San Marcos City Council
July 23, 2024

Exhibit A - Active Transportation Plan

SAN MARCOS
Active Transportation Plan
JUNE 2024
i SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.100 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 1

1.101 Organization of the Plan.......................................................................................................................................1

1.102 What is an Active Transportation Plan?.............................................................................................................2

1.103 Background and Legislative Context.................................................................................................................3

1.103.1 Active Transportation Program (2013 SB 99 and 101)............................................................................................. 3

1.103.2 California Complete Streets Act (2008 Assembly Bill 1358) ................................................................................... 3

1.104 Compatibility with Local and Regional Plans..................................................................................................3

1.105 Vision, Goals, and Objectives ..............................................................................................................................5

1.106 Plan Development Process .................................................................................................................................6

1.106.1 Literature Review and Existing Conditions Assessment......................................................................................... 6

1.106.2 Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Element....................................................................................................................... 6

1.106.3 Community Engagement.............................................................................................................................................. 7

1.106.4 Stakeholder/Agency Coordination.............................................................................................................................. 7

1.106.5 Active Transportation Network Development and Prioritization ......................................................................... 7

1.107 Components of Active Transportation Planning.............................................................................................8

1.107.1 Bicycle Classification System ....................................................................................................................................... 8

1.107.2 Bicycle Intersection Concepts...................................................................................................................................... 9

1.107.3 Bicycle Amenities............................................................................................................................................................ 11

1.107.4 Traffic Calming Strategies ............................................................................................................................................. 12

1.107.5 Accommodating Pedestrians ....................................................................................................................................... 12

2.100 SAN MARCOS TODAY ....................................................................................... 14

2.101 Walking and Biking in San Marcos .....................................................................................................................14

2.101.1 Existing Facilities to Support Biking............................................................................................................................ 14

2.101.2 Existing Facilities to Support Walking......................................................................................................................... 14

2.101.3 Connection to Land Uses.............................................................................................................................................. 14

2.101.4 Safety Trends Among People Walking and Bicycling.............................................................................................. 15

2.102 Transit in San Marcos............................................................................................................................................15

2.103 Driving in San Marcos............................................................................................................................................15

3.100 PUBLIC OUTREACH......................................................................................... 16

3.101 Project Website ......................................................................................................................................................16

3.102 Outreach Events.....................................................................................................................................................17

3.102.1 Outreach Event #1: San Marcos Harvest Fest............................................................................................................ 17

3.102.2 Outreach Event #2: San Marcos Spring Fling ............................................................................................................ 17

3.103 Community Workshops........................................................................................................................................18

3.103.1 Workshop #1: Fall 2022.................................................................................................................................................. 18

3.103.2 Workshop #2: Spring 2023 ............................................................................................................................................ 18 ii

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

4.100 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (SRTS) ELEMENT...................................................... 19

4.101 Safe Routes to School Plans by School ............................................................................................................19

4.102 SRTS Walk Audit Memorandums........................................................................................................................20

5.100 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................ 21

5.101 Strategy....................................................................................................................................................................21

5.102 Bike Network Recommendations ....................................................................................................................22

5.102.1 Overview........................................................................................................................................................................... 22

5.102.2 Developer Requirements .............................................................................................................................................. 22

5.102.3 Citywide Projects ............................................................................................................................................................ 23

5.103.1 Overview........................................................................................................................................................................... 26

5.103.2 Pedestrian Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 26

5.106 Mobility Hub Recommendations .......................................................................................................................29

5.106.1 Regional Mobility Hub.................................................................................................................................................... 29

5.106.2 Local Micromobility........................................................................................................................................................ 29

5.106.3 Mobility Nodes................................................................................................................................................................. 29

5.106.4 On-Demand NEV Microtransit...................................................................................................................................... 29

5.107 Programs / Policies................................................................................................................................................32

5.107.1 Education ......................................................................................................................................................................... 32

5.107.2 Enforcement .................................................................................................................................................................... 34

5.107.3 Encouragement............................................................................................................................................................... 35

5.107.4 Evaluation......................................................................................................................................................................... 38

5.107.5 Engineering ...................................................................................................................................................................... 39

5.108 Anticipated Future Demand................................................................................................................................42

5.108.1 Methodology.................................................................................................................................................................... 42

5.108.2 Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................................. 42

6.100 IMPLEMENTATION.......................................................................................... 43

6.101 Prioritization Process ............................................................................................................................................43

6.102 Estimate of Cost and Funding Sources ............................................................................................................57 APPENDIX A: Existing Conditions Report and Literature Review................................... 62 APPENDIX B: Caltrans ATP Guidelines Conformance Checklist ..................................... 108 APPENDIX C: Public Feedback Summary ................................................................... 110 APPENDIX D: Safe Routes to School Element .............................................................. 125 APPENDIX E: Grant Funding Matrix ........................................................................... 126 APPENDIX F: Adopted Resolution ............................................................................. 132 iii
ivSAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

FIGURES
Figure 1. Active Transportation Context.............................................................................................................................................4 Figure 2. Vision and Goal Diagram ......................................................................................................................................................5 Figure 3. Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks Policies and Programs Plan Development Process...........................................6 Figure 4. Bike Facility Classifications ..................................................................................................................................................8 Figure 5. Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions (2015-2019) ................................................................................................................15 Figure 6. Proposed Interim Bicycle Facilities Map...........................................................................................................................24 Figure 7. Proposed Ultimate Bicycle Facilities Map.........................................................................................................................25 Figure 8. Proposed Bike Parking Map.................................................................................................................................................27 Figure 9. Proposed Pedestrian Interim & Ultimate Networks Map...............................................................................................28 Figure 10. Proposed Mobility Intensity Zones ..................................................................................................................................30 Figure 11. Proposed Mobility Node Locations .................................................................................................................................31 TABLES
Table 1. SRTS Walk Audit Schedule.....................................................................................................................................................20 Table 2. Lane Miles per Bicycle Classifications .................................................................................................................................22 Table 3. Prioritization Data Sources ....................................................................................................................................................43 Table 4. Prioritization Criteria Table ...................................................................................................................................................44 Table 5. Interim Pedestrian Prioritization...........................................................................................................................................45 Table 6. Ultimate Pedestrian Prioritization........................................................................................................................................47 Table 7. Interim Bike Prioritization ......................................................................................................................................................49 Table 8. Ultimate Bike Prioritization...................................................................................................................................................54 1SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The City of San Marcos is a vibrant community where approximately 90,000 diverse residents live, work, and play in the beautiful foothills of northern San Diego County. San Marcos serves as a regional job center and attracts visitors looking to enjoy the city’s 290 acres of recreational parks and over 70 miles of interconnected trails. The city supports the daily activities of residents and visitors alike and aims to continue improving its mobility choices through a robust, accessible, and equitable pedestrian and bicycle network.

1.100 INTRODUCTION

1.101 ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN
The San Marcos Active Transportation Plan (ATP) contains the following chapters:

1. Introduction – Provides background, establishes vision and goals, outlines the study process

2. San Marcos Today – Presents existing conditions data and findings

3. Public Outreach – Documents public engagement efforts and takeaways

4. Safe Routes to School (SRTS) – Outlines the walk audit process and SRTS policies and programs

5. Active Transportation Recommendations – Presents bicycle and pedestrian recommendations

6. Implementation – Details the prioritization process, compiles funding sources, and establishes implementation strategies
Appendices
A. Existing Conditions Assessment and Literature Review – Presents information on the existing active transportation network and community context
B. Caltrans ATP Guidelines Conformance Checklist – Details how this ATP aligns with Caltrans ATP guidelines
C. Public Feedback Summary – Documents comments from community members D. Safe Routes to School Element – Details recommendations for each school in the San Marcos Unified School District
E. Grant Funding Matrix – Provides a larger list of funding sources as well as full descriptions of the types of projects that are eligible for each funding source. 2SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

1.102 WHAT IS AN ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN?
An ATP focuses on encouraging non-motorized modes of transportation—primarily walking and biking— by recommending projects, programs, and policies that enhance the active transportation experience in the community. An ATP evaluates the current state of walking and biking opportunities; analyzes user demographics, safety data and more; engages community members; and provides recommendations to support mobility in the city. This ATP also incorporated a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) study to identify challenges associated with the schools located within the San Marcos Unified School District (SMUSD).

This plan is used to create active transportation-oriented projects for the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and for construction as required by the City for private development projects. Additionally, it develops educational programs and policies for the City and its partners to implement. Furthermore, this plan aligns projects with grant funding opportunities from various local, state, and federal sources.

Active Transportation is associated with benefits such as:

Active transportation refers to modes of transportation powered by human energy, ranging from walking and biking, to scootering, skating, using a wheelchair, and other means of non-motorized transportation.

Reduced vehicular trips
and greenhouse gas
emissions as people
substitute high-emission
motorized vehicle
trips with active
transportation trips
Increased physical
activity and improved
health outcomes through
walking, biking, and
other physical modes
of transport
Low-cost, equitable
mobility options for
people of all ages,
income levels,
and backgrounds
3SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

1.103 BACKGROUND AND LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT
Various pieces of legislation have created policies and programs supporting active transportation in the State of California. These documents align with the vision and goals of this ATP and inform the types of recommendations created.

1.103.1 Active Transportation Program (2013 SB 99 and 101) This Active Transportation Plan aligns with the Active Transportation Program created by 2013 Senate Bills 99 and 101, which consolidated existing federal and state transportation programs into a single plan that promotes active transportation. Consistent with this legislation, this ATP aims to increase biking and walking trips, increase safety and mobility of non-motorized users, and ensure that the mobility needs of disadvantaged communities are met through projects that benefit users of all abilities and backgrounds. This plan will provide a palette of infrastructure projects, such as capital improvements and non-infrastructure projects, and educational programs and policies to holistically improve mobility in San Marcos.

1.103.2 California Complete Streets Act (2008 Assembly Bill 1358) This plan aligns with the California Complete Streets Act of 2008, which requires circulation plans to use a multi-modal approach to designing corridors while considering “the needs of all users… in a manner suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan.” The projects in this plan incorporate complete streets policies into circulation roadways to accommodate all users and improve the state of walking and biking in San Marcos.

1.104 COMPATIBILITY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL PLANS
This plan is complementary to current regional and local planning efforts and documents, aligning with goals and efforts from relevant studies, most notably:
■ SANDAG (San Diego Association of
Governments) 2021 Regional Plan
■ North County CMCP (2023)
■ San Marcos General Plan (2012)
■ San Marcos Climate Action Plan (2020)
As shown in Figure 1, the projects, goals, programs, and policies of these documents were incorporated into the ATP and integrated into the recommendations of this document.

SANDAG.org | SANDAGregion SANDAG SANDAGregion SANDAGregion SANDAG 2021
regional
plan
DECEMBER 2021
Final Climate
Action Plan
City of San Marcos
December 2020
4SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
This ATP complements the City’s General Plan by:
■ Aligning with the goals of the Mobility Element that aim to connect people to key destinations with a complete bicycle and pedestrian network
■ Complementing the Circulation Element regarding all major thoroughfare and transportation routes in the city
■ Supporting the land uses in the Lane Use Element, thereby ensuring the active transportation network will serve the community’s needs into the future Mobility Element of 2012 General Plan- Policy M-1.7:

Strive to ensure that streets within San Marcos shall be complete streets where feasible; thereby providing accessibility, safety, connectivity, and comfort for all modes and users of the system. Appropriate new local streets and Main Streets will prioritize pedestrian and bicycle users through the corridor.

Figure 1. Active Transportation Context
Local/County
General Plans
Regional Plan
State Goals
Federal
Objectives
Pedestrian
Infrastructure
Mobility Hubs
Programs
and Policies
Bike
Infrastructure
5SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

1.105 VISION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES
The following vision, goals, and objectives guided the development of this ATP and SRTS element.

These goals and objectives, shown in Figure 2, support the overarching intentions of increasing biking and walking, enhancing public health, and providing quality mobility choices for all ages and abilities to access destinations within the city without the need for a car.

VISION
Reduce car dependence in San Marcos by providing a cohesive network of quality mobility choices for people of all ages and abilities to access key destinations.

GOALS
Close documented
gaps in the system
Provide sidewalks
on all city streets
where necessary
Maximize connectivity
between major
destinations and the
active transportation
network
Connectivity
Implement ADA
transition plan
Create comfortable
crossing facilities
Provide shaded facilities
Accessibility
Provide access to low-cost
transportation options
Provide access
to historically
underrepresented areas
Improve air quality
throughout the City
Provide comfortable
connections within 0.25
mile of each school within
the unified school district
Equity
Provide active
transportation
facilities and amenities
to encourage
active transportation
Provide paved paths
to enhance comfort
for pedestrians
Provide enhanced
separation between
vehicles and bicyclists
on high-speed roadways
Choice
Figure 2. Vision and Goal Diagram
6SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

1.106 PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
This ATP was developed through a holistic process, including an extensive existing conditions analysis of San Marcos, a SRTS evaluation, an engaging community outreach initiative, and a rigorous prioritization process, as summarized in Figure 3. The plan fully encompasses the 5 E’s of planning: engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation.

1.106.1 Literature Review and Existing Conditions Assessment To begin the ATP process, local and regional mobility documents were reviewed to identify relevant active transportation projects and policies. An existing conditions analysis was conducted to evaluate current demographics, mobility patterns, bicycle and pedestrian network gaps, roadway characteristics, and safety improvement needs. Results of the analysis are summarized in Chapter 2.100 and detailed in Appendix A.

1.106.2 Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Element
The SRTS element complements the ATP by providing San Marcos students with comfortable facilities for active transportation within a quarter-mile radius of all 18 schools in the San Marcos Unified School District (SMUSD). School surveys and walk audits were conducted at all SMUSD schools to document existing infrastructure; observe pedestrian, bicyclist, and vehicle patterns; identify infrastructure deficiencies; and develop active transportation recommendations. The SRTS Element is summarized in Chapter 4.100 and detailed in Appendix D.

PRIORITIZED

PROJECT LIST

FUNDING

GUIDANCE

IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN
Recommended
Networks
Policies and
Programs
Safe Routes
to School
Element
Stakeholder/
Agency
Coordination
Existing
Conditions
Assessment
Literature
Review
Community
Engagement
Figure 3. Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks Policies and Programs Plan Development Process

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
7 1.106.3 Community Engagement
The City involved community members in the planning process through community workshops, local outreach events, and a public website with an interactive feedback map. The purpose was to inform community members of the planning process, listen to their views on active transportation opportunities and challenges in San Marcos, and to determine community interest in collaborating to address active transportation challenges. This engagement process is summarized in Chapter 3.100 and detailed in Appendix C.

1.106.4 Stakeholder/Agency Coordination
The City met with relevant local agencies, including Caltrans, City of Escondido, City of Vista, City of Carlsbad, California State University San Marcos (CSUSM), and SMUSD, to present the draft recommended active transportation networks and to solicit input on corridors that continue into other agencies’ jurisdictions.

The purpose of these meetings was to ensure agencies impacted by the ATP recommendations agree on a vision for corridors that cross jurisdictional boundaries and to ensure a coordinated effort in implementing projects on these corridors.

1.106.5 Active Transportation Network Development and Prioritization Projects, programs, and policy recommendations were developed, evaluated, and prioritized based on alignment with the City’s goals and potential active transportation benefits for people of all ages, backgrounds, and abilities. Criteria were developed and weighted to measure each project’s ability to achieve the goals developed for this ATP. Recommendations were strategically bundled and prioritized to facilitate future grant funding applications.

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
8 1.107 COMPONENTS OF ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
Active transportation planning uses a variety of physical infrastructure, policy, and technology improvements to encourage and facilitate walking and biking.

1.107.1 Bicycle Classification System
Various types of bicycle facilities may be implemented for different types of roadways, bicyclists, and trip types. The following classifications are included in this plan (see Figure 4):
■ CLASS I MULTI-USE PATHS are paved right-of-way for exclusive use by bicyclists, pedestrians, and/ or those using non-motorized modes of travel. Class I paths are located outside of the roadway’s curb-to-curb width. Recreational users and more inexperienced riders tend to prefer Class I paths for their level of protection and separation from moving vehicles. ■ CLASS II BIKE LANES are defined by pavement markings and signage used to allocate a portion of the curb-to-curb roadway for exclusive bicycle travel. Wherever feasible, bike lanes should include additional pavement markings or buffer space to separate the bike lane from the adjacent travel or parking lane; these are called “buffered” Class II bike lanes.

Class II bike lanes are most appropriate for lower speed, lower volume roadways. ■ CLASS III BIKE ROUTES share roadway space with motor vehicle traffic within the same travel lane and are typically designated with signs or shared lane markings. A bike route with enhanced traffic calming or volume reduction elements can also be considered a bicycle boulevard. Class III routes are the least comfortable facility type for bicyclists, and most appropriate for low-speed, low-volume local roadways, or on short, constrained segments of higher quality facilities. ■ CLASS IV BIKEWAYS are similar to Class II buffered bike lanes; however, a Class IV bikeway includes vertical protection to create a physical barrier between bicyclists and vehicles. Class IV bikeways can be one-way, serving only one direction of travel, or two-way, with both directions of travel on the same side of the roadway. Class IV bikeways are the most comfortable dedicated bike facilities and can be implemented on higher speed, higher volume roadways.

Class III
Bicycle Route
or Boulevard
Class II
Bike Lane
Class II Buffered
Bike Lane with
Striped Buffer
Class IV
Separated/Protected
Bikeway (One-way
or Two-way)
Class I
Multi-use/
Shared-use Path

LESS COMFORT MORE COMFORT

BIKE FACILITY CLASSIFICATIONS
Figure 4. Bike Facility Classifications

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
9 A dedicated intersection creates dedicated
paths of travel for bicyclists and pedestrians
through an intersection when there is insufficient
space for vertical protection or a full setback.

Protected and dedicated intersections are
frequently designed on streets with buffered
or separated bicycle facilities. Bike boxes and
bicycle crossings, also known as cross-bikes,
can be considered.

DEDICATED INTERSECTION

1.107.2 Bicycle Intersection Concepts
A bicycle network includes infrastructure and intersection improvements focused on reducing vehicle-bike conflicts and increasing bicycle mobility and safety. At intersections, larger turning radii and wider lanes can create an environment for vehicles to make turns at faster speeds, increasing the potential for conflict with bicyclists and the severity of injuries in the case of a collision. Furthermore, bicycle lanes may not extend to the intersection where bicycle-related collisions are more frequent. From 2015 to 2019, over 60% of bicyclerelated collisions in San Marcos occurred at an intersection.

The intersection design process must carefully contemplate bicycle safety and comfort to ensure bicyclists can complete their trip from start to finish using high-quality facilities. The following intersection improvements could be considered during design of the projects recommended in this ATP. The active transportation design world is continuously evolving and design best practices may shift as features are tested and implemented to improve comfort and safety for bicyclists. Therefore the latest versions of bike design guidance from National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) should be consulted during each project’s design and implementation phase.

BICYCLE SIGNALS Bicycle signals create a signal phase
at intersections that is specifically for bicyclists
and does not conflict with vehicle movements.

A bike signal must be installed on the far-side
of an intersection with red, yellow, and green
indicators in a bicycle shape, while a nearside signal is optional to improve visibility.

Bike detction should also be considered as an
enhancement to the bike signal installation.

Where feasible, bicyclists should not be forced
to dismount for detection.

From 2015 to 2019, over 60% of bicycle-related collisions in San Marcos occurred at an intersection.

Source: NACTO, San Jose

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
10 A two-stage left-turn box designates an area
at a signalized intersection where bicyclists can
queue in a right-side bicycle facility to increase
comfort when making a left turn. Two-stage
left-turn boxes are typically provided when
a protected or dedicated intersection is not
feasible and the roadway experiences high
vehicle volumes or a large number of bicyclists
that make left turns.

TWO-STAGE LEFT-TURN BOX
A bike box designates an area in front of
the vehicular lanes at a signalized intersection.

The bike box increases bicyclist visibility by
allowing bicyclists to get ahead of queued
vehicles during a red signal phase. This
treatment can help avoid a “right-hook” conflict
between bicyclists and right-turning vehicles.

BIKE BOX
A protected intersection physically separates
bicyclists and pedestrians from vehicle traffic at
an intersection to reduce areas of conflict with
vehicles. Protected intersections have separated
crossing facilities to reduce crossing distance,
enhance pedestrian and bicyclist visibility to
vehicles, and encourage lower speeds.

PROTECTED INTERSECTION

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
11 1.107.3 Bicycle Amenities
Various facilities can support bicyclists at the beginning and end of their trips, such as bicycle parking, showers, and changing rooms.

Secure and accessible bicycle parking is essential for
bicyclists who need secure storage between bicycle trips.

Without proper storage, bicycles may be damaged or
stolen, so providing secure, well-lit parking facilities makes each trip more comfortable and convenient for riders.

Having covered facilities is ideal to provide protection from the elements. Bicycle parking should be secure and accessible along a bike network or near trip destinations for easy access. Bicycle parking comes in a variety of
forms depending on length of use. For example, inverted U and post-and-ring bicycle racks provide short-term
parking while, bicycle lockers physically enclose a bicycle to provide secure parking for high-value bicycles and
long-term parking.

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
12 1.107.4 Traffic Calming Strategies
Safe speeds are important to help protect the most vulnerable users of the road: pedestrians and bicyclists.

Speed management can be achieved through educational, enforcement, and engineering traffic calming strategies that encourage motorists to drive at lower speeds. The City’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy Guidelines dated August 2023 provide a process for members of the public to request a traffic calming evaluation by the City on roadways that meet specific criteria. The policy draws upon evidence-based research and guidelines in the industry to:
■ Reduce speed or volume of motor vehicles on residential streets; ■ Improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists; ■ Reduce the number and severity of accidents;
■ Create a safer and more livable community; and
■ Encourage drivers to use roadways as intended and to be good neighbors.

The policy document also provides a comprehensive toolbox of context-sensitive solutions that can be implemented to address traffic-related concerns including: narrow lanes, turn restriction signs, speed cushions, curb radius reductions, traffic circles, bulb-outs, median barrier diverters.

1.107.5 Accommodating Pedestrians
The pedestrian network is composed of sidewalks, trails, and comfortable mid-block crossings. The overall pedestrian environment can be improved through various pedestrian treatments.

Pedestrian signal enhancements improve an intersection’s signal timing, allowing for a more comfortable pedestrian experience. For example, a lead pedestrian interval (LPI) is a signal enhancement in which pedestrians receive a green crosswalk signal three to seven seconds before vehicles. This signal timing increases pedestrian visibility and re-emphasizes pedestrians’ right-of-way in a crosswalk.

LEAD PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL

TRAFFIC CIRCLE TURN RESTRICTION SIGNS
13SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
FENCED MEDIAN Fenced medians should be considered if other solutions for deterring mid-block crossings are deemed infeasible. Many times, pedestrians cross at uncontrolled mid-block locations because there is a desire line that should be evaluated. A desire line is the desired path of travel between two land uses. A fenced median can direct pedestrians to a preferred crossing and prevent mid-block crossing activity if needed. This solution is most applicable on high-speed, high-volume roadways adjacent to a destination with large amounts of pedestrian flow at one time, such as a school or entertainment venue.

ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT Treatments such as wider sidewalks and placemaking can create an enhanced pedestrian environment that improves the
character and function of the pedestrian space. Placemaking provides a creative opportunity and use of public right-of-way that incentivizes the pedestrian mode of travel. Placemaking invites artistic, cultural, inspirational, and communal collaboration of a gathering area within an enhanced pedestrian environment.

Landscape buffers are encouraged wherever feasible to provide separation between the roadway and pedestrians.

BULB OUTS Curb extensions, also known as bulb outs, extend the curb line into a roadway at a crossing location. Curb extensions can increase the area available for pedestrians to safely wait before crossing an intersection, reduce crossing distance, and increase pedestrian visibility. Curb extensions can be semi-permanent (striping and delineators) or permanent (sidewalk with curb and gutter). These features are highly encouraged to be implemented where feasible throughout the City dependent on roadway characteristics.

MID-BLOCK CROSSINGS Mid-block crossing enhancements provide for convenient pedestrian crossings with improved visibility and advanced warning at an uncontrolled location. Mid-block crossing designs must be appropriate for the characteristics of the roadway, provide adequate sight and stopping distance, and should consider the following enhancements depending upon the speed and volumes on the roadway:
■ Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons (RRFB)
■ Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacons (PHB)
■ Overhead pedestrian signals
■ High-visibility crosswalks
■ Advanced yield lines
■ LED-enhanced
flashing signs
■ Median refuge islands
A site distance evaluation must be performed prior to installation of a mid-block crossing.

Crossings at controlled intersections (signalized or
stop-controlled) should also consider high-visibility striping and median refuge islands.
14SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The Existing Conditions Report analyzed the current state of active transportation, transit, and vehicle trips in San Marcos today (see Appendix A).

2.101 WALKING AND BIKING IN SAN MARCOS

2.101.1 Existing Facilities to Support Biking
A majority (34 lane miles, 78%) of bicycle facilities in San Marcos are Class II bike lanes. Many of these bike lanes are implemented on high-speed, high-volume roadways. For example, 89% of roads in San Marcos are considered high-stress environments for bicyclists. Bicycle connections across SR-78 are lacking, which creates a barrier for walking and biking. Class I multi-use paths with designated bicycle facilities, such as the Inland Rail Trail and various multi-use paths adjacent to major roads, make up 21.9 lane miles or 20% of the City’s bicycle facilities, while 2% are Class III bike routes.

The Inland Rail Trail provides a vital Class I east-west connection across the city. However, access to the trail system is limited and requires users to cross major arterials and/or the SPRINTER rail line. Additionally, the city lacks a protected north-south bicycle facility that spans the city.

2.101.2 Existing Facilities to Support Walking
The pedestrian network lacks infrastructure connectivity. Many areas of San Marcos are missing sidewalk and lacking Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant curb ramps in older neighborhoods.

In conjunction with sidewalk facilities, the City of San Marcos has an interconnected trail system of approximately 72 miles. There are currently 55 miles of off-road multi-use trails designated for non-motorized commuting and recreational use.

2.101.3 Connection to Land Uses
The proposed ATP mobility networks must complement the existing and proposed adjacent land uses and serve important community destinations. The Existing Conditions Report provides a map of existing land uses including destinations such as schools, shopping centers, and major transit hubs. These maps help identify where bicycle and pedestrian facilities could be most beneficial.

The City is in the process of updating the General Plan including the land use element. Therefore, Figure 2-5 of the 2012 General Plan currently serves as the land use plan. The ATP project team coordinated closely with the General Plan team and utilized the draft land use plan update to inform the recommended networks in this ATP.

2.100 SAN MARCOS TODAY
15SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

2.101.4 Safety Trends Among People Walking and Bicycling From 2015 to 2019, there were 83 pedestrian-related and 69 bicycle-related collisions in San Marcos.

Of the 83 pedestrian-related collisions in the study period, 28% resulted in a severe injury or fatality.

Pedestrian-related collisions comprised 4% of total reported collisions and accounted for 75% of all fatal collisions in the five-year study period.

A high concentration of pedestrian-related collisions occurred on Rancho Santa Fe Road, Mission Road, and San Marcos Boulevard. The San Marcos Boulevard and Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection, adjacent to San Marcos High School, had the highest number of pedestrian-related collisions, with four collisions in the five-year study period.

A high concentration of bicycle-related collisions occurred on San Marcos Boulevard, North Las Posas Road, Mission Road, and Rancho Santa Fe Road. The intersection of Mission Road and North Las Posas Road had the highest number of bicycle-related collisions with four bicycle-related collisions in the five-year study period.

The City of San Marcos supports and aligns itself with the goals of Vision Zero. Vision Zero aims to eliminate all traffic fatalities and serious injuries while increasing mobility through changes to transportation systems.

Figure 5. Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions (2015-2019)

2.102 TRANSIT IN SAN MARCOS
The SPRINTER hybrid rail runs east-west through San Marcos with stops at Palomar College, San Marcos Civic Center, and CSUSM. The Inland Rail Trail provides direct east-west access along the rail line; however, existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities lack quality first- and last-mile connections to the transit stops.
83 Pedestrian Collisions
6 resulted in fatalities
17 resulted in severe injuries
57% occurred at intersections
High pedestrian collision corridors:
■ Rancho Santa Fe Road
■ Mission Road
■ San Marcos Boulevard

PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS
69 Bicycle Collisions
0 resulted in fatalities
11 resulted in severe injuries
61% occurred at intersections
High bicycle collision corridors:
■ North Las Posas Road
■ Mission Road
■ San Marcos Boulevard

BICYCLE COLLISIONS

2.103 DRIVING IN SAN MARCOS
San Marcos is a car-dependent city, with 72% of residents using a vehicle for short trips (less than five miles).

Most major roads in San Marcos have high speed limits (40+ mph), creating barriers for moving people across the City by active modes of transportation. Additionally, most schools in San Marcos are located on high-speed roads, which poses concerns for young students. 16SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The City of San Marcos engaged with community members and stakeholders throughout the ATP process to better understand their unique experiences. From fall 2022 to summer 2023, the City of San Marcos provided opportunities for community members to get involved and provide feedback.

3.101 PROJECT WEBSITE
In order to reach those that were unable to attend in-person events, the City developed an ATP website with an interactive map for location-specific feedback. The San Marcos ATP website (www.sanmarcosatp.com) was the online hub for all information and updates related to the ATP. The website provided supporting materials in English and Spanish, such as project details, project schedule, announcements, and information.

As a vital source of community feedback, the website provided community members with an interactive map. This map allowed users to select a location in San Marcos and detail their experience with active transportation, identify active transportation barriers, and/or provide recommendations. Website visitors are able to place different color pins based on the type of comment: blue pins represent comments related to walking in San Marcos, purple pins for biking, green pins indicate ADA comments, and yellow pins for other types of comments.

3.100 PUBLIC OUTREACH
17SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

3.102 OUTREACH EVENTS
The City held two community outreach events—one in the fall 2022 and one in the spring 2023—to connect with community members, gain insight into active transportation needs, and promote attendance at subsequent workshops.

3.102.1 Outreach Event #1: San Marcos Harvest Fest
On October 9, 2022, the City operated a booth at the annual San Marcos Harvest Fest along Via Vera Cruz to meet with community members and hear their feedback regarding enhanced pedestrian crossings, bicycle parking, designated bicycle facilities and more. The Harvest Fest booth allowed community members to learn more about the future of active transportation and encouraged residents to provide input on poster board surveys about what elements would best support their day-to-day experiences getting around San Marcos.

Based on the poster board surveys, in general, community members:
■ Primarily travel in cars for short trips of less than 5 miles, and ■ Would like to see a variety of pedestrian and bicycle improvements including wider sidewalks, traffic calming, and dedicated bicycle facilities.

3.102.2 Outreach Event #2: San Marcos Spring Fling
On April 2, 2023, the City operated a booth at the 31st annual Spring Fling along Via Vera Cruz to connect with community members and get feedback on locations for proposed bike infrastructure, bike parking, mid-block crossings, traffic calming, and more. The event was strategically scheduled to promote attendance at the second community workshop in May.

From the poster board surveys, community members would generally like:
■ To see more protected bicycle facilities (Class IV or Class I facilities) on major roads in San Marcos, and ■ Secure bike parking near activity centers.
18SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

3.103 COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS
The City held two community workshops at the San Marcos Community Center to inform residents of the ATP’s progress and seek feedback regarding potential improvements.

3.103.1 Workshop #1: Fall 2022
The first workshop was held in the evening of November 15, 2022 to inform attendees about ATP concepts and describe the background, purpose, and schedule for the plan. Residents and commuters who live, work, and travel in the San Marcos area were able to learn about the principles of active transportation and how to choose and fasten a bike helmet properly to maximize protection. Eleven community members provided comments about where they would like to see improvements in the City and participated in polls, Q&A, and breakout discussions. This open discussion allowed the project team to gain insight into existing challenges and hesitations with active forms of transportation in San Marcos.

At this public workshop, community members were generally:
■ Interested in improved connectivity to schools
■ Concerned about gaps in the network
■ Concerned about high-speed roads posing barriers for walking and biking to key destinations ■ Interested in quick-build solutions to active transportation challenges

3.103.2 Workshop #2: Spring 2023
The second workshop was held the evening of May 3, 2023 to hear community feedback regarding the initial recommendations for the pedestrian network, bicycle network, and programs and policies. Eight community members participated in polls, Q&A, and breakout discussions regarding the draft pedestrian and bicycle networks. These conversations between community members and the project team provided valuable insight into concerns and community visions for active transportation in San Marcos to inform the subsequent draft network.

At this public workshop, community members were generally interested in:
■ Bicycle and pedestrian crossings for the SR-78 freeway ■ E-bike policies and vision
■ Child safety when walking or biking to and from school 19SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The Safe Routes to School element of this ATP includes two main components: walk audits and hand raise surveys. The walk audits evaluated pedestrian and bicycle safety, accessibility, and comfort within a quartermile of each school boundary. The hand raise surveys were distributed to each school by the SMUSD to conduct during class by asking students to indicate the mode of transportation used to arrive and depart from school that day. The possible answers included walking, biking, using a family vehicle/driving, carpooling, or taking transit.

4.101 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLANS BY SCHOOL
The City performed walk audits during pick-up time at 18 elementary, middle, and high schools within SMUSD.

The walk audits were scheduled in coordination with the district as summarized in Table 1.

4.100 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL
(SRTS) ELEMENT
20SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The schools were contacted by SMUSD, and parents were notified via flyers using PeachJar. Parents were invited to attend; on multiple occasions, parents participated in the walk audit.

Each walk audit began with a meeting between the Kimley-Horn team and the principal, assistant principal, or other school staff member. During this meeting, the school staff member raised walking and biking concerns for off-campus biking, walking, and transit modes. After the team gathered this information, the walk audit was performed along public roads within a quarter-mile radius of the school.

4.102 SRTS WALK AUDIT MEMORANDUMS
Appendix D provides a walk audit memorandum for each school that includes a description of the school, the total number of students at the school, the walk and bike score for the area, and the number of walk audit participants.

Each memorandum provides a summary of safety concerns observed during the walk audit with accompanying site photos to highlight existing conditions. These observations, along with preliminary field recommendations, are detailed in the SRTS walk audit map at the end of each memo as seen in Appendix D.

