WTB-TAM • 475 MILLER AVENUE • MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 • TEL: 415.827.6120 February 29, 2024
San Rafael City Council
1400 Fi9h Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Mayor Kate Colin
Vice Mayor Eli Hill
Councilmember Maika GulaE
Councilmember Maribeth Bushey
Councilmember Rachel Kertz
RE: March 4, 2024 City Council MeeEng Agenda Item 5.A
Dear San Rafael City Council,
We write to you today about the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and TransportaEon District’s San Rafael Transit Center RelocaEon Project. Our leXer covers the following three topics:
1. The alignment of the North – South Greenway through downtown San Rafael
2. The connecEon between the Canal neighborhood and the Transit Center
3. SeparaEon of bicycles and pedestrians within the Transit Center
1. NORTH – SOUTH GREENWAY ALIGNMENT
The San Rafael Transit Center RelocaEon Project (“the Project”) will complete half of the 4-block long gap in the North – South Greenway in Downtown San Rafael (“the Downtown Greenway Gap”). The Project includes two blocks of the Downtown Greenway Gap (also known as the “SMART Pathway” or the “Great Redwood Trail”) between Second Street and Fourth Street.
The other half of the Downtown Greenway Gap is between Fourth Street and Mission Avenue.
The northern part of the Downtown Greenway Gap connects at Mission with the exisEng Puerto Suello Hill Pathway. The Mission to Puerto Suello Hill Greenway segment was completed by Caltrans in 2010 as part of the Highway 101 HOV Gap Closure Project and connects Downtown San Rafael to Los Ranchitos, Terra Linda, the Marin Civic Center, and Novato.
South of the Transit Center segment, the Second Street to Andersen segment of the North – South Greenway was completed in 2020 and connects Downtown San Rafael and the Canal neighborhood via the Cal Park Hill Tunnel to Greenbrae and Southern Marin.
The Downtown San Rafael segments of the North – South Greenway are of the utmost importance, linchpins a countywide and regionwide interconnected network of pathways. The uElity and robustness of this network depends enErely on its completeness and connectedness.
With the Second to Fourth Street segment coming into focus and in the process of being designed by the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and TransportaEon District, the next criEcal step in closing the Downtown Greenway Gap from Fourth Street to Mission. Earlier iteraEons of the Transit Center plans showed a Pick-Up/Drop-Off zone along West Tamalpais Avenue north of
WTB-TAM • 475 MILLER AVENUE • MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 • TEL: 415.827.6120 Fourth Street, which is exactly where the future North – South Greenway alignment is supposed to be. We want to thank the GGBHTD for modifying its plans based on feedback from the community in 2021-2022. The new plans no longer locate the Pick-Up/Drop-Off faciliEes in the path of the North – South Greenway.
We have aXached for your reference a conceptual drawing showing one possible alignment for the North -South Greenway along West Tamalpais Avenue between Fourth Street and the exisEng Puerto Suello Hill Pathway at Mission Avenue (see Appendix Exhibit A). In this concept, the North – South Greenway would take the form of a Class IV cycle track at street level. The cycle track would be protected from the SMART railroad right-of-way by fencing, and from traffic on West Tamalpais Avenue by a 3-foot striped buffer with verEcal bollards.
On-street parking on West Tamalpais Avenue would be preserved in this design. However, West Tamalpais Avenue would need to be converted from its exisEng condiEon as a two-way street to a one-way street. We recommend converEng West Tamalpais Avenue between Fourth Street and Mission Avenue one-way in the southbound direcEon, with East Tamalpais Avenue converted to a one-way street in the northbound direcEon. This way, motorists would have both northbound and southbound opEons between the two parallel Tamalpais Avenues.
2. CANAL – TRANSIT CENTER CONNECTION
At the SMART Board of Directors meeEng on February 21, 2024, one of the consultants presenEng the Transit Center project to the SMART Directors commented on the importance of San Rafael’s Canal neighborhood as an origin and desEnaEon for Transit Center users. The shortest route between the Canal neighborhood and the future Transit Center is along East Francisco Boulevard, Grand Avenue, and Third Street. Since Third Street is a heavy-volume busy arterial, and the locaEon of numerous accidents between cars and pedestrians, WTB-TAM recommends the slightly longer route along Fourth Street, which is a calmer street than Third Street (see Appendix Exhibit B). We call this the “Canal-Grand Avenue-Fourth Street connecEon to the Transit Center.”
