E Hillsdale Blvd Boothbay Ave Class IV Class II Bike Lane Upgrade 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 Beach Park Blvd Shell Blvd Foster City Blvd Class IV Class III. Green-backed sharrow Upgrade 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 Shell Blvd Bounty Dr Beach Park Blvd Class IV Class II & IIB Upgrade 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 6 E Hillsdale Blvd City Limits Beach Park Blvd Class IV pending feasibility Class II Upgrade 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 Foster City Blvd E 3rd Ave E Hillsdale Blvd Class IV N/A New Facility 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 5 Metro Center Blvd Edgewater Blvd Shell Blvd Class IV Class II Bike Lane Upgrade 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 5 Marlin Ave Catamaran St Beach Park Blvd Class III Class III. Green-backed sharrow Improvements 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 5 Gull Ave Beach Park Blvd E Hillsdale Blvd Class III Class III. Green-backed sharrow Improvements 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 5 Vintage Park Dr
Metro Center
Blvd
Foster City Blvd Class IV Class III. Green-backed sharrow Upgrade 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 4 Tarpon St Marlin Ave Beach Park Blvd Class III Class III. Green-backed sharrow Improvements 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 4 Swordfish St Marlin Ave Beach Park Blvd Class III Class III. Green-backed sharrow Improvements 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 4 Polaris Ave
Beach Park Blvd Sun Ave Class III N/A New Facility 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 4 Grebe St Gull Ave Marlin Ave Class III N/A New Facility 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 E 3rd Ave City Limits Levee/Bay Trail Class IV N/A New Facility 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 Edgewater Blvd Boothbay Ave Baffin Class IV Class II Bike Lane Upgrade 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Marsh Dr E 3rd Ave Vintage Park Class III N/A Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Chess Dr Vintage Park Dr Foster City Blvd Class IV N/A New Facility 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 Beach Park Blvd /
Foster City
Elementary
Virgo Ln Polaris Ave Class IV N/A New Facility 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

Foster City City CouncilAugust 3, 2026

Foster City City Council
August 3, 2026