DATE SCHOOL PICK-UP TIMES KIMLEY-HORN WALK AUDIT
Wednesday, September 21, 2022 San Marcos High School 3:19 PM 3:00 PM - 3:50 PM Monday, September 26, 2022
Woodland Park Middle School 2:25 PM 1:50 PM - 2:40 PM
Mission Hills High School 3:19 PM 2:55 PM - 3:45 PM
Tuesday, September 27, 2022 Double Peak School 2:38 PM 2:25 PM - 3:15 PM Thursday, September 29, 2022
Twin Oaks Elementary School 3:10 PM 2:50 PM - 3:40 PM
Twin Oaks High School 3:30 PM 3:00 PM - 3:50 PM
Tuesday, October 11, 2022
La Costa Meadows Elementary 3:10-3:25 PM 2:50 PM - 3:40 PM Carrillo Elementary School 3:10-3:25 PM 2:50 PM - 3:40 PM Thursday, October 13, 2022
Joli Ann Leichtag ES 2:45 - 3:00 PM 2:20 PM - 3:30 PM
Discovery Elementary School 2:45 - 3:00 PM 2:20 PM - 3:30 PM Monday, October 24, 2022
San Elijo Middle School 2:25 PM 2:00 PM - 2:50 PM
San Elijo Elementary School 2:45 PM 2:20 PM - 3:10 PM
Tuesday, October 25, 2022
San Marcos Middle School 3:10 PM 2:50 PM - 3:40 PM
San Marcos Elementary School 3:10 PM 2:50 PM - 3:40 PM
Tuesday, November 1, 2022
La Mirada Academy 2:40 PM 2:20 PM - 3:10 PM
Paloma Elementary School 3:10-3:25 PM 2:50 PM - 3:50 PM Tuesday, November 3, 2022
Knob Hill Elementary School 2:45 - 3:30 PM 2:30 PM - 3:50 PM Richland Elementary School 3:10 PM 2:50 PM - 3:40 PM
Table 1. SRTS Walk Audit Schedule
21SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

5.100 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter details the recommended bicycle and pedestrian networks, policies, and programs that complement infrastructure improvements, along with the strategy used to develop these recommendations.

5.101 STRATEGY
The active transportation recommendations in this plan were developed using the following strategies:

Gap closure: The recommended bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure aims to close gaps in the existing network to provide facilities for a complete active transportation trip.

Existing gaps, such as across SR-78 in San Marcos, create barriers to biking and walking across the city.

First- and last-mile connections: The first- and last-mile connection refers to the portion of a trip between a transit stop or mobility node and the ultimate destination. Providing quality facilities for the first- and last-mile connections improves the overall connectivity of the transportation network and encourages people to utilize the transit system. This ATP focuses on providing quality facilities between transit stops and key destinations such as schools and parks.

Minimize conflicts: The ATP strives to minimize potential conflict points between vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians which occur when these entities cross paths at intersections, driveways, crossings, or other locations. This conflict reduction can be achieved by providing separated or protected facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians or otherwise reducing the number of conflict points.

High-quality trunklines: The ATP recommendations create a network with comfortable, high-quality facilities on major routes to facilitate connections to major destinations.

Low-stress alternative routes: As an alternative to facilities on major roads, the recommended network provides low-stress routes on roads with lower vehicle volumes to provide a comfortable alternative to the major trunklines.

Equitable implementation: The recommendations in this ATP aim to provide quality active transportation facilities to historically underserved communities within San Marcos, connecting people of all backgrounds to their desired destinations. 22SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

5.102 BIKE NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS

5.102.1 Overview
Recommendations for future bicycle classifications for each roadway were broken down into interim and ultimate conditions. The interim bicycle network is composed of recommendations that can be accomplished in the near term without requiring redevelopment, right-of-way or easements, or major environmental documentation/permitting. The ultimate network contains long-term recommendations that can be completed over time as the City redevelops and right-of-way is acquired. In some cases, an ultimate improvement may be constructed first, rendering the interim improvement unnecessary.

The interim and ultimate recommended bicycle networks are provided in Figure 6 and Figure 7, respectively. Table 2 summarizes the lane mileage of each bicycle classification per scenario. Refer to Chapter 1.107.1 for a description of the different bicycle classifications. In some cases, Class II or III facilities are recommended for the interim condition due to various constraints, and later recommended to be upgraded to Class I or IV facilities under ultimate conditions. This is evident in the reduction in lane miles for Class II and III facilities when comparing interim and ultimate conditions.

Table 2. Lane Miles per Bicycle Classifications

EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERIM ULTIMATE
Class III 2.7 19.3 13.8
Class II 102.0 103.6 39.7
Class IV 0.0 24.5 87.3
Class I 5.3 12.3 23.5
+ 110.9 Total Miles
Protected Class I and
Class IV facilities

ULTIMATE BICYCLE NETWORK
+ 36.8 Miles
Protected Class I
and Class IV facilities

INTERIM BICYCLE NETWORK

5.102.2 Developer Requirements
Developers will be required to implement the ultimate bicycle network recommendations when considering setbacks, frontage improvements, and design, and may be required to construct the ultimate facilities based upon roadway characteristics, adjacent facilities, and the ability to design and construct appropriate transitions into the ultimate improvements. The following considerations should also be taken into account by the developer. ■ Developers may be required to extend improvements to or through the adjacent intersection in order to implement frontage improvements appropriately. ■ Additional off-site improvements may be required to be constructed to ensure comfortable transitions of bicycle facilities which may come in the form of striping, intersection treatments, and other improvements required by the City. Intersection treatments and improvements may include the following but are not limited to: signal modifications for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles; or bicycle detection, striping, and signage.
23SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
■ For two-way bicycle facilities, such as a Class I multi-use path or a Class IV two-way bikeway, the City may require a developer to construct or provide setbacks for facilities that the ATP identifies on the opposite side of the roadway from the project. Locations of desired facilities may, in some cases, be placed on either side of the roadway, at the discretion of the City. ■ For Class IV facilities, the City Engineer may require implementation of a protected intersection. ■ Implementation of parallel facilities may be required by the City of San Marcos as opportunities arise to create similar connectivity on other routes.
■ The City may require other connectors between the high-level infrastructure shown in this plan in order to ensure the implementation of a seamless network.

5.102.3 Citywide Projects
Inland Rail Trail Access and Wayfinding
Points of access to the Inland Rail Trail (IRT) are limited. New or improved entry/exit points to the IRT can improve connectivity for active transportation users. Additionally, a citywide signage system using the branding and accessibility guidance of the City’s Entry & Wayfinding Signage Master Plan will provide consistent and clear direction regarding how to enter and use the IRT and other key ATP facilities.

End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle parking and long-term storage are essential components of a bicycle trip. The map in Figure 8 indicates general locations where bicyclists could benefit from end-of-trip bicycle parking. During the first public meeting, bicycle security was identified as one of the barriers that prevent community members from choosing to bike. A majority of the locations on the map were identified by community members during the outreach process as desirable locations for bike parking.

Bicycle parking is proposed at every mobility node location, as described in section 5.105, which will allow people on bikes to easily transition to other transportation modes. Additionally, NCTD provides designated areas to store bikes on the SPRINTER for ease of transition between modes of transportation. Section 5.106.3 provides policies and programs related to bike parking implementation.

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
24 Figure 6. Proposed Interim Bicycle Facilities Map
Legend

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
25 Figure 7. Proposed Ultimate Bicycle Facilities Map
Legend
26SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

5.103 PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS

5.103.1 Overview
Similar to the recommended bicycle network, the recommended pedestrian network is composed of interim and ultimate projects. The pedestrian networks identify a variety of infrastructure improvements including adding sidewalk, providing mid-block crossings, closing sidewalk gaps, enhancing the pedestrian environment (widening sidewalk, installing landscape buffers, and implementing placemaking), installing fenced medians, and constructing Class I multi-use paths. This ATP proposes to add 26 linear miles of sidewalks and pathways to the city’s pedestrian network.

5.103.2 Pedestrian Recommendations
Interim and ultimate pedestrian recommendations for each segment in San Marcos are listed in Figure 9.

5.104 TRANSIT RECOMMENDATIONS
The City will continue to coordinate with NCTD, SANDAG, Caltrans, and other transit agencies to improve transit connections through increased transit frequency, ridership, and availability of alternative pay strategies, such as tap to pay and bus pass programs (s mentioned in Chapter 5.107).

As mentioned in the strategy section of this report, providing first and last mile connections to transit is an important element of a successful active transportation network that is accessible to all. Chapter 6 discusses the process for prioritizing projects identified in this Plan. Projects within close proximity to transit stops, especially Sprinter stations are heavily weighted to help prioritize projects that improve the first and lastmile connections to transit.

For any bus stops located in a Specific Plan Area or in an area designated for placemaking, enhanced pedestrian environment, or other critical multi-modal connection, transit stop enhancements including shelter upgrades should be considered. These enhancements are subject to NCTD approval.

5.105 TRAFFIC CALMING RECOMMENDATIONS
As discussed in the Existing Conditions Report, many of the city’s major roads have speed limits of 40 mph or greater and community members have expressed concerned about high speeds on a variety of San Marcos roadways. The traffic calming recommendations in the Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy target qualifying streets with a palette of traffic calming tools. The NTMP toolbox aims to reduce vehicle speeds, which will create a more comfortable environment for pedestrian and bicyclists (see Chapter 1.107.4 for details about each traffic calming strategy). The NTMP toolbox should be consulted when implementing projects from the recommended pedestrian and bicycle networks.

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
27 78
Woodland Pky
San Marcos Blvd
Barham Dr
Nordahl Rd
Rancho Santa Fe Rd
Tw ni Oaks Valley Rd
Borden Rd
Grand Ave
Bennett Ave
Mission Rd
Craven Rd
San Elijo Rd
Linda Vista Dr
Vista
Carlsbad
Escondido
Woodward St
Mulberry Dr
Rock Springs Rd
Fulton Rd
La Cienega Rd
La Mirada Dr
Discovery St
Oleander Ave
Melrose Dr
Borden Rd
Las Posas Rd
Mission Rd
Los Vallecitos Blvd
Rancheros Dr
Rose Ranch Rd
Tw ni Oaks Val el y Rd
Santa Fe Ave
Vineyard Rd
Knob Hill Rd
San Marcos
San Marcos Unified School
District
Schools
SPRINTER Stations

SPRINTER
Inland Rail Trail (IRT)
Bicycle Parking*
Key Jurisdiction Connections
CSUSM
City of Carlsbad
City of Escondido
City of Vista
0 0.5 1 Miles
0 1 2 Kilometers
LEGEND
*Locations shown are
approximate and subject to
change
Figure 8. Proposed Bike Parking Map
Legend
78 Woodlan d P ky
San M arcos B l vd
B arh am Dr
N ordah l Rd
R an ch o Santa Fe Rd
Twi n Oaks Val l ey Rd
Borden Rd
Gran d Ave
B en n ett Ave
M i s s i on Rd
Craven Rd
San E l i jo Rd
L i n d a Vi sta Dr
Vi sta
Ca rl sbad
E scon d i do
Woodward St
M u l berry Dr
Rock Spr i n g s Rd
Fu l ton Rd
La C i en eg a Rd
La M i rad a Dr
D i scovery St
O l ean d er Ave
M e l rose Dr
Borden Rd
La s Posa s Rd
M i s s i on Rd
Los Va l l ec itos B l vd
R an ch eros Dr
Rose R an ch Rd
Twi n Oaks Val l ey Rd
Santa Fe Ave
Vi n eyard Rd
Kn ob H i l l Rd
San M arcos
Sa n M arcos U n ifi ed Sch oo l D i str i ct
Schools
SP R I N TE R Sta ti on s

SPR I N TER
I n l a n d R a i l Tra i l ( I RT)
B i cycle Park i n g*
Key Ju ri sd iction Con n ection s
CSUSM
C i ty of Car l sb a d
C i ty of E scon d i d o
C i ty of Vi sta
0 0.5 1 Mi les
0 1 2 Ki lometers
LEGEND
* Loca ti on s sh own are ap proxim a te
a n d su bject to ch a n ge

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
28 Figure 9. Proposed Pedestrian Interim & Ultimate Networks Map Legend
29SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

5.106 MOBILITY HUB RECOMMENDATIONS

5.106.1 Regional Mobility Hub
The regional transportation authority, SANDAG, defines mobility hubs as “places where transit and other shared mobility services, amenities, and supporting technology converge to offer a seamless travel experience at locations that are within close proximity of multiple key destinations.” Mobility hubs help communities address the first- and last-mile gaps. This phrase refers to the struggle many public transportation riders face while traveling between their transit stop and their origin or final destination. SANDAG’s 2021 Regional Plan identifies the City of San Marcos as a major employment center mobility hub. As part of this ATP, the City has evaluated the need for more localized mobility hubs and other first- and last- mile solutions.

5.106.2 Local Micromobility
Figure 10 indicates where the proposed Mobility Intensity Zones are located. These are locations where the highest intensity of micromobility demand and mobility choices is anticipated, and the level of intensity decreases when moving awa y from the core into the more suburban areas. Note that future micromobility should consider public nuisance concerns through geofencing or Operations & Maintenance requirements for micromobility providers. The implementation of micromobility options (small, lightweight, individual vehicles such as e-scooters, bikeshare) combined with the implementation of the proposed pedestrian and bicycle networks will help make San Marcos a more pedestrian- and bike-friendly city. The majority of micromobility strategies would be focused in and around the downtown core area of the city where there is high demand for active transportation. Ideally, there will be a sense of arrival upon entering the downtown core area, and mobility options will help make alternative modes more feasible within the core.

5.106.3 Mobility Nodes
This plan recommends local mobility nodes along the downtown core perimeter. Figure 11 indicates potential locations to consider implementing these mobility nodes, which were chosen based on the concentration of activity and proximity to multiple key destinations. Each mobility node can be customized to include varying levels of mobility-supportive components such e-bike charging stations, free wi-fi, wayfinding kiosks, ATP materials, designated micromobility parking areas, and/or bikeshare stations. The nodes can initially include core services and expand to other services over time.

5.106.4 On-Demand NEV Microtransit
Microtransit options could be considered by the City in the future. Microtransit allows users to order a ride on-demand within a designated zone, similar to Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) like Uber or Lyft. Ride-on-demand can be provided by Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs) that are battery powered to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These trips are usually shared with other riders and can be requested (or hailed) using a mobile application or a telephone call. Microtransit provides flexibility for customers looking to travel short distances (1 to 2 miles) without needing to drive.

In developing a plan for microtransit zones, the City should consider providing connections between high-quality transit stations such as the Palomar College and Civic Center SPRINTER stations, with any of the following populations identified in the Existing Conditions Assessment:
■ High percentage of households with access to zero vehicles ■ Populations 75 years or older
■ High percentage of internal short trips per square mile ■ High percentage of school-age students
■ High percentage of low-income households
These populations would benefit most from options that provide first- and last-mile connections for residents to transit.

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
30 Figure 10. Proposed Mobility Intensity Zones
Legend

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
31 Figure 11. Proposed Mobility Node Locations
Legend
78 Woodlan d P ky
San M arcos B l vd
B arh am Dr
N ordah l Rd
R an ch o Santa Fe Rd
Twi n Oaks Val l ey Rd
Borden Rd
Gran d Ave
B en n ett Ave
M i s s i on Rd
Craven Rd
San E l i jo Rd
L i n d a Vi sta Dr
Vi sta
Ca rl sbad
E scon d i do
Woodward St
M u l berry Dr
Rock Spr i n g s Rd
Fu l ton Rd
La C i en eg a Rd
La M i rad a Dr
D i scovery St
O l ean d er Ave
M e l rose Dr
Borden Rd
La s Posa s Rd
M i s s i on Rd
Los Va l l ec itos B l vd
R an ch eros Dr
Rose R an ch Rd
Twi n Oaks Val l ey Rd
Santa Fe Ave
Vi n eyard Rd
Kn ob H i l l Rd
San M arcos
Sa n M arcos U n ifi ed Sch oo l D i str i ct
Schools
SP R I N TE R Sta ti on s

SPR I N TER
I n l a n d R a i l Tra i l ( I RT)
Key Ju ri sd iction Con n ection s
CSUSM
C i ty of Car l sb a d
C i ty of E scon d i d o
C i ty of Vi sta
P roposed M ob i l i ty N ode Location s*
M ob i l i ty N od e
0 0.5 1 Mi les
0 1 2 Ki lometers
LEGEND
* Loca ti on s sh own are ap proxim a te
a n d su bject to ch a n ge
32SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

5.107 PROGRAMS / POLICIES
This ATP recommends policies and programs that align with the 5 E’s of planning to provide a comprehensive set of actionable solutions to improve active transportation in the City of San Marcos.

5.107.1 Education
As e-bikes with high speeds become more
popular, education on safety becomes
increasingly vital. Assemblies remind
students to be aware of their surroundings
and practice proper bike etiquette, like
signaling. Workshops can focus on how
to use new infrastructure like Class IV
bikeways, and RRFBs.

BICYCLE & E-BIKE SAFETY WORKSHOPS & ASSEMBLIES
School or community rides with an
instructor to practice and learn about
safely navigating local neighborhoods.

Consider partnering with bicycle
advocacy groups such as the San Diego
Bike Coalition during these events.

COMMUNITY RIDES

BICYCLE RODEO
These events allow kids to practice real
world biking situations and test basic
rules of the road. The Bradley Bike Park,
which is currently under construction,
could potentially be utilized. These rodeos
can be improved using knowledge from
previous bike rodeos.
33SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

FLYERING

BIKE KITCHEN
Bike tune-up classes teach community
members how to repair bikes. This could
also be expanded to provide resources and
tools to support tune ups regularly.

ONLINE RESOURCES

SAFE ROUTES FOR SENIORS
Provides active transportation tools and
strategies for seniors and education for drivers
Distribute flyers and other informational
materials to students and parents promoting
active transportation and rules of the road.

Create an active transportation page on
the City’s website for educational materials
including an existing bike facilities map.
34SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

5.107.2 Enforcement

E-BIKE EDUCATION

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (SRTS) COORDINATION

COLLABORATE WITH LOCAL POLICE

E-BIKE POLICIES
SRTS Coordinator of SMUSD will collaborate
with the City of San Marcos to refine and
enforce the recommendations.

Install e-bicycle-oriented signage and
implement educational programs for
e-bike right-of-way and appropriate
use. Educational e-bike materials are
currently available on the City’s website.

Regulate user speed of e-bikes to under 20
mph (or designated speed limit) on certain
trails or all trails. The path width may also be
regulated to ensure the comfort of all users.

To teach traffic safety and provide critical
reporting on collisions involving bicyclists
and pedestrians.
35SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

DESIGNATE LAW ENFORCEMENT

TARGETED ENFORCEMENT

CARPOOLING PROGRAM

WALKING SCHOOL BUS PROGRAM
Designate a law enforcement or City liaison
for bike and pedestrian concerns.

Targeted enforcement at locations with a
history of violations or crashes.

5.107.3 Encouragement
A walking school bus involves a group of
children walking together to school under
the supervision of 1-2 adults. This has the
potential to improve safety and encourage
active transportation.

Carpooling can significantly reduce the
amount of traffic during school drop-off and
pick-up hours. This program could include
incentives, such as priority parking spaces and
drop-off lanes.
36SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
BUS PASS PROGRAM:

VEHICLE-TARGETED MESSAGING:

REGIONAL RESOURCES:

SHARE THE ROAD CAMPAIGN:

Changeable message signs at targeted
locations can be placed to encourage
vehicle speed reduction.

Free or discounted bus passes for students
can promote sustainable transportation
in the community.

Encourage drivers to maintain awareness of
bikers and willingly share the road with them.

This can build off the City’s existing “Honk Less,
Wave More, Drive Safe” campaign.

Continue to participate in and promote
regional activities and resources, such as
National Bike Month in May, Bike to Work
Day, and the iCommute Program.
37SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

OPEN STREET EVENTS
FARMER’S MARKET BOOTH

BIKE PARKING SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM

BIKE RACK REQUEST PROGRAM
Open streets events, such as a Ciclovia,
close a street to vehicle traffic to encourage
walking, biking, and rolling for all ages.

A farmer’s market booth staffed by the City of
San Marcos or a local active transportation
group can encourage active transportation
use. Consider bike valet service for event.

Allow community members to request bike
parking for locations with high demand.

Establish a priority list for when funding can
be identified. Construct bike-supportive
amenities with private development and
Capital Improvement projects.

City may consider a policy for authorizing
commercial signs in furtherance of its
governmental functions to be placed upon
bike parking or other select amenities
sponsored by a private business
38SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

ARTISTIC BIKE PARKING

FRAMEWORK
REPORT
COUNTS
Combine bike parking with community
art installations.

Develop an evaluation framework for the
implementation of programs and policies.

5.107.4 Evaluation
Conduct pedestrian and bicycle counts before
and after safety and utilization evaluations
for active transportation improvements.

Release periodic reports on the state of active
transportation to identify which projects from
the plan have been implemented and which
should be prioritized next.
39SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

SIDEWALK GAP CLOSURE

BIKE FACILITIES MAP

SENIOR PEDESTRIAN PHASING

LEAD PEDESTRIAN INTERVALS (LPIS)
Implement a citywide sidewalk gap
closure program to create connected
pedestrian networks.

5.107.5 Engineering
Create an existing bicycle facilities
map, including trails, to highlight active
transportation routes throughout the city.

Implement longer pedestrian phasing for
primary intersections in front of senior
living centers.

Install LPIs at key intersections with
highpedestrian demand, such as in front of
schools, to improve visibility of users when
crossing within a controlled intersection
40SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

IMPLEMENT MAINTENANCE PROGRAM

NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT POLICY
(NTMP) IMPLEMENTATION:

RESURFACING WITH BIKE FACILITIES

STREET DESIGN MANUAL
Develop a maintenance program to remove
debris in bike lanes.and sidewalks. Coordinate
the City’s existing resurfacing program with
potential project implementation from the ATP.

Consider active transportation impacts and
benefits when evaluating or implementing a
project under the NTMP.

Develop Citywide Street Design Manual to
provide consistent guidance for design and
implementation of the recommendations
included in the ATP.

Consult the Active Transportation Plan to
incorporate on-street bike facilities during
overlay project.
41SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

STAKEHOLDER / AGENCY COORDINATION
City will continue coordination efforts with
adjacent jurisdictional agencies such as the
Cities of Vista, Escondido, and Carlsbad to
provide continuous pedestrian and bicycle
networks across City boundaries.

CURB, GUTTER, SIDEWALK PROGRAM
Continue ongoing program to upgrade City
facilities to meet ADA compliance, such as
capital projects and the ADA transition plan.
42SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

5.108 ANTICIPATED FUTURE DEMAND

5.108.1 Methodology
The number of new cyclists and pedestrians was estimated using the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 552 methodology. The NCHRP 552 report provides national level research that suggests commute mode share can be used to extrapolate a more general mode share for bicyclists and pedestrians using a best fit formula. In subsequent validation, the report suggests that the results of this analysis are typically within the 95% confidence interval, and when they are not, they provide a conservative estimate.

5.108.2 Analysis
The NCHRP 552 analysis generates three demand response estimates: low, moderate, and high. In this case, the medium estimate was chosen for the following reasons:
■ The assessment does not capture the full extent of active transportation investments or policies that could encourage the use of active transportation.
■ Many of the active transportation improvements include new Class I and Class II facilities and additional pedestrian safety enhancements which typically encourage active transportation use.

Applying the NCHRP 552 methodology to the ultimate proposed bicycle and pedestrian network is projected to increase bicycle and pedestrians by 3,971 and 4,814 users respectively.1

1 Projections are based on the mode share and population from the U.S. Census, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2021, Table B01001 and Table S0801. 43SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
This chapter provides the steps to implement the active transportation recommendations and create a more walkable and bikeable San Marcos. The following sections are included:
■ Prioritization of interim and ultimate improvements shown in Chapter 5 to emphasize projects with greatest benefit to the community.
■ Planning-level cost estimates for each project type and potential funding sources, including grant opportunities, for priority projects.
■ Recommended actions for the City for successful implementation of an active transportation program.

6.101 PRIORITIZATION PROCESS
The scoring rubric below was used to prioritize projects in the ATP with the greatest benefit to the City’s active transportation vision and goals so that construction of these projects can be advanced first.

Scoring for each project was calculated based on the framework in Table 4, with a maximum score of 100 points. To determine a project’s score, 2019 data was utilized from the sources listed in Table 3.

The City will pursue funding for the highest ranking projects. However, due to the nature of funding availability and other implementation factors, ranking may not directly corelate to the order of implementation. More details on implementation, including the distinction between interim and ultimate projects, can be found in sections 6.104 and 6.105.

Table 3. Prioritization Data Sources

SOURCE LINK
Census1 https://data.census.gov/
Census on the Map2 https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/
SANDAG Open Data Portal 3 https://opendata.sandag.org/
California Office of Environmental Health &
Hazard Assessment CalEnviroScreen 4.04 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40 San Marcos Local Regional Safety Plan5 In draft form, not publicly available Each project was evaluated based on the scoring rubric. The resulting interim and ultimate pedestrian and bicycle prioritized projects lists are provided in Tables 5-8.

6.100 IMPLEMENTATION

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
44 GOALS OBJECTIVE METRIC MAX

POINTS SCORING UPDATE
Maximize
connectivity
between key
destinations
Population Density
Population/square mile" 13
Score assigned proportionally based on a normalized
distribution patterns across all projects. The highest
density project receives maximum points.

Z-score
Job Density
Jobs/square mile" 13
Score assigned proportionally based on a normalized
distribution patterns across all projects. The highest
density project receives maximum points.

Z-score
SMUSD School or
Higher Education Institution 8 Not within a 5-minute bike or 10-minute walk: 0 Within a 5-minute bike or 10-minute walk: 8
SPRINTER Station 6 Not within a 5-minute bike or 10-minute walk: 0 Within a 5-minute bike or 10-minute walk: 6
Full points if you
hit a walkshed
Bus Stop 2 Not within a 5-minute bike or 10-minute walk: 0 Within a 5-minute bike or 10-minute walk: 2
Full points if you
hit a walkshed
Park 6 Not within a 5-minute bike or 10-minute walk: 0
Within a 5-minute bike or 10-minute walk: 6
Full points if you
hit a walkshed
Close documented
gaps in the system Network Gap 10 Does not close network gap: 0. Adds new sidewalk or closes a sidewalk gap: 5. Closes a critical network gap: 10 Just 0, 5, or
10 score
Equity
Provide access
to historically
underrepresented
areas
Calenviro Screen 4.0 Score4
Scores block groups from 0-100% based
on pollution burden, environmental
effects, sensitive populations, and
socioeconomic factors
15 Score assigned proportionally based on a normalized
distribution patterns across all projects. The project with the highest score receives maximum points.

Z-score
Safety
Provide
safe active
transportation
facilities
Crash Density
Number and severity of historical
pedestrian and bicycle crashes
22 The number of pedestrian and bicycle-related
collisions, weighted with the values below, then linearly interpolated so the project with the maximum score
receives maximum points: No collisions: 0. Collision
involving property damage, complaint of pain, or
minor injury: 1. Collision resulting in serious injury: 2 Fatal collision: 3"
Normalize
(linear
interpolation)
Choice
Give communities
a choice in
their facilities
Public Comments
Project website, workshop,
and stakeholder input
5 The number of public comments, linearly
interpolated so the project with the maximum score
receives maximum points
Connectivity
Table 4. Prioritization Criteria Table

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
45 Table 5. Interim Pedestrian Prioritization

RANK ROADWAY FROM TO FROM TO S/E RECOMMENDATION N/W RECOMMENDATION 1 Rancho
Santa Fe Rd SR 78 EB Ramps Grand Ave SR 78 EB Ramps Grand Ave Sidewalk Gap Closure No Enhancement 2 Knob Hill Rd Bougher Rd Nordahl Rd Bougher Rd Nordahl Rd No Enhancement Add New Sidewalk 3 Mission Rd /
Santa Fe Ave Smilax Rd Bosstick Blvd Smilax Rd Bosstick Blvd Add New Sidewalk Add New Sidewalk 4 Smilax Rd Santa Fe Ave Poinsettia Ave Santa Fe Ave Poinsettia Ave No Enhancement Sidewalk Gap Closure 5 Barham Dr Campus Way SR 78 EB Off Ramp Campus Way La Moree Rd W No Enhancement
Add New Sidewalk
La Moree Rd W SR 78 EB Off Ramp Sidewalk Gap Closure
6 Descanso Ave Las Flores Dr Rancho Santa Fe Rd Las Flores Dr Rancho Santa Fe Rd No Enhancement Add New Sidewalk 7 Via Vera Cruz Grand Ave San Marcos Blvd Grand Ave San Marcos Blvd Sidewalk Gap Closure No Enhancement 8 San Marcos Blvd Viewpoint Dr Discovery St Viewpoint Dr Discovery St Add Fenced Median No Enhancement 9 Rancho
Santa Fe Rd Security Pl San Marcos Blvd Security Pl San Marcos Blvd Add Fenced Median No Enhancement 10 Grand Ave Virginia Pl Rancho Santa Fe Rd Virginia Pl Rancho Santa Fe Rd Sidewalk Gap Closure No Enhancement 11 Santa Fe Ave
Alternative Route Las Flores Dr Rancho Santa Fe Rd Las Flores Dr Rancho Santa Fe Rd No Enhancement Sidewalk Gap Closure 12 Pacific St Grand Ave San Marcos Blvd Grand Ave San Marcos Blvd No Enhancement Add New Sidewalk 13 Oleander Ave Poinsettia Ave Las Flores Dr Poinsettia Ave Las Flores Dr Sidewalk Gap Closure No Enhancement 14 8th St Kensington Dr Rancho Santa Fe Rd Kensington Dr Rancho Santa Fe Rd No Enhancement Add New Sidewalk 15 Nordahl Rd Knob Hill Rd Center Dr Knob Hill Rd Center Dr Sidewalk Gap Closure No Enhancement 16 Las Flores Dr Oleander Ave Descanso Ave Oleander Ave Descanso Ave No Enhancement Add New Sidewalk 17 Linda Vista Dr /
W Linda Vista Dr Via Vera Cruz Grand Ave Via Vera Cruz Grand Ave No Enhancement Add New Sidewalk 18 Montiel Rd Nordahl Rd Boundary Nordahl Rd Boundary Sidewalk Gap Closure Add New Sidewalk 19 Rock Springs Rd Starling Way Butterfield Ave Starling Way Lancer Park Ave Add New Sidewalk No Enhancement
Lancer Park Ave Butterfield Ave Sidewalk Gap Closure
20 Virginia Pl Grand Ave La Mirada Dr Grand Ave La Mirada Dr Add New Sidewalk No Enhancement 21 Linda Vista Dr /
W Linda Vista Dr Pacific St Las Posas Rd Pacific St Las Posas Rd Sidewalk Gap Closure Add New Sidewalk 22 Las Flores Dr Grand Ave Linda Vista Dr
Grand Ave La Mirada Dr
No Enhancement Sidewalk Gap Closure
La Mirada Dr Linda Vista Dr Add New Sidewalk
23 La Mirada Dr Pacific St Las Posas Rd Pacific St Las Posas Rd No Enhancement Sidewalk Gap Closure

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
46 RANK ROADWAY FROM TO FROM TO S/E RECOMMENDATION N/W RECOMMENDATION 24 Twin Oaks
Valley Rd Borden Rd Richmar Ave Borden Rd Richmar Ave
Enhance Pedestrian
Environment (Widen
Sidewalk, Placemaking)
Enhance Pedestrian
Environment (Widen
Sidewalk, Placemaking)
25 Linda Vista Dr_
Alt Alignment Boundary Tilley Ln Boundary Tilley Ln Sidewalk Gap Closure No Enhancement 26 Twin Oaks Valley Rd Sycamore Dr Buena Creek Rd Sycamore Dr Buena Creek Rd No Enhancement Add New Sidewalk 27 Fulton Rd Richland Rd Bennett Ave
Richland Rd Harwich Dr
No Enhancement
Sidewalk Gap Closure
Harwich Dr Woodland Pkwy No Enhancement
Woodland Pkwy Flagstone Ct Sidewalk Gap Closure
Flagstone Ct Bennett Ave Sidewalk Gap Closure No Enhancement 28 Richland Rd Rock Springs Rd Mission Rd Rock Springs Rd Mission Rd Add New Sidewalk No Enhancement 29 Rose Ranch Rd Mulberry Dr Borden Rd Mulberry Dr Borden Rd Sidewalk Gap Closure No Enhancement 30 Discovery St San Marcos Blvd La Sombra Dr
San Marcos Blvd San Pablo Dr Sidewalk Gap Closure Sidewalk Gap Closure San Pablo Dr La Sombra Dr No Enhancement 31 La Moree Rd Via Del Campo Barham Dr E Via Del Campo Barham Dr E Add New Sidewalk No Enhancement 32 Olive St Twin Oaks Valley Rd Boundary Twin Oaks Valley Rd Boundary No Enhancement Add New Sidewalk 33 Richland Rd Fulton Rd Berryhill Dr Fulton Rd Berryhill Dr Add New Sidewalk No Enhancement 34 Twin Oaks
Valley Rd SR 78 EB Ramps Craven Rd SR 78 EB Ramps Craven Rd Enhance Pedestrian
Environment (Widen
Sidewalk, Placemaking)
Enhance Pedestrian Environment
(Widen Sidewalk, Placemaking)
35 La Noche Dr Sparrow Ct McMahr Rd Sparrow Ct McMahr Rd No Enhancement Sidewalk Gap Closure 36 Cassou Rd Boundary Twin Oaks Valley Rd Boundary Twin Oaks Valley Rd Sidewalk Gap Closure No Enhancement 37 Carmel St Twin Oaks Valley Rd Enterprise St Twin Oaks Valley Rd Enterprise St Enhance Pedestrian
Environment (Widen
Sidewalk, Placemaking)
No Enhancement
38 Woodward St Borden Rd Mission Rd Borden Rd Mission Rd No Enhancement Enhance Pedestrian Environment (Widen Sidewalk, Placemaking)
39 Borden Rd Via Cafetal Las Posas Rd Via Cafetal Las Posas Rd Provide Mid-block Crossing(s) No Enhancement 40 Bennett Ave Rock Springs Rd Knob Hill Rd Rock Springs Rd Knob Hill Rd No Enhancement Enhance Pedestrian Environment (Widen Sidewalk, Placemaking)
Table 5. Interim Pedestrian Prioritization (Continued)