Most of the above route has been recently improved thanks to San Rafael Public Works Department projects. In 2021, the San Rafael DPW widened the sidewalks on East Francisco Boulevard to 10 feet and the City Council passed an ordinance making them bicycle legal. al.
This way, Canal residents can walk or bicycle north on Grand Avenue from the Canal somewhere other than on the freeway frontage road sharing the lane with speeding cars and trucks. The route conEnues north on Grand Avenue, on the mulE-use pathway bridge across San Rafael Canal completed by DPW in 2019. Immediately north of the Grand Avenue bridge, DPW is currently finishing construcEon of the Grand Avenue Cycle Track, a two-way Class IV facility between Second Street and Fourth Street.
The final gap between faciliEes that the San Rafael DPW has built or will soon have built and the new Transit Center is along Fourth Street. Though safer than Third Street, Fourth Street is not very well designed for people on bicycles. It is currently designated a Class III shared route,
WTB-TAM • 475 MILLER AVENUE • MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 • TEL: 415.827.6120 where cyclists are expected to “take the lane” and share it with vehicle traffic, because there is no space set aside as a “bike lane.” Class III faciliEes are sufficient for confident and experienced cyclists, but they are anathema to “all ages and abiliEes” bicycle users, a broad-based spectrum of users that includes children and senior ciEzens.
San Rafael and the residents of the Canal neighborhood need a safer walking and bicycle route on the final segment of the route from the Canal to the Transit Center, along Fourth Street from Grand Avenue to the new Transit Center. At the intersecEon of Grand Avenue and Fourth Street, WTB-TAM recommends a protected intersecEon, also known as a “Dutch intersecEon” (see Appendix Exhibit C). Such a protected intersecEon could be implemented at low cost using “Quick Build” methods (i.e. paint and plasEc).
Along Fourth Street, WTB-TAM recommends following internaEonal best pracEces by building unidirecEonal Class IV cycle tracks on each side of Fourth Street, next to sidewalks for pedestrians (see Appendix Exhibit D). In San Rafael’s case, this would not require “re-invenEng the wheel.” The City is already building a Class IV cycle track on Grand Avenue. This would merely extend this exisEng cycle track the rest of the way to the Transit Center.
Class IV cycle tracks provide two different kinds of separaEon. First, separaEon between bicyclists and cars by placing a horizontal and verEcal buffer between the bike lanes and car lanes. Second, separaEon of bicyclists and pedestrians on the (exisEng) sidewalks. Giving bicyclists their own space to ride also benefits pedestrians and users of sidewalks by reducing the bicyclist-pedestrian collisions and conflict that occur when bicyclists who do not feel comfortable riding in the street ride on sidewalks instead.
3. BICYCLE – PEDESTRIAN SEPARATION
At the Dec. 6, 2023, Public Workshop, the GGBHTD displayed three bike lane configuraEons (see Appendix Exhibit E). WTB-TAM strongly endorses Op#on 1. We will describe our reasons for endorsing Op#on 1 in more detail below, but first we will explain why we do NOT recommend Op#ons 2 and 3.
Op#on 2 channelizes the bicycle path below the adjacent sidewalk and bus stop. This poses safety hazards both to bicyclists in the channelized path, and to pedestrians and transit riders needing to cross the bicycle path. Bicyclists not accustomed to riding within a channelized path risk colliding against the curb and crashing. The recessed curb poses a hazard to pedestrians, transit riders, and persons with disabiliEes aXempEng to cross between the sidewalk and bus stop. Although level crossings would be provided for pedestrians, human nature tells us that many pedestrians will inevitably cross outside the designated crossing and therefore sEll risk tripping. The NaEonal AssociaEon of City TransportaEon Officials (NACTO) recommends raised cycle tracks that are separated from the street and “flush with the sidewalk” (NACTO, 2024).
Op#on 3 combines the sidewalk and bicycle path into a single mulE-use path. We strongly recommend against this design, in which bicyclists and pedestrians would share the same space.
