6333 Potrero Avenue, Suite 100, El Cerrito CA 94530
Phone: 510.210.5930 ~ www.wcctac.org
El Cerrito
Hercules
Pinole
Richmond
San Pablo
Contra Costa
County
AC Transit
BART
WestCAT
June 27, 2022
City of San Pablo Mayor and Councilmembers
1000 Gateway Ave
San Pablo, CA 94806
RE: Background Information on Upcoming Presentation on San Pablo Avenue Multimodal Corridor Study, Phase 2
Dear City of San Pablo Mayor and Councilmembers:
Thank you for allowing WCCTAC the opportunity to present to you a summary of the key results of its technical analysis conducted as part of the on-going San Pablo Avenue Multimodal Corridor Study (the Study), Phase 2. This memo serves to provide background information about the Study and includes as attachments the presentation slides and maps.
What is WCCTAC?
WCCTAC is one of four Regional Transportation Planning Committ ees (RTPCs) in Contra Costa County and represents the West Contra Costa sub- area. The Committees were created in 1988 to guide transportation projects and programs included in the Measure C, ½ cent, transportation sales tax approved by Contra Costa voters and succeeded by Measure J in 2004. WCCTAC is a
public agency, governed by a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the following member agencies: the cities of El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, San Pablo; Contra Costa County; and the transit operators, AC Transit, BART, and WestCAT. WCCTAC aims to improve the transportation system in West Contra Costa through the development and coordination of transportation plans, projects, programs, and policies for the West Contra Costa area.
What is this Study all about?
Over the next 15 -20 years, growing congestion will impact the multiple cities along San Pablo Avenue, but each does not function in isolation . To better coordinate transportation, several jurisdictions agreed to participate in a corridor study.
In 2017, the Alameda County Transportation
Commission (ACTC), the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority (CCTA), and WCCTAC
began the San Pablo Avenue Multimodal
Corridor Study. The purpose of the Study is to
improve multimodal mobility, efficiency, and
safety to sustainably meet current and future
transportation needs and help support strong
growth along the corridor while still
maintaining local contexts . A key objective of
the first phase of the Study was to identify
potential improvements to make San Pablo
Avenue function better and be safer for
people who walk, bike, drive and take the bus.
San Pablo Ave nue carries the highest bus
ridership in Alameda and Contra Costa
Counties, but buses are often slow and
unreliable due to traffic congestion.
What are the transit options under consideration?
The study’s analysis looks at several options for improving transit speed and reliability in the San Pablo Avenue corridor. These include: 1) maintaining today’s existing conditions; 2) a shared bus and general-purpose travel lane with location specific improvements, such as queue jumps and bus bulbs; and 3) a dedicated transit-only lane. The latter is known as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).
The transit-only lane could operate either in the center of the roadway (center -running BRT) or along the outer edge of the street (side-running BRT); each with trade-offs. Construction of BRT includes a variety of additional improvements that help to increase bus travel speeds. These can include traffic signal priority for buses, consolidated bus stops, and level bus boarding to reduce the time a bus is stopped at each station. Local examples of BRT include AC Transit’s Tempo on International Boulevard and MUNI’s Van Ness Avenue BRT.
What happened in Phase 1 of the Study?
In 2017, the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC), the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), and WCCTAC began Phase 1 of this Study. It consisted of a multi- jurisdictional, multi- county analysis of the corridor from downtown Oakland to Hilltop Mall in Richmond. ACTC managed the day-to-day consultant work and oversaw analysis and community engagement.
The Study broadly reviewed potential improvements to make San Pablo Avenue function better
and more safely for people who walk, bike, drive , and take the bus . Phase 1 evaluated a wide variety of possible configurations for San Pablo Avenue, exploring what transportation modes could be accommodated within the limited right -of-way and identified trade -offs between different concepts. An Executive Summary and Technical Memos for Phase 1 are posted on the ACTC website (San Pablo Avenue Corridor Project - Alameda CTC).
How was feedback gathered from the public during Phase 1? There were two rounds of public outreach in Phase 1.
• Round 1 (Fall 2017 -Summer 2018) consisted of a map -based survey conducted in three languages and several focus groups for bus-riders, bicyclist, and seniors & people with disabilities. A map-based survey was conducted and 236 comments out of 515 total comments were related to West County (118 comments in El Cerrito; 112 comments in Richmond; six comments in San Pablo) . From this survey four “hot spots” (areas where five or more comments were placed in the same area of the map-based survey) were noted in West County: Central Avenue, Hill Street, Cutting Boulevard, and Barrett Avenue.