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
47 RANK ROADWAY FROM TO FROM TO S/E RECOMMENDATION N/W RECOMMENDATION 1 Smilax Rd Santa Fe Ave Oleander Ave
Santa Fe Ave Poinsettia Ave Sidewalk Gap Closure No Enhancement Poinsettia Ave Oleander Ave Add New Sidewalk
2 San Marcos Blvd Knoll Rd Mission Rd Knoll Rd Mission Rd Widen Sidewalk Widen Sidewalk 3 La Mirada Dr Poinsettia Ave Las Flores Dr Poinsettia Ave Las Flores Dr No Enhancement Add New Sidewalk 4 San Marcos Blvd Viewpoint Dr Grand Ave Viewpoint Dr Grand Ave Enhance Pedestrian Environment (Widen Sidewalk, Placemaking)
Enhance Pedestrian Environment
(Widen Sidewalk, Placemaking)
5 Linda Vista Dr /
W Linda Vista Dr
Rancho
Santa Fe Rd Via Vera Cruz
Rancho
Santa Fe Rd Pacific St Enhance Pedestrian Environment
(Widen Sidewalk, Placemaking) Add New Sidewalk
Pacific St Las Posas Rd
Las Posas Rd Via Vera Cruz Add New Sidewalk Enhance Pedestrian Environment (Widen Sidewalk, Placemaking)
6 Grand Ave Virginia Pl Rancho
Santa Fe Rd Virginia Pl Rancho Santa Fe Rd No Enhancement Add New Sidewalk 7 Pacific St Grand Ave San Marcos Blvd Grand Ave San Marcos Blvd Add New Sidewalk No Enhancement 8 Linda Vista Dr /
W Linda Vista Dr Via Vera Cruz Grand Ave Via Vera Cruz Grand Ave Sidewalk Gap Closure No Enhancement 9 Las Flores Dr Oleander Ave Descanso Ave Oleander Ave Descanso Ave Add New Sidewalk No Enhancement 10 Santa Fe Ave
Alternative Route Santa Fe Ave Capalina Rd Santa Fe Ave Capalina Rd Sidewalk Gap Closure No Enhancement 11 Twin Oaks
Valley Rd Sycamore Dr La Cienega Rd Sycamore Dr La Cienega Rd No Enhancement Add New Sidewalk 12 Knob Hill Rd Bougher Rd Bennett Ave Bougher Rd Bennett Ave Sidewalk Gap Closure No Enhancement 13 Los Vallecitos Blvd Knoll Rd Westlake Dr Knoll Rd Westlake Dr Enhance Pedestrian Environment (Widen Sidewalk, Placemaking) No Enhancement
14 Virginia Pl Grand Ave La Mirada Dr Grand Ave La Mirada Dr No Enhancement Add New Sidewalk 15 Knoll Rd Mission Rd San Marcos Blvd Mission Rd San Marcos Blvd Enhance Pedestrian Environment (Widen Sidewalk, Placemaking)
Enhance Pedestrian
Environment (Widen
Sidewalk, Placemaking)
16 Discovery St San Marcos Blvd Via Vera Cruz San Marcos Blvd Via Vera Cruz Enhance Pedestrian Environment (Widen Sidewalk, Placemaking)
Enhance Pedestrian
Environment (Widen
Sidewalk, Placemaking)
17 Rock Springs Rd End Richland Rd End Richland Rd Add New Sidewalk No Enhancement 18 Oleander Ave Wildhorse Ln Las Flores Dr Wildhorse Ln Las Flores Dr No Enhancement Sidewalk Gap Closure Table 6. Ultimate Pedestrian Prioritization

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
48 RANK ROADWAY FROM TO FROM TO S/E RECOMMENDATION N/W RECOMMENDATION 19 Grand Ave Rancho
Santa Fe Rd Las Posas Rd Rancho Santa Fe Rd Las Posas Rd Enhance Pedestrian Environment (Widen Sidewalk, Placemaking) Enhance Pedestrian Environment
(Widen Sidewalk, Placemaking)
20 Hill St Enterprise St Barham Dr Enterprise St Barham Dr No Enhancement Add New Sidewalk 21 Linda Vista Dr /
W Linda Vista Dr Boundary Tilley Ln Boundary Tilley Ln No Enhancement Add New Sidewalk 22 Fulton Rd Borden Rd Harwich Dr Borden Rd Harwich Dr Sidewalk Gap Closure No Enhancement 23 Richland Rd Borden Rd Rock Springs Rd
Borden Rd Fulton Rd Enhance Pedestrian Environment
(Widen Sidewalk, Placemaking) No Enhancement
Fulton Rd Berryhill Dr No Enhancement
Berryhill Dr Rock Springs Rd Add New Sidewalk
24 Fulton Rd Flagstone Ct Bennett Ave Flagstone Ct Bennett Ave No Enhancement Add New Sidewalk 25 Richland Rd Mulberry Dr Front St Mulberry Dr Front St No Enhancement Sidewalk Gap Closure 26 La Moree Rd Via Del Campo Jack's Pond Via Del Campo Jack's Pond No Enhancement Add New Sidewalk 27 Barham Dr Campus Way La Moree Rd W Campus Way La Moree Rd W Provide Mid-block Crossing(s) No Enhancement 28 Via Vera Cruz Grand Ave San Marcos Blvd Grand Ave San Marcos Blvd No Enhancement Enhance Pedestrian Environment (Widen Sidewalk, Placemaking)
29 Rancho Santa Fe Rd San Marcos Blvd Lake
San Marcos Dr San Marcos Blvd Lake San Marcos Dr No Enhancement Enhance Pedestrian Environment (Widen Sidewalk, Placemaking) 30 Camino Magnifico Borden Rd School Drwy Borden Rd School Drwy Provide Mid-block Crossing(s) No Enhancement 31 Las Flores Dr Grand Ave La Mirada Dr Grand Ave La Mirada Dr Provide Mid-block Crossing(s) No Enhancement 32 Grand Ave Las Posas Rd Linda Vista Dr Las Posas Rd Linda Vista Dr Enhance Pedestrian Environment (Widen Sidewalk, Placemaking) No Enhancement
33 Cassou Rd Boundary Twin Oaks Valley Rd Boundary Twin Oaks Valley Rd No Enhancement Add New Sidewalk
34 Borden Rd Las Posas Rd Via Barquero Las Posas Rd Via Barquero Provide Mid-block Crossing(s) No Enhancement 35 Mulberry Dr Olive St Cox Rd Olive St Cox Rd No Enhancement Add New Sidewalk 36 Discovery St Bent Ave Twin Oaks Valley Rd Bent Ave Twin Oaks Valley Rd Enhance Pedestrian Environment (Widen Sidewalk, Placemaking) No Enhancement
37 Bennett Ave Knob Hill Rd Mission Rd Knob Hill Rd Mission Rd No Enhancement Enhance Pedestrian Environment (Widen Sidewalk, Placemaking)
Table 6. Ultimate Pedestrian Prioritization (Continued)

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
49 Table 7. Interim Bike Prioritization

RANK ROADWAY FROM TO FROM TO S/E RECOMMENDATION N/W RECOMMENDATION 1 Mission Rd /
Santa Fe Ave Knoll Rd Boundary
Knoll Rd Woodward St Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane Woodward St Mission Hills Ct Existing Class II Bike Lane Existing Class II Bike Lane Mission Hills Ct Boundary Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 2 Rancho
Santa Fe Rd Santa Fe Ave 1st St
Santa Fe Ave SR 78 EB Ramps Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane SR 78 EB Ramps 8th St Existing Class II Bike Lane Existing Class II Bike Lane 8th St 1st St Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 3 Santa Fe Ave
Alternative Route Santa Fe Ave Las Posas Rd
Santa Fe Ave Trailwood Dwy Class III Bike Route Class III Bike Route Trailwood Dwy Capalina Rd Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class III Bike Route Las Flores Dr Vista Flores Dwy Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane Vista Flores Dwy Rancho Santa Fe Rd Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class III Bike Route Rancho Santa Fe Rd Descano Ave Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane Pacific St Las Posas Rd Class III Bike Route Class II Buffered Bike Lane 4 Pico Ave Richmar Ave San Marcos Blvd Richmar Ave San Marcos Blvd Class II Bike Lane Class II Bike Lane 5 San Marcos Blvd Discovery St Knoll Rd
Discovery St Via Vera Cruz Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class II Buffered Bike Lane Via Vera Cruz Grand Ave Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane Grand Ave SR 78 EB Ramps Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class II Bike Lane SR 78 EB Ramps Knoll Rd Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 6 Woodland Pkwy Borden Rd Barham Dr
Borden Rd Rancheros Dr Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane Rancheros Dr Barham Dr Class I Multi-Use Path No Bicycle Facility 7 Las Posas Rd SR 78 WB Ramps Grand Ave SR 78 WB Ramps Grand Ave Class II Bike Lane Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 8 Autumn Dr Knoll Rd Pico Ave Knoll Rd Pico Ave Class III Bike Route Class III Bike Route 9 Twin Oaks
Valley Rd San Marcos Blvd SR 78 WB Ramps San Marcos Blvd SR 78 WB Ramps Class II Bike Lane Class II Bike Lane 10 Linda Vista Dr /
W Linda Vista Dr Pacific St Grand Ave Pacific St Grand Ave Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 11 Las Posas Rd Boundary Mission Rd
Boundary Avenida Leon Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane Avenida Leon Avenida Azul Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Avenida Azul Mission Rd Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 12 Knoll Rd Mission Rd San Marcos Blvd Mission Rd San Marcos Blvd Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 13 Rock Springs Rd Woodland Pkwy Bennett Ave
Woodland Pkwy Starling Way Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane Starling Way Lancer Park Ave Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Lancer Park Ave Bennett Ave Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
50 RANK ROADWAY FROM TO FROM TO S/E RECOMMENDATION N/W RECOMMENDATION 14 Descanso Ave Las Flores Dr Pawnee St Las Flores Dr Pawnee St Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 15 Westlake Dr Autumn Dr San Marcos Blvd Autumn Dr San Marcos Blvd Class III Bike Route Class III Bike Route 16 Linda Vista Dr /
W Linda Vista Dr Poinsettia Ave Pacific St
Poinsettia Ave Rancho
Santa Fe Rd Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Rancho
Santa Fe Rd Pacific St Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class II Bike Lane 17 Mulberry Dr Olive St Mission Rd
Olive St Heiden Ct Class III Bike Route Class III Bike Route Heiden Ct Woodward St Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane Woodward St Borden Rd Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Borden Rd Mission Rd Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 18 La Moree Rd Barham Dr W Via Del Campo Barham Dr W Via Del Campo Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 19 Carmel St Twin Oaks
Valley Rd Barham Dr Twin Oaks Valley Rd Barham Dr Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 20 La Mirada Dr Poinsettia Ave Kensington Dr
Poinsettia Ave Las Flores Dr Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane Las Flores Dr Kensington Dr Class III Bike Route Class III Bike Route 21 Smilax Rd Santa Fe Ave Oleander Ave
Santa Fe Ave Poinsettia Ave Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Poinsettia Ave Oleander Ave Class II Bike Lane Class II Bike Lane 22 Las Flores Dr Oleander Ave Descanso Ave Oleander Ave Descanso Ave Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 23 Richmar Ave Crusaders Way Pico Ave Crusaders Way Pico Ave Class III Bike Route Class III Bike Route 24 Fulton Rd Borden Rd Bennett Ave
Borden Rd Richland Rd Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane Richland Rd Harwich Dr Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class I Multi-Use Path Harwich Dr Bennett Ave Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 25 Knights Realm/
Security Pl
Rancho
Santa Fe Rd San Marcos Blvd Rancho Santa Fe Rd San Marcos Blvd Class III Bike Route Class III Bike Route 26 Mission Rd /
Santa Fe Ave Smilax Rd Rancho Santa Fe Rd Smilax Rd Rancho Santa Fe Rd Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 27 Grand Ave Virginia Pl Discovery St
Virginia Pl Rancho Santa Fe Rd Class III Bike Route Class III Bike Route Rancho Santa Fe Rd Via Vera Cruz Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane Via Vera Cruz San Marcos Blvd Class I Multi-Use Path Class II Buffered Bike Lane San Marcos Blvd Discovery St Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 28 Los
Vallecitos Blvd Las Posas Rd Westlake Dr Las Posas Rd Westlake Dr No Bicycle Facility Class I Multi-Use Path 29 Autumn Dr
Extension
Armorlite Dr
Extension Knoll Rd Armorlite Dr
Extension Knoll Rd Class I Multi-Use Path No Bicycle Facility 30 Discovery St San Marcos Blvd La Sombra Dr San Marcos Blvd La Sombra Dr Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane Table 7. Interim Bike Prioritization (Continued)

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
51 RANK ROADWAY FROM TO FROM TO S/E RECOMMENDATION N/W RECOMMENDATION 31 Camino del Sol Las Posas Rd Feather Dr Las Posas Rd Feather Dr Class III Bike Route Class III Bike Route 32 Starstone Dr La Mirada Dr Commodore Dr La Mirada Dr Commodore Dr Class III Bike Route Class III Bike Route 33 Bent Ave Grand Ave Discovery St
Grand Ave San Marcos Blvd Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane San Marcos Blvd Creekside Dr Existing Class II Bike Lane Existing Class II Bike Lane Creekside Dr Discovery St Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 34 Twin Oaks
Valley Rd Cassou Rd La Cienega Rd Cassou Rd La Cienega Rd Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 35 Barham Dr Twin Oaks
Valley Rd La Moree Rd W Twin Oaks Valley Rd La Moree Rd W Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 36 Palomar Dr Knob Hill Rd Montiel Rd Knob Hill Rd Montiel Rd Class III Bike Route Class III Bike Route 37 La Mirada Dr Rancho
Santa Fe Rd Las Posas Rd Rancho
Santa Fe Rd Las Posas Rd Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 38 8th St/
Cherokee St
Rancho
Santa Fe Rd Pawnee St Rancho Santa Fe Rd Pawnee St Class III Bike Route Class III Bike Route 39 Barham Dr La Moree Rd W Boundary La Moree Rd W Boundary Class I Multi-Use Path Class II Buffered Bike Lane 40 Las Posas Rd Grand Ave San Marcos Blvd Grand Ave San Marcos Blvd Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 41 Woodward St Mulberry Dr Vineyard Rd Mulberry Dr Borden Rd Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Borden Rd Vineyard Rd No Bicycle Facility Class IV Bikeway (Two-Way) 42 Oleander Ave Poinsettia Ave Las Flores Dr
Poinsettia Ave Wildhorse Ln Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane Wildhorse Ln Las Flores Dr Class II Bike Lane Class II Bike Lane 43 Pawnee St Descanso Ave La Mirada Dr Descanso Ave La Mirada Dr Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 44 Pacific St Grand Ave San Marcos Blvd
Grand Ave Linda Vista Dr Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Linda Vista Dr San Marcos Blvd Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 45 Extension
Starstone Dr Commodore Dr Linda Vista Dr Commodore Dr Linda Vista Dr Class I Multi-Use Path No Bicycle Facility 46 Kensington Dr 8th St La Mirada Dr 8th St La Mirada Dr Class III Bike Route Class III Bike Route 47 McMahr Rd San Marcos Blvd La Noche Dr San Marcos Blvd La Noche Dr Class I Multi-Use Path No Bicycle Facility 48 Borden Rd Via Cafetal Via Barquero
Via Cafetal Las Posas Rd Class III Bike Route Class III Bike Route Las Posas Rd Via Barquero Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 49 8th St Kensington Dr Rancho Santa Fe Rd Kensington Dr Rancho Santa Fe Rd Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 50 Knob Hill Rd Bougher Rd Nordahl Rd Bougher Rd Nordahl Rd Class III Bike Route Class III Bike Route 51 Camino
Magnifico Avenida Arana Camino del Sol
Avenida Arana Borden Rd No Bicycle Facility Class I Multi-Use Path Borden Rd Camino Del Sol No Bicycle Facility Class IV Bikeway (Two-Way) Table 7. Interim Bike Prioritization (Continued)

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
52 RANK ROADWAY FROM TO FROM TO S/E RECOMMENDATION N/W RECOMMENDATION 52 Via Vera Cruz Grand Ave Honeysuckle Dr
Grand Ave Creekside Dr Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane Creekside Dr Discovery St Existing Class II Bike Lane Existing Class II Bike Lane Discovery St Honeysuckle Dr Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 53 Armorlite Dr Bingham Dr Vallecitos de Oro Bingham Dr Vallecitos de Oro Class I Multi-Use Path No Bicycle Facility 54 1st St Extension Rancho
Santa Fe Rd Pacific St Rancho Santa Fe Rd Pacific St Class I Multi-Use Path No Bicycle Facility 55 Richland Rd Borden Rd Mission Rd
Borden Rd Rock Springs Rd Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane Rock Springs Rd Mission Rd Class III Bike Route Class III Bike Route 56 Las Flores Dr Grand Ave Linda Vista Dr Grand Ave Linda Vista Dr Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 57 Discovery St La Sombra Dr Twin Oaks Valley Rd La Sombra Dr Twin Oaks Valley Rd Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 58 Montiel Rd Nordahl Rd Boundary Nordahl Rd Boundary Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 59 Hannegan Way Rock Springs Rd Knob Hill Rd Rock Springs Rd Knob Hill Rd Class I Multi-Use Path No Bicycle Facility 60 Craven Rd Discovery St Twin Oaks Valley Rd Discovery St Twin Oaks Valley Rd Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 61 Avenida Azul Las Posas Rd Calle Capistrano Las Posas Rd Calle Capistrano Class III Bike Route Class III Bike Route 62 Nordahl Rd Rock Springs Rd Center Dr Rock Springs Rd Center Dr Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 63 Borden Rd Vineyard Rd Woodland Pkwy
Vineyard Rd Mulberry Dr Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane Mulberry Dr Lacebark St Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Lacebark St Woodland Pkwy Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 64 Calle Capistrano Camino del Sol Avenida Azul Camino del Sol Avenida Azul Class III Bike Route Class III Bike Route 65 Future
Development
Future
Development
Future
Development
Future
Development
Future
Development Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 66 Armorlite Dr
Extension Vallecitos de Oro Echo Ln End Vallecitos de Oro Echo Ln End Class I Multi-Use Path No Bicycle Facility 67 Rancho
Santa Fe Rd San Marcos Blvd Melrose Dr
San Marcos Blvd Lake
San Marcos Dr Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Lake
San Marcos Dr Melrose Dr Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 68 Rose Ranch Rd Mulberry Dr Borden Rd Mulberry Dr Borden Rd Class III Bike Route Class III Bike Route 69 Elfin Forest Rd Windemere Dr Calistoga Way
Windemere Dr San Elijo Rd N Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane San Elijo Rd N Calistoga Way Class II Buffered Bike Lane No Bicycle Facility 70 Olive St Twin Oaks
Valley Rd Boundary Twin Oaks
Valley Rd Boundary Class III Bike Route Class III Bike Route 71 Echo Ln Echo Ln End Los Vallecitos Blvd Echo Ln End Los Vallecitos Blvd Class I Multi-Use Path No Bicycle Facility Table 7. Interim Bike Prioritization (Continued)

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
53 RANK ROADWAY FROM TO FROM TO S/E RECOMMENDATION N/W RECOMMENDATION 72 El Norte Pkwy Woodland Pkwy Bennett Ave Woodland Pkwy Bennett Ave Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 73 Creekside Dr Las Posas Rd Grand Ave Las Posas Rd Grand Ave Class II Bike Lane Class II Bike Lane 74 Elfin Forest Rd San Elijo Rd N Calistoga Way San Elijo Rd N Calistoga Way No Bicycle Facility Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 75 Bennett Ave Rock Springs Rd Mission Rd Rock Springs Rd Mission Rd Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 76 Vineyard Rd Mulberry Dr Woodward St Mulberry Dr Woodward St Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 77 Woodward St Vineyard Rd Mission Rd Vineyard Rd Mission Rd No Bicycle Facility Class IV Bikeway (Two-Way) 78 Extension
La Bonita Dr San Marcos Blvd La Tierra Dr San Marcos Blvd La Tierra Dr Class I Multi-Use Path No Bicycle Facility 79 La Noche Dr Sparrow Ct Applewilde Dr Sparrow Ct Applewilde Dr Class III Bike Route Class III Bike Route 80 Lacebark St Borden Rd Fulton Rd Borden Rd Fulton Rd Class III Bike Route Class III Bike Route 81 Applewilde Dr Discovery St Honeysuckle Dr Discovery St Honeysuckle Dr Class III Bike Route Class III Bike Route 82 Twin Oaks
Valley Rd Legacy Dr Windy Way Legacy Dr Windy Way Existing Class II Bike Lane Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 83 Sycamore Dr Olive St La Cienega Rd
Olive St Cox Rd Class II Bike Lane No Bicycle Facility
Cox Rd Trail Existing Class II Bike Lane No Bicycle Facility Trail La Cienega Rd Class II Bike Lane No Bicycle Facility 84 Twin Oaks Valley
Frontage Rd La Cienega Rd Deer Brook Dr La Cienega Rd Deer Brook Dr Class I Multi-Use Path No Bicycle Facility 85 Melrose Dr Rancho
Santa Fe Rd San Elijo Rd Rancho Santa Fe Rd San Elijo Rd Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 86 Rush Dr Discovery St Avenida
La Cuesta Discovery St Avenida La Cuesta Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane Table 7. Interim Bike Prioritization (Continued)

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
54 Table 8. Ultimate Bike Prioritization

RANK ROADWAY FROM TO FROM TO S/E RECOMMENDATION N/W RECOMMENDATION 1 San Marcos Blvd Rancho
Santa Fe Rd Mission Rd Rancho Santa Fe Rd Mission Rd Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 2 Twin Oaks
Valley Rd San Marcos Blvd San Elijo Rd San Marcos Blvd San Elijo Rd Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 3 Twin Oaks
Valley Rd Sycamore Dr San Marcos Blvd Sycamore Dr San Marcos Blvd Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 4 Rancho
Santa Fe Rd Santa Fe Ave San Marcos Blvd Santa Fe Ave San Marcos Blvd Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 5 Mission Rd /
Santa Fe Ave
Rancho
Santa Fe Rd Mission Hills Ct Rancho Santa Fe Rd Mission Hills Ct Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 6 Pico Ave Richmar Ave San Marcos Blvd Richmar Ave San Marcos Blvd Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 7 Las Posas Rd SR 78 WB Ramps San Marcos Blvd SR 78 WB Ramps San Marcos Blvd Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 8 Santa Fe Ave
Alternative Route Santa Fe Ave Las Posas Rd
Santa Fe Ave Capalina Rd No Bicycle Facility Class IV Bikeway (Two-Way) Las Flores Dr Mission Rd Class IV Bikeway (Two-Way) No Bicycle Facility 9 Las Posas Rd Avenida Azul SR 78 WB Off Ramp Avenida Azul SR 78 WB Off Ramp Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 10 Nordahl Rd Center Dr SR 78 EB On Ramp Center Dr SR 78 EB On Ramp Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 11 Discovery St San Marcos Blvd Twin Oaks
Valley Rd San Marcos Blvd Twin Oaks Valley Rd Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 12 Rancheros Dr San Marcos Blvd Woodland Pkwy
San Marcos Blvd Valpreda Rd Class I Multi-Use Path Existing Class II Bike Lane Valpreda Rd Woodland Pkwy Class I Multi-Use Path No Bicycle Facility 13 Mission
Rd / Santa Fe Ave Smilax Rd Rancho Santa Fe Rd Smilax Rd Rancho Santa Fe Rd Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 14 Carmel St Twin Oaks
Valley Rd Barham Dr Twin Oaks Valley Rd Barham Dr Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class IV Bikeway (Two-Way) 15 Fulton Rd Borden Rd Bennett Ave Borden Rd Bennett Ave Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class I Multi-Use Path 16 Grand Ave Rancho
Santa Fe Rd Discovery St
Rancho
Santa Fe Rd Via Vera Cruz Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Via Vera Cruz Linda Vista Dr Class I Multi-Use Path Class II Buffered Bike Lane Linda Vista Dr San Marcos Blvd Class I Multi-Use Path Class II Buffered Bike Lane San Marcos Blvd Discovery St Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 17 Knights Realm/
Security Pl
Rancho
Santa Fe Rd San Marcos Blvd Rancho
Santa Fe Rd San Marcos Blvd Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 18 Borden Rd Via Barquero Twin Oaks
Valley Rd Via Barquero Twin Oaks
Valley Rd No Bicycle Facility Class I Multi-Use Path
19 Linda Vista Dr /
W Linda Vista Dr
Rancho
Santa Fe Rd Pacific St Rancho
Santa Fe Rd Pacific St Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 20 La Mirada Dr Rancho
Santa Fe Rd Las Posas Rd Rancho
Santa Fe Rd Pacific St Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way)

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
55 RANK ROADWAY FROM TO FROM TO S/E RECOMMENDATION N/W RECOMMENDATION 21 8th St/
Cherokee St
Rancho
Santa Fe Rd Pawnee St Rancho Santa Fe Rd Pawnee St Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 22 Barham Dr Rancho
Santa Fe Rd Pawnee St Rancho Santa Fe Rd Pawnee St Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 23 Woodland Pkwy Twin Oaks
Valley Rd La Moree Rd W Twin Oaks Valley Rd La Moree Rd W Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 24 Smilax Rd Borden Rd Rancheros Dr Borden Rd Rancheros Dr Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 25 Las Flores Dr Poinsettia Ave Oleander Ave Poinsettia Ave Oleander Ave Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class II Buffered Bike Lane 26 San Marcos Blvd
Parallel Grand Ave La Mirada Dr Grand Ave La Mirada Dr No Enhancement Class I Multi-Use Path 27 Las Flores Dr La Mirada Dr Linda Vista Dr La Mirada Dr Linda Vista Dr No Enhancement Class I Multi-Use Path 28 Twin Oaks Valley
Frontage Rd Legacy Dr Borden Rd Legacy Dr Borden Rd Class I Multi-Use Path No Bicycle Facility 29 San Elijo Rd Twin Oaks V
alley Rd Schoolhouse Way Twin Oaks Valley Rd Schoolhouse Way Existing Class II Bike Lane Class I Multi-Use Path 30 San Elijo Rd Schoolhouse Way Rancho
Santa Fe Rd Schoolhouse Way Rancho Santa Fe Rd Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 31 Craven Rd Discovery St Twin Oaks
Valley Rd Discovery St Twin Oaks |Valley Rd Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 32 Borden Rd Via Cafetal Las Posas Rd Via Cafetal Las Posas Rd Class I Multi-Use Path No Enhancement 33 Future
Development
Future
Development
Future
Development
Future
Development
Future
Development Class I Multi-Use Path No Enhancement
34 Via Vera Cruz Grand Ave Creekside Dr Grand Ave Creekside Dr Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 35 Mulberry Dr Olive St Woodward St
Olive St La Cienega Rd Class II Bike Lane Class II Bike Lane La Cienega Rd Woodward St Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class I Multi-Use Path 36 Richland Rd Front St Borden Rd Front St Borden Rd Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 37 Creekside Dr Las Posas Rd Grand Ave Las Posas Rd Grand Ave Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 38 Richland Rd Borden Rd Fulton Rd Borden Rd Fulton Rd Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 39 El Norte Pkwy Woodland Pkwy Bennett Ave Woodland Pkwy Bennett Ave Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 40 San Marcos Blvd Business Park Dr Rancho
Santa Fe Rd
Business Park Dr Viewpoint Dr No Bicycle Facility Class I Multi-Use Path Viewpoint Dr Rancho
Santa Fe Rd Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 41 La Moree Rd Via Del Campo Barham Dr E Via Del Campo Barham Dr E Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class II Buffered Bike Lane 42 Rose Ranch Rd Mulberry Dr Borden Rd Mulberry Dr Borden Rd Class I Multi-Use Path Class III Bike Route 43 Camino Magnifico Avenida Abeja Avenida Arana Avenida Abeja Avenida Arana No Bicycle Facility Class I Multi-Use Path Table 8. Ultimate Bike Prioritization (Continued)

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
56 RANK ROADWAY FROM TO FROM TO S/E RECOMMENDATION N/W RECOMMENDATION 44 Olive St Twin Oaks
Valley Rd Boundary Twin Oaks Valley Rd Boundary Class I Multi-Use Path No Bicycle Facility 45 Vineyard Rd Mulberry Dr Woodward St Mulberry Dr Woodward St Class II Buffered Bike Lane Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 46 Borden Rd Twin Oaks
Valley Rd Mulberry Dr Twin Oaks Valley Rd Mulberry Dr Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 47 Borden Rd Lacebark St Woodland Pkwy Lacebark St Woodland Pkwy Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 48 Rancho
Santa Fe Rd
Lake
San Marcos Dr Melrose Dr Lake San Marcos Dr Melrose Dr Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 49 Las Posas Rd Boundary Avenida Leon Boundary Avenida Leon Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 50 Rock Springs Rd Bennett Ave Nordahl Rd Bennett Ave Nordahl Rd Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) Class IV Bikeway (One-Way) 51 Mulberry Path Cox Rd Heiden Ct Cox Rd Heiden Ct No Bicycle Facility Class I Multi-Use Path 57SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

6.102 ESTIMATE OF COST AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost Estimate Assumptions
Planning-level cost opinions were developed to assist the City of San Marcos and its partners in making highlevel planning decisions in the development and implementation of priority projects. The cost opinions are based on currently available information from recently constructed, similar projects in the region (as of June 2023). It is anticipated that construction costs will vary from these planning-level cost opinions based on the ultimate project scope, final site conditions/constraints, schedule, and economic conditions at the time of design and construction.

Cost opinions were developed on a “per-mile basis” for linear improvements and “intersection/each” for localized improvements. The cost opinions per mile include design, construction, and contingency in 2023 dollars. Projects that require significant right-of-way acquisitions, easements, utility relocations, permitting, or landscape restoration will be higher than the costs provided below.

IMPROVEMENT TYPE UNITS COST PER UNIT ASSUMPTIONS
New Sidewalk Mile $1,900,000 Assumes 6’ sidewalk with curb and gutter; new curb ramps every 300’, minor grading.

Class I Multi-Use
Path Mile $3,000,000 Assumes 12’ path.

Class IV Bikeway
(soft infrastructure) Mile $650,000 Assumes flexible delineators, zebra bumps, or other similar device.

Class IV Bikeway
(hard infrastructure) Mile $3,000,000 Assumes vertical protection such as planters, concrete median, or other similar hardscape.

Class II Bike Lanes Mile $480,000 Assumes no slurry seal or traffic signal modifications.

Class III Bike Route Mile $25,000 Assumes approximately 22 thermoplastic sharrow pavement markings per mile and 8 signs per mile.

Bike Signal Intersection $40,000
Assumes signals for two approaches of an existing
signalized intersection. Includes detection, signing/
striping, conduit, and equipment. Does not include
signal modifications or other upgrades.

Neighborhood
Traffic Circle Intersection $950,000
Fenced Median Mile $440,000
Assumes 6’ black vinyl chain link fence or other
similar product. Does not include landscape
restoration costs (highly variable)
Mid-Block Crossing
(with RRFB) Each $60,000 Assumes crosswalk, curb ramps, RRFB system, and refuge median island.

Mid-Block Crossing
(with overhead
signal / PHB)
Each $100,000
Assumes crosswalk, curb ramps, overhead
pedestrian signal or beacon system, and refuge
median island.

Speed Cushion Each $24,000 Assumes asphalt speed cushion on 48’ roadway width.

Protected
Intersection Each $800,000
Curb Extension Each $280,000
Bike Parking Each $1,000
58SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

6.103 FUNDING SOURCES
Implementation of the projects, programs and policies identified in this plan will occur incrementally through a combination of different funding sources:
■ General Fund/Capital Improvement
Program – the prioritized project list
included in this plan can be utilized in
the development of future CIP budgets.
■ Grant funding sources
■ Maintenance funding
■ Developer construction
■ VMT mitigation
■ Local funding strategies (e.g. Enhanced
Infrastructure Financing Districts, VMT
mitigation fees)
By identifying and prioritizing the projects and programs in this plan, the City has defined the need for pursuing funding sources in the future, and for requiring developers to implement these projects. A future City of San Marcos Street Design Manual (SDM) could also provide a standard for pedestrian and bicycle improvements required based on the type of roadway. While development projects can create incremental improvements to the pedestrian and bicycle network, the city can focus efforts on areas that are not anticipated to redevelop in the city.

Grant Funding
Many active transportation projects and mobility programs rely on grant funding for some or all of their funding needs. It should be noted that some of these funding sources require a local match available at the time of the submittal.

Below is a list of grant funding sources that are most commonly pursued for active transportation plan projects and programs.
■ Active Transportation Program (ATP)
■ Active Transportation Grant
Program (ATGP)
■ Community Development Block
Grant Program (CDBG)
■ RAISE Discretionary Grants
■ Reconnecting Communities and
Neighborhoods Grant Program
■ Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
■ Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP)
■ Urban Greening
■ Office of Traffic Safety
(OTS) Grant Program
■ Solutions for Congested Corridors (SCCP)
■ Local Streets and Roads (LSRP) Program
■ Sustainable Transportation
Planning Grants
Appendix E also provides a larger list of funding sources for the City to consider applying for, as well as full descriptions of the types of projects that are eligible for each funding source.

6.104 PROPOSED TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION
This plan divides projects into interim and ultimate projects, based on their implementation timelines.

Interim projects can be constructed within the existing city right-of-way, and many of the interim projects only require restriping. Therefore, the City should integrate the restriping projects with the ongoing maintenance and restriping schedule. The prioritization rankings provided in Chapter 6.101 provide guidance for which projects to implement first under each timeline.

