South San Francisco City Council
May 13, 2026

San Bruno/South San
Francisco
Community-Based
Transportation Plan
Community Assessment
Report
November 2024
Appendix A

Table of Contents
Community Assessment Report................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Key Themes .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Demographic Summary ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 Total Population, Households and Single Parent Families .................................................................................. 5 Income ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Race and Ethnicity .............................................................................................................................................................10 Age ..........................................................................................................................................................................................13 Residents with Disabilities ..............................................................................................................................................16 Language Proficiency .......................................................................................................................................................18 Vehicle Ownership .............................................................................................................................................................20 Travel Mode .........................................................................................................................................................................21 Work Location and Commute ......................................................................................................................................25 Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel and Barriers ......................................................................................................................26 Existing Pedestrian Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................26 Existing Bicycle Network .................................................................................................................................................28 Physical Travel Barriers ....................................................................................................................................................28 Key Recommendations from Relevant Plans ..........................................................................................................32 Transit Service and Ridership ................................................................................................................................................35 Service Coverage................................................................................................................................................................35 Service Gaps .........................................................................................................................................................................39 Key Recommendations from Relevant Plans ..........................................................................................................39 Traffic Hotspots and Vehicle Volumes ...............................................................................................................................40 Key Recommendations and Actions from Relevant Plans .................................................................................40 Roadway Safety ...........................................................................................................................................................................43 Key Recommendations and Actions from Relevant Plans .................................................................................43 Appendix: CBTP Community Area Data Profiles...................................................................... 46

List of Figures
Figure 1: Map of the CBTP Study Area’s Equity Community Priority Areas .................................................................. 3 Figure 2: Map of the San Bruno - South San Francisco CBTP Study Area ..................................................................... 4 Figure 3: Race/Ethnicity of Residents in South San Francisco and San Bruno CBTP Areas and San Mateo County, 2022 .............................................................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 4: Age of Residents in South San Francisco and San Bruno CBTP Areas and San Mateo County, 2022 ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 5: Study Area Residents who Say they Speak English Less Than “Very Well,” by Language Spoken at Home, 2022................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 6: Workers Who Commute in the CBTP Community Areas and Related Geographies, by Travel Mode, 2022 ................................................................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 7: Commute Mode Split, San Bruno and South San Francisco CBTP Equity Community Priority Areas, 2022 .................................................................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 8: Travel Time (in Minutes) to Work for CBTP Area Residents .......................................................................... 25 Figure 9: Missing Sidewalks, South San Francisco CBTP Area ......................................................................................... 27 Figure 10: Existing Bicycle Networks in South San Francisco and San Bruno ........................................................... 29 Figure 11: Existing and Proposed Bike Network in San Bruno (2016) .......................................................................... 30 Figure 12: Travel Barriers in the CBTP Study Area ................................................................................................................ 31 Figure 13: Lindenville Specific Plan, Parks and Open Space Framework ..................................................................... 32 Figure 14: Proposed Pedestrian Projects, San Bruno Walk n Bike Plan ....................................................................... 33 Figure 15: Pedestrian Priority Areas, Active South City Plan ............................................................................................ 34 Figure 16: Transit Service in the CBTP Study Area ............................................................................................................... 36 Figure 17: SamTrans Bus Routes with Service in the CBTP Study Area ....................................................................... 37 Figure 18: SamTrans Transit Stops by Average Weekly Boardings, August 2024 ................................................... 38 Figure 19: Traffic Volumes in the CBTP Study Area ............................................................................................................. 41 Figure 20: Caltrans Transportation Equity Index (EQI) in the CBTP Study Area........................................................ 42 Figure 21: City of South San Francisco, High Injury Network .......................................................................................... 44 Figure 22: City of San Bruno High Injury Network ............................................................................................................... 45