Other feedback about San Pablo Avenue included support for c rossing improvements , safer turning situations , and improved bike connections . From the online and intercept surveys most respondents recognized the importance of San Pablo Avenue as a transit corridor. Dedicated bike lanes or parallel bike routes are strongly desired along the entire corridor while bicyclists noted that biking adjacent to on-street parking was challenging.
Additionally, drivers appreciated that San Pablo Avenue is currently, a comparatively easy street to drive and park along . M ost merchants indicated they conduct loading and unloading activity on San Pablo Avenue either curbside in parking (not designated, loading) spaces while some use a travel lane or bike lanes for this activity.
• Round 2 outreach began in Spring 2019 . An online and intercept survey collected input from 603 people in West County . Additionally, there were three pop-up events in West County, a community workshop in El Cerrito and more focus group sessions for bus-riders, bicyclists, and seniors & people with disabilities . The table that follows summarizes community input for Round 2.
In total, the public engagement process from Phase 1 of the Study revealed that participants placed the highest priorities on making walking safer and the bus more reliable. There was also widespread support for safer bike facilities on parallel routes. While residents were less likely to mention concerns about parking, merchants insisted it was important. Generally, merchants were concerned with parking and access, but some indicated that their customers were changing and were more reliant on walking and biking.
Specifically, from Phase 1 of the Study, we heard:
• Safety improvements are needed now; concerns over delaying them • Pedestrian conditions are poor, especially crossing San Pablo Avenue • All users and focus groups (except merchants, but including cyclists) felt that transit needed to be the most prioritized mode
• Concerns about business access (loss of parking/loading, additional congestion) • Reduction in number of lanes would reduce speeding and calm traffic • Mix of support and concern about parallel bicycle facilities (safer than San Pablo Avenue in terms of comfort . Concerns included adequacy of lighting/eyes on the street on parallel routes and the indirect routing
• Merchants raised concerns about construction disrupts community and impacts businesses
• Concerns around drivers diverting onto nearby streets • Initial concerns regarding emergency access but explained emergency vehicles can use bus lane
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY INPUT FROM ROUND 2 OF THE SAN PABLO AVENUE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR STUDY, PHASE 1
What is Phase 2 of the Study in Contra Costa County about? While WCCTAC and the
CCTA continue to
coordinate with ACTC, the
nature of the work is
different for Phase 2 . At
the conclusion of Phase 1,
the WCCTAC Board
reviewed the analysis and
the public feedback. They
recognized that , although
there are similarities with
the Alameda County
portion of the corridor,
there are unique
conditions in Contra Costa
County that war ranted
further analysis . These
included different and
variable r ight-of-way
widths, higher traffic
volumes, different street
patterns, the variety of
existing on-street and off-
street bicycle and parking facilities, and differing potential for traffic diversion off San Pablo Avenue.
For Phase 2 in Contra Costa County, the Study worked with the following constraints and assumptions:
• No taking of right-of-way
• Existing driveways should be maintained.
• Safety is a priority
• Existing bicycle facilities should be retained or enhanced. • Improvements should be able to be implemented using reasonable funding sources, within what jurisdictions would reasonably be expected to allow , and consistent with adopted design guidelines
Phase 2 - Agency Partners and Study
What does Phase 2 involve in Alameda County?
In Alameda County for Phase 2, ACTC is working to advance three concurrent project efforts:
1. Safety Enhancements throughout Corridor
• Pedestrian safety and accessibility; bicycle crossings • Bus bulbs to provide additional space at bus stops and to allow in-lane stopping for transit
2. Bus and Bike Lanes Demonstration Project in Oakland, Emeryville, and South Berkeley • Convert auto lane to bus lane
• Convert parking lane to protected bike lane
o Parking and loading moved to side streets in most locations • Protected intersections and other bicycle treatments
• Evaluation phase after implementation
3. Bike improvements on parallel network in Berkeley and Albany • Continuing long-term planning efforts in those cities ACTC is working on the design, funding and authorizations needed to advance these project elements recognizing that they could take several years to implement.
How is this study paid for?
Phase 1 and 2 of the Study’s work in Contra Costa County were funded by the CCTA and WCCTAC using Measure J transportation sales tax dollars. Funding for potential future phases has not been secured, whether that work involves additional studies, more outreach, refined demonstration projects, refined designs for imp rovements, or construction. The Study’s analysis suggests that potential projects could be competitive for federal, state, and regional funding.