Ultimate projects require some level of widening or major infrastructure improvements by either the City or developer in order to be implemented. The implementation timeline for each project will depend on alignment with funding opportunities and redevelopment schedules. An ultimate project ranking higher than an interim project on the same segment of roadway does not negate the need for the interim project, since the ultimate project may not be able to be implemented until redevelopment occurs and other phasing factors.
59SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

6.105 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
The recommendations contained in this plan have the potential to transform San Marcos with an abundance of safe and environmentally friendly multi-modal options. This section provides next steps toward achieving this vision. It is focused on getting early wins through low-cost implementation.

Primary Action 1: Introduce Easy, Early Wins
A focus on easy wins early on will help stakeholders adjust to multi-modal changes by enabling them to experience the benefits. Therefore, the City should prioritize high priority projects with low cost, minimal tradeoffs, and high benefit to the surrounding neighborhoods.

Gap Closures and Midblock Crossings
Gaps in the sidewalk and bike lane network can be a significant deterrent to people choosing to walk or bike. A bicyclist that must ride in the vehicular travel lane and a pedestrian who must traverse an area where sidewalk is absent is less likely to continue biking or walking. High-priority projects with significant benefit and few obstacles to construction can be implemented first.

Low-Tradeoff Quick-Build Opportunities
Quick-build projects are defined by Caltrans as “...interim capital infrastructure projects. These projects do require minor construction activities but are built with durable, low- to moderate-cost materials, and last from one year to five years.” Low-tradeoff, quick-build projects do not require parking removal or lane reductions. Quick-build projects allow safety needs to be promptly addressed to keep the community thriving. Quick-build projects can be made permanent or can be deconstructed relatively easily when compared to traditional infrastructure projects. Interim projects from this ATP are great candidates for quick build projects, including:
■ Enhancing Class II buffered bike lanes in front of schools with vertical delineation to prevent vehicles from parking in the bike lane and increase student safety. ■ Implementing slow streets for future bicycle boulevards using signage to prevent through traffic.

Consider permanent or semi-permanent curb extensions.
■ Incorporating Class II buffered bike lane projects into regular roadway resurfacing projects where feasible. This can apply to locations where a Class IV bikeway is proposed, but a Class II can be striped in the interim.
■ Implementing low-cost vertical delineation on roadway segments to achieve Class IV bikeways while awaiting funding for more aesthetically pleasing vertical elements. Low-cost solutions at intersections can also be considered such as a leading pedestrian interval (LPI) to give bicyclists the lead time in front of vehicles and dedicated intersection modular elements.

Funding and Grant Strategy
The City will need to develop a funding and grant strategy to finance the ATP projects. The grant funding strategy should be informed by previous grant cycle requirements, such as local funding match, letters of support, concept drawings, environmental clearance, demographic analysis, and demonstrating experience in delivering similar projects.
60SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Primary Action 2: Reinforce Momentum
As the community acclimates to the infrastructure projects implemented from Primary Action 1 and users increase, more challenging projects can be pursued. The mode shift momentum should be supported by non-infrastructure programs to strengthen the movement.

Challenging Quick-Build Projects
Some priority bike and pedestrian projects may require tradeoffs such as parking removal or lane removal.

These projects will require community outreach to gain support and momentum. Many can be implemented at low cost, but may need more of the network in place to garner public support first. Quick-build projects requiring some trade-offs would be considered on low volume streets. The FHWA provides the following guidelines for reducing a four-lane street to two lanes:
■ Less than 10,000 ADT: Capacity most likely not affected. No analysis recommended. ■ Between 10,000 and 15,000 ADT: Capacity likely not affected. Analysis recommended. ■ Between 15,000 and 20,000 ADT: Capacity may be affected. Analysis recommended. ■ Greater than 20,000 ADT: Capacity likely affected. Analysis recommended.

Non-Infrastructure Programs
Transportation networks require more than just physical infrastructure to remain safe. Programs promoting proper usage are also vital components. When everyone knows and follows the rules, a secure environment is created for all modes. For example, e-bike safety workshops and assemblies remind students to be aware of their surroundings and practice proper bike etiquette, like signaling. This keeps e-bike users safe, as well as those walking and driving around them. Even if students do not bike themselves, they learn what to expect from fellow road users and the best ways to respect their safety. Enforcement of traffic laws, especially at targeted locations, reminds individuals their own actions play a critical role in creating safe networks. Larger events, like community rides, can inspire participants to use or support active transportation after seeing the potential benefits for themselves, their neighbors, and their community as a whole. Continuously evaluating physical transportation infrastructure as well as these programs helps ensure community resources are used in the most beneficial way. 61SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Primary Action 3: Anticipate Long-Term Opportunities
While devising a plan to promote interim bike and pedestrian projects and programs implementation, the City should simultaneously seek opportunities to implement ultimate condition projects.

High-Priority Projects with Major Infrastructure Needs
Many of the projects on the ultimate conditions lists will require some level of widening or major infrastructure improvements by either the City or developer in order to be implemented. However, some of the projects on these lists do not necessarily have anticipated redevelopment. Therefore, it is important for the city to find funding for these bold improvements that serve high-priority active transportation needs.

Corridor Plans
Many of the major roadway corridors in San Marcos have anticipated redevelopment, complex needs, and/ or unique stakeholders. These corridors may require a corridor plan in order to acknowledge, protect, and elevate the characteristics that make them unique, and create a vision and framework for future development and improvements.

These plans typically provide guidance on pedestrian, bicycle, transit, parking, and vehicular roadway infrastructure. Corridor plans guide redevelopment and hold the potential to reduce congestion, VMT, and emissions while increasing safety, connectivity, and mobility when multi-modal elements are incorporated.

These roadways are especially important to address when they connect important community destinations.

Potential candidates for corridor plans in San Marcos include:
■ San Marcos Boulevard
■ Las Posas Road
■ Rancho Santa Fe Road
■ Mission Road/Santa Fe Avenue
■ Twin Oaks Valley Road
Major Infrastructure Grant Funding Sources
Many of the ultimate condition projects could require bridge structures, roadway widening, undergrounding utilities, or rail grade-separation, and may be infeasible to pursue with only City funding. RAISE Discretionary Grants and Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhood Grant Program should be considered for these large-scale infrastructure projects.
62SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
APPENDIX A: Existing
Conditions Report and
Literature Review
APPENDIX A:

Existing Conditions Assessment
and Literature Review
Existing Conditions Report
For The
San Marcos Active Transportation Plan
Prepared For: By:

January 2023
San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report ii Contents

1. Introduction................................................................................ 1 Purpose and Background ............................................................. 1 Report Organization..................................................................... 1 Document Review ........................................................................ 2

2. Community Profile...................................................................... 3 Geographic Setting ...................................................................... 3 Built Environment ........................................................................ 4 Speed Limits............................................................................. 5 Demographics.............................................................................. 8 Where People Live .................................................................... 8 Population and Employment Growth ........................................ 8 Where People Work.................................................................. 8 How People Commute to Work................................................. 9 Age Demographics ................................................................. 11 Income ...................................................................................14 Disadvantaged Communities..................................................14 Mobility Patterns.......................................................................26 Internal Trips..........................................................................26

3. Bicycles .....................................................................................28 Existing Bicycle Network.............................................................28 Existing Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress .........................................29 What is a BLTS Analysis?.........................................................29 San Marcos BLTS.....................................................................29

4. Pedestrians ...............................................................................34 Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Facilities..........................................34 Trails.......................................................................................34

5. Transit.......................................................................................35 Existing Service...........................................................................35 Sprinter...................................................................................35 Breeze.....................................................................................35

6. Prioritizing Safety......................................................................36 Pedestrian- and Bicycle-Related Collisions..................................37 Collision Severity.....................................................................37 Collisions by Location (Intersection/Midblock) .........................37 Collisions by Location in San Marcos.......................................38 Lighting ..................................................................................41 Transit....................................................................................41

7. Key Findings..............................................................................43 San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 1

1. Introduction
Purpose and Background
The San Marcos Active Transportation Plan (ATP) Existing Conditions Report (ECR) explores existing conditions, opportunities, and challenges within the City of San Marcos as they relate to achieving the vision, goals and objectives set forth in the ATP. The ECR provides an overview of the City’s built environment, demographic characteristics, land use, and mobility patterns.

The ATP will serve as a technical framework and blueprint to guide investments in bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the City to provide a cohesive network of quality mobility choices for all ages and abilities to access any destination within the City without the need for a car. The ECR provides context for the ATP to build upon to improve connectivity, accessibility, equity, and choice.

The ECR provides a comprehensive understanding of pedestrian and bicyclist needs for residents and visitors of all ages. The needs identified will serve as a basis for prioritizing bicycle and pedestrian improvements and ensuring that the recommendations serve the City’s focus on improving mobility in disadvantaged areas and areas surrounding local schools.

Report Organization
The report is organized as follows:
• Community Profile – This section provides an overview of the City’s context in the region, the built environment, key destinations, as well as an overview of demographics and mobility patterns within the City.
• Bicycles – This section provides an overview of existing bicycle facilities and results from a bicycle level of traffic stress analysis on major roads.
• Pedestrians – This section provides an overview of existing pedestrian facilities and trails.
• Transit – This section provides an overview of the existing transit network within the City.
• Prioritizing Safety – This section identifies the areas with the greatest safety concerns and explores the priority areas needed to improve the safety for the residents and visitors of San Marcos.
• Key Findings – This section summarizes the key observations and constraints identified in the previous sections of the ECR.

San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 2 Document Review
The ATP is intended to be complimentary to previous and ongoing planning efforts and will incorporate recommendations that align with the goals and policies from previous studies. A literature review including relevant projects, plans, and studies in San Marcos and the surrounding localities is included as an attachment to this Existing Conditions Report.

The following documents were included in the review of previous plans and studies:
• San Marcos General Plan Existing Conditions Report
• San Marcos Creek District Specific Plan
• San Marcos Creek Project
• University District Specific Plan
• Heart of the City Specific Plan
• 2020 San Marcos Climate Action Plan
• San Marcos Local Roadway Safety Plan (Draft)
• San Marcos Trails Master Plan
• San Marcos Wayfinding Signage Master Plan
• North County Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (Draft) • San Marcos Capital Improvement Plan Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 - 2023 through FY 2026 – 2027
• San Marcos 2018 Parks Master Plan Update
• San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) San Diego Forward: The 2021 Regional Plan
• San Marcos 2021-2029 Adopted Housing Element Update
• San Diego 2012 Regional Safe Routes to School Strategic Plan • Carlsbad Sustainable Mobility Plan
San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 3

2. Community Profile
The Community Profile explores the City’s current geographic setting, land use, demographic data, disadvantaged communities, and travel patterns. These elements, in addition to the feedback received from the community, help shape the identified active transportation needs in San Marcos.

Geographic Setting
San Marcos is a suburban city located in the central portion of northern San Diego County. The City is approximately 24.4 square miles and is home to 95,355 residents1
. The City is bounded by the
Cities of Vista and Carlsbad to the west, the City of Escondido to the east, and portions of unincorporated San Diego County to the north and south. Figure 1 shows the City’s location in relation to the surrounding region.

The City is bisected by State Route 78 (SR-78), a highway that provides an east-west connection between Interstate 5 (I-5) and Interstate 15 (I-15). Parallel to and north of SR-78, is the North County Transit District (NCTD) SPRINTER hybrid rail that runs along South Santa Fe Road/West Mission Road. This rail line provides a commuter transit connection between Oceanside and Escondido.

Though SR-78 and the SPRINTER line are vital regional connections for North County, they create a barrier to active transportation mobility within San Marcos.
1 Census American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year 2019 Gender by Age Figure 1: Regional Context
San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 4 Directly adjacent to the SPRINTER line is the Inland Rail Trail (IRT), a Class I multi-use path passing through Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos, and Escondido, and a portion of the unincorporated County of San Diego. The IRT provides an east-west bicycle connection; however, the trail crosses the rail line and major arterials in San Marcos, increasing stress on bicyclists and pedestrians using the trail.

In addition to man-made barriers, the City’s topography ranges in elevation with steep hills and valleys throughout the area. This undulating topography can pose challenges for active transportation users as the effort required for pedestrians and bicyclists drastically increases in comparison to more uniform topography. Both manmade barriers, such as major highways, rail lines, and arterials, and natural barriers, such as intense elevation changes, characterize San Marcos as a potentially challenging geographic setting to facilitate active transportation.

Figure 2 depicts the various neighborhoods within San Marcos which will be referenced throughout this report.

Built Environment
San Marcos has been experiencing fast-paced development and population growth in recent years. The City has a family-friendly residential atmosphere and has established a position as the educational hub in North County, San Diego2
.

Due to its rural residential and agricultural origins, the City is dominated by single-family housing, open space, and rural land. 2 San Marcos General Plan Update – Existing Conditions Report 3 Heart of the City Specific Plan While multi-family housing and mixed-use developments exist, they are much less prevalent than single-family uses. The City’s commercial and industrial uses are concentrated adjacent to the SR78 corridor.

The City also has five Specific Plan areas which will shape the City’s growth through their individual vision, goals, and uses. The Specific Plans within the City are listed below:
• Heart of the City Specific Plan – Plan to create an urban core of the City comprised of the California State University San Marcos (CSUSM) campus, a mixed-use town center, corporate business center, a variety of housing types, parks and recreational opportunities, mass transit connections, and pedestrian-friendly facilities. This large specific plan involves sub-plans for the University District Specific Plan, Richmar Specific Plan, Campus Pointe II Specific Plan, and Mission 316 Specific Plan3 .
• San Elijo Hills Specific Plan – Plan provides for a variety of residential opportunities, schools, recreational facilities, a town center, a neighborhood commercial center, a park, network of open space corridors, and an interconnected trail system in the southernmost part of the City in the San Elijo Hills
neighborhood4
.
• San Marcos Creek Specific Plan – Plan to create the Creek District, centrally located in The City’s Business and Industrial neighborhood adjacent to San Marcos Boulevard. The Creek District will serve as a pedestrian- and transit-friendly mixed-use commercial and residential development with integrated parks, open space, and multi-use trails along the San Marcos Creek5 .
4 San Elijo Hills Specific Plan Amendment SP 89-18 (10M) 5 San Marcos Creek Specific Plan San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 5 • Santa Fe Hills (Paloma) Specific Plan – Plan to create major circulation roads, construct utilities, develop a neighborhood multi-purpose path system, and a landscape parkway in the northwestern area of San Marcos, north of Las Posas Road6 .
• University District Specific Plan – This plan is a sub-plan of the Heart of the City Specific Plan located in central San Marcos south of SR-78. Twin Oaks Valley Road bisects the plan area which is north of East Barham Drive and future Discovery Street.

The plan aims to develop a “university village” environment with an urban mixed-use center including retail space, various residential housing types, offices, and shared space with an emphasis on transit connections and pedestrian movement7 .

Speed Limits
The City’s speed limits vary from less than 20 miles per hour (mph) on residential roads to 50 mph or greater on SR-78, San Marcos Boulevard west of Viewpoint Drive, and northern Twin Oaks Valley Road as shown in Figure 3. Many major arterials in the City have a 45 mph speed limit including:
• S Rancho Santa Fe Road – South of W San Marcos Boulevard to southern City limit
6 Santa Fe Hills (Paloma) Specific Plan SP 87-25
• N Las Posas Road – North of W San Marcos Boulevard to just south of the City limits
• San Marcos Boulevard – From Viewpoint Drive to Via Vera Cruz • Mission Road – Excluding the segment between S Rancho Santa Fe Road and N Las Posas Road
• Twin Oaks Valley Road/San Elijo Road – Excluding the segment between E La Cienega Road and Windy Way
• Mulberry Drive – Full extent of Mulberry Drive from Rose Ranch Road to E Mission Road
• E Barham Drive – Excluding a segment from S Warplex Avenue to Woodland Parkway
• Craven Road – South of Discovery Street and east of Twin Oaks Valley Road
• Grand Avenue – East of N Las Posas Road and north of W San Marcos Boulevard
Many of the City’s schools and parks are located along roads that have 40+ mph speed limits. These higher speeds can be difficult for young and independent-age children who are walking or biking to school and recreational areas. Youth populations are still learning traffic rules and may have difficulty navigating the complex traffic environments surrounding their schools and neighborhoods. 7 University District Specific Plan
San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 6 Figure 2: San Marcos Neighborhoods
This figure displays the main
neighborhoods in San
Marcos as identified by the
City. These neighborhoods
will be referenced
throughout the ECR to
identify observed patterns.

San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 7 Figure 3: Existing Speed Limits
This figure shows a high
number of arterials at
speeds greater than 45
mph. Many these roads are
located near schools, parks,
and other community
destinations, creating a
high-stress environment for
pedestrians and bicyclists.

San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 8 Demographics
It is important to understand the nuances of residents’ characteristics and behaviors to develop a pedestrian and bicycle network that meets their needs with a particular focus on more vulnerable community members, such as youth, senior, and disadvantaged or low-income residents.

The Demographics section uses 2019 data from a variety of sources, such as the Census and California Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment, to analyze existing conditions prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from 2019 provides insight regarding The City’s demographics and transportation behaviors before the pandemic’s disruption to daily life to extrapolate community needs under typical operations.

Where People Live
This demographics analysis begins with understanding where San Marcos residents live within the City’s boundaries.

San Marcos is home to 95,355 of the total 3,316,073 residents in all of San Diego County. As shown in Figure 4, San Marcos is very densely populated in:
• The central Richmar neighborhood is south of SR-78 and west of Twin Oaks Valley Road and proximate to the CSUSM campus • A small area of western San Marcos situated between SR-78 and S Santa Fe Avenue
Areas in San Marcos with moderate population density include:
• West of S Rancho Santa Fe Road in the Lake San Marcos neighborhood
• Area in the western College and Twin Oaks Valley neighborhoods situated between Mission Road and Borden Road west of Twin Oaks Valley Road
• Eastern areas of the Richland neighborhood
These higher density areas are typically located outside the San Marcos Civic Center employment center, except for the high density Richmar area near CSUSM which serves as a major employment and housing center in the City. The northern and southern areas of San Marcos have lower population densities, including the San Elijo Hills, Barham/Discovery, and northern Twin Oaks Valley neighborhoods.

Population and Employment Growth
The City’s population is expected to grow rapidly in the next 25 years.

SANDAG predicts that by 2040 San Marcos will grow to 113,540 residents as shown in Table 1. This 15% increase from 2020 is consistent with the County’s overall growth.

Table 1: San Marcos Population Growth (2020 to 2040)
Where People Work
With its status as a major educational hub in North County, the City’s largest employers are Palomar Community College (2,485 employees), San Marcos Unified School District (2,464 employees) and CSUSM (1,883 employees) accounting for a quarter of all jobs in the City. In addition to education, San Marcos hosts employers in manufacturing, healthcare and transportation including Hunter Industries (806 employees), United Parcel Service (551 employees), and Southern California Permanente Medical Group (445 employees).

In 2019, SANDAG identified employment centers—areas with large densities of employment—and categorized these areas into four tiers based on the density of employment. Two Tier 2 and one Tier 3 employment centers intersect the City as shown in Figure 4.

San Marcos San Diego
County
2020 Population 98,915 3,435,713
2040 Population 113,540 3,937,280
% Change from 2020 to 2040 15% 15%
San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 9 • San Marcos Civic Center – Encompassing the City’s Business and Industrial neighborhood and CSUSM along SR-78, this
employment center employs 33,016 people, 18% of which travel from San Marcos. One percent of Civic Center employees bike to work an average of 5.1 miles and an additional 1% walk to work an average of 1.4 miles8
.
• Escondido – Palomar – This employment center overlaps a small portion of the City’s easternmost area and hosts 30,644 employees, 9% of which travel from within San Marcos9
.
• Vista Tech Park – This employment center touches the western edge of San Marcos and employs 20,943 people, 11% of which travel from within San Marcos10.

San Marcos experiences an inflow of approximately 30,006 employees commuting to work in the City and an outflow of approximately 30,739 residents commuting to other regions, such as the Cities of San Diego, Carlsbad, Escondido, and Vista. While approximately 4,711 residents live and work in the City11.

As displayed in Figure 4, jobs in San Marcos are primarily concentrated within the San Marcos Civic Center Employment Center with additional job concentrations located north along Twin Oaks Valley Road, south along San Elijo Road and S Rancho Santa Fe Road, and east in the Escondido – Palomar employment center. Particularly high concentrations of jobs are located near:
• San Marcos Boulevard and Twin Oaks Valley Road where the CSUSM campus resides
• W Mission Road and N Las Posas Road where the Palomar Community College resides
• S Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Drive at the La Costa Meadows Business and Industrial neighborhood, which hosts 8 SANDAG San Marcos Civic Center Employment Center Fact Sheet (2019) 9 SANDAG Escondido - Palomar Employment Center Fact Sheet (2019) Hunter Industries and other manufacturing and industrial employers
How People Commute to Work
San Marcos residents commute to work using a few main
transportation modes as displayed in Table 2:
• 87.2% of San Marcos residents travel by car, truck, or van, which is higher than San Diego County by 2.4%
• 2.6% of San Marcos residents walk or bike to work which is lower than San Diego County by 0.9%
• 1.2% of San Marcos residents use public transportation, which is more than half the percentage of San Diego County residents Table 2: Modes of Transportation to Work
10 SANDAG Vista Tech Park Employment Center Fact Sheet (2019) 11 City of San Marcos General Plan Existing Conditions Report (Market Conditions) San Marcos San Diego County
Transportation Modes Workers % Workers %
Car, truck, or van 39,610 87.2% 1,380,157 84.8%
Public transportation
(Excluding taxicab) 545 1.2% 48,826 3.0%
Walked 999 2.2% 47,199 2.9%
Bicycle 182 0.4% 9,765 0.6%
Taxicab, motorcycle, or
other means 1,090 2.4% 27,668 1.7%
Worked from home 2,953 6.5% 113,928 7.0%
Total workers
(16 years and over) 45,424 - 1,627,544 -
San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 10 Figure 4: Population and Employment Density
This figure shows that the
highest concentration of
employment density and
population density adjacent
to CSUSM in the center of
San Marcos and within the
San Marcos Civic Center
employment center.

San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 11 Age Demographics
The age distribution of San Marcos residents is listed in Table 3 and shown in Figure 5. Age groups of focus for active transportation are:
• Independent Youth (ages 10 to 17) – 11.4% of San Marcos residents are considered Independent Youth (ages 10 to 17). As shown in Figure 6, this demographic is densely populated in the Richmar neighborhood west of Twin Oak Valley Road between Mission Road and SR-78, western San Marcos between S Santa Fe Avenue and SR-78, and an area of the Barham/Discovery
neighborhood south of Craven Road and west of Twin Oaks Valley Road near Discovery Lake. Independent Youth residents are less densely populated in areas such as the San Elijo Hills
neighborhood, Richland neighborhood, College neighborhood, and the area west of S Rancho Santa Fe Road. A large portion of this population is highly mobile within the City as they typically travel from residences to local San Marcos elementary, middle, and high schools. This demographic would benefit from
pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly routes to and from school. • University-age (ages 18 to 24) – 10.5% of San Marcos residents are University-age (ages 18 to 24). As shown in Figure 7, this demographic is densely populated in the Richmar neighborhood near CSUSM. University-age residents are less densely populated in the area west of Richmar between S Santa Fe Avenue/W Mission Road and SR-78, the College, Richland, and
Barham/Discovery neighborhoods east of Twin Oaks Valley Road.

This young adult population may attend one of the various universities or colleges located in San Marcos and may be highly mobile in areas surrounding campus locations.
12 Census American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year 2019 Gender by Age • Seniors (ages 65 and older) – 12.2% of San Marcos residents are considered seniors; however, 5.2% of residents are 75 years and older. The senior population data is analyzed in further detail in the next section of this report.

Figure 5: Age Distribution12
Table 2: Age Distribution for San Marcos and San Diego County

14.8%
Youth
(under 10)

11.4%
Independent Youth
(10 to 17)

10.5%
University-age
(18 to 24)

50.4%
Adult
(25 to 64)

7.6%
Senior (65 to 74)

5.2%
Senior (75 +)
TITLE
San Marcos San Diego County
Age Total % Total %
Youth (under 10) 14,130 14.8% 405,438 12.2%
Independent Youth (10 to 17) 10,889 11.4% 317,300 9.6%
University-age (18 to 24) 9,984 10.5% 346,764 10.5%
Adult (25 to 64) 48,081 50.4% 1,792,482 54.1%
Senior (65 to 74) 7,272 7.6% 261,738 7.9%
Senior (75 and older) 4,999 5.2% 192,351 5.8%
Total Population 95,355 -- 3,316,073 --
San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 12 Figure 6: Independent Youth (10-17 years) Population Density This figure shows that the
highest concentration of
independent youth
population lives north of
CSUSM with pockets of
dense independent
populations in the San Elijo
Hills area and near the
western edge of the City,
adjacent to SR-78.

San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 13 Figure 7: University (18-24 years) Population Density
This figure shows that the
highest concentration of the
University aged population
lives north of CSU San
Marcos.

San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 14

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%
Less than
$10,000
$10,000
to
$14,999
$15,000
to
$24,999
$25,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
to
$99,999
$100,000
to
$149,999
$150,000
to
$199,999
$200,000
or more
San Marcos San Diego County
Income
In San Marcos, the median income is $78,797 which is comparable to San Diego County’s median of $78,98013. The City’s income distribution is skewed slightly towards higher income populations and aligns similarly to San Diego County’s income distribution as shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Income Distribution
Figure 9 displays the median income in each of The City’s block groups. From the figure, block groups in the following areas have lower median incomes:
• The Business and Industrial Neighborhood of the City around SR78 and north of Discovery Street and W San Marcos Boulevard • The Barham/Discovery neighborhood, east of S Twin Oaks Valley/San Elijo Road
• Pockets of the Richland neighborhood at the eastern boundary of San Marcos
Whereas the following areas contain block groups with higher median incomes:
• The southern area of San Elijo Hills and La Costa
13 US Census American Community Survey 2019 5-Year Estimated Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2019 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars)
• The northern area of San Marcos in the Twin Oaks Valley and Paloma neighborhoods
Disadvantaged Communities
Vulnerable and underserved communities (social equity focused communities14) are defined by SANDAG as low-income, people of color, senior populations, that may be historically underserved in terms of infrastructure and opportunities. These community members may need focused active transportation infrastructure. Understanding the location and density of residents identified as social equity focused communities provides vital context for equitable transportation decisions. The ATP will consider the following groups to understand the needs for all members of the San Marcos community:
• Senior populations
• Minority populations
• Low-Income populations
• Environment-impacted populations
• Zero Car Households
Senior Populations
Senior populations are defined as any resident 75 years and older, although at times, the ECR evaluates individuals 65 years and older to consider demographics with similar physical capabilities.

Figure 10 depicts the percentage of each block group in San Marcos that is 75 years and older. This demographic is highly concentrated in:
• The area of the Richland neighborhood, east of Woodland Parkway and north of Rock Springs Road
14 https://www.sdforward.com/environment-communities/socialequity San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 15 Figure 9: San Marcos Median Income
This figure shows that there
is a higher concentration of
lower income individuals in
the Business and Industrial
neighborhood adjacent to
SR-78 as well as the
Barham/Discovery
neighborhood, east of Twin
Oaks Valley/San Elijo Road.

San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 16 Figure 10: Senior Population and Senior Housing
This figure displays a high
concentration of senior
populations in the Business
and Industrial neighborhood,
south of Lake San Marcos,
and the northwestern
Richland neighborhood.

San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 17 • The western area of the La Costa neighborhood, north of the San Marcos Creek
• The western Business and Industrial neighborhood
Senior populations may have difficulty being mobile within San Marcos. Active transportation facilities should meet their specialized needs through American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant infrastructure and other adaptive measures.

Minority Populations
Minority populations, defined as people of color (non-white or Hispanic or Latino), are historically underserved or excluded communities that the ATP will focus on to provide equitable transportation infrastructure.

Table 4 displays the population and percent of San Marcos residents that identify as the following races in accordance with the Census’ 2019 5-Year American Community Survey (ACS) for Demographic and Housing Estimates: White, Black or African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, and some other race.

Figure 11 depicts the race and ethnicity proportions of San Marcos residents. The figure shows the proportion of residents that identify as Hispanic or Latino alone and breaks down by race the proportion of residents that do not identify as Hispanic or Latino. 56% of San Marcos is considered a minority population, which is defined as any population that identifies as non-White alone, such as any non-White race or a Hispanic or Latino ethnicity.

Figure 12 displays percentage of the San Marcos population in each Census block group that identifies as a minority. Areas with high percentages of minority populations include:
• Central San Marcos north of SR-78 and south of Borden Road • Western San Marcos west of Rancho Santa Fe and south of Mission Road
Table 3: Race Distribution
Figure 11: Race and Ethnicity Distribution
San Marcos
Identity Population Percentage of
Total Population
Hispanic or Latino alone 38,066 39.9%
Not Hispanic or Latino 57,289 60.1%
White alone 41,574 43.6%
Black or African American 2,245 2.4%
American Indian and Alaska Native 412 0.4%
Asian 9,009 9.4%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 430 0.5%
Some other race 163 0.2%
Two or more races 3,456 3.6%
Total 95,355 -
San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 18 Figure 12: Minority Population
This figure displays that a
high concentration of
minority populations lives
just north of SR-78 and west
of Rancho Santa Fe Rd.

San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 19 Low-Income Populations
Low-income populations are defined as residents that report having an income below 200% of the federal poverty level, as many federal programs are provided for individuals in this income threshold. Table 5 displays the population in San Marcos that lives below each percentage of the federal poverty level.
• 29.4% of the San Marcos population is considered low-income15 Table 4: Population Below Poverty Level
San Marcos Population with
Income Below the Following
Levels
Population Percentage of
Population
50% of poverty level 5,446 5.8%
125% of poverty level 15,059 16.0%
150% of poverty level 19,272 20.4%
185% of poverty level 25,291 26.8%
200% of poverty level 27,777 29.4%
300% of poverty level 41,289 43.8%
400% of poverty level 52,048 55.2%
500% of poverty level 61,308 65.0%
Population for whom poverty
status is determined 94,334 -
15 US Census American Community Survey 2019 5-Year Estimated Poverty Status Figure 13 displays the percentage of low-income households in each San Marcos block group, as well as the location of affordable housing units.

Areas with a high percentage of low-income households include:
• The western Business and Industrial neighborhood,
predominantly north of San Marcos Boulevard and south of Mission Road
• The southern Barham and Discovery neighborhood east of Twin Oaks Valley Road and south of SR-78
Affordable housing units are concentrated in the center of San Marcos, just west of Mission Road and Twin Oaks Valley Road. There are additional units scattered throughout the City along San Elijo Road, Borden Road, La Moree Road, and Rancho Santa Fe Road.

San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 20 Figure 13: Low-Income Households and Affordable Housing This figure displays a high
concentration of lowincome households in the
Business and Industrial
neighborhoods, north of San
Marcos Blvd and South of
Mission Rd and Borden Rd.

San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 21 CalEnviroScreen 4.0
CalEnviro Screen 4.0 is a model developed by the California Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment that evaluates 21 statewide indicators for pollution burden and population characteristics, specifically relating to exposures, environmental effects, sensitive populations and socioeconomic factors. The model creates a comprehensive score for each census tract relative to other places in the state, where a higher percentile indicates that a place is more “unhealthy” (impacted by socioeconomic and environmental factors) than other areas in California16.

Figure 14 displays the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentiles for each census tract in San Marcos. The following San Marcos census tracts scored in the 59th percentile or greater:
• Census tract 6073020029 depicted in yellow, east of S Rancho Santa Fe Road and south of Mission Road scored in the 59th percentile overall. This area scored above the 60th percentile for various environmental effects: 77th percentile for diesel particulate matter, 62nd for traffic, 79th for cleanup sites, 83rd for hazardous waste, and 97th for solid waste.
• Census tract 6073020018 depicted in yellow, west of S Rancho Santa Fe Road and north of Linda Vista Drive scored in the 60th percentile overall. This area scored above the 60th percentile due to the following: 92nd for poverty, 90th for linguistic isolation, 62nd percentile for diesel particulate matter, 62nd for cleanup sites, 64th for hazardous waste, 90th for impaired waters and 85th for solid waste.
16 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 California Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment
• No communities are above the 75th percentile
• Over 50% of San Marcos census tracts are below the
30th percentile
Healthy Places Index
The Healthy Places Index is developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California and combines 25 community characteristics such as healthcare access, housing, education, and more into a Healthy Places Index score. A lower score indicates a community is “healthier” (more impacted by social and health-related factors) in relation to other communities in southern California.

Figure 15 displays the Healthy Places Index percentiles for each census tract in San Marcos where the City average is 66.6th percentile and San Diego County’s average is 67.9th percentile. The following San Marcos census tracts scored below the 45th percentile:
• Census tract 6073020029 depicted in dark blue, east of S Rancho Santa Fe Road, south of Mission Road, and west of Knoll Road scored in the 16th percentile overall. This area scored poorly in poverty levels, high school enrollment, automobile access, diesel particulates, prevalence of insured adults, levels of
homeownership, housing cost burden, and crowded housing.

San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 22 Figure 14: CalEnviroScreen 4.0
This figure shows that the
Business and Industrial
neighborhood scores poorly
with regard to pollution
burden, environmental
effects, sensitive
populations and
socioeconomic factors
according to
CalEnviroScreen 4.0.

San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 23 Figure 15: Healthy Places Index
This figure shows that,
according to the Healthy
Places Index, the Business
and Industrial neighborhood
and south of Borden Rd
scores poorly with regard to
pollution burden, and
community characteristics
such as healthcare access,
housing, education,
socioeconomic factors.

San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 24 • Census tract 6073020028 depicted in dark blue, east of Knoll Road, south of W Mission Road, and north of San Marcos
Boulevard scored in the 21st percentile overall. This area scored poorly in poverty levels, per capita income, levels of bachelor’s education or higher, automobile access, tree canopy,
homeownership, crowded housing, and levels of insured adults. • Census tract 6073020018 depicted in dark blue, west of S Rancho Santa Fe Road, north of Linda Vista Dr, and south of S Santa Fe Avenue scored in the 23rd percentile overall. This area scored poorly in poverty levels, per capita income, high school enrollment, active commuting, park access, tree canopy, housing cost burden, diesel particulates, and prevalence of insured adults. • One census tract located in the College and Richmar
neighborhoods south of Borden Road and north of Mission Road scored in the 44th percentile. This area scored poorly in poverty levels, preschool enrollment, tree canopy, diesel particulates, and levels of insured adults.