WTB-TAM • 475 MILLER AVENUE • MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 • TEL: 415.827.6120 This may be acceptable in “low density areas where pedestrian volumes are anEcipated to be fewer than 200 people per hour” (Alameda County Public Works Agency, 2018). However, separated pedestrian and bicycle faciliEes “are preferable in higher density areas, adjacent to commercial and mixed-use development, and near major transit staEons or locaEons where anEcipated pedestrian volumes are higher” (ibid). NACTO also advises that “in zones with high pedestrian volumes and frequent buses” bicyclists and pedestrians should be provided separate, not shared, spaces (NACTO, 2024).
Future users of the new San Rafael Transit Center will engage in a wide variety of acEviEes, amongst them buying Eckets, checking schedules, parking one’s bike, drinking a coffee, lingering, socializing, and going to and fro. This is too much acEvity for pedestrians to be sharing the same space as moving bicycles. When slow users compete with cyclists for space, and especially when pedestrians must cross cyclists’ path of travel, conflict is bound to occur (Jay, 2014). “The potenEal for conflict on shared paths is exacerbated by the differences in type, abiliEes and movements of users such as pedestrians, cyclists, joggers, in-line skaters, skateboarders, dogs, and babies in prams” (Grzebiet, 2011).
Op#on 1 lacks the problemaEc channelizaEon of Op#on 2 and provides the much-needed separaEon between bicycles and pedestrians missing in Op#on 3. By providing separaEon of bicycles and pedestrians, Op#on 1 avoids the conflict inherent in the maxim that “cyclists do not like to ride among pedestrians, and pedestrians do not like to walk among cyclists” (European Regional Development Fund, 2024). Providing bicyclists with their own separated bikeway means fewer bicyclists riding on sidewalks, which in turn makes the sidewalk safer for pedestrians (Jay, 2014).
We recommend that the project designers follow NACTO’s guidance that bikeways flush with the sidewalk should use “color, pavement markings, and textured surfaces” to clearly signal to all users that the bikeway is intended for bicycles only, and “to discourage pedestrian use of the cycle zone” (NACTO, 2024). These recommendaEons are illustrated in Walk San Francisco and the San Francisco Vision Zero CoaliEon’s 2018 design manual Ge.ng to the Curb - A Guide to Building Protected Bike Lanes That Work for Pedestrians (see Appendix Exhibit F).
Finally, we have included photographs of separated bicycle and pedestrian faciliEes from around the United States and the world for reference and as examples of implemented best pracEces (see Appendix Exhibit G).
Respecoully,
Patrick Seidler MaXhew Hartzell
President, WTB-TAM Director of Planning, WTB-TAM
WTB-TAM • 475 MILLER AVENUE • MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 • TEL: 415.827.6120 Bibliography
Alameda County Public Works Agency. (2018) Bicycle and Pedestrians FaciliEes Toolkit. hXps://www.acpwa.org/acpwa-assets/docs/programs-services/streets-roads/2019-BicyclePedestrian-Master-Plan-Appendix-E.pdf Broberg, Rolf. (2015) What is Good Separa#on Between Cyclists and Pedestrians? Trafikistan. hXps://trafikistan.se/english-index/what-is-good-separaEon-between-cyclists-and-pedestrians/ European Regional Development Fund. (2024) Separa#on from Pedestrians. Cycle Highway Manual. hXps://cyclehighways.eu/design-and-build/infrastructure/separaEon-frompedestrians.html Grzebiet, R.H, et al. (2011) Pedestrian-Cyclist Collisions: Issues and Risk. Australasian College of Road Safety Na#onal Conference. Melbourne.
hXps://www.academia.edu/12709289/Pedestrian_cyclist_collisions_issues_and_risk Jay, S. (2014). How are Pedestrians in Vancouver Being Impact by Separated Bike Lanes? Master's Thesis, Simon Fraser University. hXps://www.sfu.ca/urban/research/researchsummaries/how-are-pedestrians-being-impacted-by-separated-bike-lanes-.html NaEonal AssociaEon of City TransportaEon Officials. (2024) Cycle Tracks. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. hXps://nacto.org/publicaEon/urban-bikeway-design-guide/cycle-tracks/ San Francisco Vision Zero CoaliEon. (2018) Ge.ng to the Curb: A Guide to Building Protected Bike Lanes That Work for Pedestrians. hXps://walksf.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/gesngto-the-curb-report-final-walk-sf-2019.pdf Appendix Exhibit A
WTB-TAM conceptual plan showing the North - South Greenway as a Class IV cycle track ďĞƚǁĞĞŶ&ŽƵƌƚŚ^ƚƌĞĞƚĂŶĚƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƟŶŐWƵĞƌƚŽ^ƵĞůůŽ,ŝůůWĂƚŚǁĂLJĂƚDŝƐƐŝŽŶǀĞŶƵĞ FIFTH ST.