Who is working on the Study?
For Phase 1, ACTC staff led the effort along with a team of consultants headed by Kimley -Horn Associates. For Phase 2, Adam Dankberg from Kimley -Horn Associates , continues to lead the consultant team. The Alameda County portion of the Study is managed by ACTC staff while the Contra Costa County portion is managed day-to-day by WCCTAC staff in coordination with CCTA.
Staff representatives from WCCTAC’s member agencies have been involved in both phases of the study. For Phase 2, local, technical input has come via the WCCTAC-TAC and small group meetings with jurisdictional/agency staff. Throughout both phases, the WCCTAC Board has provided input and guidance.
What is planned for the meeting presentation?
At the upcoming meeting, WCCTAC’s consultant from Kimley-Horn will present a series of slides (Attachment A) that explain in more detail what was studied and the results of the analysis. This will include the bicycle and parking facility analysis for center- running and side-running BRT. For reference, maps of this analysis are included as Attachment B. Following the presentation, there
will be time for questions and to provide feedback. Due to time constraints, this will be a summary-level presentation of the technical analysis; ho wever, both WCCTAC and consultant staff will be available to answer more detailed questions.
What does WCCTAC want from us?
Now that the additional technical analysis for Contra Costa County is complete , WCCTAC is seeking input from the city councils of El Cerrito, Richmond, and San Pablo as well as the AC Transit Board of Directors . Specifically, following the presentation, we would like your jurisdiction’s feedback on the following questions:
1) Is there support for the pedestrian safety improvements? a) If so, should we focus right now on pedestrian safety improvements only? 2) Should we continue to consider a corridor-wide bus lane solution? 3) If a bus lane is desired, is there a preference for side-running or center-running? 4) What is the priority between a parking lane and a bike lane ? Does the priority vary geographically?
Thank you again for the opportunity to present this Study to you at your upcoming meeting. If you have questions after the presentation, please feel free to contact me at [email protected]
or 510.210.5935.
Sincerely,
Leah Greenblat
Transportation Planning Manager, WCCTAC
Attachments:
A. July 18, 2022, Presentation to the San Pablo City Council B. Schematic maps showing San Pablo segments of center-running and side-running BRT with different options, prioritizing transit alongside with either parking or bicycle facilities.
w:\new file org\studies, projects, programs & plans \multi-modal\actc san pablo ave multi-modal corridor project\next steps-phase 2\meetings\council-board presentations\2022-06-10 memo to council-san pablo.docx
July 18, 2022 – San Pablo City Council Meeting
Evaluation Summary
San Pablo City Council Meeting
Agenda
2 1. Study Purpose and Process
2. Corridor Conditions and Project Need
3. Potential Solutions
4. Key Takeaways and Next Steps
San Pablo City Council Meeting
3 Purpose &
Process
San Pablo City Council Meeting
Improve multimodal mobility, efficiency,
and safety to sustainably meet current and
future transportation needs and help
support strong growth along the corridor
while still maintaining local contexts.
4 Corridor Study Purpose
Promote equitable transportation
and design solutions
Effectively and efficiently accommodate
anticipated growth
Improve comfort and quality
of trips for all users
Enhance safety for
all travel modes
Support economic development
and adopted land use policies
Goals
San Pablo City Council Meeting
• Effort led by Alameda CTC with financial support
a
nd involvement by WCCTAC and CCTA
• Study area extended between downtown
O
akland and Hilltop Mall
• Project Efforts:
• Assessed existing conditions
• Identified corridor needs
• Developed concepts for a typical roadway cross-
s
ection width
• Evaluated alternative feasibility
• Conducted public engagement activities, including
s
urveys, focus groups, and open houses
San Pablo Avenue Corridor Project
Phase 1 Summary
San Pablo Avenue Corridor Study Area5
San Pablo City Council Meeting
Phase 2 Project Process
6 Phase 2 - Agency Partners and Study Limits
Study Need:
Complete a Contra Costa
County-focused technical
analysis to address questions
raised by public and WCCT AC
board during Phase 1
Desired Study Outcome:
Identify viable alternatives
that can be advanced in
future project phases and
that can be referenced in
ongoing and future projects
on the corridor
Assess feasibility and
implications on connectivity
Process:
Identify concept alternatives
for specific locations
Quantitatively evaluate transit
and auto performance
Consider outreach feedback
received in Phase 1
Summarize evaluation
findings
San Pablo City Council Meeting
7 Corridor
Conditions and
Project Need
San Pablo City Council Meeting
Conditions on the corridor today
8 Overlapping Local and Rapid Bus service provides bus
service every 7 minutes south of Macdonald. Rapid
service extends to Contra Costa College.