List of Tables
Table 1: Populations and Households, San Bruno and South San Francisco Equity Community Priority Areas and Total CBTP Study Area, 2022 ............................................................................................................. 5 Table 2: Change in Population of the CBTP Study Area and Related Geographies, 2012 and 2022 .................. 6 Table 3: Single Parent Families and Poverty Status, San Bruno CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of San Bruno, 2022 ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 4: Income in San Bruno CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of San Bruno, 2022 ................................ 7 Table 5: Single Parent Families and Poverty Status, South San Francisco CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of South San Francisco, 2022 ................................................................................................................ 8 Table 6: Income in South San Francisco CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of South San Francisco, 2022 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Table 7: Race/Ethnicity in San Bruno CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of San Bruno, 2022 ............... 11 Table 8: Race/Ethnicity in South San Francisco CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of South San Francisco, 2022 .......................................................................................................................................................... 12 Table 9: Percent of Residents by Age in San Bruno CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of San Bruno, 2022 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Table 10: Percent of Residents by Age in South San Francisco CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of South San Francisco, 2022 .................................................................................................................................... 15 Table 11: Residents with Disabilities in San Bruno CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of San Bruno, 2022 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Table 12: Race/Ethnicity in South San Francisco CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of South San Francisco, 2022 .......................................................................................................................................................... 17 Table 13: Rates of Limited English Language Proficiency Among Residents in San Bruno CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of San Bruno, 2022 ................................................................................................... 19 Table 14: Rates of Limited English Language Proficiency Among Residents in South San Francisco CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of South San Francisco, 2022 ........................................................ 19 Table 15: Households with Zero Vehicles, San Bruno CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of San Bruno, 2022 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Table 16: Households with Zero Vehicles, South San Francisco CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of South San Francisco, 2022 .................................................................................................................................... 20 Table 17: Means of Transportation to Work and Work Location, San Bruno CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of San Bruno ............................................................................................................................................. 23 Table 18: Means of Transportation to Work and Work Location, South San Francisco CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of South San Francisco ............................................................................................ 24

Community Assessment Report Introduction
As part of the update to the San Bruno – South San Francisco Community Based Transportation Plan, the project team has developed a community profile of the current San Bruno – South San Francisco CBTP Study Area (CBTP Study Area) and analyzed current transportation services and challenges. The sections that follow include a demographic profile of residents in the six Equity Priority Community Areas (EPCAs) which make up the CBTP Study Area, and a review of transportation and mobility programs, amenities and challenges.

Equity Community Priority Areas are defined by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission as “census tracts that have a significant concentration of underserved populations, such as households with low incomes and people of color.”1 These community areas and their residents may have experienced substantial underinvestment in transportation, housing and other services and infrastructure. By identifying communities as EPCAs, the MTC can work with community groups, transit agencies and government partners to prioritize investment in historically disadvantaged communities to expand equitable access to housing and transportation that can connect them to the jobs, services and amenities they need.

Key Themes
Some of the themes that will help to define the direction of the San Bruno – South San Francisco Community Based Transportation Plan’s policies and programs include:
• Addressing the needs of residents with disabilities, seniors, residents who speak other languages. Residents in the CTP’s six Equity Community Priority Areas are more likely to be lowincome and/or residents of color than in other communities in South San Francisco and San Bruno. There are also substantial numbers of residents in the EPCAs who are living with disabilities; residents who speak other languages, including Spanish, Chinese and Tagalog, and residents who may rely on transit because of their age or because they do not have access to a vehicle. Centering their priorities and needs related to transportation and mobility will be important to ensure the CBTP’s programs and recommendations benefit those who need it most. • Many needs identified in previous plans are still unaddressed or remain ongoing issues.

Program recommendations from the last CBTP, including providing more bicycle and pedestrian amenities and routes; expanding transit service and connections; and providing safe passage for residents, continue to be urgent needs. Community members also recommended many corridors and intersections for pedestrian, bicycle and traffic safety improvements and amenities that have yet to be realized or fully implemented.
1 Equity Priority Communities | Metropolitan Transportation Commission