FOURTH ST.
MISSION AVE.
TAMALPAIS AVE.
HETHERTON ST.
Secure and
Covered Bike
Parking and
Bikeshare
'ƌĂŶĚǀĞ͘
SMART
&ŽƵƌƚŚ^ƚ͘
San Rafael
,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽů
t͘dĂŵĂůƉĂŝƐǀĞ͘
ŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚŝŶϮϬϭϵ͗
'ƌĂŶĚǀĞ͘ůĂƐƐ/ƉĂƚŚǁĂLJďƌŝĚŐĞŽǀĞƌ
San Rafael Canal
hŶĚĞƌŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƌŝŐŚƚŶŽǁ͗
'ƌĂŶĚǀĞ͘ůĂƐƐ/sĐLJĐůĞƚƌĂĐŬĨƌŽŵ
^ĞĐŽŶĚ^ƚ͘ƚŽ&ŽƵƌƚŚ^ƚ͘
SMART/New
Transit Center
/ŶĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞ'ĂƉ͗
'ƌĂŶĚǀĞ͘ƚŽŶĞǁdƌĂŶƐŝƚĞŶƚĞƌ
ĂůŽŶŐ&ŽƵƌƚŚ^ƚ͘
Canal
Neighborhood
ŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚŝŶϮϬϮϭ͗
͘&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽůǀĚ͘ĞdžƚƌĂͲǁŝĚĞďŝŬĞͲůĞŐĂůƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬ
;ĨƵŶĐƟŽŶĂůĞƋƵŝǀĂůĞŶƚŽĨůĂƐƐ/ƉĂƚŚǁĂLJͿ
͘&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽůǀĚ͘
San Rafael Canal
North
Appendix Exhibit B
DƵůƟͲŵŽĚĂůĐŽŶŶĞĐƟŽŶƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞĂŶĂůŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĂŶĚƚŚĞŶĞǁdƌĂŶƐŝƚĞŶƚĞƌ
Appendix Exhibit C
tdͲdDĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂůƉůĂŶƐŚŽǁŝŶŐĂƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƟŽŶĂƚƚŚĞĐŽƌŶĞƌŽĨ'ƌĂŶĚǀĞŶƵĞ and Fourth Street
Appendix Exhibit D
WTB-TAM conceptual plan showing Class IV cycle tracks on both sides of Fourth Street between Grand Avenue and Hwy. 101 FOURTH ST.
HWY. 101
IRWIN ST.
GRAND AVE.
North
Appendix Exhibit E
ƌŽƐƐƐĞĐƟŽŶƐĚĞƉŝĐƟŶŐϯŽƉƟŽŶƐĨŽƌƚŚĞďŝĐLJĐůĞƉĂƚŚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞdƌĂŶƐŝƚĞŶƚĞƌ !nal approach will need to be coordinated with the City of San Rafael and other project stakeholders. In all cases, the bike route will be behind the bus between buses and bicycles. In all cases, design measures aimed at slowing cyclists will be integrated into the design.
La avenida Tamalpais entre las calles 3 y 4 se convertirá en un importante conector para bicicletas como parte de la vía verde norte/sur. Mejorar la segur de este proyecto. Existen varias consideraciones y opciones potenciales para integrar la ciclovía en el diseño de la calle y la plaza. Le invitamos a que no El planteamiento !nal deberá coordinarse con el Ayuntamiento de San Rafael y otras partes interesadas. En todos los casos, la ciclovía se situará detrás d autobús para evitar con"ictos entre autobuses y bicicletas. Coloque un punto cerca de su opción preferida. En todos los casos, se integrarán en el diseñ de los ciclistas.