Bike lanes only in some segments in the City of San Pablo, far northern segment in Richmond near Hilltop Mall, and very short new segment constructed in El Cerrito (approx. 20% of corridor) Long gaps between pedestrian crossings and many
uncontrolled crossings (e.g., multiple 0.4 mile gaps in protected crossings in El Cerrito)
Sidewalks are continuous, but narrow and not well
buffered from traffic in some locations
Used as an alternative to I-80 for longer-distance trips; 1/3 of trips on San Pablo Ave are just passing through
Existing curb-to-curb widths
San Pablo City Council Meeting
9 Mode split on the corridor today
Note: Transit trips include trips on 72 series routes only and do not include BART or other bus routes Represents pre-Covid conditions
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Auto Trips,
86.3%
Ped Trips,
2.1%
Bike Trips,
0.2%
Transit Trips,
11.4%
Church Lane to Vale Road
Auto Trips,
91.2%
Ped Trips,
1.3%
Bike Trips,
0.2%
Transit Trips,
7.3%
Rumrill Boulevard to
Broadway Avenue/El Portal Drive
San Pablo City Council Meeting
Parking on the corridor today
• On-s treet parking in San Pablo limited
primarily to the section north of 23rd St
• Many commercial + residential
p
roperties have off-street parking
• Pre-pa ndemic weekday parking
occupancy was low (<60% on most
blocks). Parking on some blocks was
well-utilized nights and weekends
• Recent/planned developments reducing
a
mount of surface parking in some
corridor segments and with lower
parking requirements
• Assume greater use of alternative modes
Existing Parking Locations10
San Pablo City Council Meeting
Transit on the corridor today
• Well-u tilized today
• 12,500 daily bus riders (approx. half in Contra
Co
sta County)
• More riders on 72-s eries routes than any other
AC Transit route (14% of the entire system
ridership)
• Bus speeds are about 30% slower than
a
uto speeds and speeds for both have
consistently been degrading
• Improving transit in this corridor is an
e
quitable solution
• 77% of 72-se ries passengers are non-white
• 61% of 72-se ries passengers make less than
$50,000 per year
11Sources: San Pablo Avenue Speed and Delay Study; AC Transit 2017-2018 on -board passenger survey; AC Transit Short Range Transit Plan, 2019-2029 PM Peak Period Northbound Bus Travel Time
Rapid buses spend 57% of
travel time stuck in congestion
San Pablo City Council Meeting
What will happen to mobility if no
changes to San Pablo Avenue are
made?
12 • 69% increase in PM traffic delay by 2035
• 12 minutes of additional Route 72R travel time
• Continued auto-i nstigated safety issues
• 108 injuries or fatalities in recent 5-y ear period1
• 27 involving pedestrians or cyclists, including 1 fatality1 • Walking and biking will remain difficult
• Discontinuous bicycle facilities
• Challenges crossing San Pablo Avenue and side-s treets • Equity Priority Communities (EPC) will be most impacted • All of Corridor within San Pablo is within an EPC
• More difficult/time-c onsuming for EPC residents to access jobs and recreation
Legend
Equity Priority Communities
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 1 Data for San Pablo Avenue within the City of San Pablo Source: Equity Priority Communities for Plan Bay Area 2050 San Pablo City Council Meeting
13 Potential
Solutions
San Pablo City Council Meeting
What are the options to improve pedestrian safety?
14 • Widen sidewalks
• Provide landscape buffers
• Provide bulbouts to shorten
crosswalks
• Install high-visibility crosswalks
• Upgrade curb ramps to meet ADA
standards
• Install pedestrian lighting, particularly
at crossings and bus stops
• Improve sidewalk conditions
• Add new crossings
• Improve safety of crossings with
signalization (pedestrian hybrid
beacons) and rapid rectangular
flashing beacons
Widen sidewalks and provide
landscape buffers
Image Source: NACTO
Image Source: Google
Shortened crosswalks
Image Source: Google
Pedestrian Lighting
Signalization
Image Source: Google
San Pablo City Council Meeting
Image Source: AC Transit
What are the options to improve transit?