• There are many systemic issues which affect study area residents, such as • Safety - Most injuries and fatalities occur along the cities’ high injury networks. Focusing safety improvements on these corridors will have the greatest impact in making the CBTP Study Area safer for all residents.
• Congested roadways – The study area is home to several busy roadways and highways, including El Camino Real and Highway 101, which experience some of the highest traffic volumes in San Mateo County and in the larger Bay Area region. • Health disparities – an issue related to the congestion on study area streets is the impact of the exhaust emitted by these vehicles have on residents who live in communities nearby, who are more likely to experience health issues like asthma. • Travel barriers – The highways and major roadways also serve as a barrier to getting around, especially for those who do not drive. Limited pedestrian crossings and bicycle access prevents residents from making the most direct trip to their destination or may prevent them from getting places altogether.
• Traveling can be stressful no matter what mode you take. Ensuring pedestrians and bicyclists have safe pathways to their destinations, transit riders have smooth connections and access to reliable service, and streets are safe and accessible for all users can make it easier for everyone to reach their destinations.
• Quick-build solutions. Many of the service and network gaps can be fixed through quick-build, lower-cost solutions. Paint and plastic can go a long way, especially as an interim solution while a permanent solution is being developed or more funding is being identified. Residents should not have to wait years for a full solution when a temporary solution is available; the project team should look for opportunities to recommend quick-build solutions wherever possible.

Demographic Summary
This section describes the residents who live within the six Equity Priority Community Areas that make up the current San Bruno – South San Francisco CBTP Study Area (CBTP Study Area). Most of the analysis in this section describes the community areas from each city separately.

The maps which follow on the next two pages show the San Bruno – South San Francisco CBTP Study Area. Figure 1 shows the six census tracts designated as EPCA communities that make up the Study Area and the San Bruno and South San Francisco CBTP Areas. There are two census tracts which make up the San Bruno CBTP Area, and four census tracts in South San Francisco CBTP Area. San Bruno’s EPCA communities comprise the neighborhoods of San Bruno Park, Downtown San Bruno and Lomita Park. In South San Francisco, EPCAs include neighborhoods to the east and west of the 101, including Paradise Valley, Old Town, Downtown, Orange Park, Mayfair Village, Lindenville, Southwood, Francisco Terrace, El Camino, Oyster Point, and East of 101/”The East Side.”2 The map in Figure 2 highlights some of the key destinations residents in the six EPCAs may be traveling to over the course of their day. 2 SSF Neighborhood Story Map (arcgis.com)

Figure 1: Map of the CBTP Study Area’s Equity Community Priority Areas Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Plan Bay Area 2050

Figure 2: Map of the San Bruno - South San Francisco CBTP Study Area Sources: County of San Mateo; GTFS; California EDD; Google Maps

Total Population, Households and Single Parent Families Approximately 24,000 people live in the six Equity Priority Community Areas that make up the San Bruno – South San Francisco CBTP Study Area (CBTP Study Area). Approximately 8,200 people live in the two census tracts that make up the San Bruno CBTP Area, and 15,800 people live in the four census tracts that make up the South San Francisco CBTP Area.

Table 1: Populations and Households, San Bruno and South San Francisco Equity Community Priority Areas and Total CBTP Study Area, 2022
Population and
Households
San Bruno
6041.03
San Bruno
6041.04
South San
Francisco
6021
South San
Francisco
6022.01
South San
Francisco
6022.02
South San
Francisco
6023
Total, SB -

SSF CBTP
Study Area
Population 4,344 3,862 3,484 4,761 3,142 4,419 24,012
Households 1,431 1,145 1,007 1,747 1,127 1,286 7,743
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau. " Demographic and Housing Estimates." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles, Table DP05, 2022; and “Median Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2022/2012 Inflation adjusted dollars).” American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles, Table S1903, 2022 The San Bruno – South San Francisco CBTP Study Area represents approximately 22 percent of the total combined populations of the cities of San Bruno and South San Francisco. One in four South San Francisco residents (24%) live within the city's four Equity Priority Community Areas that are a part of the South San Francisco CBTP Area. One in five San Bruno residents (19%) live in the two Equity Priority Community Areas that are part of the San Bruno CBTP Area.

Despite years of both population growth and decline of several percentage points, the overall population of the CBTP Study Area has been relatively stable since 2012, experiencing a cumulative growth of only one percent over the decade through 2022. Approximately 250 more people lived in the CBTP Study Area in 2022 than in 2012.

As a comparison, the City of San Bruno grew a net 4.9 percent over this time adding about 2,000 more residents; the City of South San Francisco grew a net 2.9 percent, or approximately 1,850 more residents between 2012 and 2022. The population of San Mateo County has grown 4.6 percent during this decade, with 33,067 more people living in the County in 2022 than in 2012.