Place a dot near your preferred option | Coloque un punto cerca de su opción preferida Option 2 Bike Lane at Street Level: The bike lane is at street level, ramping up mid-block where pedestrians
cross between the bus stop island and the Depot building.
Bene!ts: Limit bike-pedestrian con"icts. Disadvantages:
Plaza area feels more limited than the other options. Limited opportunities for pedestrian crossing to bus stop.
Opción 2 Carril bici a nivel de calle: El carril bici está a nivel de la calle y se eleva a mitad de la manzana, donde los peatones cruzan entre la isleta de la parada de autobús y el edi!cio Depot. Ventajas: Limita los con"ictos entre bicicletas y peatones. Desventajas: La zona de la plaza parece más limitada que en las otras opciones. Se limitadan las oportunidades para el cruce peatonal a la parada de autobús.
Option 1 Sidewalk-Level Bike Path: The bike lane is at
sidewalk level but is distinct from the pedestrian zone, using stripes on the pavement, landscaping, or distinct paving.
Bene!ts: The bike lane and bus stop feel more like a part of the plaza than Option 2. Disadvantages: Increased likelihood of bike-pedestrian con"icts if pedestrians unknowingly step into the bike path.
Opción 1 Carril bici a nivel de acera: El carril bici está al nivel de la acera pero se distingue de la zona peatonal mediante franjas en el pavimento, jardinería o pavimento diferenciado. Ventajas: El carril bici y la parada de autobús parecen más parte de la plaza que en la Opción 2.
Desventajas: Mayor probabilidad de con"ictos entre ciclistas y peatones si éstos se meten en el carril bici sin darse cuenta.
Option 3 Shared
combined as a m
accommodate b
not distinct lane
The bike lane an
than Option 2. D
pedestrian con"
Opción 3 Sende
acera se combin
su!ciente para a
como a peatone
para distintos tip
de autobús pare
2. Desventajas: M
ciclistas y peaton
Shared Use Trail E
and have a
Ej. de sendero com
con una zona de
Sidewalk-Level Bike Path Example
Ejemplo de Carril Bici a nivel de acera
Bike Lane at Street Level Example The Transit
Center would have a two-way bike lane.
Ejemplo de Carril Bici a Nivel de Calle El Centro
de Tránsito tendría un carril bici bidireccional.
STREET
HWY
101
TREET
ation | Con!guración de la ciclovia
ill become an important bicycle connector as part of the North / South Greenway. Improving bicycle safety is a key goal of this project. There egrating the bike route into the street and plaza design in front of the Customer Service Building which are shown below for your input. The y of San Rafael and other project stakeholders. In all cases, the bike route will be behind the bus passenger loading zone to avoid con"ict res aimed at slowing cyclists will be integrated into the design. en un importante conector para bicicletas como parte de la vía verde norte/sur. Mejorar la seguridad de los ciclistas es un objetivo clave ones potenciales para integrar la ciclovía en el diseño de la calle y la plaza. Le invitamos a que nos dé su opinión sobre estas estrategias. amiento de San Rafael y otras partes interesadas. En todos los casos, la ciclovía se situará detrás de la zona de embarque de pasajeros de tas. Coloque un punto cerca de su opción preferida. En todos los casos, se integrarán en el diseño medidas destinadas a reducir la velocidad oque un punto cerca de su opción preferida
8. Quioscos de seguridad
9. Árboles en las calles
Option 2 Bike Lane at Street Level: The bike lane is at street level, ramping up mid-block where pedestrians
cross between the bus stop island and the Depot building.
Bene!ts: Limit bike-pedestrian con"icts. Disadvantages:
Plaza area feels more limited than the other options. Limited opportunities for pedestrian crossing to bus stop.
Opción 2 Carril bici a nivel de calle: El carril bici está a nivel de la calle y se eleva a mitad de la manzana, donde los peatones cruzan entre la isleta de la parada de autobús y el edi!cio Depot. Ventajas: Limita los con"ictos entre bicicletas y peatones. Desventajas: La zona de la plaza parece más limitada que en las otras opciones. Se limitadan las oportunidades para el cruce peatonal a la parada de autobús.
using
g.
t of
hood
step
al
to
ús
listas
uenta.