15 In-Lane Stops
Stop Consolidation
AFTER
BEFORE
Stop Relocation
Transit Signal PriorityQueue Jumps
Level Boarding
San Pablo City Council Meeting
How could a BRT be configured in this corridor?
16 Image Source: SFMTA
Center-Running Bus Lanes Side-Running Bus Lanes
Image Source: Kimley-Horn
San Pablo City Council Meeting
What are the benefits of BRT?
What are the challenges of BRT?
Significant cost to
rebuild street
Street reconstruction temporarily
affects access to businesses
Increased ridership (30%+) and mode shift from auto to
transit, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing mobility, particularly for equity priority communities
17 Improved travel time (30% to 45%) and reliability
(>60%) for buses can allow for more frequent service for same cost
Removal of one through lane reduces capacity
for auto vehicles and may increase diversion
Stops are placed further apart in order to improve
travel speed and reliability for users, which may
result in a longer walk to transit
Improved passenger
waiting areas
Energizes level of
economic activity
San Pablo City Council Meeting
18 Benefits Specific to Center-Running BRT Benefits Specific to Side-Running BRT Less costly to construct bus lane due to reduced
median and signal impacts
Allows for more flexibility in use of bus lane by
non-BRT routes
Easier to implement in phases with a shorter
construction duration due to less infrastructure required Challenges Specific to Center-Running BRT
May be difficult to be used by non-BRT
bus routes operating on corridor
Eliminates existing medians,
including street trees
Challenges Specific to Side-Running BRT
Maximizes transit speed and reliability benefits
(approximately 10% faster than side-running)
Removes conflicts between the bus lane and
turning vehicle, parked cars, and bicyclist
Emphasizes permanence of
transit solution
Community access is affected by elimination of auto left- turns at unsignalized intersections and at stations
Does not allow for a time-managed
auto/parking lane in El Cerrito
Stations may be more constrained due to sharing
space with pedestrians or an adjacent bicycle
facility (if provided)
P
Increased likelihood of illegal double-parking in the bus lane, affecting bus travel time
San Pablo City Council Meeting
What are the implications of converting a traffic lane to transit? • Additional traffic congestion on San Pablo Avenue Some drivers will change their m
ode, route, or time of day with center-running and side-running BRT • Center-r unning BRT : localized diversion due to left-turn restrictions • If all diverted auto traffic went to I-8 0, would increase peak hour volumes on I-80 by about 4% • Local traffic may divert to local streets; however, local diversion routes will experience diversion e
ven with no changes to San Pablo Avenue and may not support significant additional diversion • Opportunity for traffic calming on diversion streets
19Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Metric Center-Running Side-Running
Auto Diversion 30%-35% 25%-30%
San Pablo City Council Meeting
20 Potential Diversion Routes
San Pablo City Council Meeting
How does a bus lane affect bus and auto travel time?
• By only implementing transit signal priority projects, bus remains slower than auto in peak direction and peak period
• Richmond/San Pablo area would experience greatest bus travel time decrease a nd auto delay increase with bus lanes in Contra Costa County 21 Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Metric Center-Running Side-Running
Change in bus travel times (peak direction) 30%-45% 25%-40% Change in auto travel times 0%-45% 0%-35%
Bus speed relative to auto Bus is 25%-55% faster than auto Bus is 15%-40% faster than auto San Pablo City Council Meeting
Transit ridership and reliability findings
• Bus travel time variability improves by over 50%-8 0% with both center and side- running options Buses arrive more consistently and waits are shorter • 30%-3 5% increase in ridership typical with high -quality BRT • Travel demand model in project Phase 1 projected a 35%-4 5% ridership increase with BRT 22 0
20 40
60 80
100
120
140
160
180
Segment 1: McBryde to
Church, Northbound
Segment 1: Church to
McBryde, Southbound
Segment 2: Cutting to I-80
Ramps, Northbound
Segment 2: I-80 Ramps to
Cutting, Southbound
Travel Time Standard Deviation (seconds)
Existing
2035 No Build
2035 Build: Side-Running BRT
2035 Build: Center-Running BRT
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
San Pablo City Council Meeting
What are the options to improve biking conditions?