Zero Car Households
Households without access to a car likely rely on active transportation and public transit to move within the City and to access areas outside of the City. As shown in Figure 16, 4.5% of households in San Marcos do not have a vehicle available and 23.2% have access to one vehicle.

It is important to understand where high concentrations of this demographic reside to ensure that active transportation infrastructure is available to meet their needs as they are likely dependent, daily users of alternative modes of transportation.

Figure 16 : San Marcos Household Vehicle Availability
Figure 17 depicts the percentage of zero car households in each block group in San Marcos. The following areas have a higher percentage of zero car households:
• The western Business and Industrial neighborhood, south of SR-78 and east of S Rancho Santa Fe Road
• The Richland neighborhood, east of Woodland Parkway and north of Rock Springs Road
• The Richland neighborhood, east of Bennett Avenue, south of Knob Hill Road and west of Nordahl Road
No vehicle available

4.5%
1 vehicle
available

23.2%
2 vehicles available

44.9%
3+ vehicles available

27.5%
San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 25 Figure 17: Zero Vehicle Availability Households
This figure shows that the
Business and Industrial
neighborhood and
northeastern pockets of the
Richland neighborhood have
high percentages of
residents without access to a
vehicle. These residents may
walk and bike frequently,
thus having more active
transportation needs.

San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 26 Mobility Patterns
The City’s existing mobility patterns provide further insight about the current volume of active transportation and the potential for changing active transportation patterns within the City.

This section uses Replica, a big data platform that creates large-scale models representing mobility and activity patterns going down to the Census block group level. The volumes per user are projected from Replica’s model, rather than observed.

Internal Trips
Internal trips are defined as vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, or other trips that both start and end within the City of San Marcos. Internal trips are vital to understanding where San Marcos residents are traveling within the City and the magnitude of internal travel patterns. These trips have high potential for using active transportation modes in the future if high-quality active transportation facilities are provided.

Internal trips that begin in San Marcos represent 48% of all trips in the City.

One focus of this ATP is to identify short vehicle trips, which have a trip length of less than 5 miles, that similarly have a higher likelihood of being converted to a pedestrian or bicycle trip if the network is enhanced. Figure 18 identifies that 72% of the internal San Marcos trips are vehicle trips, where 55% trips are private automobile trips and 17% are carpool trips. Walking trips comprise 23% of the City’s internal weekday trips, indicating an existing desire and ability to walk within San Marcos for some short trips. Bicycle trips comprise 1% of the City’s internal weekday trips, potentially indicating a lack of comfortable bicycle infrastructure for active transportation users.

Figure 18: Mode Share of Internal San Marcos 2019 Weekday Trips Figure 19 displays a map of the internal short trips (5 miles or less) originating in San Marcos for a typical 2019 weekday. Areas with high levels of internal short trips include:
• The Business and Industrial neighborhood
• The Richmar and College neighborhoods in central San Marcos • The Richland neighborhood in eastern San Marcos
Overall, census blocks in the central east-west corridor across the City have a high volume of short internal trips, while moderate numbers of internal short trips exist in the northern Twin Oaks Valley neighborhood, the southern Barham/Discovery neighborhood, the Questhaven/La Costa neighborhood, and areas west of S Rancho Santa Fe Road.

San Marcos has a few primary network links that experience high daily volumes exceeding 11,400 trips. These primary links include:
• SR-78
• W San Marcos Boulevard
• S Rancho Santa Fe Road
• Twin Oaks Valley Road
0%
1%
1%
1%
2%
17%
23%
55%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Public transit
Taxi/TNC
Biking
Other
Commercial Vehicle
Auto Passenger
Walking
Private Auto
San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 27 Figure 19: Origin of Internal Short Trips
This figure shows where
internal trips that are 5
miles or less begin in San
Marcos. Key areas for short
trips are concentrated in the
Business and Industrial
neighborhood, north of
Mission Rd and pockets east
of Woodland Pkwy.

San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 28

3. Bicycles
Existing Bicycle Network
The City’s existing bicycle network is comprised of a mix of Class I, Class II, and Class III facilities, characterized by the following (Figure 20):
• Class I bike paths are paved right-of-way for exclusive use by bicyclists, pedestrians, and those using non-motorized modes of travel
• Class II bike lanes are defined by pavement markings and signage used to allocate a portion of a roadway for exclusive or preferential bicycle travel. Class II facilities may have a buffer with additional striping separating bicyclists and vehicles • Class III bike routes provide shared use with motor vehicle traffic within the same travel lane and are typically designated with signs or shared lane markings
The City does not have any Class IV bikeways. Class IV bikeways are similar to a Class II on-street bike lanes, however a Class IV bikeway includes vertical protection to create a physical barrier between bicyclists and vehicles.

Figure 20: Bicycle Facility Classifications
San Marcos has 115.8 total lane miles of bicycle facilities as summarized in Table 6 and shown in Figure 21.

Table 5: Bicycle Facility Mileage by Type
Bicycle lane mileage was determined by calculating the length of each bicycle travel lane on or adjacent to roadways. For example, one mile of Class II bicycle facilities on each side of a roadway is considered two lane miles of Class II bicycle facilities. Similarly one mile of Class I facilities is calculated as two total lane miles of Class I facilities because bicycles are able to travel in both directions.

A majority, 78.3%, of bicycle facilities in San Marcos are Class II, while a small portion, 2.3%, are Class III. Class II and Class III facilities do not provide physical protection for bicyclists and can be difficult for bicyclists of all skill levels to use.

Class I paths makeup 22.4 lane miles or 19.3% of the City’s bicycle facilities, which includes the Inland Rail Trail and various multi-use paths adjacent to N Twin Oaks Valley Road, La Cienega Road, Sycamore Drive and Edgewater Drive. These paths are separate from the road’s on-street bicycle facilities and designated pedestrian paths which provides a physically protected path for bicycles without the presence of vehicles or pedestrians.

Bicycle Facility
Classification Lane Miles Percent of Total Bicycle Mileage Class I Bike Path 22.4 19.3%
Class II Bike Lane 87.6 65.9%
Class II Buffered Bike Lane 14.4 12.4%
Class III Bike Route 2.7 2.3%
Class IV Bike Way 0.0 0.0%
Total 115.8 -
San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 29 The City of San Marcos has an interconnected trail system, as discussed in more detail in the pedestrian section of this report. The Inland Rail Trail is part of that system, running east-west through the entire City of San Marcos and crossing major roads (San Marcos Boulevard, N Las Posas Road, and Mission Road) and train tracks.

This trail provides access to many destinations within the City as well as regional connectivity to destinations across North County.

Figure 21 displays gaps in the bicycle network including the freeway underpasses or overpasses at Rancho Santa Fe Road, San Marcos Boulevard, Twin Oaks Valley Road, and Nordahl Road. These gaps contribute to a lack in protected north-south bicycle connections in San Marcos. The only north-south connection is at N Las Posas Road in the southbound direction only where numerous bicycle collisions have occurred (see Prioritizing Safety section). Additionally, there are gaps in the bicycle network along Grand Avenue, Borden Road, Linda Vista Drive, Discovery Street, Rock Springs Road, Barham Drive, and Bennett Avenue.

Existing Bicycle Parking
Bicycle parking plays a critical role in promoting bicycling as a viable mode of transportation and encouraging individuals to choose bicycles over cars. To develop an effective active transportation plan, it is important to assess the current state of bicycle parking facilities in the area. Figure 22 displays the locations of existing public bicycle parking in San Marcos.

Existing Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
A Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS) analysis was conducted on the major roads and the Inland Rail Trail in San Marcos.

What is a BLTS Analysis?
BLTS analysis provides a score regarding the level of stress bicyclists experience when using the existing bicycle facilities on a roadway. A Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) score ranges from 1 (lowest level of stress) to 4 (highest level of stress). The score considers the speed limit on the roadway, bicycle facility classification, adjacent on-street vehicle parking, number of travel lanes, width of bicycle lanes, and frequency of bicycle lane blockage by bus services. There are two major initial screening criteria for this analysis that impact LTS scores. • Roadway segments with speed limits of 40 mph or greater receive an LTS score of 4 due to the higher levels of stress resulting from high-speed vehicles directly adjacent to bicyclists • Roadway segments with Class I or Class IV facilities receive an LTS score of 1 due to the physical/vertical protection between bicyclists and vehicles
San Marcos BLTS
This analysis evaluates the existing and active major roads in San Marcos. It does not include future roads or Class I paths adjacent to Class II lanes unless they are clearly marked.

Figure 23 displays the LTS scores for all corridors included in the analysis, while Table 7 displays the lane mileage by each LTS score.

89.1% of roads in San Marcos are considered high stress and have an LTS score of 3 or 4. Many of these scores are a result of highspeed roads (see Figure 3 for speed limits in San Marcos) or narrow bike lanes adjacent to on-street parking.

San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 30 The Inland Rail Trail is the only facility with LTS 1 because it is a Class I multi-use path. The only area with LTS 2 is northbound San Elijo Road from Boundary Lane to Elfin Forest Road E where the speed limit is 25 mph and the bike lane and on-street parking are at least

14.5 feet wide total, providing sufficient space for bicyclists to theoretically feel comfortable next to parked cars.

Table 6: BLTS Mileage by LTS Score
Level of Traffic Stress Score Lane Miles Percent of Total Bicycle Mileage LTS 1 10.8 10.6%
LTS 2 0.3 0.3%
LTS 3 3.4 3.3%
LTS 4 87.1 85.8%
Total 101.6 -
San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 31 Figure 21: Existing Bicycle Facilities
San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 32 Figure 22: Existing Public Bicycle Parking
San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 33 Figure 23: Existing Bicycle Level of Stress
San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 34

4. Pedestrians
This section provides an overview of the existing pedestrian environment related to connectivity. The pedestrian environment focuses on the accessibility of sidewalks and associated curb ramps to ensure pedestrians have sufficient facilities to meet their walking needs for their desired route.

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Facilities
The current pedestrian network contains potential barriers including areas where curb ramps do not connect to sidewalk or where ramps connect to asphalt sidewalk, creating accessibility challenges.

There are various areas where sidewalk and curb accessibility may present a larger barrier. For example, in the northern area of the Twin Oaks Valley neighborhood there is a higher concentration of missing sidewalk and curb ramps. This area is near two schools, Twin Oaks Elementary School and Twin Oaks High School, which may benefit from accessible pedestrian facilities for students walking to or from school.

Additionally, there is a high concentration of missing sidewalk and curb ramps around the S Rancho Santa Fe and Linda Vista Drive intersection, similarly near multiple schools.

As noted in the Mobility section, there are a large number of internal short trips originating in the central east-west corridor, where missing sidewalk and curb ramps in the Business and Industrial neighborhood which may pose problems for individuals walking and biking.

It should be noted that the City’s Capital Improvements Plan for FY 22-23 through FY 26-27 includes a Citywide ADA infrastructure initiative to execute the ADA Transition Plan by providing as needed improvements and upgrades.

Trails
In conjunction with sidewalk facilities, the City of San Marcos currently has an interconnected trail system of approximately 72 miles. There are currently 55 miles of off-road multi-use trails designated for nonmotorized commuting and recreational use, which are typically 7 to 10 feet wide. The City’s unique topography and recreational area provides an opportunity for beautiful trails as the City’s Trails Master Plan envisions 108 total miles of trails in the future.

San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 35

5. Transit
NCTD offers six types of public transit operations, of which, the SPRINTER and BREEZE serves area within the City of San Marcos.

NCTD also operates shared-ride paratransit service throughout the North County region and serves more than 10 million passengers every year.17
Existing Service
Sprinter
The east-west SPRINTER hybrid rail line runs for approximately 22 miles, connecting Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos, and Escondido. There are three SPRINTER stations in San Marcos: Palomar College, San Marcos Civic Center and Cal State San Marcos. The Palomar College and San Marcos Civic Center stations have direct access to the Inland Rail Trail, while the Palomar College station has a Park and Ride lot available. These stations serve young adult populations attending Palomar College and CSUSM, in addition to a variety of residents seeking to travel regionally through North County.

As shown in Figure 21, there is a lack of high-quality north-south bicycle connections to any of the SPRINTER stations. Additionally, there are gaps in the bicycle network on Rancheros Drive and Twin Oaks Valley Road within a quarter mile of the San Marcos Civic Center station.
17 NCTD Operating Report, 2019
Breeze
Five BREEZE routes operate within San Marcos: Routes 304, 305, 347, 353, and 445, none of which are considered high-frequency transit service as buses arrive, at a minimum every 30 minutes. BREEZE buses have a bike rack capable of handling at least two bikes with standard bike tires. Secure bicycle parking is also provided at major transit stops such as the San Marcos Civic Center and CSUSM SPRINTER stations.

San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 36 Table 7: Summary of All San Marcos Collisions (2015-2019)

6. Prioritizing Safety
The City of San Marcos prioritizes safety and, through the ATP, will aim to improve safety for the most vulnerable roadway users – bicyclists and pedestrians. As part of the ECR, collision data was analyzed to identify trends and patterns related to collision location, causes, time, party-at-fault, and victim age for collisions that involved pedestrians and bicyclists. Historical collision data from January 2015 through December 2019 was obtained from Crossroads database, see Figure 24. As shown in Table 8, while pedestrian-related collisions account for 3.7% of all collisions in San Marcos, they account for 75% of all collisions resulting in fatalities18. The impact of pedestrianrelated collisions can be severe and greatly affect the families and communities of San Marcos. 70% of victims involved in a pedestrianrelated collision report a complaint of pain or higher severity. 18 Crossroads, January 2015 – December 2019
Figure 24: San Marcos 2015-2019 Bicycle and Pedestrian Collision Summary San Marcos Collisions (2015-2019)
Type of Collision # of
Collisions
% of Total
Collisions
# of Victims
Involved in a
Severe Injury or
Fatal Collision
% of Total Victims
Involved in a Severe
Injury or Fatal
Collision
# of
Victims
Injured
% of Total
Victims
Injured
# of
Victim
Fatalities
% of
Total
Victim
Fatalities
Vehicle 2,094 93.2% 72 66.7% 1,104 88.8% 2 25%
Bicycle 69 3.1% 11 10.2% 64 5.1% 0 0%
Pedestrian 83 3.7% 25 23.1% 75 6.0% 6 75%
Total Collisions 2,246 - 108 - 1,243 - 8 -
San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 37 Pedestrian- and Bicycle-Related Collisions
A total of 83 pedestrian-involved and 69 bicycle-involved collisions were reported during the five-year period.

Collision Severity
Figure 25 displays the severity extent for pedestrian and bicycle collisions. Pedestrian collisions tend to be more severe with 27.7% of reported pedestrian collisions involving a severe injury or fatality as opposed to 15.9% for bicycle collisions. There were six fatal pedestrian collisions, while there were no fatal bicycle collisions.

Figure 25: Pedestrian and Bicycle Collision Severity
Collisions by Location (Intersection/Midblock)
Table 9 presents data regarding whether a collision occurred at an intersection or midblock. For both bicyclists and pedestrians, a higher number of collisions occurred at intersections as opposed to midblock locations. A majority, 56.6% and 60.9%, of pedestrian and bicycle collisions occur at intersections as opposed to midblock locations, respectively.

Table 8: Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions by Location (Intersection/Midblock) Pedestrian Collisions Bicycle Collisions
Location # of Ped
Collisions
% of Ped
Collisions
# of Bike
Collisions
% of Bike
Collisions
Intersection 47 56.6% 42 60.9%
Midblock 36 43.4% 27 39.1%
Total 83 - 69 -
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
Fatal Severe Injury Complaint of
Pain
Other Visible
Injury
Property
Damage Only
Number of Collisions
Pedestrian Bicycle Extent of Collision
San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 38 Collisions by Location in San Marcos
Figure 26 displays the location of pedestrian collisions in San Marcos.

There is a high concentration of pedestrian collisions on Rancho Santa Fe Road, Mission Road, and San Marcos Boulevard.

Table 10 displays the intersections in San Marcos with more than one pedestrian collision. The San Marcos Boulevard and Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection has the highest number of pedestrian collisions, with 4 collisions. This intersection is located at the northwest corner of San Marcos High School and has a large number of students walking and biking in the area. Woodland Parkway and Mission Road had 3 pedestrian collisions in the study period. This intersection is less than 400 feet from Mission Hills High School where many students walk and bike daily.

Table 9: Intersections with the Highest Number of Pedestrian Collisions Figure 27 displays the number of bicycle collisions at each location in San Marcos. There is a high concentration of bicycle collisions on San Marcos Boulevard, N Las Posas Road, Mission Road, and Twin Oaks Valley Road/San Elijo Road, which indicates a concern for bicyclists’ safety in these corridors.

Table 11 displays the intersections in San Marcos with more than one bicycle collision. The intersection of Mission Road and Las Posas Road has the highest number of bicycle collisions with 4 bicycle collisions in 5 years. This intersection has direct access the Inland Rail Trail and has a Class II on-street bike lane, while Mission Road and N Las Posas are 6- and 8- lane roadways respectively. Of the 8 intersections in Table 11, 3 are on San Marcos Boulevard and 3 are on Mission Road.

Table 10: Intersections with the Highest Number of Bicycle Collisions Location # Pedestrian
Collisions
% of Total
Pedestrian
Collisions
San Marcos Blvd &
Rancho Santa Fe Rd 4 4.8%
Woodland Pkwy &
Mission Rd 3 3.6%
Nordahl Rd & 78 Wb
Ramp 2 2.4%
Via Vera Cruz &
Grand Ave 2 2.4%
La Mirada Dr &
Rancho Santa Fe Rd 2 2.4%
Borden Rd &
Mulberry Dr 2 2.4%
Total Pedestrian
Collisions 83
Location # Bicycle
Collisions
% of Total
Bicycle
Collisions
Mission Rd & Las Posas Rd 4 5.8%
Twin Oaks Valley Rd & Craven Rd 2 2.9%
San Marcos Blvd & Westlake Dr 2 2.9%
Mission Rd & Mission Hills Ct 2 2.9%
Mission Rd & Mulberry Dr 2 2.9%
Rancho Santa Fe Rd & Security Pl 2 2.9%
San Marcos Blvd & Knoll Rd 2 2.9%
Las Posas Rd & San Marcos Blvd 2 2.9%
Total Bicycle Collisions 69
San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 39 Figure 26: Pedestrian Collisions by Location in San Marcos This figure shows how many
reported pedestrian-related
collisions occurred at each
location in San Marcos from
2015-2019. High
concentrations of collisions
occurred on Rancho Santa
Fe Rd, Mission Rd, and San
Marcos Blvd.

San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 40 Figure 27: Bicycle Collisions by Location in San Marcos This figure shows how many
reported bicycle-related
collisions occurred at each
location in San Marcos from
2015-2019. High
concentrations of collisions
occurred on N Las Posas Rd,
Mission Rd, San Marcos
Blvd, and Twin Oaks Valley

San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 41 Lighting
Table 12 shows the number of pedestrian and bicycle collisions that occur at each time of day, ranging from daylight to dark without functioning streetlights. A majority of collisions occur during daylight, accounting for 54 pedestrian (65.1%) and 59 bicycle collisions (85.5%).

The second highest number of pedestrian and bicycle collisions occurred during dark hours of the day at locations with streetlights, accounting for 21 pedestrian collisions (25.3%) and 8 bicycle collisions (11.6%).

Table 11: Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions Lighting
Transit
Figure 28 displays the severity of pedestrian or bicycle collisions that occur within 500 feet of a transit stop. The transit routes considered in this map are the SPRINTER hybrid rail line and the BREEZE bus routes. There is a high concentration of collisions near transit stops along Rancho Santa Fe Road, N Las Posas Road, Mission Road, San Marcos Boulevard, and Craven Road. First- and last-mile connectivity via walking and miking to these stations is a concern.

Pedestrian Collisions Bicycle Collisions
Lighting # of Ped
Collisions
% of Ped
Collisions
# of Bike
Collisions
% of Bike
Collisions
Daylight 54 65.1% 59 85.5%
Dark –
Streetlights 21 25.3% 8 11.6%
Dusk – Dawn 6 7.2% 1 1.4%
Dark – No
Streetlights 1 1.2% 0 0.0%
Dark –
Streetlights Not
Functioning
1 1.2% 0 0.0%
Not Stated 0 0.0% 1 1.4%
Total 83 69
San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 42 Figure 28: Pedestrian or Bicycle Collisions within 500 feet of a Transit Stop This figure shows collisions
that occur within 500 ft of a
transit. The yellow circles
represent 500’ radius around
each transit stop in San
Marcos. Only collisions
occurring within this area
are included on the map.

San Marcos Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions Report 43

7. Key Findings
• San Marcos is a car-dependent City, with 72% of residents using a vehicle for internal short trips of less than 5 miles. • A majority of the major roads in San Marcos have high speed limits (40+ mph), which creates a concerning environment for pedestrians and bicyclists alike. In particular, most schools in San Marcos are located on high-speed roads, which poses concerns for young inexperienced students. A majority of the roadways in San Marcos scored an LTS of 4 (high levels of stress for the bicyclist) due to high-speed limits.
• San Marcos is characterized as a highly residential area and a moderate employment center, resulting in an in-flow and outflow of about 30,000 residents each day. The number of people who live and work in the City is almost 5,000. A focus of the ATP will be to convert as many of these internal trips to alternative modes as possible.
• The City is characterized by both man-made barriers, such as major highways and rail lines, and natural barriers, such as steep topographic changes and waterways. These are all
barriers to encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation.
• Vulnerable and underserved communities may need focused active transportation infrastructure to meet their needs:
o 56% of residents identify as a non-white minority
o 12.8% of residents are 65 years or older
o 29.4% of residents live at 200% of the poverty level and are considered low-income
o 27.7% of San Marcos households have access to zero or one vehicle
• Specifically, the Business and Industrial neighborhood (north of Discovery Street and San Marcos Boulevard, south of Mission Road or Borden Road, and west of Twin Oaks Valley Road) tends to be a low-income area with high numbers of affordable housing units, high pollution levels, poor scores for
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 and Healthy Places Index, and 56% of residents identify as a minority.
• The pedestrian network lacks infrastructure connectivity as there are many areas of San Marcos with missing sidewalk and lacking ADA compliant curb ramps.
• Pedestrian collisions comprise 3.7% of total reported collisions and have resulted in 75% of all collisions that have resulted in fatalities from 2015-2019. Of the 83 pedestrian collisions in the study period, 28% resulted in a severe injury or fatality. • The City does not have any Class IV bikeways with vertical protection to create a physical barrier between bicyclists and vehicles.
• The City lacks critical north-south bicycle and pedestrian connections across SR-78. Underpasses and overpasses on major roads crossing SR-78 do not have any bicycle or
pedestrian infrastructure. N Las Posas is the only major road with facilities to cross SR-78; the intersection of N Las Posas Road and Mission Road, which is adjacent to the Inland Rail Trail, has the highest number of bicycle collisions in San Marcos. • The Inland Rail Trail provides a vital Class I east-west connection across the City. However, access to the trail system is limited and requires users to cross major arterials. There is also a large number of pedestrian and bicycle collisions next to the Inland Rail Trail on Mission Road.
63SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
APPENDIX B: Caltrans ATP
Guidelines Conformance
Checklist
Caltrans ATP Guidelines
Conformance Checklist
APPENDIX B:
5/30/24 Appendix B: Conformance with Active Transportation Plan for Disadvantaged Communities Guidance for Plans Item Requirment Section(s)
A
Mode Share: The estimated number of existing bicycle trips and pedestrian trips in the plan area, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of all trips, and the estimated increase in the number of bicycle trips and pedestrian trips resulting from implementation of the plan.

Appendix A - Existing Conditions Report, Ch. 2: Community Profile, How People Commute Work, Table 2: Modes of Transportation to Work
Ch. 5: Active Transportation Recommendations – Anticipated Future Demand B
Description of Land Use/Destinations: A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which must include, but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public buildings, major employment centers, major transit hubs, and other destinations. Major transit hubs must include, but are not limited to, rail and transit terminals, and ferry docks and landings.

Ch. 2: San Marcos Today - Land Use in San Marcos
C
Pedestrian Facilities: A map and description of existing and proposed pedestrian facilities, including those at major transit hubs and those that serve public and private schools.

Ch. 5: Active Transportation Recommendations - Pedestrian Network Recommendations
F
Bicycle Facilities: A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transportation facilities including those at major transit hubs and those that serve public and private schools.

Appendix A - Existing Conditions Report, Ch. 3: Existing Bicycle Network Ch. 5: Active Transportation Recommendations - Bike Network Recommendations I
Bicycle Parking: A map and description of existing and proposed end-of-trip bicycle parking facilities. Include a description of existing and proposed policies related to bicycle parking in public locations, private parking garages and parking lots and in new commercial and residential developments. Also include a map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transport and parking facilities for connections with and use of other transportation modes. These must include, but not be limited to, bicycle parking facilities at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride lots, and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels.

Appendix A - Existing Conditions Report, Ch. 3: Existing Bicycle Network Ch. 2: San Marcos Today - Walking & Biking in San Marcos Ch. 5: Active Transportation Recommendations - Bike Network Recommendations Ch. 5: Active Transportation Recommendations -Programs/Policies J
Wayfinding: A description of existing and proposed signage providing wayfinding along bicycle and pedestrian networks to designated destinations.

Appendix A- Literature Review: San Marcos Wayfinding and Signage Master Plan Ch. 5: Active Transportation Recommendations: Bike Recommendations K
Non-Infrastructure: A description of existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian education and encouragement programs conducted in the area included within the plan. Ch. 5: Active Transportation Recommendations - Programs/Policies L
Collision Analysis: The number and location of collisions, serious injuries, and fatalities suffered by bicyclists and pedestrians in the plan area, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of all collisions and injuries, and a goal for collision, serious injury, and fatality reduction after implementation of the plan
Appendix A - Existing Conditions Report, Ch. 6: Prioritizing Safety Ch. 2: San Marcos Today – Safety Trends Among People Walking & Biking.

M
Equity Analysis: Identify census tracts that are considered disadvantaged or low-income and identify bicycle and pedestrian needs of those disadvantaged or low-income residents, including lack connectivity to key destinations, mobility challenges, public health concerns, and safety issues.

Appendix A - Existing Conditions Report, Ch. 2: Community Profile, Disadvantaged Communities
N
Community Engagement: A description of the extent of community involvement in development of the plan, including disadvantaged and underserved communities. Ch. 3: Public Outreach
O
Coordination: A description of how the active transportation plan has been coordinated with neighboring jurisdictions, including school districts within the plan area, and is consistent with other local or regional transportation, air quality, housing or energy conservation plans, including, but not limited to, general plans and a Sustainable Community Strategy in a Regional Transportation Plan, and local or regional housing plans or process improvements that are adopted or in development.

Ch. 1: Introduction - Compatibility with Local and Regional Plans Ch. 1: Introduction – Stakeholder Outreach
Ch. 4: Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Element
P
Prioritization: A description of the projects and programs proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for implementation, including the methodology for project prioritization and a proposed timeline for implementation.

Ch. 6: Implementation – Prioritization Process & Prioritized Project List & Proposed Timeline for Implementation
Q
Funding: A description of future financial needs for projects and programs that improve safety and convenience for bicyclists and pedestrians in the plan area. Include anticipated cost, revenue sources and potential funding for bicycle and pedestrian uses. Ch. 6: Implementation – Cost Estimates & Funding Sources R
Implementation: A description of steps necessary to implement the plan and the reporting process that will be used to keep the adopting agency and community informed of the progress being made in implementing the plan. Ch. 6: Implementation – Next Steps S
Maintenance: A description of the policies and procedures for maintaining existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including, but not limited to, the maintenance of smooth pavement, ADA level surfaces, freedom from encroaching vegetation, maintenance of traffic control devices including striping and other pavement markings, and lighting .

Ch. 5: Active Transportation Recommendations - Programs/Policies T
Resolution : A resolution showing adoption of the plan by the city, county, or district. If the active transportation plan was prepared by a county transportation commission, regional transportation planning agency, MPO, school district or transit district, the plan should indicate the support via resolution of the city(s) or county(s) in which the proposed facilities would be located.

Attachment X: Adoption Resolution
64SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
APPENDIX C: Public
Feedback Summary
Public Feedback Summary
APPENDIX C:
9/28/23 Public Website - Email Comment Log Appendix C - Public Outreach Date Details
9/20/2022 El camina para ir la escuela.
9/20/2022 Hi, if there are any opportunities to join a committee or help I would really like to participate. I'm a strong supporter of alternative transportation options. 9/21/2022 I would like more info on how to participate in the walk audit. I walk my kid to and from Richland Elementary and I have a ton of feedback. 9/23/2022 Will there be any public forumr egarding Safe Routes to School? 9/23/2022 with all the new growth to are community, that we need to plain and budget for buses with community support. 9/25/2022
Good evening, Can you provide me for detailed message regarding the ATP. For many years, I have been wanting to contact someone within the San Marcos School District as to how the district leaves it up to parents to transport their children to school at our own expense and time rather than the school district taking the imitative. I find it difficult to believe how this could be growing up in California all my life and recalling their existing a school transportation, yet it is non-existent here in North San Diego. I would like to obtain more information about this plan. Thank you 9/26/2022
There are several charter and private schools in San Marcos that were not on the school walk audit list. Kids walk to and from those schools as well. I would LOVE for my children to be able to walk to our private school in San Marcos, but the majority of the walk takes place in San Marcos where there are virtually no sidewalks for safety and big rigs driving on small streets. Please consider evaluating the safety of walking to and from Valley Christian, High Tech, St. Joseph Academy, etc as well. 9/29/2022 Just received the schedule of the walk audits & wondering why most of the audits start 20-30 minutes before and through the scheduled release time, but for San Elijo Middle School, it currently says the audit STARTS 30 minutes AFTER school is released when much of the traffic will be over. Hoping that is a typo. (Looking at schedule on https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ty5P3aV1fUtZrFZV_c4u_lDFCa9DKVOZ/view) 9/30/2022 Hello--My children's school (Knob Hill Elementary School) let us know that the City is updating its Active Transportation plan and is inviting the public to go on the walk of the area. I would like to participate in this for Knob Hill when it come up. Is there a date for this yet? 10/4/2022
As a member, ride leader and Board member of the North County Cycle Club, I am very interested in this. I also, as a Solana Beach (Silver Bicycle Friendly Community) resident, am a founding member of BikeWalkSolana, the Solana Beach Active Transportation Advisory Committee. Also former Board member and webmaster of the San Diego County Bike Coaliation. I also teach Smart Cycling classes around SD County as a League of American Bicyclists Cycling Instructor. I am happy to help any way I can and be part of your ATP conversation. 10/7/2022 Thank you for making our city safer for walking. 10/7/2022 In European countries, (Finland specifically, I think) they have bike parks for kids to practice real world biking situations. Testing basic rules of the road etc. This would be a great thing to help kids be safe on bikes. 10/8/2022
Hello, I usually drive my son to JALE (Joli Ann Leichtag Elementary) from Sycamore Avenue because there is not a sidewalk established for children. I know this route from Sycamore to JALE is not safe, because children are walking to school and most of them are not accompanied by an adult- they're walking on the street or on properties just to get to school everyday. I have asked my children to tell their peers to offer a ride to school, however, a sustainable approach would be to have sidewalks created from Sycamore Ave. to JALE. I can tell not all drivers are mindful of the children walking to school each morning and afterschool. 10/9/2022
We have lived in San Marcos since 2004 and have two students attending public schools in the city. Our home is in San Elijo Hills, in the Double Peak TK8 and Mission Hills High School boundary. I write to highlight the need for safe infrastructure for students to get to their schools. There are no school buses and there is no accessible public transportation for many students. While e-bikes are a wonderful option, they are not realistic for many due to price and/or the commute route and/or the age of the child/student. The city needs to ensure all bike lanes and sidewalks are marked, additional signage is needed (a share the road campaign couldn't hurt, and would benefit road cyclists that love our city also), and when construction is ongoing, the roads/sidewalks need to be clean, accessible, and safe for use by students, every day. I have not yet purchased an ebike for my eldest. I hesitate because I see the roads and debris and observe the drivers, and note that were he to commute by e-bike, he would need to travel up and over Double Peak, down TO, past the university, cross the 78 freeway, the train tracks, and make his way down Mission Road. All the while, making sure at each intersection, motorists see him before he crosses. Doable, yes. Prudent, I'm not sure. As such, I drive him and coordinate a carpool, which limits my ability to engage in the workforce as I would like. Thank you for taking the time to read. In setting out the plan, I ask that equal consideration and safety be implemented for students who attend MHHS as those who attend SMHS. Students need to be able to safely access their schools and parents need to be employed. One other suggestion, and in consideration of the rapid growth of San Marcos these past many years, is to conduct a campaign of ongoing gratitude to long-standing residents. Just a thought. Sincerely, Hilary 10/9/2022 Volunteer opportunities
10/11/2022 Please add me to your E-mail list. I would like to stay informed and possibly get involved. 10/13/2022 The traffic in our neighborhood from WPMS is horrible. The school was designed when there was bussing and now there are individual parents driving their kids impacting traffic and the environment. 9/28/23 Public Website - Email Comment Log Appendix C - Public Outreach Date Details
10/18/2022
Hello Id heard you recently held an audit at Joli Ann Leichtag elementary and I was t able to stop by that dat. I'd just like to add my thoughts. My neighbors and I walk and bike daily down a stretch of Pointsettia from Mooncrest Ct to the school. There are no sidewalks, bike paths, or even a curb that'd defect a vehicle down most of the hill. The right of way along side the road is obstructed by people's retaining walls and occasionally wood chips piles, and debris,force foot traffic to within less than 20in of passing traffic. The recent addition of a much appreciated but perhaps not well executed school walking sign restricted the walking path even further. Two properties have retaining walls that are from my understanding not within the legal setback off the road. It's a dangerous stretch of road and when we bike to school the 40+mph traffic can come over sections of the hill and not see you until they are very close. 11/3/2022 North County Cycle Club (NCCC) meets several times per week at Old California Restaurant Row and rides many of the roads of San Marcos. We would like to be advised of future events. Unfortunately, this meeting coincides exactly with our Board meeting.
11/7/2022 Good idea.
11/9/2022 With Elementary age kids walking to Discovery Elementary School crossing Via Vera Cruz and Applewilde Dr with only a STOP sign may need to change. Has this been considered to change or a topic in discussion? I have seen many of times cars running the stop sign therefore I don't have my kids walk to school in a "highly rated safe city." 11/11/2022 I am out of town for business and am unable to attend the workshop on 11/15. Will there be other workshop or how can I share my comments. 11/13/2022 I would suggest bike lanes get the bright green paint and cones added to create a wall of safety away from the cars. All school areas and all main roads: SM blvd, Twin Oaks, Rancho Santa Fe, Mission should have them. I just saw them in downtown escondido by the performing arts center. Please put green cones up as a barrier for the bikes lanes. Around all schools. 11/13/2022
Please consider a pedestrian bridge across Twin Oaks at Double Peak School. With only one way in, and one way out on one of the busiest streets in San Marcos, we need to keep our kids safety a priority. Even with the street and pedestrian lights, cars still fly down that road with no regard for the children. It’s only a matter of time before a terrible accident occurs. Please consider a bridge as a solution to this dangerous situation.
11/13/2022
I would like to request that a pedestrian/cycle bridge over the 78 freeway be added back to the North City plan. With the increase in e-bikes as a means of transportation as well as the increased traffic congestion that will come with the increased population and visitors it is more important than ever to provide a safe way for pedestrians and cyclists to cross over the 78 freeway. The north side of the 78 Freeway in the Twin Oaks Valley road area already has a great bike path system that can be further enhanced to allow for better access to North City and other areas of San Marcos. Please consider this in your master plan for ATP. 11/14/2022
I am unable to make it to tomorrows community event but wanted to pass along some concerns. -Lack of sidewalks between Casa De Amparo and Twin Oaks Market on Buena Creek. Lots of young people living at Casa De amparo use this stretch of road and it is very dangerous and is only a small distance without sidewalk. -No safe pedestrian corners on Buena Creek/Twin Oaks, despite lots of pedestrian traffic there -No sidewalks or safe trails connecting Twin Oaks Elementary north on Twin Oaks Valley Rd, it is extremely unsafe for children living within walking distance to the north of the school to get to the school. It would also be nice to have the trail system on Twin Oaks to the south of the school connected to the trail system that runs around Walnut Grove Park. 11/14/2022
I'd like to encourage San Marcos to create more safe cycling infrastructure. I work at Cal State San Marcos, and bike commute from Vista 2-3 times a week. While the Inland Rail Trail is great for most of my commute, it doesn't have a safe connector to the CSUSM campus. Riding a bike on Twin Oaks Valley Road is incredibly dangerous, as is taking Woodland Parkway to Barham Dr. (I take Woodland Parkway most days.) I know that San Marcos has done a lot of work to build more trails and multi-use paths. Please consider the connectors to the CSUSM campus as well. I really appreciate you helping create safe infrastructure!
Kind regards,
11/15/2022 Hi! Please keep me updated!
11/15/2022 I am unable not attend tonight as I am very sick. But we live not far from Twin Oaks Elementary School and there are no safe crosswalks to get from our neighborhood on the north side of Buena Creek, across TOVR to get to the elementary school.
11/15/2022 What are your plans for Twin Oaks Elementary School pick up? There has been an extremely condescending deputy out there ticketing tons of parents for the last few days for just trying to pick their kids up from a school. We don’t have buses, we don’t have sage walking paths, and now we can’t even drive to pick our children up from school. This is ridiculous. 11/15/2022
Tonight’s meeting was about safe streets to schools. I’d recommend soliciting feedback by bringing this presentation to the schools, especially those schools impacted by high speeds/collision data (SMHS, SME, LMA, Joleann). Schools in these areas are serving low SES, multilingual families and the schools usually can accommodate translations. Additionally, the feedback being requested is only in English and a Spanish version is recommended especially if your trying to solicit feedback from that demographic population.Lastly, if you’re going to utilize a mixed race family picture for city publicity (reminder that was my family in the picture), then please consider an additional demographic data question to include 2 or more races. My teenager (who is mixed race) and I noted the exclusion - these are important factors for equity and inclusion.
11/16/2022 Please consider full bike routes, including a safe easy passage over 78 (preferably separate from cars). We really need one for kids to commute from south of 78 to Knob Hill Elementary, and Woodland Park Middle and Mission Hills High.
11/17/2022 A stop sign needs to be placed on Mulberry in front of the Caprice & Setina community. There have been multiple accidents here with people speeding past and can injure pedestrians and especially children going back and forth from schools. This road is a problem with the amount of speeders racing all day and night. 11/19/2022 Would love to talk about sidewalks on Fulton Road. 9/28/23 Public Website - Email Comment Log Appendix C - Public Outreach Date Details
12/4/2022 There is no safe sidewalk on rock springs on the Southside of the street to connect the Woods Neighborhood to woodland park. 12/15/2022
Dear City of San Marcos,
I am writing to urge you to consider reducing the speed limit on Craven Road from 45 to 25 miles per hour. As you may know, Craven Road is a vital artery that connects many of our city's neighborhoods, and it is surrounded by hundreds of families with children. Unfortunately, the current speed limit on Craven Road is simply too high, and it is regularly exceeded by drivers who are speeding at 55 miles per hour or more.