The table below shows the total populations estimated by the U.S. Census for 2012 and 2022 for the CBTP Study Area and for the CBTP Area in each city (San Bruno and South San Francisco). The table also includes the total populations of the cities of San Bruno and South San Francisco, and the County of San Mateo in 2012 and 2022.

Table 2: Change in Population of the CBTP Study Area and Related Geographies, 2012 and 2022 Population, 2012 and 2022 2012 2022 Change, 2012 to 2022 Total SB - SSF CBTP Community Study Area 23,754 24,012 258 1.1% Total San Bruno CBTP Area 8,113 8,206 93 1.1%
Total South San Francisco CBTP Area 15,641 15,806 165 1.1% City of San Bruno 41,214 43,218 2,004 4.9%
City of South San Francisco 63,742 65,596 1,854 2.9%
San Mateo County 721,183 754,250 33,067 4.6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. " Demographic and Housing Estimates." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles, Table DP05, 2012 and 2022
Households
The number of households in the CBTP Study Area grew by 3.5 percent between 2012 and 2022, largely driven by a net gain in households in South San Francisco Area CBTP neighborhoods. San Bruno CBTP Area neighborhoods experienced a net loss of 63 households between 2012 and 2022. The U.S. Census defines a “household” as all of the people who occupy a housing unit, such as a house or an apartment.

Single Parent Families
Approximately one-third of families in both South San Francisco (33.3%) and San Bruno (36.2%) CBTP Areas are headed by a single adult parent. Nearly one in five single parent families in the South San Francisco CBTP Area (18.7% of single parent families) and one in six single parent families in San Bruno CBTP Area (12.5% of single parent families) have incomes below the poverty threshold. The tables below show the percentages of single families in each of the Equity Community Priority Areas, in the San Bruno and South San Francisco CBTP Areas, and for all of the City of San Bruno and City of South San Francisco.

Table 3: Single Parent Families and Poverty Status, San Bruno CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of San Bruno, 2022
Poverty Status of Single Parent
Families
Total
San Bruno
CBTP Area
San Bruno
6041.03
San Bruno
6041.04
City of San
Bruno
Single Parent Families 36.2% 40.4% 30.3% 22.5%
Percentage of Single Parent Families in
Poverty

12.5% 19.0% 0.0% 7.7%
Source: U.S. Census. “Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months of Families by Family Type by Work Experience of Householder and Spouse.” American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles, Detailed Table B17016, 2022
Table 4: Income in San Bruno CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of San Bruno, 2022 Income
Total
San Bruno
CBTP Area
San Bruno
6041.03
San Bruno
6041.04
City of San
Bruno
Total Households 2,576 1,431 1,145 15,169
Median Income, all Households* $108,625 $102,899 $115,781 $131,669 Residents below 200% poverty level 18.2% 19.7% 16.7% 12.3% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau. "Median Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2022 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars)." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables, Table S1903, 2022; and “Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months.” American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables, Table S1701, 2022

Table 5: Single Parent Families and Poverty Status, South San Francisco CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of South San Francisco, 2022
Poverty Status of Single Parent
Families
Total South
San
Francisco
CBTP Area
South San
Francisco
6021
South San
Francisco
6022.01
South San
Francisco
6022.02
South San
Francisco
6023
City of
South San
Francisco
Single Parent Families 33.3% 42.8% 23.5% 21.4% 44.8% 25.0% Percentage of Single Parent Families
in Poverty

18.7% 16.3% 5.4% 38.3% 20.0% 10.4%
Source: U.S. Census. “Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months of Families by Family Type by Work Experience of Householder and Spouse.” American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles, Detailed Table B17016, 2022
Table 6: Income in South San Francisco CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of South San Francisco, 2022
Income
Total
South San
Francisco
CBTP Area
South San
Francisco
6021
South San
Francisco
6022.01
South San
Francisco
6022.02
South San
Francisco
6023
City of
South San
Francisco
Total Households 5,167 1,007 1,747 1,127 1,286 22,036
Median Income, all Households* $102,380 $87,853 $82,015 $86,491 $155,345 $127,062 Residents below 200% poverty level 24.3% 30.7% 25.7% 20.2% 20.8% 15.9% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau. "Median Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2022 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars)." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables, Table S1903, 2022; and “Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months.” American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables, Table S1701, 2022

Income
Median Income
The median household income of households in the San Bruno CBTP Area is $108,625. This represents only 72 percent of the median household income for all of San Mateo County, which is nearly $150,000.