23 • New protected bicycle lanes
(cycle tracks)
• Improved bicycle crossing markings
• New signalized bicycle crossings
(pedestrian hybrid beacons or
signals)
• Protected intersection treatments
• Transit islands to avoid bus-bike
conflicts at bus stops
Image Source: CATSIP
New & protected bike facilities
and crossings
New signalized bicycle crossings
Image Source: Google
Protected intersection
treatments
Image Source: Google
San Pablo City Council Meeting
How would bus lanes interface with
planned bike facilities?
• San Pablo Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Study
r
ecommends adding buffered/protected bike
lanes where bike lanes don’t already exist today
on San Pablo Ave
• Dedicated bike lanes don’t preclude bus lanes but
w
ill require further considerations at BRT stations
and where turn lanes are needed
• May be opportunity to further enhance existing
C
lass II bike lanes
San Pablo Avenue South Alternative
San Pablo Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Study – Final Report, February 2022 Study Corridors
San Pablo Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Study – Final Report, February 2022 San Pablo City Council Meeting
2525
Key Takeaways
and Next
Steps
25 San Pablo City Council Meeting
Comparison of Transit Solutions
Metric No-Build Center-Running Side-Running
Transit Performance
Auto Performance
Pedestrian Safety
Bicycle Connectivity & Comfort
Parking and Loading
Community and Business Access
Ease of Implementation
Cost per Mile $$$$ $$-$$$
Better than existing
No change
Worse than existing
26 San Pablo City Council Meeting
Key Takeaways
27 There is community support for improvements in the
corridor , but no consensus thus far on the type of
improvements
Center-running bus lanes provide 30%-45% transit travel time savings and would be approximately 10% faster
than side-running
Without improvements, congestion will significantly
increase (69% increase in delays), impacting mobility
options
Side-running bus lanes avoid some of the
implementation challenges of center-running and can
be easily used by all bus routes in the corridor
Both Center-running and side-running bus lanes provide
opportunity for bike lanes throughout the corridor .
San Pablo City Council Meeting
What are some options on what to do next?
28 1. Do not advance corridor-wide improvements
2. Implement safety enhancements, such as pedestrian
crossing improvements and ADA upgrades
3. Advance a near-term project, similar to Alameda County • Safety enhancements
• Side-running bus lanes
4. Advance a Long-Term Project
• Safety enhancements
• Center- or side-running bus lanes
• Bicycle and/or parking improvements
Next Steps
Engagement
Concept Design
Funding Plan
Less
More
Additional variant: Identify a phasing strategy and focus initial efforts on a first phase segment San Pablo City Council Meeting
Questions for Decision-Makers
1. Should we focus right now on pedestrian safety
i
mprovements only?
2. Should we continue to consider a corridor-w ide bus lane solution?
3. If a bus lane is desired, is there a preference for side- r
unning or center-running?
29 San Pablo City Council Meeting
3030
Thank You
30 Albany
Richmond
San Pablo
Albany
El Cerrito
Richmond
Unincorporated
80 SAN PABLO AVE
SAN PABLO AVE
ROBERT MILLER DR
RIVERS ST
EL PORTAL DR
RD 20
CHURCH LN SAN PABLO DAM RD
SOLANO AVE
BARRETT AVE