This presents a serious safety hazard to both pedestrians and drivers alike. I have personally almost been hit a few times while crossing the street at the crosswalk by cars that are going so fast that they can barely slow down for the red light in time. Additionally, the high speed limit on Craven Road makes it difficult for my mother, who uses a wheelchair, to move around and cross the street safely. Cars traveling at such high speeds pose a serious danger to her and other people with mobility challenges.

There is a hospital on Craven Road, Kaiser Permanente, which has hundreds of people coming and going each week, many of whom are older and have mobility challenges like my mother. The high speed limit on Craven Road poses a serious safety hazard to these individuals who are already in a vulnerable state.

The street is also adjacent to California State University San Marcos, which has an enrollment of over 16,000 students. This means that there are many college students walking, biking, and driving on the road. The high speed limit on Craven Road poses a particular danger to these young people, who may not be as experienced or cautious as other drivers. Additionally, the high volume of pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the road during the school year further exacerbates the safety concerns posed by the high speed limit.

As a resident of San Marcos, I have been very impressed with the city's commitment to providing beautiful trails and places for walking and hiking. The natural beauty of our city is one of its greatest assets, and the efforts to maintain and improve these trails are much appreciated. Unfortunately, walking (rather than driving) to these trails can be absolutely terrifying, especially with children. The high speed limit on Craven Road, which is the main street connecting many of these trails, poses a serious safety hazard to pedestrians and drivers alike.

Reducing the speed limit on Craven Road will have broad benefits for the health and safety of our entire community. Lower speed limits in residential neighborhoods have been shown to significantly reduce the number and severity of car accidents, which can lead to fewer injuries and fatalities. This can also lead to a reduction in healthcare costs and an overall improvement in public health. Additionally, lower speed limits can make our streets more enjoyable and inviting for walking and biking, which can promote physical activity and improve mental health and wellbeing. Furthermore, reducing vehicular traffic on Craven Road can also help to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to a healthier and more sustainable environment for our community.

I strongly urge the City to consider reducing the speed limit on Craven Road to 25 miles per hour, which is the standard speed limit in residential areas. This will help ensure the safety of everyone who uses the road, and it will not significantly impact the amount of time it takes for drivers to reach their destinations. Most people will only be delayed by a few minutes at most, and the added safety is more than worth the small sacrifice of a few extra minutes of travel time.

I urge you to carefully consider this request, and to take action to reduce the speed limit on Craven Road. Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,
A concerned San Marcos resident
12/16/2022 The biggest problem with street bike lanes is that they are very dirty, full of gravel and industrial debris. They are not properly (if ever in some areas) swept. This can cause flats and swerving to avoid debris. This, in turn, can cause accidents.
1/20/2023
Hello! I'm not sure if this is the correct place to add my area of concern - if not, please feel free to direct me to the right place. I've lived in the Old Creek Ranch neighborhood near San Elijo Hills for almost 18 years.

I've always had concern for pedestrians walking to and from SEH on the south side of San Elijo Road (near the trails and Eden Park). I've walked this path plenty of times and my son currently walks this way daily on his way home from school. My concern is that cars rarely seem to go the speed limit while driving down SEH Rd and turning the curve into the 25 mph zone while entering into San Elijo Hills. I always worry that a car is going to end up on the sidewalk due to speed and/or being distracted or an inexperienced driver. Last week, an hour before students were relased from school/walking home, there was an accident and the car rolled up the hill (I still don't know how this happened!) My son sent me pictures as he passed the accident on his walk home. After this, I felt compelled to reach out to the city to consider looking at this bend in the road to see if there are any possible safety measures that can be taken to prevent an accident that would harm a pedestrian (metal guardrail?) Thank you for your consideration. 1/25/2023 I am an officer for the North County Cycle Club and would love to be part of the planning process.

I am very concerned about the traffic on San Elijo Road at Schoolhouse Way especially as it affects the planned preschool in the median there. I have witnessed many vehicles going through that intersection at very unsafe speeds especially approaching from the east. Part of the problem is that the road signs coming down that steep go from 45mph to 35 mph to 25mph "when children present", That last sign should not say "when children present". There are 2 schools, and playgrounds there. Children are ALWAYS present. One idea might be to replace the 45mph sign with the 35mph sign. And changing the "when children present" sign with just a 25 mph sign. I dread the day that a truck loses its air brakes coming down that steep hill especially after the preschool is constructed 6/6/2023 I would like to know what type of program the city has for road resurfacing. I am a recent resident of San Marcos and I’ve noticed many roads are in need of being resurfaced. I work in Carlsbad and notice an immediate change once I pass Rancho Santa Fe on San Marcos Blvd. heading east. 9/28/23 Public Website - Interactive Map Comments Appendix C - Public Outreach Created on Type Comment Latitude & Longitude
2022-09-20 22:47:58 UTC Walk
Poinsettia Avenue southwest of Joli Ann Leichtag Elementary is a very common walking route for the school and lacks sidewalks and bike lanes. In many places the small footpath that has been worn near the shoulder is less than a foot wide between the road and retaining walls, and very unsafe for pedestrians. Joli Ann Leichtag overindexes in families who walk to school and the lack of safe options for families living southwest of the school puts children in this neighborhood at a disadvantage.

33.153038, -117.211869
2022-09-20 23:02:10 UTC Other Homeless people living under the bridge - not safe to walk to Nordahl. 33.134937, -117.129144 2022-09-20 23:06:27 UTC Walk Dangerous to get from East San Marcos (Woodland Pkwy) under the freeway to CSUSM. Would love to walk or bike to work during summers but don't dare. 33.136832, -117.127841
2022-09-20 23:09:09 UTC Other Traffic turning from westbound Mission onto southbound Woodland Pkwy to get to the Hwy 78 westbound on-ramp blocks Mission every morning. Cars going eastbound on Mission cannot go because left-turning cars block the intersection. 33.141432, -117.139127 2022-09-21 20:34:03 UTC Bike
Melrose Drive between San Elijo Road and Rancho Santa Fe Road needs a bike lane. If you are biking in the right lane trucks will drive up next to you in the left lane and lay on their horn, despite the signs that indicate that is is okay for bikes to be there. There are also lots of kids who bike home from school and the turns in the road and speed differential between them and the heavy traffic during school pickup make it unsafe for bikes. The road should have a protected bike lane.

33.102633, -117.215399
2022-09-23 16:45:53 UTC Walk Safer pedestrian access for our High School students as they navigate a busy street and intersection. There is little sidewalk access and traffic volume is high and fast paced. 33.130597, -117.201 2022-09-30 20:05:17 UTC Bike
Biking along san macros blvd is very dangerous near the 78 onramp. The only safe option is to ride on the sidewalk. I would also like to see more spots to lock bikes up near businesses. If I don't have to worry about my bike I can spend more time shopping or dining out at local businesses

33.137156, -117.178223
2022-10-01 06:46:51 UTC Bike The new development here only seems to have painted bicycle gutters. There should be multiple Class 1 multi-use paths, or at least Class IV protected cycle tracks. 33.13112, -117.177817
2022-10-01 06:50:30 UTC Other I'm happy there's a plan to replace the "stroad" that is San Marcos Boulevard. I hope it's the option with the Class 1 multi-use path! 33.132704, -117.195807 2022-10-01 07:30:12 UTC Bike
We need some kind of separated bike facility to get from the new multiuse developments to the CSUSM Sprinter station safely and conveniently. People need help to reduce vehicle miles traveled, and without safe bike infrastructure to places farther than a quick jaunt away, they will stick to their cars.

33.134462, -117.156606
2022-10-01 07:32:33 UTC Other This parking structure must have cost millions of dollars that could have been spent on more housing or a transit/bike boulevard. Oh well. 33.136298, -117.159881
2022-10-01 07:42:19 UTC ADA The driveways to this new rowhouse(?) development have no sidewalks. If a wheelchair user lives here, they can't leave or enter without being driven around. 33.143229, -117.15512
2022-10-01 07:46:36 UTC Walk There should be stairs so pedestrians can get to this bridge from the Sprinter station more easily. 33.142592, -117.163057 2022-10-01 07:58:52 UTC Walk
The crosswalk here goes diagonally to reach the corners of the intersection. This makes it way longer than it needs to be--make it perpendicular to the road. Also, the standard of starting crosswalks in the middle of a curved corner is another factor that makes them longer. Just re-paint it a few yards away from the corner. Not only will it make a shorter crossing distance, but also right-turning drivers will have time to see and react to pedestrians.

33.143469, -117.165975
2022-10-01 08:16:56 UTC Bike
These are some of the narrowest bike lanes I've ever seen. The parallel parking and bike lane should be swapped places to protect cyclists. That way, fewer students would have to be shuttled around by their parents, clogging up the whole town when school gets out.

And maybe a road diet would discourage outsiders from using the community as a shortcut >:)

33.097123, -117.200458
2022-10-04 15:32:43 UTC Bike
As a person who works at CSUSM, I would love to be able to ride along Twin Oaks to CSUSM over the 78 bridge. It is possible but it is not safe for me to ride with such heavy traffic and little signage. Bicyclists are not visible enough and there are not designated lanes that indicate bikers have the right of way. I would love our city to be much more bike friendly! Lots of people ride up and down twin oaks up to San Elijo Hills both road bikers and mtn bikers who ride up to double peak.

33.140597, -117.163718
2022-10-08 14:32:53 UTC Walk No side walk or bike path for kids walking to twin oaks or walnut grove park 33.177305, -117.1455 2022-10-08 16:06:03 UTC Walk There are no sidewalks to allow for safe walking to and from Jack’s Pond. Pedestrians are forced to walk in traffic with blind curves along the narrowed portion of Le Moree 33.127974, -117.141809 9/28/23 Public Website - Interactive Map Comments Appendix C - Public Outreach Created on Type Comment Latitude & Longitude
2022-10-08 16:08:49 UTC Bike Attempting to ride a bike or walk under the 78 on Woodland Pkwy is a death wish. While it may be under Caltrans jurisdiction, navigating the crossing 78 is hazardous for any cyclist or pedestrian. 33.139007, -117.140737 2022-10-08 16:12:09 UTC Other
Everyday there is 38 examples of policy failure at SMUSD schools! The removal of an effective school bus system congests neighborhoods, contributes to air pollution, and is unsafe for our children!!! The ATP is NO plan without addressing the thousands of students that have to get to and from school each day…

33.148852, -117.130523
2022-10-08 16:12:58 UTC Other
Everyday there is 38 examples of policy failure at SMUSD schools! The removal of an effective school bus system congests neighborhoods, contributes to air pollution, and is unsafe for our children!!! The ATP is NO plan without addressing the thousands of students that have to get to and from school each day…

33.143965, -117.141681
2022-10-08 16:13:23 UTC Other
Everyday there is 38 examples of policy failure at SMUSD schools! The removal of an effective school bus system congests neighborhoods, contributes to air pollution, and is unsafe for our children!!! The ATP is NO plan without addressing the thousands of students that have to get to and from school each day…

33.155248, -117.14108
2022-10-08 16:13:51 UTC Other
Everyday there is 38 examples of policy failure at SMUSD schools! The removal of an effective school bus system congests neighborhoods, contributes to air pollution, and is unsafe for our children!!! The ATP is NO plan without addressing the thousands of students that have to get to and from school each day…

33.138575, -117.121038
2022-10-08 16:14:21 UTC Other
Everyday there is 38 examples of policy failure at SMUSD schools! The removal of an effective school bus system congests neighborhoods, contributes to air pollution, and is unsafe for our children!!! The ATP is NO plan without addressing the thousands of students that have to get to and from school each day…

33.10612, -117.166743
2022-10-08 16:14:50 UTC Other
Everyday there is 38 examples of policy failure at SMUSD schools! The removal of an effective school bus system congests neighborhoods, contributes to air pollution, and is unsafe for our children!!! The ATP is NO plan without addressing the thousands of students that have to get to and from school each day…

33.099972, -117.196269
2022-10-08 16:15:13 UTC Other
Everyday there is 38 examples of policy failure at SMUSD schools! The removal of an effective school bus system congests neighborhoods, contributes to air pollution, and is unsafe for our children!!! The ATP is NO plan without addressing the thousands of students that have to get to and from school each day…

33.129807, -117.206483
2022-10-08 16:15:38 UTC Other
Everyday there is 38 examples of policy failure at SMUSD schools! The removal of an effective school bus system congests neighborhoods, contributes to air pollution, and is unsafe for our children!!! The ATP is NO plan without addressing the thousands of students that have to get to and from school each day…

33.146732, -117.175798
2022-10-08 16:15:55 UTC Other
Everyday there is 38 examples of policy failure at SMUSD schools! The removal of an effective school bus system congests neighborhoods, contributes to air pollution, and is unsafe for our children!!! The ATP is NO plan without addressing the thousands of students that have to get to and from school each day…

33.141091, -117.168674
2022-10-08 16:16:23 UTC Other
Everyday there is 38 examples of policy failure at SMUSD schools! The removal of an effective school bus system congests neighborhoods, contributes to air pollution, and is unsafe for our children!!! The ATP is NO plan without addressing the thousands of students that have to get to and from school each day…

33.128477, -117.19099
2022-10-08 16:17:08 UTC Other
Everyday there is 38 examples of policy failure at SMUSD schools! The removal of an effective school bus system congests neighborhoods, contributes to air pollution, and is unsafe for our children!!! The ATP is NO plan without addressing the thousands of students that have to get to and from school each day…

33.159595, -117.185712
2022-10-08 16:22:02 UTC ADA There are no sidewalks connecting the developed areas that do. Pedestrians are forced to walk in either the traffic along the busy street or dirt. Also not ADA compliant. 33.138719, -117.144556 2022-10-10 15:44:07 UTC Walk Yes, I totally agree, a curb/bike lane and ideally a sidewalk on either side of the street is necessary for safety! 33.153038, -117.211869 2022-10-10 15:46:38 UTC Walk The area around Alamitos Way, Descanso Ave, Las Flores and Oleander Ave is in need of a sidewalk, bikelane and curb, The safety of the school children walking home is in danger. There is not a safe way to walk to Joli Ann school in this area. 33.152284, -117.207631 2022-10-11 21:00:09 UTC Bike
During school drop off and pick up times, there are dozens of cars lined up in the bike lanes. As I ride my bike to pick up my kids, I have to get out of the bike lane and get on the main car lane while I pass dozens of cars waiting to get into the school parking lot. This area scares me every single day because drivers are inattentive, often on their phones, as they wait in traffic. Meanwhile, I am riding in the main car lane with the fear that one of these cars will one day pull out in front o

33.105909, -117.239144
2022-10-13 21:03:04 UTC Walk There is no sidewalk or bike lane on this road. This road direct pathway to Joil Ann Elementary School. Super unsafe to walk to. 33.151619, -117.212341 9/28/23 Public Website - Interactive Map Comments Appendix C - Public Outreach Created on Type Comment Latitude & Longitude
2022-10-13 21:05:38 UTC Bike NO bike lane. Many bicylers have gotten hit and injured. 33.152266, -117.211912 2022-10-13 21:08:00 UTC Other There is a school 25 MPH sign that is supposed to flash. Sign is currently covered by trees and is never flashing when kids are present and walking 33.145457, -117.176582
2022-11-09 21:00:47 UTC Walk Add sidewalk children to walk to school 33.15371, -117.211285 2022-11-09 21:02:09 UTC Walk crosswalk for chidlren to safely corss 33.155333, -117.21338 2022-11-09 21:06:20 UTC Walk signs - slow school zone 33.155713, -117.214143 2022-11-09 21:06:45 UTC Walk signs - slow school zone 33.156312, -117.215075 2022-11-09 21:07:07 UTC Other signs - slow school zone 33.154841, -117.212362 2022-11-09 21:07:19 UTC Other signs - slow school zone 33.155385, -117.213504 2022-11-09 21:07:28 UTC Other signs - slow school zone 33.155787, -117.214272 2022-11-09 21:07:36 UTC Other signs - slow school zone 33.156339, -117.21521 2022-11-09 21:08:41 UTC Other stop light 33.154549, -117.211182 2022-11-09 21:09:56 UTC Walk sidewalks so children can walk safely to school 33.156725, -117.215791 2022-11-09 21:31:29 UTC Walk
With the increased development, population and traffic in the area, sidewalks would play a vital role to enhance local connectivity, promote walking and reduce the carbon footprint. Sidewalks in this area (1000-700 block of Poinsettia Ave.) would provide pedestrian safety (and motorist safety), mobility (ADA) and an overall healthier community. Please consider adding sidewalks to this area as a necessary investment the community. Thank you.

33.153433, -117.211472
2022-11-09 21:43:48 UTC Walk
Children should be able to walk to school and are unable because this road is extremely dangerous. It is narrow with a lot of traffic. No bike lanes or sidewalk. There are a lot of families who will walk to school when we get a sidewalk! A road this close to an elementary school should absolutely have a sidewalk and safe access for children to get to school.

33.151257, -117.212759
2022-11-09 21:44:50 UTC Walk
Please consider adding control devices to this area to slow traffic down; School Advance Warning signs, Reduced Speed School Zone Ahead signs and or School Speed Limit XX When Flashing sign.

ALSO please consider adding a marked crosswalk at this location of the intersection of Parkwood Ave & Oleander Ave. Thank you.

33.155149, -117.213371
2022-11-09 21:56:59 UTC Walk
Sidewalks in this area, along Alamitos Way, and portions of Descanso Ave, would provide needed pedestrian safety (and motorist safety), mobility (ADA) and an overall healthier community. Please consider adding sidewalks to this area as a needed investment to the community. Thank you.

33.151987, -117.207727
2022-11-11 03:15:27 UTC Walk I absolutely agree that we should have a sidewalk here. I've recently heard that a pregnant woman slipped because there was no sidewalk. 33.153038, -117.211869
2022-11-11 03:17:17 UTC Other There should be blinking lights to show drivers that there are pedestrians waiting to cross the street. 33.154549, -117.211182 2022-11-11 03:28:35 UTC Walk Yes, this community is growing and having a sidewalk here is very important for the school, families and would help traffic flow and encourage healthy habits. I am sure more people will walk to school and those who already do will feel much safer! 33.153038, -117.211869 2022-11-13 05:28:55 UTC Walk No side walk and needs one desperately. Cars go 40mph on this road and narrowly miss pedestrians with their children walking to the elementary school and back. This is EXTREMELY unsafe and needs to be fixed!! 33.152268, -117.212293 2022-11-13 05:31:00 UTC Bike No bike lane and need one! Bikes with kids dropping off and picking up at the Joli Ann Elem decreases traffic in the area! Please fix this! 33.15088, -117.212995 2022-11-13 05:32:11 UTC Bike Very dangerous road for bikes. There’s no shoulder and people drive fast on this road. Bikes lanes should be a high priority for the city to increase no emission transportation and also help with the daily traffic flow which is backed up during commute hours. 33.150206, -117.213296 2022-11-13 05:32:59 UTC ADA There is currently no ADA access for shell chair accessibility from Pointsettia to Joli Ann Elem. there needs to be a side walk to allow for this. 33.154154, -117.211343
2022-11-13 05:35:57 UTC Walk 100% need a crosswalk here for kids to safely cross to the street parking used by parents after school. 33.155385, -117.213443 9/28/23 Public Website - Interactive Map Comments Appendix C - Public Outreach Created on Type Comment Latitude & Longitude
2022-11-13 18:34:49 UTC Bike
Extremely dangerous road. Consistently backed up by cars using it as a cut through. The 3 way stop sign at the school does not work efficiently. It should be a stop light. Drivers consistently blow through stop sign. Drivers are speeding and aggressive. Without care for children or pedestrians. We do not and will not ride bikes or walk on this section of road due to the traffic and speeding. We live on mooncrest ct. Difficulty leaving mooncrest ct due to the high rate of traffic in our car

33.150206, -117.213296
2022-11-14 19:38:48 UTC Walk
Our kids (and crossing guards) desperately need a pedestrian bridge to safely cross San Elijo Road / Twin Oaks to get to Double Peak School. It’s in such a dangerous location, with a blind curve, and hundreds of speeding cars using San Elijo as a cut through. On a daily basis I see dangerous situations, including cars who block the intersection forcing pedestrians to cut through cars on the walk signal

33.10725, -117.166089
2022-11-15 00:05:28 UTC Walk I am very interested in getting a safe walking path here on Olive for our kids going to/from Twin Oaks Elementary School. 33.177305, -117.1455 2022-11-15 18:12:23 UTC Bike 4 lanes each direction is overkill. Replace one with a bus-only lane and add bollards to the bike lane, or just make one really wide protected bike lane! 33.133762, -117.164147
2022-11-15 20:22:05 UTC Walk
There's a gap in sidewalk and bike infrastructure near Jack's Pond. There are blind curves with no sidewalk, and I often see people walking in the street. I live in a neighborhood nearby, and would love to walk to North City or even make a loop around the area, but there is no way to do so safely.

33.128495, -117.146358
2022-11-15 20:24:16 UTC Walk
There should be sidewalks on both sides of Barham. There are limited places where people can cross the street safely, and I often see people walking on the shoulder, sometimes in the dark because there is no alternative. North City and the Sprinter station could both be easier to access if sidewalk gaps were filled in.

33.136367, -117.149162
2022-11-15 22:06:22 UTC Walk
When walking through this area, folks on the side of the inland trail have to choose between staying in the Inland Rail Trail, or cross the crosswalk at a light where the train also crosses. I've had to to walk across the train tracks and West Missions Rd, to head home in the Capalina area, and had to recross the street to where the sidewalk is. Not sure why there isn't a side walk there on the side of businesses. A potential solution would be for the Inland Rail Trail to have openings to street

33.150762, -117.192306
2022-11-15 22:10:06 UTC Bike As a college student, and volunteer, I would love to have bike parking in this park area, and business area, as I live down the West Missions Road and drive for safety reasons and like to bike in the future to the San Marcos Markets or Universidad Popular or to SMES. 33.143724, -117.168772 2022-11-15 22:12:26 UTC Other Dangerous spot, where road has a dip for water in the case of rain. Lacks side walk, not possible to go through unless owning a car. Vital side street for folks going through Las Flores up to Capalina hoping to avoid traffic on Mission Rd. or Rancho Santa Fe to Freeway. 33.153658, -117.201532 2022-11-15 22:15:56 UTC Walk
Lack of sidewalk going into the Vista/Smilax area increasing car dependence, fast driving, dangerous walking, biking, and riding conditions. Would like some collaboration from the City of San Marcos and Vista. (As comment in response to "I agree, I would also like to encourage folks living in the Rancho Santa Fe area, including me to bike around town more often rather than using a car. I've been to Davis, and would like its biking culture to be adopted in San Marcos.")

33.157132, -117.200858
2022-11-15 22:19:48 UTC Bike For SMHS students, who live near major intersections of Rancho Santa Fe Rd., Mission Rd., living considerably close to SMHS, biking, or walking home is dangerous with traffic conditions, and fast drivers. Would to see safe corridors for biking. 33.131647, -117.207926 2022-11-15 22:20:30 UTC Bike Add more bike parking and stations. 33.137321, -117.201931 2022-11-15 22:24:26 UTC Bike My Palomar College student sibling drives to Palomar facilities, despite living about a mile from campus. They used to bike from SMHS to home, but don't bike anymore. Would like to see more bike parking, encouragement for local students to use public transit, or bike. 33.149996, -117.184964 2022-11-15 22:30:55 UTC Bike I agree, I would also like to encourage folks living in the Rancho Santa Fe area, including me to bike around town more often rather than using a car. I've been to Davis, and would like its biking culture to be adopted in San Marcos. 33.140597, -117.163718 2022-11-15 22:38:50 UTC Other Would like increased access to this park from Mission Rd. I've been living in San Marcos for about 6 years and haven't been able to see this park. In this case, increasing walking or biking access would be great to encourage folks that live nearby to also access this space. 33.145277, -117.180689 2022-11-16 00:29:43 UTC Walk
This occurs at every crosswalk near knob hill. Cars are constantly entering the crosswalk as walkers are still in the crosswalk. Every crosswalk (including bennet/knob hill) needs to have a crossing guard whenever students are present, for all grade releases and drop offs. Speed bumps would be a great idea to slow cars down.

33.140353, -117.12181
9/28/23 Public Website - Interactive Map Comments Appendix C - Public Outreach Created on Type Comment Latitude & Longitude
2022-11-16 00:30:29 UTC Other
The lack of parking , sidewalks, small KOC availability and multiple release times for various grades at Twin Oaks elementary school is causing parents to make dangerous decisions as well as sit in being forced ridiculous lines in order to pick up and drop off their children on time.

33.159595, -117.185712
2022-11-16 00:40:19 UTC Other
There is no need for school buses. The schools zoned for our houses are so close. The cost to obtain the buses will be ridiculous. Then you need drivers, theres already a shortage. The maintance costs (employees/facilities). No thank you. Carpooling is a great alternative if you cant walk. (As comment in response to 10/08/22: "Everyday there is 38 examples of policy failure at SMUSD schools! The removal of an effective school bus system congests neighborhoods, contributes to air pollution, and is unsafe for our children!!! The ATP is NO plan without addressing the thousands of students that have to get to and from school each day…")

33.138575, -117.121038
2022-11-16 05:08:07 UTC Walk No sidewalk on either side of the road along Fulton Rd from this marker to Richland Rd. 33.151718, -117.13563 2022-11-16 12:11:47 UTC Bike Grand Ave and all its intersections needs dedicated green color bike lanes with barriers between vehicles and bikes much like what Escondido currently have. 33.145609, -117.199949
2022-11-16 22:09:04 UTC Bike
Agreed! We need a safe and easy way for cyclists & pedestrians to cross to cross the 78. This area is a death trap for anyone not in a motor vehicle. (As comment in reaction to 10/8/22: "Attempting to ride a bike or walk under the 78 on Woodland Pkwy is a death wish.

While it may be under Caltrans jurisdiction, navigating the crossing 78 is hazardous for any cyclist or pedestrian.")

33.139007, -117.140737
2022-11-17 17:16:33 UTC Walk
This is a very busy intersection, particularly around school drop-off and pick-up times. Cars often encroach into the intersection and crosswalks when pedestrians are present. There are certain months of year when the angle of the rising sun impedes the vision of drivers. There is a crossing guard posted, but they are not present for the entire range of time students are commuting to Knob Hill (e.g., pre-8:00 AM for students getting breakfast). A longer post would enhance safety.

33.14192, -117.125221
2022-11-18 05:08:52 UTC Bike The road pretty much the entire length of Borden after Woodland Parkway to Richland Elementary is so narrow that it is almost impossible to ride your bike in an impossibly narrow bike lane. No way I could put a toddler trailer on the back and bike to school. 33.156505, -117.132325 2022-11-19 19:15:12 UTC Walk
Agreed, this lack of sidewalks prevented me from letting my child walk to Richland Elementary it was just not safe so we ended up driving him literally just around the corner! I think there should be a sidewalk on the south side of the road. (As comment in reaction to 11/16/22: "No sidewalk on either side of the road along Fulton Rd from this marker to Richland Rd.")

33.151718, -117.13563
2022-11-23 16:36:06 UTC Other
We absolutely need a school bus system to avoid the unnecessary traffic congestion and increased pollution from all the cars. As our population grows and the city expands, lack of a school bus system will only make daily commutes worse. Parents with multiple kids are driving so much every day! A family of 4 goes on 4 different drives am and pm, that’s 8 daily trips that can be reduced to 4.

33.099972, -117.196269
2022-11-23 16:40:24 UTC Other
Need a stop sign or traffic light here. This is an increasingly dangerous blind corner with speeding cars. The plaza has multiple businesses including a daycare. It’s scary to pick up our kids and try to turn left into the traffic on Grand. Please add a stop sign here or somehow enhance visibility around the corner where grand bends towards San Marcos blvd

33.138863, -117.180412
2022-11-23 16:44:30 UTC Other
Reduce traffic speeds on Palomar Airport Rd/San Marcos blvd . Also, People are routinely running the red lights on this road and unsafe biking and driving conditions are getting worse as traffic increases. Red light cameras or a police presence to ticket offenders can also help. Thank you

33.130615, -117.227597
2022-11-24 04:36:44 UTC Bike Sidewalk ends here. Someone on an e-bike was hit and killed here in 2022. I think because it is dirt that transitions to road. 33.139986, -117.176893 2022-11-24 04:56:07 UTC Walk
The people who live in the apartments cannot easily access the rail trail. They have to walk all the way up the bridge and then down a ramp and then back to get to the spot I marked on the map. It is a lot of extra walking. New apartments are also being built near these.

Adding a pedestrian rail crossing here would help them use the rail trail more instead of having to walk on the sidewalk next to the road.