The CBTP Area median household income is also approximately $22,000 less than the median for the City of San Bruno.

The median household income for the South San Francisco CBTP Area, $102,380, is approximately $20,000 less than the median household income for the entire city of South San Francisco. Several neighborhoods within this CBTP Area have median household incomes ranging much lower than the median, from approximately $82,000 to $88,000. The median household income of the South San Francisco CBTP Area is only 68 percent of the median income for all households in San Mateo County.

Low-Income Residents
Twelve percent of South San Francisco CBTP Area residents and eight percent of San Bruno CBTP Area have an income of less than the poverty threshold, of $14,880 for one person (2022 threshold and data).

One in four South San Francisco CBTP Area residents (24.3%) and 18.2 percent of San Bruno CBTP Area residents earn an annual income below 200 percent of the poverty threshold, or $14,880*2 = $29,760.

Race and Ethnicity
Currently, approximately two-thirds of San Bruno CBTP Area residents (66.8%) and three-fourths of South San Francisco CBTP Area residents (76.8%) identify as nonwhite, while only 57 percent of all San Mateo County residents do.

The graph and tables below display the percentage of CBTP Area residents by identified race and/or ethnicity. More than half of residents in both the South San Francisco and San Bruno CBTP Areas identify as Hispanic or Latino (of any race).

One in four (27.1%) residents in the South San Francisco CBTP Area are of Asian descent, and most of these residents identify as Filipino (11.9% of CBTP Area residents) or Chinese (7.4% of CBTP Area residents). Three of the four Equity Priority Community Areas in the South City CBTP Area have more than ten percent of residents who identify as Filipino.

One in five residents in the San Bruno CBTP Area identify as Asian, and similarly many are of Chinese descent (also 7.4% of CBTP Area residents) or Filipino descent (9.8% of CBTP Area residents).

Figure 3: Race/Ethnicity of Residents in South San Francisco and San Bruno CBTP Areas and San Mateo County, 2022
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. "Demographic and Housing Estimates." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles, Table DP05, 2022; Note: this data does not equal 100% because it uses datapoints “Race alone or in combination with…” which compiles responses from residents who may have chosen multiple race/ethnicity categories.

1.8%

0.0%

3.1%

3.4%

0.0%

3.6%

1.8%

6.7%

6.4%

34.3%

22.4%

27.1%

53.2%

41.9%

36.8%

17.1%

41.2%

42.5%

23.9%

56.7%

51.9%
0% 20% 40% 60%
San Mateo County
San Bruno CBTP Area
South San Francisco CBTP Area Hispanic or Latino (of any race) Some Other Race
White
Asian
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander
Black or African American
American Indian and Alaska Native

Table 7: Race/Ethnicity in San Bruno CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of San Bruno, 2022 Race alone or in combination with
one or more other races
Total
San Bruno
CBTP Area
San Bruno
6041.03
San Bruno
6041.04
City of San
Bruno
American Indian and Alaska Native 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9%
Asian 22.4% 25.1% 19.3% 35.8%
Black or African American 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 56.7% 57.7% 55.5% 29.5% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander 6.7% 3.9% 9.8% 3.9%
Some Other Race 41.2% 40.8% 41.7% 22.6%
White 41.9% 50.8% 31.8% 46.8%
Residents of Color 66.8% 64.1% 69.8% 62.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. "Demographic and Housing Estimates." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles, Table DP05, 2022; Note: Residents of Color determined by subtracting “White Alone” from total population, which is different from “White” in this table, which represents “White Alone or in combination with another race.”