POTRERO AVE
MOESER LN
EUREKA AVE
HILL ST
FAIRMOUNT AVE
MCBRYDE AVE
BROADWAY AVE
RUMRILL BLVD
23RD ST
VALE RD
RHEEM AVE
MACDONALD AVE
CUTTING BLVD
CENTRAL AVE
BART
HILLTOP DR
LOVEGROVE ST
KNOTT AVE
WALL AVE
ROOSEVELT AVECLINTON AVE
EVANS AVE
LA PUERTA RD
BART
SCHMIDT LN
EL CERRITO DEL NORTE
EL CERRITO PLAZA
Diagrammatic Map
San Pablo Avenue Multimodal Corridor Study
Center-Running BRT with Bike Lane Prioritized
/gid00036/gid00072/gid00083/gid00088/gid00001/gid00035/gid00078/gid00084/gid00077/gid00067/gid00064/gid00081/gid00088 /gid00036/gid00075/gid00064/gid00082/gid00082/gid00001/gid00042/gid00042/gid00001/gid00035/gid00084/gid00191/gid00068/gid00081/gid00068/gid00067/gid00001/gid00035/gid00072/gid00074/gid00068/gid00001/gid00045/gid00064/gid00077/gid00068 /gid00036/gid00075/gid00064/gid00082/gid00082/gid00001/gid00042/gid00055/gid00001/gid00036/gid00088/gid00066/gid00075/gid00068/gid00001/gid00053/gid00081/gid00064/gid00066/gid00074 /gid00049/gid00064/gid00081/gid00074/gid00072/gid00077/gid00070/gid00001/gid00045/gid00064/gid00077/gid00068 /gid00045/gid00038/gid00040/gid00038/gid00047/gid00037
/gid00051/gid00068/gid00076/gid00078/gid00085/gid00068/gid00067/gid00001/gid00049/gid00064/gid00081/gid00074/gid00072/gid00077/gid00070/gid00001/gid00045/gid00064/gid00077/gid00068 /gid00048/gid00191/gid00014/gid00052/gid00083/gid00081/gid00068/gid00068/gid00083/gid00001/gid00049/gid00064/gid00081/gid00074/gid00072/gid00077/gid00070 Richmond
San Pablo
Albany
Albany
El Cerrito
Richmond
Unincorporated
80 SAN PABLO AVE
SAN PABLO AVE
ROBERT MILLER DR
RIVERS ST
EL PORTAL DR
RD 20
CHURCH LN
SAN PABLO DAM RD
SOLANO AVE
BARRETT AVE
POTRERO AVE
MOESER LN
EUREKA AVE
HILL ST
FAIRMOUNT AVE
MCBRYDE AVE
BROADWAY AVE
RUMRILL BLVD
23RD ST
VALE RD
RHEEM AVE
MACDONALD AVE
CUTTING BLVD
CENTRAL AVE
BART
HILLTOP DR
LOVEGROVE ST
KNOTT AVE
WALL AVE
ROOSEVELT AVECLINTON AVE
EVANS AVE
LA PUERTA RD
EL CERRITO DEL NORTE
BART
EL CERRITO PLAZA
SCHMIDT LN
Diagrammatic Map
San Pablo Avenue Multimodal Corridor Study
Center-Running BRT with Parking Prioritized
/gid00036/gid00072/gid00083/gid00088/gid00001/gid00035/gid00078/gid00084/gid00077/gid00067/gid00064/gid00081/gid00088 /gid00036/gid00075/gid00064/gid00082/gid00082/gid00001/gid00042/gid00042/gid00001/gid00035/gid00072/gid00074/gid00068/gid00001/gid00045/gid00064/gid00077/gid00068 /gid00036/gid00075/gid00064/gid00082/gid00082/gid00001/gid00042/gid00055/gid00001/gid00036/gid00088/gid00066/gid00075/gid00068/gid00001/gid00053/gid00081/gid00064/gid00066/gid00074 /gid00049/gid00064/gid00081/gid00074/gid00072/gid00077/gid00070/gid00001/gid00045/gid00064/gid00077/gid00068 /gid00045/gid00038/gid00040/gid00038/gid00047/gid00037
/gid00048/gid00191/gid00014/gid00052/gid00083/gid00081/gid00068/gid00068/gid00083/gid00001/gid00049/gid00064/gid00081/gid00074/gid00072/gid00077/gid00070 /gid00036/gid00075/gid00064/gid00082/gid00082/gid00001/gid00042/gid00042/gid00001/gid00035/gid00084/gid00191/gid00068/gid00081/gid00068/gid00067/gid00001/gid00035/gid00072/gid00074/gid00068/gid00001/gid00045/gid00064/gid00077/gid00068 /gid00049/gid00064/gid00081/gid00064/gid00075/gid00075/gid00068/gid00075/gid00001/gid00035/gid00072/gid00074/gid00068/gid00001/gid00047/gid00068/gid00083/gid00086/gid00078/gid00081/gid00074 Albany
Richmond
San Pablo
Albany
El Cerrito
Richmond
Unincorporated
80 SAN PABLO AVE
SAN PABLO AVE