33.157538, -117.198243
2022-11-24 05:05:57 UTC Bike Totally agree. Crossing the 78 here is dangerous. Need a safe way for bikes to cross the 78 33.140597, -117.163718 9/28/23 Public Website - Interactive Map Comments Appendix C - Public Outreach Created on Type Comment Latitude & Longitude
2022-11-29 00:36:28 UTC Bike There's the sweet Class 1 multi-use bike path through the Palomar Station development but it kinda just ends at the 6-lane arterial, Las Posas Road. This promising start should be continued to nearby shopping centers etc. with protected intersections. 33.146764, -117.189613 2022-11-29 00:50:30 UTC Bike
To add to the nearby Sports Park comment, the closest access point to the Rail Trail (Palomar College Station) is only 800 feet away as the crow flies, but effectively 2,000 feet to go around the private property. A pedestrian/bike crossing directly to the rail trail would be great!

33.146183, -117.182198
2022-11-29 00:56:24 UTC Walk
This slip lane sucks. I had to wait for a crosswalk signal to get from Civic Center Station to the pedestrian island and then I had to wait for another signal to cross the slip lane! In the long term, the slip lane should probably be removed, but for now the crosswalk button should immediately turn the light red for cars.

33.141931, -117.160258
2022-11-29 00:58:57 UTC Bike
A bike detector loop or a camera should be installed in the Rail Trail to detect oncoming cyclists and prioritize them across the slip lane instead of automobiles. At some point the slip lane should be entirely removed. It's a high-speed car-on-pedestrian collision just waiting to happen.

33.141845, -117.159915
2022-11-29 01:07:04 UTC Bike There are not even bike lanes on this part of Rancheros Drive. It's within a half mile of the Sprinter Station and the Rail Trail. There should be foolproof safe routes this close. 33.139654, -117.161309 2022-11-29 01:18:35 UTC Bike
So there are a bunch of apartments here. I can only hope that bicyclists can legally use the nearby ten-foot-wide sidewalk (indicated by the red dotted line) to at least get closer to the Sprinter station. Heck, just add a dashed line and WHA-BAM! you got a Class 1 multi-use path! Maybe just extend it north for a direct connection to the Rail Trail.

33.139299, -117.164732
2022-11-29 01:24:04 UTC Other There's probably enough room here for a roundabout (150 foot diameter?). 2 lanes in each direction is not unheard of, and pedestrian crossings with islands on each approach would make walking around easier. 33.140952, -117.161771 2022-11-29 01:33:44 UTC Walk
It's over a sixth of a mile from this point in each direction to get to a crosswalk. Connors Park (described in Google Maps as a "toddlerfriendly playground") should be more accessible to the apartments across the street. There should be a mid-block crossing with a pedestrian island and traffic-calming features like a chicane.

33.139633, -117.169776
2022-11-29 01:36:47 UTC Bike Bollards or planters along each bike lane would encourage residents of the nearby apartments to let their kids bike to the elementary and improve access to the Sprinter station. 33.140425, -117.166834 2022-11-29 01:38:22 UTC Bike In general, class 1 multiuse paths or Class 4 protected bikelanes should radiate from each Sprinter station. 33.14218, -117.161652 2022-11-29 01:44:14 UTC Other
These traffic circles work really well to slow down cars and emphasize the pedestrians' right-of-way. This was the least stressful crossing I've ever used--the approaching car was already moving pretty slowly before it had to stop for me, and I even had an island to shorten the crossing distance! We should build more of them all over the place, even if it's just with quick-build materials.

33.134288, -117.161772
2022-11-29 02:04:48 UTC Walk The pedestrian signal here takes too long. When the bus is running late (which is most of the time), it's common to jaywalk to make your connection to the Sprinter. All the signals at the intersection should prioritize people instead of cars. 33.147183, -117.185385 2022-11-29 02:07:02 UTC Bike Each apartment block should have its own train track crossing to get to the Rail Trail and facilitate access to the Sprinter station and bus nexus.

33.147328, -117.186823
2022-11-29 02:10:58 UTC Bike The apartment development's bike path end shere--it should continue! 33.144766, -117.184131 2022-11-29 02:14:16 UTC Walk I know, right? We've got a lovely rail trail, but certain places you'd think would have an access point just...don't. 33.157538, -117.198243 12/1/2022 23:06:14 UTC Walk The crosswalk period across Barham her eis way shorter than at other parts of the street. Weird! And unsafe! 33.133066, -117.161292 12/21/2022 18:31 Walk
There is a section of Borden Road, between Via Barquero and Comet Circle, that is only two lanes wide and it has no sidewalks, trails, or bike lanes. This makes it VERY dangerous to walk or bike between Santa Fe Hills and the neighborhoods near Twin Oaks Valley Road. This stretch of road needs to be widened to four lanes and include walking trails/sidewalks and bike lanes. This is long overdue.

33.154222, -117.176950
2023-01-19 16:54:06 UTC Other
Severe Traffic congestion. I cannot get in or out of my own home due to MHHS school traffic. People use my driveway to park and as a turn around. I have already had my car hit while parked in my driveway. People stop in the middle of the road to drop off/pick up their kids. Kids dart out in front of traffic. Very Hazardous conditions. People speed down our street, kids do not use the sidewalk but rather walk on the side that does not have a sidewalk. Mission/Richland needs a crossing guard.

33.145672, -117.138
9/28/23 Public Website - Interactive Map Comments Appendix C - Public Outreach Created on Type Comment Latitude & Longitude
2023-01-26 03:32:19 UTC Bike Please add cones to make a physical barrier for the bike lanes that go up and down twin oaks/San Elijo road. So many kids bike/scooter to school these days. They need a barrier to protect them. 33.109697, -117.164 2023-01-28 04:13:57 UTC Bike Heading east the Class II bike lane evaporates between Knoll Rd and Grand. There is plenty of width here for continuing the bike lane, with green stripes marking conflict zones for the 78 on ramp and off ramp. 33.137156, -117.178 2023-01-28 04:17:18 UTC Bike Riding east along San Marcos Blvd the bike lane evaporates between Knoll Rd and Grand. There is plenty of width here for a bike lane, which should include green stripes indicating conflict areas with the 78 on and off ramps. 33.138216, -117.175568 2023-01-28 04:19:48 UTC Bike Bike lanes missing here along Borden 33.157206, -117.178 2023-01-28 04:20:59 UTC Bike A curb cut would be welcome here so that cyclists can easily ride onto the bike path to Walnut Park 33.184506, -117.155 2023-01-28 04:23:04 UTC Bike The class II bike lane disappears under the 78 overpass. 33.135, -117.129 2023-01-28 04:25:03 UTC Bike The bike lane needs more frequent cleaning here eastbound on Mission 33.142295, -117.141 2023-01-28 04:36:59 UTC Bike The spacing between the boards on the bridge here are dangerous for cyclists 33.124227, -117.179 2023-01-28 04:39:58 UTC Bike A protected lane heading uphill might be fine, but Twin Oaks is too steep heading downhill here, and the bike lane too narrow, to safely have bollards in the road. Cyclists will be traveling too fast. 33.109697, -117.164 2023-01-28 04:44:18 UTC Bike Rancho Santa Fe needs more frequent street cleaning along this stretch between Melrose and Lake San Marcos. The bike lane is often filled with coarse gravel, possibly due to the deteriorating road. 33.115017, -117.227 2023-01-28 04:48:06 UTC Bike Linda Vista needs prominent sharrows along this section 33.141324, -117.207 2023-01-28 04:50:01 UTC Bike Please resolve whatever issue here and connect the inland rail trail with this bike path. 33.153263, -117.195 2023-01-28 04:51:52 UTC Bike Please continue the Class II bike lanes underneath the 78 freeway 33.144253, -117.191 2023-01-28 04:54:52 UTC Bike The bike lane heading west on San Marcos Blvd is dangerously narrow right near the intersection. The geometry of the intersection causes cars to want to clip this corner. 33.131658, -117.208 2023-01-28 04:57:39 UTC Bike I agree, a very dangerous for cyclists. Poinsettia here is a major route to the nearby industrial park and should be upgraded to reflect its high usage by both cyclists and cars. 33.150206, -117.213 2023-01-28 05:02:39 UTC Bike Please continue the class II bike lanes underneath the overpass. 33.13473, -117.129 2023-01-28 05:04:35 UTC Bike Missing bike lane 33.17427, -117.159 2023-01-28 20:24:09 UTC Bike
Motorists traveling southbound on Pacific street make a right turn to Mission. They will tend to look to left for westbound vehicles on Mission. HOWEVER, cyclists on bike path may be legally crossing Mission and motorist on Pacific may not look & see cyclist to right.

Add 10 second delay between walk sign & green light for southbound Pacific street to cross Mission. Would allow cyclists & walkers to safely get into intersection ahead of moving traffic. (note have submitted to SM)

33.150864, -117.193
2023-01-28 20:26:40 UTC Bike Agree! Very dangerous on westbound lane just past intersection. Lot's of right hook opportunities as well 33.131658, -117.208 2023-01-28 20:33:37 UTC Other Morning left turn signal timing from westbound Linda Vista to southbound Los Posas is terrible. Far too long and sometimes does not work. 33.13712, -117.194
2023-01-28 20:36:37 UTC Bike Agree. NO bollards on downhill side! Cyclists should be able to take the lane given the speeds. 33.109697, -117.164 2023-01-28 20:38:15 UTC Bike Nice trees on east side of street (near northbound bike lane) but they are starting to cause unevenness on the pavement. Need to watch this closely as cyclist will be coming down at higher speeds while in bike lane. Prefer to take the lane to avoid the risk. 33.118971, -117.164 2023-01-28 20:40:08 UTC Bike Tends to be lot of debris in bike lanes on this section (both sides). Need more frequent street sweeping. 33.139002, -117.143 2023-04-02 17:55:00 UTC Walk Kids often cross the street at night and don’t go to the light for protection. Highly recommend mid blocked crossing. 33.14, -117.20 2023-04-02 18:13:00 UTC Walk I completely agree. Trying to bike through here pulling a bike trailer with two kids is very dangerous. The turns create blind spots so a car may not see a bike in the lane. 33.15, -117.178
2023-04-02 18:15:00 UTC Other
This whole area between Comet Circle and the
entrance to Santa Fe Hills has only two driving lanes. No bike lanes and no sidewalks. There is not a safe way for people to walk through or bike through. Sidewalks,at least, are a must here.

33.16, -117.18
2023-04-02 20:05:00 UTC Bike It would be nice to have a nicer and safer pedestrian crossing over the freeway. 33.14, -117.16 2023-04-14 04:51:49 UTC Walk Lack of pathway connectivity has pedestrians jumping across speeding traffic while walking to Mission Hills School and/or Hollandia Park.

A crosswalk would do wonders. 33.15, -117.14
9/28/23 Public Website - Interactive Map Comments Appendix C - Public Outreach Created on Type Comment Latitude & Longitude
2023-04-19 18:30:58 UTC Walk A sidewalk on the south side of Buena Creek from Twin Oaks Valley to Country creek road would keep pedestrians (and the underage residents of Casa De Amparo) safe while walking to the Twin Oaks Valley Market, and on to Twin Oaks Elementary. 33.18, -117.16 2023-04-19 18:35:41 UTC Walk
Continuation of the sidewalk/protected walking path on the east side of Twin Oaks Valley Rd between Cassou and Olive would make it much safer for Twin Oaks Valley Elementary students to walk to school, it would also then result in an uninterrupted sidewalk/path on Twin Oaks Valley Rd. from Windy Way to the City's boundary at Sycamore (this is currently the only unprotected section left).

33.18, -117.16
2023-04-19 18:52:56 UTC Walk A bikelane and sidewalk on Olive at least from Mulberry to Twin Oaks Valley Rd would be great to protect kids going to Twin Oaks Elementary and recreational bikers/walkers. 33.18, -117.15 2023-04-21 03:19:41 UTC Bike
Please add a wall of cones to line the bike lanes from double peak school down to village. Both sides of the street both up and down.

The kids ride e-bikes and scooters to and from school on this steep hill and drivers are going fast. They need a physical barrier to keep them safer.

33.12, -117.16
12/13/2023 Public Website - Draft ATP Comments Appendix C - Public Outreach ID Start time Completion time
Are you affiliated
with any
organization?
What section of the
document does your
comment pertain to?
What is your comment?
What section of the
document does your
comment pertain to?2
What is your comment?2
What section of the
document does your
comment pertain to?3
What is your comment?3
1 11/7/23 14:10:09 11/7/23 14:19:24 San Marcos Unified
School District
Appendix D: Safe Routes to
School Element more bike safety routes needed on North Twin Oaks Valley Rd. 4.100 Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Element
2 11/15/23 14:44:17 11/15/23 14:45:29 SMUSD Appendix D: Safe Routes to School Element
The appendix is not included in the draft ... I would like to know how schools will be supported.
3 11/17/23 16:01:02 11/17/23 16:14:08 San Marcos Unified Appendix D: Safe Routes to School Element
There isn't an Appendix D to refer to. It says I should refer to page 65, but there isn't a page 65. 1.100 Introduction
4 11/20/23 21:42:11 11/20/23 21:50:11 San Diego County
Bicycle Coalition 1.100 Introduction

1.107.4 Traffic Calming Strategies
We recommend this section be fleshed out. Traffic calming is a top priority and deserves more attention. The faster cars are going, the greater the likelihood that a pedestrian or bicyclist will be killed or gravely injured in a crash. Traffic calming is one of the key ways we can keep our communities safe and achieve Vision Zero goals. I understand you are referring to another document, but it would be nice to see some examples or quote portions of the The City’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy Guidelines, August 2023, because most people will not search for that document in order to understand the traffic calming strategies. Better to build the content into this ATP document.

1.100 Introduction

1.107.5 Accommodating
Pedestrians

1. We recommend 4 way stops
only, not 2 way stops.

2. Zebra stripes are very
important, as are yellow stripes
for school zones. R

3. Roundabouts are very
helpful, not only for traffic
calming, but to cut down on the
number of conflict zones in an
intersection.

4. Mid block crossings should be
a LAST resort.

General
Most of the images are low-res,
low-quality and should be
improved. Photos should be
brighter, clearer, more
inspiring.
5 11/20/23 21:50:15 11/20/23 22:03:37 San Diego County
Bicycle Coalition 2.100 San Marcos Today

2.102 - Appallingly short section on transit. Bus lines? What are you going to do about first and last minute connections? How will you convert short trips to non-car modes? Also, the inland rail trail is not transit, it's a multi-use trail for bikes/peds. It seems it's included under the transit section because you are talking about how bike/ped facilities connect to transit...but it feels out of place.

We recommend including provision for designated bus lanes, increased frequency for bus and train routes, and tap to pay technology to make paying for transit easier. MTS just approved tap to pay for the pronto card. NCTD can be next.

5.100 Active Transportation
Recommendations

5.106.1 Education
The Bike Coalition is of course
strongly in support of
Education! Are you planning to
work with League of American
Bicyclists Certified Cycling
Instructors? To ensure the
integrity and quality of
instruction, we strongly
encourage to work with LCIs.

We would love to speak with
San Marcos more about this and
can support through our grandfunded programs as well as fee for service options.

General
Space needed after “Flyering:”
Period needed after
“collaborate with local police”
6 11/27/23 20:31:25 11/27/23 20:37:17 San Marcos Unified School District

5.100 Active Transportation
Recommendations
I believe it is a great idea to have opportunities and educational assemblies for students at schools. Informing students and parents with events during school and in the evening for parents is crucial for supporting and promoting student safety.
7 12/1/23 15:37:09 12/1/23 15:43:07 San Diego Mountain
Biking Association General
We appreciate the effort on this Active Transporation Plan for the city of San Marcos particularly the efforts to recognize trails as part of the system for pedestrians and cyclists. We continue to look for better connectivity to trails from neighborhoods, parks and activity hubs around the city. We appreciate the discussion regarding ebikes and education as well as safe routes to school.
12/13/2023 Public Website - Draft ATP Comments Appendix C - Public Outreach ID Start time Completion time
Are you affiliated
with any
organization?
What section of the
document does your
comment pertain to?
What is your comment?
What section of the
document does your
comment pertain to?2
What is your comment?2
What section of the
document does your
comment pertain to?3
What is your comment?3
8 12/2/23 9:20:30 12/2/23 9:34:21 No 5.100 Active Transportation Recommendations
Please add more Separated Bike Lanes. Class I or Class IV. Separated from vehicle lanes by physical barriers. A painted lane on the road is not enough separation from a vehicle that swerves over the paint to strike a bicycle! Also please allow electric bikes on any bike or multi use path if any non electric motorized bike is allowed on that multi use or bike path. Only the high speed Type III e-bikes should not be allowed on those paths. E-Bike manufacturers have a Type I, and Type II classification for low speed electric bikes and Type III classification for high speed bikes, so signage along bike paths can specify only Type I and II are allowed.

And for pedestrian safety, add crosswalks and improve crosswalks with signage and lights along the side of road and surface lights embedded into paint stripes in pavement as is utilized now in the city of Laguna Beach.

General
More bike lanes separated by
physical barriers! More
crosswalks (not just at
intersections).
9 12/4/23 10:39:49 12/4/23 10:44:06 SMUSD/Knob Hill
Elementary
Appendix D: Safe Routes to
School Element
I think the additions of the side walk on Nordahl, the signage indicating the cross walk and the improvements of the intersections will be helpful. One suggestion is that we place a traffic signal at the intersection of Knob Hill Road and Bennett. I have safety concerns about students crossing as we have had many near misses at this specific intersection.
10 12/4/23 10:53:32 12/4/23 10:55:39 SMUSD-Principal Appendix D: Safe Routes to School Element
All the recommendations seem appropriate. Highest priority for safety would be sidewalks and crosswalks.
11 12/4/23 11:56:29 12/4/23 12:00:07 SMUSD Appendix D: Safe Routes to School Element
Strongly agree that installing some type of delineation would inhibit the use of the right lane for drop-off.

Appendix D: Safe Routes to
School Element
It would be great to see the new
lanes enhanced by a specific
color so they stand out.
12 12/4/23 11:54:41 12/4/23 14:07:39 SMMS Principal 4.100 Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Element

1. A dedicated bike lane will be beneficial to student safety. Our students currently use the street as a bike lane. They have to navigate aside the moving vehicles which is a danger to many, especially when we have the preschool is dismissing students. It's too many cars and commotion at that time.

2. It would benefit students on wheelchairs, who skate to school, and those walking on crutches.

3. There are three bus stops within a half mile radius. The one in front of the school is a safety issue because the bus is too long to fit the street where the stop sign is located. This blocks cars from leaving the school campus when exiting. Remove this bus stop and use the one in front of the church on Mission Ave.

4.100 Safe Routes to School
(SRTS) Element

4. It's a good idea to remove the
NO TURN ON RED sign. It
prevents a build-up of traffic
particularly when no students
are crossing the street.

Additional points:
**Include speed cushion on
Richmar Avenue between the
school and Liberty Drive.
**Include dividers on the road
going Eastbound to block
parents from dropping off their
students. It's a safety issue
because it impeded the bikers
from using the bike lane. Also a
constant traffic hazard.

4.100 Safe Routes to School
(SRTS) Element

5. Shade all the bus stops for
students and keep the waiting
seat.
13 12/4/23 14:46:07 12/4/23 14:47:33 Richland Elementary 4.100 Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Element
We have TWO designated/supervised crosswalks now at Richland. Both at Borden but one at Richland Road and One at Rose Ranch.

4.100 Safe Routes to School
(SRTS) Element
12/13/2023 Public Website - Draft ATP Comments Appendix C - Public Outreach ID Start time Completion time
Are you affiliated
with any
organization?
What section of the
document does your
comment pertain to?
What is your comment?
What section of the
document does your
comment pertain to?2
What is your comment?2
What section of the
document does your
comment pertain to?3
What is your comment?3
14 12/4/23 16:54:18 12/4/23 21:16:04
No but my sons
attends high tech
elementary
Appendix C: Public
Feedback Summary
I have never been involved in public comment but I would like to say that I have been biking my children by cargo bike for two years and a half. I live on creekside drive and my main route is San Marcos Blvd to High tech elementary. I bike this route everyday no matter the weather. This corridor (road) feels like a speed way. There may be various lights but that doesn’t keep the cars from speeding to each light. A protected bike lane would be ideal. The most infractions I witness everyday is cars exiting business without looking for cyclist or pedestrians and everyday I have close calls . I have learned to anticipate for cars not stopping and I have been 100% right they will not.

Regardless of the conditions I will not let other motorist impede my will to use my bicycle. I hope the city can implement safe bike lanes for the community. We are a car free family for 2 months now , there is no going back for us but we would love to see more families feel safer to bike and join us. I seen one of the ideas to engage community was an open street day . I would love to participate in bike events like that. I would also enjoy bike parking at valet at events held for the community .

5.100 Active Transportation
Recommendations
15 12/4/23 21:11:48 12/4/23 21:17:24 no

5.100 Active Transportation
Recommendations
Currently, in many of the designated cycling paths or in areas along designated cycling routes, the cross walk buttons are nearly to entirely impossible to access without getting off of your bicycle and sometimes walking several feet. This problem occurs even along ideal cycling routes like the inland rail trail. Please consider including in your plan the modifying of current crosswalk buttons to be accessible by cyclists and that future signal buttons are also built to be accessible by cyclists. 16 12/7/23 6:29:40 12/7/23 6:34:39 SMUSD Appendix D: Safe Routes to School Element
I appreciate the new measures that have been put in place to ensure our children get to school safely. The new sidewalk across the front of the school has been a needed addition as well as the crosswalk signs. 17 12/8/23 7:17:58 12/8/23 9:24:56 San Elijo Middle
School, Principal

4.100 Safe Routes to School
(SRTS) Element
In looking at the Safe Routes to School Recommendation Map- San Elijo Elementary and Middle School, we would like to request the following:

1. Blinking school lights at main crosswalks in front of our school on corner of schoolhouse way and elfin forest....cars do not stop when students are crossing the street. "School ahead" with flashers would be great. Or is it possible to have an extra traffic light here to assist?

2. #2 the protected bike lane proposal on the north side of the eastbound lane would be where our parents park to pick up and drop off students throughout the day. Our main front entry is on the corner of Elfin Forest and San Elijo road. If there is a bike lane there, cars would have to park on the other side of the street and would then be crossing in the middle of traffic to get to our front entrance. We love a bike lane! But can it go elsewhere??

3. More speed bumps on schoolhouse way and approaching the school on Elfin Forest.

4. #3 Can we put a blinking light here as well?

5. Increase the one way sign street on the corner of elfin forest eastbound coming up on san elijo road?

6. Can we do a 'no turn on red' sign on the corner of elfin forest on to san elijo road? Right on the corner of the school? We often have students trying to cross, and cars inch up?

7. Can we have a school crossing sign on elfin forest before reaching schoolhouse way? Around where #3 is on the map?
Thank you for seeking our feedback! It is greatly appreciated. 65SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
APPENDIX D: Safe
Routes to School
Element
Safe Routes to School Element
APPENDIX D:

LEGEND
0 0.05 0.1Mil es
0 0.1 0.2Kilometers
Safe Routes to School Recommendation Map - Carrillo Elementary School 25 WHEN

CHILDREN

ARE PRESENT
3 2
1 3
4 PASEO
COLINA

RANCHOMILAGRO

RANCHO GANADERO

VIA PUERTA

RANCHOQUARTILLO

RANCHO PANCHO

PASEOPALERO

RANCHO BRAVADO

RANCHO COSTERO

VIA CONQUISTADOR

PASEO ESTRIBO

PASEOCALLADO

PASEOCERRO

PASEOLUNADA

PASEO CORONO

RANCHO DIAMONTE

PASEOCAZADOR

PASEO ELEGANCIA

RANCHOCOMPANERO

RANCHO RIO CHICO

PASEODESCANSO

RANCHOBRASADO

PASEOPRIVADO

MELROSEDR

POINSETTIA LANE
C
TI Y
OF S
A
N
M
A
R
CO
S
LocationSpecic
Notes:
1 Install Leading Pedestrian
Intervals for all crossings and
blank-out NO RIGHT TURN ON RED
signs for all approaches.
2 Reduce distance of merging area for northbound
bikes and right turn vehicles. Add sharrows (or
other conict striping) through the mixing zone.
3 Implement Class IV bikeway by adding
vertical element where horizontal bu
er
already exists and narrowing lane widths
where horizontal bu
er doesn’t exist.
4 Add “KEEP CLEAR” pavement
markings at driveway.

Within 0.25 Miles of School Bounds
Class IV Bikeway (one-way)
Existing
Carrillo Elementary School
School Boundary
Recommendations
New Crosswalk
Intersection Improvements
City of San Marcos Boundary
New Sign / Sign
Enhancement
ADA Compliant Curb Ramp
Notes:

1. The recommendations on this
map reflect the interim
conditions proposed in the San
Marcos Active Transportation
Plan.

2. Some recommendations on
this map are outside City of
San Marcos jurisdiction
boundary. These improvements
will require coordination with
adjacent agencies.

Safe Routes to School Recommendation Map - Discovery Elementary School LocationSpecic
Notes:
1 Realign crosswalk on south leg to be
perpendicular to roadway and adjust
location of ADA curb ramp on southeast
corner.
2 Reduce curb radius with hardscape,
semi-permanent infrastructure, or
striping.
3 Reduce curb radii for all corners of
intersection when replacing curb
ramps.
4 Install Class IV bikeway by removing two-way
left-turn lane and reallocating roadway space.

Conduct a speed study to potentially lower the
speed limit on Via Vera Cruz.
5 new crosswalk.

Within 0.25 Miles of School Bounds
Class IV Bikeway (one-way)
Existing
Discovery Elementary School
School Boundary
Recommendations
New Crosswalk
Intersection Improvements
City of San Marcos Boundary
NOTES
0 0.10.05 M il es
0 0.1 Kilometers 0.2
LEGEND
New Sidewalk
Curb Extension
Class III Bike Route
Speed Cushions*
*Location of speed cushions shown are conceptual only. Other trac calming measures can be considered instead of speed cushions after completion of trac study.

New Sign / Sign
Enhancement
ADA Compliant Curb Ramp
**RRFB = Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon

LANOCHEDR

APPLEWILDEDR

HONEYSUCKLE DR

GRANAD A WAY

SMOKETREECT

CRESTVIEW CT

MOCKINGBIRD LN

MCMAHR RD

SPARROW CT

DISCOVERY ST

DISCOVERY ST

VIAVERACRUZVIAVERACRUZ
Class I Multi-Use Path
Class II Buered Bike Lane

CITY OF SAN MARCOS
Note: The recommendations
on this map reflect the
interim conditions proposed
in the San Marcos Active
Transportation Plan.
2 3
4 1 5
Add RRFBs on both sides of
Safe Routes to School Recommendation Map - Joli Ann Elementary School 2 LocationSpecic
Notes:

Install Class IV two-way bikeway
along school frontage by reducing
travel lane widths. Bikeway would
ramp up/down to bridge structure
over creek near Mimosa Ave.
5 Install rumble strips across northbound
side of roadway to alert vehicles to slow
down approaching school intersection.

Other trac calming measures to be
considered as alternatives.
6 Widen Smilax Road to
the east and restrict
on-street parking to
accommodate bike
lanes.
4 Widen roadway to the east to
accommodate new sidewalk.

Note: recommendations will
require signi
cant civil
improvements.
3 Add RRFB**
to both sides
of new
crosswalk.
1 Provide appropriate
intersection treatments
to facilitate transition
from a two-way bikeway
to one-way bike lanes.

MIMOSAAVE

OLEANDER AVE

WILDHORSE LN

HIBISCUS AVE

SMILAX RD

EVADOOWKRAP

MARCOS VISTA LN

BELLWOODLN
UNNAMED 8F ST

ADELINE CT

LYNN WAY

MELISSA CT

DESCANSO

ALAMITOS WAY

OLEANDER PL

JUNIPER LN

ROADRUNNER RD
City of San Marcos

POINSETTIA AVE
Within 0.25 Miles of School Bounds
Existing
Joli Ann Leichtag Elementary School
School Boundary
Recommendations
City of San Marcos Boundary
LEGEND
Class III Bike Route
0 0.10.05 M il es
0 0.1 Kil om eters 0.2
New Crosswalk
Intersection Improvements
New Sidewalk
Curb Extension
New Sign / Sign
Enhancement
ADA Compliant Curb Ramp
Under - Bridge Lighting
Class II Bu
ered Bike Lane
Class IV Bikeway (two-way)
*Location of speed cushions shown are conceptual only. Other trac calming measures can be considered instead of speed cushions after completion of trac study.

Yield Lines
Class II Bike Lane
**RRFB = Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
Notes:

1. The recommendations on this
map reflect the interim
conditions proposed in the San
Marcos Active Transportation
Plan.

2. Some recommendations on
this map are outside City of
San Marcos jurisdiction
boundary. These improvements
will require coordination with
adjacent agencies.
2 5
6 4
1 3

LUCIERNAGA ST

ABEJORRO ST

OBELISCO CIR

CORINTIA ST

URUBU ST

LLAMA ST

CANTIL ST

SITIOMONTECILLO

CEBU PL

SITIO SENDERO

SANTA ISABEL ST

CORTE TAMARINDO

ANTILOPE ST
SITIO
CO
R
DERO

ARGONAUTA ST

CORTE LANGOSTA

SITIOOCEANO

CAZADERO DR

BABILONIA ST

ELFUERTE ST

CORINTIA ST
Safe Routes to School Recommendation Map - La Costa Meadows Elementary School Within 0.25 Miles of School Bounds
Existing
La Costa Meadows Elementary School
School Boundary
Recommendations
City of San Marcos Boundary
LEGEND
0 0.10.05 M il es
0 0.1 Kil om eters 0.2
New Sidewalk
Trac Circle
Class III Bike Route
Speed Cushions*
*Location of speed cushions shown are conceptual
only. Other trac calming measures can be
considered instead of speed cushions after
completion of trac study.

New Red Curb
Stripe the centerline and
parking lane of Corintia
Street for trac calming.

Provide enhanced delineation for mixing zone
between bike lane and right turn lane. Consider removing parking on the east side of the roadway, shifting the roadway to the east, and providing a longer right turn lane for vehicles turning into the school driveway.

Switch bike lane and parking lane to
create a parking-protected Class IV
bikeway.

Class II Bu
ered Bike Lane
Class IV Bikeway (one-way)
Conduct a speed
study to potentially
lower the speed limit
on El Fuerte Street.

ADA Compliant Curb Ramp
New Sign / Sign
Enhancement
Yield Lines
Notes:

1. The recommendations on this
map reflect the interim
conditions proposed in the San
Marcos Active Transportation
Plan.

2. Some recommendations on
this map are outside City of
San Marcos jurisdiction
boundary. These improvements
will require coordination with
adjacent agencies.

Location- 1
Specic
Notes:
1 2
2 4
3 3
4 5 Add RRFB** to
both sides of
new crosswalk.
**RRBF = Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
5 5

S RANCHO SANTA FE RD

GRAND AVE

KEN SI N GTON DR

VIA PORTOLA

PAWN EE ST

LAS FLORES DR

NAVAJO ST

LA ROSA DR

COMMODORE DR

LA COLUSA DR

DECORACIR
9TH ST

TILLEY LN

LA MIRADA DR

STARSTONE DR

LINDA VISTA DR
8TH ST
1 2
LEGEND
Reduce crossing distance on north and west legs by providing curb extensions, reducing curb radii, and installing directional curb ramps. Realign crosswalks accordingly. Consider keeping southbound bike lane against curb and providing bike signal for conict between southbound bikes and right-turning vehicles.

New Sidewalk
ADA Compliant Curb Ramp
New Crosswalk
New Red Curb
Class II Bike Lane
Class III Bike Route
New Sign / Sign Enhancement
Curb Extension
Remove sign with MUTCD code (XY-Z)
Provide Class II gap connection on southbound Rancho
Santa Fe Road by either widening the roadway, which
requires utility relocations or reducing the median width.

Note: this is a major civil improvement that would
require signi
cant funding.
3 Reroute
sidewalk
around
utility
pole.

New Centerline
LocationSpecic
Notes:

Within 0.25 Miles of School Bounds
Existing
La Mirada Academy
School Boundary
Recommendations
Class II Bu
ered Bike Lane
4 Create “school pick-up lane”
along south curb of La
Mirada Drive to allow pick-up
vehicles to queue outside of
the eastbound travel lane.
(XY-Z)
Class I Multi-Use Path
Yield Lines
Intersection Improvements
5 Conduct speed
study on La Mirada
Drive to
potentially reduce
speed limit.

Note: The recommendations on
this map reflect the interim
conditions proposed in the San
Marcos Active Transportation Plan.
6 Add RRFB*
to both
sides of
new
crosswalk.
(S5-2)
(S5-2)
Class IV Bikeway (one-way) 1
2 3
4 5
6 6
0 0.05 Miles 0.1
0 0.1 Kilometers 0.2
Safe Routes to School Recommendation Map - La Mirada Academy *RRBF = Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon

VIA CONTESSA
VIA

DEPLATA

AVENIDA
AG
UILA

AVENIDA ARANA

CORTE LIRA

AVENIDA CORDOBA

ONARTSIPACELLAC

CORTE MANOLITO

CORTE LOREN

CAMINO DEL SOL

VIA CALIENTE

CORTEBRAVO

CORTEDULCE

TESOROAVE

AVENIDAAMISTAD

LEUQARETROC

AVENIDAAMIGO

CALLE EMPARRADO

CALLEPROSPERO

CAMINITOAMARILLO

AVENIDAVERDE

CALLE FANTASIA

AVENIDA
BLANCO

AVENIDAPANTERA

AVENIDA FRAGATA

W BORDEN RD

N LAS POSAS RD
Safe Routes to School Recommendation Map - Paloma Elementary School 0 0.1 Kilometers 0.2
0 0.10.05 Miles
LEGEND
Add northbound right turn lane to the left side of bike lane, install bike signal for northbound bikes. Install blank-out NO TURN ON RED sign and include overlap phase for northbound right turns. Provide bike bendout design with proposed curb extension in the southeast corner. Note: full set of
recommendations will require signicant civil improvements.