Table 8: Race/Ethnicity in South San Francisco CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of South San Francisco, 2022
Race alone or in combination with
one or more other races
Total
South San
Francisco
CBTP Area
South San
Francisco
6021
South San
Francisco
6022.01
South San
Francisco
6022.02
South San
Francisco
6023
City of
South San
Francisco
American Indian and Alaska Native 3.1% 3.4% 5.1% 2.8% 0.7% 1.7% Asian 27.1% 20.8% 25.5% 29.4% 32.2% 46.4%
Black or African American 3.6% 5.1% 3.2% 2.6% 3.7% 2.9% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 51.9% 62.4% 47.0% 60.3% 43.0% 29.1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander 6.4% 3.6% 1.6% 0.0% 18.3% 2.1%
Some Other Race 42.5% 51.2% 28.4% 53.4% 43.1% 20.7%
White 36.8% 30.6% 53.4% 33.8% 26.0% 38.0%
Residents of Color 76.8% 82.1% 59.2% 87.7% 83.9% 70.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. "Demographic and Housing Estimates." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles, Table DP05, 2022; Note: Residents of Color determined by subtracting “White Alone” from total population, which is different from “White” in this table, which represents “White Alone or in combination with another race.”

Age
In the South San Francisco CBTP Area, 5.1 percent of residents are 75 years of age or older, and 16.2 percent of residents are 62 years of age or older. In the San Bruno CBTP Area, 3.5 percent of residents are 75 years of age or older, and 12.4 percent are 62 or older. One in four residents in both South San Francisco (25.1%) and San Bruno (24.8%) CBTP Areas are under 21 years of age; nearly one in five residents in both CBTP Areas are under 16.

Nearly one-fourth of the South San Francisco CBTP Area population (23.5%) and one in five in the San Bruno CBTP Area (20.8%) may be more likely to rely on transit based upon their age, because they are either under 16 years of age or 75 years of age or older. In two neighborhoods in these CBTP Areas, this percentage is as high as 26.6 percent (San Bruno 6041.03) and 29.5 percent (South San Francisco 6022.01), due to the numbers of young people and slightly higher rates of older adults living in these neighborhoods.

The figure below compares the ages of residents in the South San Francisco and San Bruno CBTP Areas to all residents in San Mateo County. There are more older residents in neighborhoods in the South San Francisco CBTP Area, and more younger working adults in neighborhoods in the San Bruno CBTP Area.

Figure 4: Age of Residents in South San Francisco and San Bruno CBTP Areas and San Mateo County, 2022
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. "Demographic and Housing Estimates." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles, Table DP05, 2022

5.3%

5.5%

5.7%

5.5%

5.4%

14.5%

14.5%

13.6%

6.8%

6.2%

9.6%

4.9%

2.4%

3.5%

7.8%

4.6%

6.6%

10.4%

17.3%

20.6%

10.7%

5.0%

4.2%

5.9%

3.3%

0.2%

5.4%

6.2%

6.3%

5.4%

7.5%

12.9%

15.7%

15.4%

7.3%

5.2%

7.6%

3.2%

1.9%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Under 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 74 years
75 to 84 years
85 years and older
Total South San
Francisco CBTP Area
Total San Bruno
CBTP Area
San Mateo County

Table 9: Percent of Residents by Age in San Bruno CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of San Bruno, 2022
Age
Total
San Bruno
CBTP Area
San Bruno
6041.03
San Bruno
6041.04
City of San
Bruno
Under 16 years of age 17.3% 21.6% 12.4% 17.0%
Under 21 years of age 24.8% 26.2% 23.2% 22.0%
21 years and over 75.2% 73.8% 76.8% 78.0%
62 years and over 12.4% 13.4% 11.2% 20.7%
75 years and over 3.5% 5.0% 1.8% 6.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. "Demographic and Housing Estimates." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles, Table DP05, 2022
Table 10: Percent of Residents by Age in South San Francisco CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of South San Francisco, 2022
Age
Total
South San
Francisco
CBTP Area
South San
Francisco
6021
South San
Francisco
6022.01
South San
Francisco
6022.02
South San
Francisco
6023
City of
South San
Francisco
Under 16 years of age 18.4% 19.2% 23.1% 13.7% 16.1% 14.9% Under 21 years of age 25.1% 27.2% 28.2% 19.6% 24.2% 20.5% 21 years and over 74.9% 72.8% 71.8% 80.4% 75.8% 79.5%
62 years and over 16.6% 16.0% 18.4% 15.0% 16.3% 21.3%
75 years and over 5.1% 2.7% 6.4% 5.7% 5.3% 7.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. "Demographic and Housing Estimates." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles, Table DP05, 2022

Residents with Disabilities
Approximately 9.2 percent of San Bruno CBTP Area residents and 8.1 percent of South San Francisco CBTP Area residents are experiencing or living with disabilities, which translates to approximately 300 to 400 people in each census tract across both CBTP Areas. Some neighborhoods within the San Bruno CBTP Area have higher rates of residents with vision and hearing difficulties, while some neighborhoods in the South San Francisco CBTP Area have higher rates of residents with ambulatory and cognitive difficulties.