ROBERT MILLER DR
RIVERS ST
EL PORTAL DR
RD 20
CHURCH LN SAN PABLO DAM RD
SOLANO AVE
BARRETT AVE
POTRERO AVE
MOESER LN
SCHMIDT LN
EUREKA AVE
HILL ST
FAIRMOUNT AVE
MCBRYDE AVE
BROADWAY AVE
RUMRILL BLVD
23RD ST
VALE RD
RHEEM AVE
MACDONALD AVE
CUTTING BLVD
CENTRAL AVE
BART
HILLTOP DR
LOVEGROVE ST
KNOTT AVE
WALL AVE
ROOSEVELT AVECLINTON AVE
EVANS AVE
LA PUERTA RD
BART
EL CERRITO DEL NORTE
EL CERRITO PLAZA
Diagrammatic Map
San Pablo Avenue Multimodal Corridor Study
Side-Running BRT with Bike Lane Prioritized
/gid00036/gid00072/gid00083/gid00088/gid00001/gid00035/gid00078/gid00084/gid00077/gid00067/gid00064/gid00081/gid00088 /gid00036/gid00075/gid00064/gid00082/gid00082/gid00001/gid00042/gid00055/gid00001/gid00036/gid00088/gid00066/gid00075/gid00068/gid00001/gid00053/gid00081/gid00064/gid00066/gid00074 /gid00049/gid00064/gid00081/gid00074/gid00072/gid00077/gid00070/gid00001/gid00045/gid00064/gid00077/gid00068 /gid00051/gid00068/gid00076/gid00078/gid00085/gid00068/gid00067/gid00001/gid00049/gid00064/gid00081/gid00074/gid00072/gid00077/gid00070/gid00001/gid00045/gid00064/gid00077/gid00068 /gid00045/gid00038/gid00040/gid00038/gid00047/gid00037
/gid00048/gid00191/gid00014/gid00052/gid00083/gid00081/gid00068/gid00068/gid00083/gid00001/gid00049/gid00064/gid00081/gid00074/gid00072/gid00077/gid00070 Albany
Richmond
San Pablo
Albany
El Cerrito
Richmond
Unincorporated
80 SAN PABLO AVE
SAN PABLO AVE
ROBERT MILLER DR
RIVERS ST
EL PORTAL DR
RD 20
CHURCH LN SAN PABLO DAM RD
SOLANO AVE
BARRETT AVE
POTRERO AVE
MOESER LN
EUREKA AVE
HILL ST
FAIRMOUNT AVE
MCBRYDE AVE
BROADWAY AVE
RUMRILL BLVD
23RD ST
VALE RD
RHEEM AVE
MACDONALD AVE
CUTTING BLVD
CENTRAL AVE
BART
HILLTOP DR
LOVEGROVE ST
KNOTT AVE
WALL AVE
ROOSEVELT AVECLINTON AVE
EVANS AVE
LA PUERTA RD
BART
SCHMIDT LN
EL CERRITO DEL NORTE
EL CERRITO PLAZA
Diagrammatic Map
San Pablo Avenue Multimodal Corridor Study
Side-Running BRT with Parking Prioritized
/gid00036/gid00072/gid00083/gid00088/gid00001/gid00035/gid00078/gid00084/gid00077/gid00067/gid00064/gid00081/gid00088 /gid00036/gid00075/gid00064/gid00082/gid00082/gid00001/gid00042/gid00055/gid00001/gid00036/gid00088/gid00066/gid00075/gid00068/gid00001/gid00053/gid00081/gid00064/gid00066/gid00074 /gid00049/gid00064/gid00081/gid00074/gid00072/gid00077/gid00070/gid00001/gid00045/gid00064/gid00077/gid00068 /gid00045/gid00038/gid00040/gid00038/gid00047/gid00037
/gid00051/gid00068/gid00076/gid00078/gid00085/gid00068/gid00067/gid00001/gid00049/gid00064/gid00081/gid00074/gid00072/gid00077/gid00070/gid00001/gid00045/gid00064/gid00077/gid00068 /gid00048/gid00079/gid00083/gid00072/gid00078/gid00077/gid00001/gid00069/gid00078/gid00081/gid00001/gid00035/gid00072/gid00074/gid00068/gid00001/gid00083/gid00078/gid00001/gid00052/gid00071/gid00064/gid00081/gid00068/gid00001/gid00035/gid00084/gid00082/gid00001/gid00045/gid00064/gid00077/gid00068 /gid00049/gid00064/gid00081/gid00064/gid00075/gid00075/gid00068/gid00075/gid00001/gid00035/gid00072/gid00074/gid00068/gid00001/gid00047/gid00068/gid00083/gid00086/gid00078/gid00081/gid00074 /gid00048/gid00191/gid00014/gid00052/gid00083/gid00081/gid00068/gid00068/gid00083/gid00001/gid00049/gid00064/gid00081/gid00074/gid00072/gid00077/gid00070 /gid00036/gid00075/gid00064/gid00082/gid00082/gid00001/gid00042/gid00042/gid00001/gid00035/gid00072/gid00074/gid00068/gid00001/gid00045/gid00064/gid00077/gid00068