LocationSpecic
Notes:
2 Implement Class IV
bikeway by narrowing
lane widths to
provide horizontal
bu
er and adding
vertical elements.
3 Perform
signal
warrant
analysis for
signalized
intersection.
4 Change signal phasing to
provide protected
northbound and
southbound left turns, and
add Lead Pedestrian
Intervals for all crossings.
5 Provide one-way Class IV
bikeway by removing a travel
lane in each direction east of
Las Posas Road. Existing ADT =
9,500. Perform speed study to
potentially reduce speed limit.
6 Implement all-way
stop control
pending warrant
analysis. Consider
tra
c circle as an
alternative.
1 *Location of speed cushions shown are conceptual only.

Other trac calming measures can be considered instead
of speed cushions after completion of trac study.
**RRBF = Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
Within 0.25 Miles of School Bounds
Existing
Paloma Elementary School
School Boundary
Recommendations
ADA Compliant Curb Ramp
New Crosswalk
New Red Curb
Class III Bike Route
Class IV Bikeway (one-way)
Advanced Stop Bars
New Sign / Sign Enhancement
Speed Cushions*
Class IV Bikeway (two-way)
Intersection Improvements
Yield Lines
Class I Multi-Use Path
7 Add
RRFB** to
both sides
of new
crosswalk.

Note: The recommendations on
this map reflect the interim
conditions proposed in the San
Marcos Active Transportation Plan.
1 2
3 4
5 CA
MIN
O
MAG
NIFICO
6 7
Safe Routes to School Recommendation Map - San Marcos Elementary School

PICO AVE

KNOLL RD

FIREBIRD LN

MARCOS ST

ESANMARCOSBLVD

AUTUMN DR

W MISSION RD

RICHMAR AVE

LIBERTY
DR

FITZPATRICK RD

CHINABERRY LN

BALDWIN LN

WESTLAKE DR

JOHNSTON LN

TIGER WAY

E SAN MARCOS BLVD

LOS VALLECITOS BLVD

WESTLAKE DR
Twin Oaks Valley Road
Within 0.25 Miles of School Bounds
Existing
San Marcos Elementary School
School Boundary
Recommendations
City of San Marcos Boundary
LEGEND
0 0.10.05 M il es
0 0.1 Kil om eters 0.2
Class III Bike Route
Class II Buered Bike Lane
Intersection Improvements
New Crosswalk
Speed Cushions*
New Sign / Sign
Enhancement
ADA Compliant Curb Ramp
*Location of speed cushions shown are conceptual only.

Other trac calming measures can be considered instead
of speed cushions after completion of trac study.

Class II Bike Lane
Class I Multi-Use Path
Class IV Bikeway (one-way)
Note: The recommendations on
this map reflect the interim
conditions proposed in the San
Marcos Active Transportation Plan.

Open gate during pick-up and
drop-o operations to allow
residents to the west to access
school by walking or biking without
using San Marcos Boulevard.

Location- 1
Specic
Notes:

Redesign intersection to
better support
movement of pedestrians
and bicycles after
widening Mission Road.
3 Widen Mission Road to the
north between Pleasant
Way and Freebird Lane to
provide missing section of
Class II bike lanes.
2 Reduce curb radius
on northwest
corner, and pull
back crosswalk
slightly on west leg.
4 Remove second northbound lane on Pico
Avenue south of San Marcos Boulevard and
reallocate roadway width to provide bike lanes.

Consider impacts of removing two-way left
turn lane to provide buer space for bike lanes.
5 Restripe intersection
to allocate more
space to bicycles by
reducing vehicle
lane widths.
7 Install
Leading
Pedestrian
Intervals.
6 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
Safe Routes to School Recommendation Map - San Marcos Middle School Location- 1
Specic
Notes:
2 3 4

HENSONHEIGHTSDR

KNOLL RD

MARCOS ST

KIRKWALL DR

CANOPY DR

AUTUMN DR

W MISSION RD

RICHMAR AVE

LIBERTY
DR
LOS
OLIVOS
D

EVANEEDREBA
R

DUNDEE LN

HELMSDALE RD
Curb Extension
Class IV Bikeway (one-way)
Class III Bike Route
Class II Buered Bike Lane
2 3
4 1
Within 0.25 Miles of School Bounds
Existing
San Marcos Middle School
School Boundary
Recommendations
City of San Marcos Boundary
LEGEND
0 0.10.05 M il es
0 0.1 Kil om eters 0.2
Construct paved connection
between curb ramp in southeast
corner of intersection and Inland
Rail Trail.

To alleviate congestion
of students waiting for
the bus and con
icting
with students
travelling on the
• Short-term improvement - move bus stop sign to
furthest point west on the bus pad and encourage
bus to stop at the end of the bus pad.
• Long-term improvement - increase length of the bus
pad further west by extending retaining wall area.

Install Leading Pedestrian
Intervals and blank-out NO
RIGHT TURN ON RED signs
for eastbound and
southbound tra
c.

Consider additional
amentities at bus stop
such as a shading feature
and additional paved
waiting area.

ADA Compliant Curb Ramp
Intersection Improvements
New Crosswalk
Speed Cushions*
*Location of speed cushions shown are conceptual only.

Other trac calming measures can be considered instead
of speed cushions after completion of trac study.
5 Implement Class IV bikeways by
removing one lane in each
direction between Mission Road
and Los Vallecitos Blvd. ADT =
10,000.

Note: The recommendations on
this map reflect the interim
conditions proposed in the San
Marcos Active Transportation Plan.
5 Safe Routes to School Recommendation Map - San Elijo Elementary and Middle School

VENICEAVE
ARCHER
RD

IDYLLWILDWAY

KENWOODPL

SUNNYSIDE AVE

SAN ELIJO RD S

ELFIN FOREST RD E

WI LD CAN YON DR

SKYRIDGECT

CRYSTAL CT

GLENELLENPL

TRENTONWAY

AVERY RD

GENOAWAY

MORGANS AVE

HIGHBLUFFAVE

MILANWAY

CORALWAY

DOLPHINCT

ELFINFORESTRD

WILDIRISCT

ELFINFORESTRDW

SANELIJORDN

EVAPOTFFILC

CALISTOGAWAY

SCHOOLHOUSE WAY

SAN ELIJO RD

CITY OF SAN MARCOS
Location- 1
Specic
Notes:

Install Leading Pedestrian Intervals to all crossing
phases, and extend green time for eastbound and
northbound phases after pedestrian phase has
turned o to allow eastbound and northbound
vehicles to turn right.
2 Remove parking along north side of eastbound
El
n Forest Road along school frontage and add
protected bikeway.

Provide ramp into bikeway from school ramp in
the middle of the block.
3 Realign crosswalks with dual curb
ramps to avoid redirecting
pedestrians within the intersection.
4 Install pedestrian scramble at this
intersection.

Within 0.25 Miles of School Bounds
Existing
San Elijo Elementary School
School Boundary
Recommendations
City of San Marcos Boundary
LEGEND
0 0.10.05 M il es
0 0.1 Kil om eters 0.2
Restripe Roadway to Reduce Travel Lanes
to 10.5 - 11’ Width and Reallocate Roadway
Width to Existing Bike Lane
Class IV Bikeway (one-way)
ADA Compliant Curb Ramp
Intersection Improvements
New Crosswalk
Advanced Stop Bars
New Sign / Sign
Enhancement
San Elijo Middle School
*Schoolhouse Way is a private roadway owned by the San
Marcos Unied School District.

Note: The recommendations on
this map reflect the interim
conditions proposed in the San
Marcos Active Transportation Plan.
*
*
*
*
1 2
3 4
Class II Buered Bike Lane

DEADWOOD
DR

VANESSA
WAY

ATTEBURY RD

GOLDEN EAGLE TRL

VALBORG DR

SAN ELIJO RD
0 0.10.05 Miles
0 0.1 Kilometers 0.2
Safe Routes to School Recommendation Map - Double Peak School

CITY OF SAN MARCOS
Where feasible, add horizontal buers by narrowing
lane widths. Where feasible due to street sweeper
widths, add vertical delineators within existing or
proposed horizontal buer space.
1 2 Prevent students from accessing pick-up vehicles in right turn lane.

Consider replacing the guardrail with a fence or installing vehicle delineation for the bike lane to avoid vehicles crossing over into the right turn lane at any point within the length of the turn pocket.

LocationSpecic
Notes:

New Crosswalk
Recommendations
Within 0.25 Miles of School Bounds
School Boundary
Double Peak School
Existing
LEGEND
City of San Marcos Boundary
Intersection Improvements
Note: The recommendations on
this map reflect the interim
conditions proposed in the San
Marcos Active Transportation Plan.
2 1

NORDAHL RD

GLEN AVON DR

VIALOSARCOS

VIARONDA

BROOK RD

DEAVERS DR

PALOMARDR

AUGUSTA DR

AVENIDA RICARDO

VIA ARBOLES

VIADORADO

MATINCIR

KNOB HILL RD

VIA LA PAZ

CALLE COLNETT

PASEO ALEGRE

COVE CT

BENNETTAVE

LINDSLEY
PARK
DR

VIALARANCHITA

PALOMAR DR

REES RD

CENTER DR

AMIE CT

CITY OF SAN MARCOS
0 0.10.05 Miles
0 0.1 Kilometers 0.2
Safe Routes to School Recommendation Map - Knob Hill Elementary School Note: The recommendations on
this map reflect the interim
conditions proposed in the San
Marcos Active Transportation Plan.

Reduce lane widths to accommodate buer for existing
bike lanes. Conduct speed study to reduce speed limit. 1 2 Remove travel lane in each direction and implement one-way Class IV bikeway.

Existing ADT = 6,600.
*Location of speed cushions shown are conceptual only.

Other trac calming measures can be considered instead
of speed cushions after completion of trac study.
**Other trac calming measures can be considered
instead of a trac circle after completion of trac study.

ADA Compliant Curb Ramp
New Crosswalk
New Sidewalk
Speed Cushions*
Tra
c Circle**
Class IV Bikeway (one-way)
Class III Bike Route
Class II Buered Bike Lane
Recommendations
Within 0.25 Miles of School Bounds
School Boundary
Knob Hill Elementary School
Existing
LEGEND
New Sign / Sign Enhancement
Add landscaping in sidewalk buer space
on west side of Bennett Avenue for shade. 3 Add “KEEP CLEAR” pavement markings at driveway. 4
Curb Extension
Intersection Improvements
LocationSpecic
Notes:
1 3
4 2
City of San Marcos Boundary
Safe Routes to School Recommendation Map - Mission Hills High School 0 0.10.05 Miles
0 0.1 Kilometers 0.2
2 3
1 4
Class III Bike Route
LEGEND
Existing
Mission Hills High School
Recommendations
Within 0.25 Miles of School Bounds
New Sidewalk
*Location of speed cushions shown are conceptual only.

Other trac calming measures can be considered instead
of speed cushions after completion of trac study.

Reduce curb radius in southwest and
southeast corners of intersection via
permanent or semi-permanent infrastructure
to reduce crossing distance on south leg.
2 Expand concrete waiting area for bus stop
behind the travel way for pedestrians. 1 3 Remove channelized island in the southwest corner. Add bike intersection treatments for
northbound, southbound, and eastbound
approaches to intersection.

School Boundary
Fenced Median Extension
Speed Cushions*
ADA Compliant Curb Ramp
New Crosswalk
Intersection Improvements
Implement Class IV bikeway by adding vertical
element where horizontal buer already exists
and narrowing lane widths where necessary.
4 LocationSpecic
Notes:

GRAPE ST

MISSIONHILLSCT

BOUGHER RD

FAIRLANE AVE

VIA CAMELLIA

CANDERA LN

BROOKDEL AVE

E MISSION RD

ELIZABETHST

HAZENDR

ZUZICH LN

CHERYL LN

ARBOR LN

WINTERGREEN PL

LINDA LN

LARCHWOOD DR

FELICIA LN

GLENHEATHER DR

SANTAR PL

WOODLAND PKWY

RICHLAND RD

RICHLAND RD

ROCK SPRINGS RD

RANCHEROS DR

RANCHEROS DR
MULBERRY DR.

Class II Buered Bike Lane
Class IV Bikeway (one-way)
Class I Multi-Use Path
Note: The recommendations on
this map reflect the interim
conditions proposed in the San
Marcos Active Transportation Plan.
0 0.10.05 Miles
0 0.1 Kilometers 0.2
LEGEND
Existing
Richland Elementary School
Recommendations
ADA Compliant Curb Ramp
New Sidewalk
Speed Cushions*
New Sign / Sign Enhancement
New Crosswalk
Class IV Bikeway (one-way)
Class II Buered Bike Lane
*Location of speed cushions shown are conceptual only. Other trac calming measures can be considered instead of speed cushions after completion of trac study.
**RRFB: Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon.

School Boundary
Implement Class IV bikeway by adding vertical element where horizontal buer already exists and narrowing lane widths where horizontal buer doesn’t exist. Between Red Hill Lane and Rose Ranch Road, eliminate second southbound lane. Existing ADT = 12,000. Between Rose Ranch Road and Lacebark Street, remove on-street parking.

Perform speed study to potentially reduce speed limit.

After installing missing
sidewalk, roadway width
would be wide enough
to accommodate Class II
buered bike lanes.

Add RRFB** to both
sides of new crosswalk.

School underwent major reconstruction and
reopened in Spring 2023. Observations were made
prior to modi
cations in vehicle operations, while
temporary conditions were in place.

LocationSpecic
Notes:
1 2 3 4
City of San Marcos Boundary
Intersection Improvements
Within 0.25 Miles of School Bounds
Class III Bike Route
Class I Multi-Use Path
Note: The recommendations on
this map reflect the interim
conditions proposed in the San
Marcos Active Transportation Plan.
1 2
3 4
Safe Routes to School Recommendation Map - Richland Elementary School

N DEL AVE

RDEGAIRRAC

DEL SOL AVE

CRIMSON DR

PONDEROSA AVE

PALOMINO DR

VEREDA RD

LAMPLIG

HTER RD
VISTA
VERDE

ROSE RANCH RD

MELINDAAVE

BRIANT ST

BRASS LANTERN RD

BORDENRD

ELMTREELN

KELLEYWAY

EL TORO LN

PALOMINO CT

GINA LN
DALECT

KARENCT

BANYANCT
UNNAMED 9E ST

LAVENDER CT

TIERRA DURA RD

MEADOWVIEW LN DOROTHEA AVE TCSRELTTES

HASTINGSCT

CARMEN CT

LACEBARK ST

PINON ST

RIVER RUN CIR

WULFF ST

COLLADOLN

CITY OF SAN MARCOS
RICHLAND RD.

LAFLORADR

W SAN MARCOS BLVD

LAKESANMARCOSDR

LABONITA
DR

LA FIESTA DR

LA TIERRA DR

FAIRWAYCIRCLEDR

SAN MARINO DR

LABONITACT

KN GI HTS

REALM LA

MADERALN

SONATALN

WATERLILYWAY

SECURITY PL

LATIERRALN

LA CASITA DR

S RANCHO SANTA FE RD

DISCOVERY ST

SAN PABLO
DR

CITY OF SAN MARCOS

CITY OF SAN MARCOS
0 0.10.05 Miles
0 0.1 Kilometers 0.2
Speed Cushions*
*Location of speed cushions shown are conceptual only. Other trac calming measures can be considered instead of speed cushions after completion of trac study.
**Fenced median on San Marcos Boulevard from Rancho Santa Fe Road to Knights Realm is currently in design phase. Fenced median on San Marcos Boulevard west of Rancho Santa Fe
Road and on Rancho Santa Fe Road north of San Marcos
Boulevard was recommended in the San Marcos Local Roadway Safety Plan.

Class IV Bikeway (one-way)
LEGEND
Existing
San Marcos High School
Recommendations
Within 0.25 Miles of School Bounds
Location-Specic
Notes:

New Sidewalk
School Boundary
Current County project plans to install a trac
signal at San Pablo Drive and Discovery
Street. The arrow plaque on the sign assembly
south of the intersection to be removed.
2 ADA Compliant Curb Ramp
1 Coordinate with utilities owner to
relinquish right-of-way for
multi-use path access.

New Sign / Sign Enhancement
Advanced Stop Bars
Fenced Median**
Trac Signal
City of San Marcos Boundary
Intersection Improvements
Class I Multi-Use Path
3 Implement Class IV bikeway by adding vertical
element where horizontal bu
er already exists
and narrowing lane widths where necessary.
4 Implement Class IV bikeway and Class
II bike lane by narrowing lane widths
on San Marcos Blvd.

Notes:

1. The recommendations on this
map reflect the interim
conditions proposed in the San
Marcos Active Transportation
Plan.

2. Some recommendations on
this map are outside City of
San Marcos jurisdiction
boundary. These improvements
will require coordination with
adjacent agencies.

Class III Bike Route
1 Class II Bu
ered Bike Lane
2 3
4 Safe Routes to School Recommendation Map - San Marcos High School

COX ROAD

N TWIN OAKS VALLEY RD

CASSOU RD

OLIVE ST

SYCAMORE DR

BUENA CREEK RD

COX ROAD
Class II Bike Lane CITY OF SAN MARCOS

CITY OF SAN MARCOS
Safe Routes to School Recommendation Map - Twin Oaks Valley Elementary and High School Within 0.25 Miles of School Bounds
Existing
Twin Oaks Elementary School
School Boundary
Recommendations
City of San Marcos Boundary
LEGEND
0 0.10.05 M il es
0 0.1 Kil om eters 0.2
Twin Oaks High School
New Sidewalk
Intersection Improvements
New Crosswalk
New Sign / Sign
Enhancement
ADA Compliant Curb Ramp
Class II Buered Bike Lane
Add lighting at intersection to increase visibility of trail crossing. If roadway volumes increase with future
redevelopment, consider further crossing enhancements
such as crosswalk striping and additional signing.

Class II Bike Lane
Note: The recommendations on
this map reflect the interim
conditions proposed in the San
Marcos Active Transportation Plan.

Class III Bike Route
LocationSpecic
Notes:
1 1
2 Implement Class II buered bike lanes by
narrowing lane widths.
2 LANCER PARK AVE

BOUGHER RD

DOUGLAS AVE

SHADOWHILLSDR

ROCK SPRINGS RD

HANNEGANWAY

HARWICH DR

HAZENDR

CHERYL LN

STARLINGWAY

WINTERGREEN PL
DALECT

STONEHEDGE PL
MERLIN
CT

ORLANDO ST

QUIET HILLS DR

WOODSDR

MCCLELLAND ST

FULTON RD

HASTINGSCT

BERRYHILL DR

LACEBARK ST

SUTTER LN

BUTTERFIELD LN

WOODLAND PKWY

WOODLAND PKWY

CITY OF SAN MARCOS
LEGEND
0 0.05 0.1Miles
0 0.1 0.2Kilometers
Safe Routes to School Recommendation Map - Woodland Park Middle School 3 Add buer to existing bike lanes by extending roadway width to the south within City right-of-way where missing sidewalk is to be installed. Add vertical delineators in proposed bike lane buer only in front of school to prevent parking in bike lane. 2 Enhance existing
crosswalk with RRFB****
and advanced yield
lines in both directions.
1 Speed study on Woodland Parkway to potentially reduce speed limit. Implement Class II bike lanes by removing one lane in each direction between Borden Road and Fulton
Road, and one lane in the southbound direction between
Fulton Road and Rock Springs Road. Existing ADT < 10,500.

Existing
*Pedestrian hybrid beacon located 430’ from Rock Springs Road and Woodland Parkway intersection
**Location of speed cushions shown are conceptual only. Other trac calming measures can be considered instead of speed cushions after completion of trac study.
***Other trac calming measures can be considered instead of a trac circle after completion of trac study.
****RRFB: Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
Woodland Park Middle School
Recommendations
New Sidewalk
School Boundary
ADA Compliant Curb Ramp
Intersection Improvements
New Crosswalk
New Red Curb
Tra
c Circle***
Class II Buered Bike Lane
Class IV Bikeway (one-way)
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
(Overhead)*
Advanced Stop Bars
New Sign / Sign
Enhancement
Curb Extension
Speed Cushions**
Add bike intersection
treatments for all approaches
of the Rock Springs Road and
Woodland Parkway.
4 City of San Marcos Boundary
Class III Bike Route
Class I Multi-Use Path
Yield Lines
Within 0.25 Miles of School Bounds
Implement Class II
bike lanes by
narrowing lane widths
where necessary.
5 LocationSpecic
Notes:

Note: The recommendations on
this map reflect the interim
conditions proposed in the San
Marcos Active Transportation Plan.
1 2
3 4
5 66SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
APPENDIX E: Grant
Funding Matrix
Grant Funding Matrix
APPENDIX E:

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
67 Funding Program DESCRIPTION ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
Active Transportation
Program (ATP)
Encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, increase the safety and mobility of non-motorized users, help achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals, enhance public health benefits.

Infrastructure Projects: Capital improvements, Combination Projects.

Non-Infrastructure (NI) Projects: Education, encouragement, and enforcement activities. Plans: The development of a community wide bicycle, pedestrian, safe routes to school, or ATP."
RAISE Discretionary Grants
RAISE discretionary grants help project sponsors complete critical freight and passenger transportation infrastructure projects that they may not have had the funding to carry out prior to passage of President Biden’s infrastructure law.

From projects that will strengthen supply chains and reduce bottlenecks, to bridge replacements and road projects to make them safer and more efficient for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians.

Reconnecting Communities and
Neighborhoods Grant Program
It is the first-ever Federal program dedicated to reconnecting communities that were previously cut off from economic opportunities by transportation infrastructure.

Current traffic patterns on the facility and the surrounding street network.

Capacity of existing transportation networks to maintain mobility needs.

Alternative roadway designs or other uses for the right-of-way including green infrastructure or other nature-based solutions.

Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP)
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-State-owned roads and roads on tribal land. The HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads with a focus on performance.

Any public road or publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail that improves safety for its users.

Transformative Climate
Communities
The TCC Program funds development and infrastructure projects that achieve major environmental, health, and economic benefits in California’s most disadvantaged communities
Development and infrastructure projects that achieve major environmental, health, and economic benefits in California's most disadvantaged communities.

Local Streets and Roads
(LSRP) Program
The purpose of the program is to provide approximately $1.5 billion per year to cities and counties for basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety projects on the local streets and roads system.

Implement enhanced crosswalk signing and striping, create safety separation between motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians, design and construction of school access and safety improvements to six schools. (SRTS)
Active Transportation
Grant Program (ATGP)
Encourage local jurisdictions to plan and build facilities that promote multiple travel choices and build connectivity.

Capital Projects and Non-Capital Projects: Bike Parking, Encouragement & Awareness.

Safe Streets and Roads for All
(SS4A) Grant Program
The SS4A program funds regional, local, and Tribal initiatives through grants to prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries.

Planning and Demonstration Grants provide Federal funds to develop, complete, or supplement a comprehensive safety action plan. Implementation Grants provide Federal funds to implement projects and strategies identified in an Action Plan to address a roadway safety problem. Projects and strategies can be infrastructure, behavioral, and/or operational activities.

Smart Growth Incentive
Program (SGIP)
Funding for transportation-related infrastructure improvements within Smart Growth Opportunity Areas in SANDAG's Smart Growth Concept Map. Climate Action Planning, Capital & Planning Projects.

Grant Funding Matrix

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
68 Funding Program DESCRIPTION ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
Urban Greening
Funding will support projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, provide multiple benefits, and create more sustainable communities using natural and green infrastructure approaches.

Eligible urban greening projects will reduce GHG emissions, mitigate the effects of extreme heat, and provide multiple additional benefits, including, but not limited to, a decrease in air and water pollution or a reduction in the consumption of natural resources and energy.

Office of Traffic Safety
(OTS) Grant Program
Funds education, enforcement, and engineering projects that improve safety on existing facilities. Traffic safety studies, helmet giveaways, and safety education programs.

Specialized Transportation
Grant Program (STGP)
The SANDAG Specialized Transportation Grant Program (STGP) funds projects and programs that expand mobility for older adults and people with disabilities.

Eligible projects include the purchase of accessible vans and buses, coordinated volunteer driver programs, shopping shuttle services, non-emergency medical trips, and transit travel training classes.

Solutions for Congested
Corridors (SCCP)
The purpose of the program is to provide funding to achieve a balanced set of transportation, environmental, and community access improvements to reduce congestion throughout the state.

Construct Class I and Class II bikeways, Pedestrian improvements and plaza at a transit station, Intersection improvements
Local Streets and
Roads Program (LSRP) Perform basic road maintenance, rehabilitation and critical safety projects. Safety projects, complete street components, traffic control devices, maintenance and rehabilitation.

Regional Trails Program (RTP) Provides funds annually to develop non-motorized recreational trails and trails-related facilities.

Eligible applicants are Cities and Counties, Districts, State Agencies, Federal Agencies, Non-Profit Organizations.

Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities
Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through projects that implement land-use, housing, transportation, and agricultural
land preservation practices.

Projects in disadvantaged and low-income communities.

The Federal Transportation
Improvement Program (FTIP)
Aids local jurisdictions with integrated land use and transportation planning projects.

Highway improvements, transit, rail and bus facilities, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, signal synchronization, intersection improvements, freeway ramps, non motorized projects, bicycle, and pedestrian.

State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP)
Capital improvements on and off the State Highway System that increase the capacity of the transportation system.

Capital acquisition and construction of State highways and freeways, carpool lanes, local roads, public transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, grade separations, TDM, sound walls, and safety projects.

Pilot Transit-Orientated
Development Planning Program
Promote planning projects that aim to improve pedestrian and bicycle access to transit hubs.

Projects that foster multimodal connectivity and accessibility, improve transit access for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, engage the private sector, identify infrastructure needs, and enable mixed-use development near transit stations.

Rivers Trails, & Conservation
Assistance (RCTA) Program
RCTA staff members provide technical expertise and assistance to local jurisdictions to help preserve watersheds, open space, and develop bicycle and pedestrian trails.

Bicycle way plans, corridor studies, public outreach, and trail assistance.

PeopleForBikes Make every ride bike safer and more accessible. Grants for planning, design, and construction of bicycle improvements, support facilities, and related programs.

Grant Funding Matrix (Continued)

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
69 Funding Program DESCRIPTION ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
Regional Surface
Transportation Program (RSTP)
Established by California State Statute utilizing Surface Transportation Program Funds that are identified in Section 133 of Title 23 of the United States Code.

Improvements for highways, capital costs for transit projects, carpool projects and surface transportation planning or enhancement programs.

Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCP)
America's most important program to conserve irreplaceable lands and improve outdoor recreation opportunities throughout the nation.

Projects that preserve working forests and ranchlands; local parks and playgrounds; battlefields and other historic and cultural sites.

Affordable Housing
and Sustainable
Communities Program (AHSC)
Made to fight climate change and benefit disadvantaged communities.

Projects/programs that make it easier for Californians to drive less by making sure housing, jobs, and key destinations are accessible by walking, biking, and transit.

Enhanced Mobility of Seniors
and Individuals with Disabilities
The goal of this program is to improve mobility for seniors and individuals with disabilities by removing barriers to transportation service and expanding transportation mobility options.

Mobility management programs. Building an accessible path to a bus stop. Improving signage, or way-finding technology.

Safe Routes to Parks, Activating
Communities Program
The program framework provides a structured process to increase safe and equitable access to parks and green spaces.

Safe Routes to Parks action plans, implementation activities such as acquiring rights-of-way, maintenance, and street design.

Public Transportation
Innovation -5312
Provides funding to develop innovative products and services assisting transit agencies in better meeting the needs of their customers. Research, development, demonstration and deployment projects.

State of Good Repair
(SGR) Grants - 5337
Provides capital assistance for maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation projects of existing high-intensity fixed guideway and high-intensity motorbus systems to maintain a state of good repair.

Fixed guideway and high intensity motorbus systems.

Flexible Funding Programs -
Surface Transportation Block
Grant Program - 23 USC 133
Provides funding that may be used by states and localities. For a wide range of projects to preserve and improve the conditions and performance of surface transportation.

Clean Mobility Options For zero-emissions shared mobility projects in disadvantaged and low-income communities, including some tribal and affordable housing communities.

Bikeshare programs, “Quick build” right-of-way safety improvements for bicycles and scooters.

Sustainable Transportation
Equity Project (STEP)
Funding is intended to help low-income and disadvantaged communities identify residents’ transportation needs and prepare to implement clean transportation and land use projects.

New bike routes (Class I, Class II, or Class IV) and supporting infrastructure Publicly accessible bike parking, storage, and repair infrastructure. (e.g., bike racks, bike lockers, bike repair kiosks) New walkways that improve mobility/ access/safety of pedestrians. (nonmotorized users) Street crossing enhancements, including accessible pedestrian signals.

Sustainable Transportation
Planning Grants
Encourage local and regional planning that furthers state goals, including, but not limited to, the goals and best practices cited in the Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines.

Safe Routes to School Plan, Active Transportation Plan, Bike/ped Trail/ Path Feasibility Study, Complete Streets Plan, Sustainable Communities Plan, TransitOriented Development Plan, First/Last Mile Connectivity Plan.

Grant Funding Matrix (Continued)

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
70 Funding Program DESCRIPTION ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
Local Partnership Program -
Competitive and Formulaic
The primary objective of this program is to provide funding to counties, cities, districts, and regional transportation agencies in which voters have approved fees or taxes dedicated solely to transportation improvements.

Close sidewalk gap, install class II bike lanes and cycle track, curb extensions, pedestrian enhancements, improvements to lighting and signage. Construct 4 single-lane and 1 multi-lane roundabouts, and improvements to street, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Expressway pedestrian overcrossing.

Transit and Intercity Rail Capital
Program (TIRCP)
The TIRCP provides grants from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to fund transformative capital improvements that will modernize California’s intercity, commuter, and urban rail systems.

Pedestrian and bike trail, First/last mile connections via bike lanes and separated paths, Bike share programs, Bike parking facilities Plans.

State Highway Operations and
Protection Program (SHOPP)
The Office of SHOPP Management is responsible for planning, developing, managing and reporting the four year SHOPP portfolio of projects.

Upgrade sidewalks to ADA compliance, Reconstruct damaged pavement, Add bike lanes to updated corridors, Upgrade pedestrian push buttons, refresh striping, and improve pedestrian and bicycle access.

Online Fundraising Program IOBY gives local leaders the ability to crowdfund the resources they need to build real, lasting change from the ground up.

Clear air programs , clean water programs, climate change programs, compost programs, education programs, mutual aid programs open space & greening program, public health & nutrition programs, recycling programs.

Sustainable
Communities Program
Funds projects that are intended to provide planning resources to local jurisdictions for sustainability planning efforts.

Bicycle, pedestrian, and Safe Routes to School plans; quick build projects; networking visioning and implementation; curb space data collection and inventory, technology assessments, parking management plans, permitting process evaluations.

Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Improve existing public transportation. Local streets and roads, construction and maintenance.

National Highway
Performance Program (NHPP)
The NHPP was amended under the FAST Act to provide the condition, performance and construction of new facilities on the National Highway System.

Bicycle and pedestrian projects associated with a National Highway System facility are eligible. Projects must be identified in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)/Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and be consistent with the Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plan and the Metropolitan Transportation Plans.

Surface Transportation Block
Grant (STBG) Program
Promotes flexibility in State and local transportation decisions to best address their transportation needs.

Flexible in eligibility requirements; STBG may be used for projects to preserve and improve the conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway, bridge and tunnel projects on any public road, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects.

Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement (CMAQ)
The CMAQ program is implemented to support surface
transportation projects and other related efforts that contribute air quality improvements and provide congestion relief.

While the legislation places emphasis on air quality projects or other elements of flexible federal aid highway spending such as diesel engine retrofits and alternative fuel infrastructure, funds may also be used for bicycle and pedestrianrelated projects such as bikeways, bicycle parking, crosswalks, sidewalks, signs and signals.

Grant Funding Matrix (Continued)

SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
71 Funding Program DESCRIPTION ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
Community Development
Block Grants
(CDBG)
CDBG entitlement program allocates annual grants to larger cities and urban counties to develop viable communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and opportunities to expand economic opportunities.

Projects address affordable housing needs and fair housing issues, assist homeless persons, provide adequate infrastructure, and support programs that enhance civic/community design. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are eligible uses of these funds.

Strategic Partnerships Grants Will fund planning projects that address multimodal transportation deficiencies with a focus on transit. Projects that address multi-modal deficiencies with a focus on transit.

Adaptation Planning Grants Support planning actions at local and regional levels that advance climate change efforts on the transportation system.

Projects that have adaption planning efforts, including transportation adaptation planning. Eligible projects must have a transportation nexus per Article XIX Sections 2 and 3 of the California Constitution.

SCAQMD AB 2766
Clean Air Funds
Subvention Program
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) receives approximately $20 million in motor vehicle fee annually. Since these funds are generally not fully spent every year, local governments also can carry over fund balances indefinitely.

Projects are up to the discretion of the city and may be used for, but not limited to, the following: new bikeways, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, bike loan programs.

California Assembly Bill 2766
California Assembly Bill 2766 (AB2766), signed into law in 1990, permits Air Districts to allocate a $4.00 per vehicle registration surcharge fee towards projects that reduce motor vehicle emissions such as roundabouts and traffic signal coordination. Funds may also be used for related planning, monitoring, enforcement, and technical studies.

Roundabouts, traffic signal coordination, related planning, monitoring, enforcement, and technical studies.

SB 1 – Road Repair And
Accountability Act
Repair roads, improve traffic safety, and expand public transit systems across California, with funds split equally between state and local investments.

Repair roads, improve traffic safety, and expand public transit systems across California, with funds split equally between state and local investments.

Roads, public transit systems.

Community Development
Block Grants (CDBG)
Provide funds for projects and programs that benefit low- and moderateincome households, businesses and community-based organizations. Can be used for certain pedestrian improvements through a subrecipient.

Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation
To build a Culture of Health, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funds a wide array of research and initiatives focused on achieving health equity. Policy, health, equity.

Wal-Mart Foundation
Local community grants are awarded through an open application process and provide funding directly from Walmart and Sam’s Club facilities to local organizations in the U.S.

Community and Economic Development, Education, Environmental Sustainability, Health and Human Service, Hunger Relief and Healthy Eating, Public Safety, Quality of Life.

Grant Funding Matrix (Continued)
72SAN MARCOS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
APPENDIX E: Grant
Funding Matrix
Adopted Resolution
APPENDIX F:
73 Active Transportation Plan

SAN MARCOS