Option 3 Shared Use Trail: The bike lane and sidewalk are combined as a multi-use path, with su$cient width to safely accommodate both cyclists and pedestrians, but there are not distinct lanes or zones for di#erent use types. Bene!ts:
The bike lane and bus stop feel more like a part of the plaza than Option 2. Disadvantages: Increased likelihood of bikepedestrian con"icts compared with Options 1 and 2.
Opción 3 Sendero de uso compartido: El carril bici y la acera se combinan como una vía multiusos, con anchura
su!ciente para acomodar con seguridad tanto a ciclistas como a peatones, pero no hay carriles o zonas diferenciados para distintos tipos de uso. Ventajas: El carril bici y la parada de autobús parecen más parte de la plaza que en la Opción
2. Desventajas: Mayor probabilidad de con"ictos entre
ciclistas y peatones en comparación con las opciones 1 y 2.
a ciclovia
uth Greenway. Improving bicycle safety is a key goal of this project. There e Customer Service Building which are shown below for your input. The oute will be behind the bus passenger loading zone to avoid con"ict e norte/sur. Mejorar la seguridad de los ciclistas es un objetivo clave plaza. Le invitamos a que nos dé su opinión sobre estas estrategias. la ciclovía se situará detrás de la zona de embarque de pasajeros de os, se integrarán en el diseño medidas destinadas a reducir la velocidad ngs next to SMART station
bus canopy between Hetherton and SMART station
ity kiosks
t trees
yecto incluye:
gida y bajada de pasajeros
io de atención al cliente en la avenida Tamalpais
vía de doble sentido
en la avenida Tamalpais y la calle 3
as de autobús y árboles en Tamalpais Ave.
aciones junto a la estación SMART
marquesina de autobús entre Hetherton y la estación SMART scos de seguridad
es en las calles
ng.
mited
e
bús
Option 3 Shared Use Trail: The bike lane and sidewalk are combined as a multi-use path, with su$cient width to safely accommodate both cyclists and pedestrians, but there are not distinct lanes or zones for di#erent use types. Bene!ts:
The bike lane and bus stop feel more like a part of the plaza than Option 2. Disadvantages: Increased likelihood of bikepedestrian con"icts compared with Options 1 and 2.
Opción 3 Sendero de uso compartido: El carril bici y la acera se combinan como una vía multiusos, con anchura
su!ciente para acomodar con seguridad tanto a ciclistas como a peatones, pero no hay carriles o zonas diferenciados ADD pros and cons and
precedent images
Option 2 Bike L
street level, ram
cross between t
Bene!ts: Limit b
Plaza area feels
opportunities fo
Opción 2 Carril
nivel de la calle
los peatones cru
y el edi!cio Dep
bicicletas y peat
parece más limi
las oportunidad
autobús.
Option 1 Sidewalk-Level Bike Path: The bike lane is at
sidewalk level but is distinct from the pedestrian zone, using stripes on the pavement, landscaping, or distinct paving.
Bene!ts: The bike lane and bus stop feel more like a part of the plaza than Option 2. Disadvantages: Increased likelihood of bike-pedestrian con"icts if pedestrians unknowingly step into the bike path.
Opción 1 Carril bici a nivel de acera: El carril bici está al nivel de la acera pero se distingue de la zona peatonal mediante franjas en el pavimento, jardinería o pavimento diferenciado. Ventajas: El carril bici y la parada de autobús parecen más parte de la plaza que en la Opción 2.
Desventajas: Mayor probabilidad de con"ictos entre ciclistas y peatones si éstos se meten en el carril bici sin darse cuenta.
Sidewalk-Level Bike Path Example
Ejemplo de Carril Bici a nivel de acera
Bike Lan
Cen
Ejemplo
de Trán
de este proyecto. Existen varias consideraciones y opciones potenciales para integrar la ciclovía en el diseño de la calle y la plaza. Le invitamos a que no El planteamiento !nal deberá coordinarse con el Ayuntamiento de San Rafael y otras partes interesadas. En todos los casos, la ciclovía se situará detrás autobús para evitar con"ictos entre autobuses y bicicletas. Coloque un punto cerca de su opción preferida. En todos los casos, se integrarán en el diseñ de los ciclistas.
Place a dot near your preferred option | Coloque un punto cerca de su opción preferida Option 2 Bike Lane at Street Level: The bike lane is at street level, ramping up mid-block where pedestrians
cross between the bus stop island and the Depot building.
Bene!ts: Limit bike-pedestrian con"icts. Disadvantages:
Plaza area feels more limited than the other options. Limited opportunities for pedestrian crossing to bus stop.
Opción 2 Carril bici a nivel de calle: El carril bici está a nivel de la calle y se eleva a mitad de la manzana, donde los peatones cruzan entre la isleta de la parada de autobús y el edi!cio Depot. Ventajas: Limita los con"ictos entre bicicletas y peatones. Desventajas: La zona de la plaza parece más limitada que en las otras opciones. Se limitadan las oportunidades para el cruce peatonal a la parada de autobús.
Option 1 Sidewalk-Level Bike Path: The bike lane is at
sidewalk level but is distinct from the pedestrian zone, using stripes on the pavement, landscaping, or distinct paving.
Bene!ts: The bike lane and bus stop feel more like a part of the plaza than Option 2. Disadvantages: Increased likelihood of bike-pedestrian con"icts if pedestrians unknowingly step into the bike path.
Opción 1 Carril bici a nivel de acera: El carril bici está al nivel de la acera pero se distingue de la zona peatonal mediante franjas en el pavimento, jardinería o pavimento diferenciado. Ventajas: El carril bici y la parada de autobús parecen más parte de la plaza que en la Opción 2.
Desventajas: Mayor probabilidad de con"ictos entre ciclistas y peatones si éstos se meten en el carril bici sin darse cuenta.
Option 3 Share
combined as a m
accommodate b
not distinct lane
The bike lane an
than Option 2. D
pedestrian con"
Opción 3 Sende
acera se combin
su!ciente para a
como a peatone
para distintos tip
de autobús pare
2. Desventajas: M
ciclistas y peato
Shared Use Trail
and have a
Ej. de sendero com
con una zona de
Sidewalk-Level Bike Path Example
Ejemplo de Carril Bici a nivel de acera
Bike Lane at Street Level Example The Transit
Center would have a two-way bike lane.
Ejemplo de Carril Bici a Nivel de Calle El Centro
de Tránsito tendría un carril bici bidireccional.
HWY
01 ation | Con!guración de la ciclovia
ll become an important bicycle connector as part of the North / South Greenway. Improving bicycle safety is a key goal of this project. There egrating the bike route into the street and plaza design in front of the Customer Service Building which are shown below for your input. The y of San Rafael and other project stakeholders. In all cases, the bike route will be behind the bus passenger loading zone to avoid con"ict es aimed at slowing cyclists will be integrated into the design. en un importante conector para bicicletas como parte de la vía verde norte/sur. Mejorar la seguridad de los ciclistas es un objetivo clave nes potenciales para integrar la ciclovía en el diseño de la calle y la plaza. Le invitamos a que nos dé su opinión sobre estas estrategias. amiento de San Rafael y otras partes interesadas. En todos los casos, la ciclovía se situará detrás de la zona de embarque de pasajeros de tas. Coloque un punto cerca de su opción preferida. En todos los casos, se integrarán en el diseño medidas destinadas a reducir la velocidad oque un punto cerca de su opción preferida
Option 2 Bike Lane at Street Level: The bike lane is at street level, ramping up mid-block where pedestrians
cross between the bus stop island and the Depot building.
Bene!ts: Limit bike-pedestrian con"icts. Disadvantages:
Plaza area feels more limited than the other options. Limited opportunities for pedestrian crossing to bus stop.
Opción 2 Carril bici a nivel de calle: El carril bici está a nivel de la calle y se eleva a mitad de la manzana, donde los peatones cruzan entre la isleta de la parada de autobús y el edi!cio Depot. Ventajas: Limita los con"ictos entre bicicletas y peatones. Desventajas: La zona de la plaza parece más limitada que en las otras opciones. Se limitadan las oportunidades para el cruce peatonal a la parada de autobús.
using
g.
t of
hood
step
l
to
ús
istas
enta.
Option 3 Shared Use Trail: The bike lane and sidewalk are combined as a multi-use path, with su$cient width to safely accommodate both cyclists and pedestrians, but there are not distinct lanes or zones for di#erent use types. Bene!ts:
The bike lane and bus stop feel more like a part of the plaza than Option 2. Disadvantages: Increased likelihood of bikepedestrian con"icts compared with Options 1 and 2.
Opción 3 Sendero de uso compartido: El carril bici y la acera se combinan como una vía multiusos, con anchura
su!ciente para acomodar con seguridad tanto a ciclistas como a peatones, pero no hay carriles o zonas diferenciados para distintos tipos de uso. Ventajas: El carril bici y la parada de autobús parecen más parte de la plaza que en la Opción
2. Desventajas: Mayor probabilidad de con"ictos entre
ciclistas y peatones en comparación con las opciones 1 y 2.
Shared Use Trail Example The Transit Center would be wider (23’) and have a bus waiting area to the right of the trail.
Ej. de sendero compartido El Centro de Tránsito también contaría con una zona de espera de autobuses a la derecha del sendero.
Bike Lane at Street Level Example The Transit
Center would have a two-way bike lane.
Ejemplo de Carril Bici a Nivel de Calle El Centro
de Tránsito tendría un carril bici bidireccional.
KƉƟŽŶϭͲ^ŝĚĞǁĂůŬͲ>ĞǀĞůŝŬĞWĂƚŚ Recommended by WTB-TAM KƉƟŽŶϮͲŝŬĞ>ĂŶĞĂƚ^ƚƌĞĞƚ>ĞǀĞů NOT Recommended by WTB-TAM KƉƟŽŶϯ- Shared Use Trail NOT Recommended by WTB-TAM
Appendix Exhibit F
,ŝŐŚͲǀŝƐŝďŝůŝƚLJƌĂŝƐĞĚĐLJĐůĞƚƌĂĐŬǁŝƚŚŚŝŐŚͲĐŽŶƚƌĂƐƚĐƌŽƐƐǁĂůŬƐĨŽƌƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽďƵƐƐƚŽƉ ^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗
'ĞƫŶŐƚŽƚŚĞƵƌďͲ'ƵŝĚĞƚŽƵŝůĚŝŶŐWƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚŝŬĞ>ĂŶĞƐdŚĂƚtŽƌŬĨŽƌWĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶƐ WƵďůŝƐŚĞĚďLJtĂůŬ^ĂŶ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽĂŶĚƚŚĞ^ĂŶ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽsŝƐŝŽŶĞƌŽŽĂůŝƟŽŶ;ϮϬϭϴͿ
Appendix Exhibit G
džĂŵƉůĞƐŽĨŐůŽďĂůďĞƐƚƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐĨŽƌƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞĚďŝĐLJĐůĞĂŶĚƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶƉĂƚŚǁĂLJƐ
ĂƐƚDŝĚƚŽǁŶ'ƌĞĞŶǁĂLJ͕EĞǁzŽƌŬŝƚLJ Midtown Greenway, Minneapolis, Minnesota sĂƐƐĂƌ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕ĂŵďƌŝĚŐĞ͕DĂƐƐĂĐŚƵƐĞƩƐ ZĂŝƐĞĚĐLJĐůĞƚƌĂĐŬ͕EĂƐŚǀŝůůĞ͕dĞŶŶĞƐƐĞĞ ^tDŽŽĚLJǀĞŶƵĞ͕WŽƌƚůĂŶĚ͕KƌĞŐŽŶ EŽǀĂůďŝŽŶtĂLJ͕^ĂŶZĂĨĂĞů͕ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ
Appendix Exhibit G;ĐŽŶƟŶƵĞĚͿ
džĂŵƉůĞƐŽĨŐůŽďĂůďĞƐƚƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐĨŽƌƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞĚďŝĐLJĐůĞĂŶĚƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶƉĂƚŚǁĂLJƐ EŽƌƚŚŐĂƚĞWƌŽŵĞŶĂĚĞ͕^ĂŶZĂĨĂĞů͕ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ ĞŶnjĂŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚ͕ƵƉĞƌƟŶŽ͕ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ ƚůĂŶƟĐǀĞŶƵĞ͕ŽƐƚŽŶ͕DĂƐƐĂĐŚƵƐĞƩƐ ZĂŝƐĞĚĐLJĐůĞƚƌĂĐŬ͕ŵƐƚĞƌĚĂŵ͕EĞƚŚĞƌůĂŶĚƐ