The percentage of residents with cognitive difficulties is especially high in two CBTP Area neighborhoods—one in San Bruno (6.1 percent of residents in 6041.03) and one in South San Francisco (6.6 percent in 6022.02)—each represents more than 200 people.

Table 11: Residents with Disabilities in San Bruno CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of San Bruno, 2022
Residents with Disabilities
Total
San Bruno
CBTP Area
San Bruno
6041.03
San Bruno
6041.04
City of San
Bruno
Residents with a Disability 9.2% 8.7% 9.7% 9.1%
Residents with a hearing
difficulty 2.1% 3.5% 0.5% 2.8%
Residents with a vision difficulty 2.0% 0.0% 4.3% 1.5%
Residents with a cognitive
difficulty 4.1% 6.1% 1.8% 3.8%
Residents with an ambulatory
difficulty 1.2% 0.5% 2.0% 4.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. "Disability Characteristics." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables, Table S1810, 2022

Table 12: Race/Ethnicity in South San Francisco CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of South San Francisco, 2022
Residents with Disabilities
Total
South San
Francisco
CBTP Area
South San
Francisco
6021
South San
Francisco
6022.01
South San
Francisco
6022.02
South San
Francisco
6023
City of
South San
Francisco
Residents with a Disability 8.1% 8.9% 7.4% 9.5% 7.3% 9.9% Residents with a hearing
difficulty 2.0% 2.1% 2.9% 1.1% 1.6% 3.1%
Residents with a vision difficulty 1.5% 2.2% 1.2% 1.8% 1.0% 1.5% Residents with a cognitive
difficulty 3.4% 2.4% 1.6% 6.6% 4.1% 3.8%
Residents with an ambulatory
difficulty 3.9% 6.3% 3.3% 1.1% 4.7% 5.5%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. "Disability Characteristics." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables, Table S1810, 2022

Language Proficiency
Almost two-thirds of residents in the San Bruno CBTP Study Area (65.1%) and 71 percent of residents in the South San Francisco CBTP Area speak a language other than English.

In the San Bruno CBTP Area, 45.8 percent of residents speak Spanish, and 12.8 percent speak an Asian or Pacific Island language. Residents in the San Bruno CBTP Area who speak Chinese represent 5.6 percent of residents; 3.3 percent speak Tagalog.

In the South San Francisco CBTP Area, 39.6 percent of residents speak Spanish, and 16.8 percent speak an Asian or Pacific Island language. Residents in the San Bruno CBTP Area who speak Chinese represent 6.1 percent of residents; six percent of residents speak Tagalog.

Figure 5: Study Area Residents who Say they Speak English Less Than “Very Well,” by Language Spoken at Home, 2022
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. "Language Spoken at Home for the Population 5 Years and Over." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Detailed Tables, Table C16001, 2022 Approximately 7,000 residents across both CBTP Areas (31%) say they speak English less than very well, which translates to one in four residents in the South San Francisco CBTP Area (27.3%) and one in three in the San Bruno CBTP Area (37.6%). Rates of English proficiency are much lower among adults 65 years and older across both CBTP Areas.

As displayed in the figure above, 44.1 percent of Spanish speakers in the South San Francisco CBTP Area say they have limited English speaking abilities. More than half of Chinese speakers (52.5%) and one-third of Tagalog speakers (34.2%) say they have limited English speaking abilities.

In the San Bruno CBTP Area, nearly two-thirds of Spanish speakers (61.1%) say they speak English less than very well. More than half of residents who speak Chinese (55.2%) and 36.2 percent of Tagalog speakers say they have limited English speaking abilities.

61.1%

44.1%

39.2%

55.2% 52.5%

43.8%

36.2% 34.2% 35.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
San Bruno CBTP Area South San Francisco CBTP Area San Mateo County Spanish speakers who speak English less than "very well" Chinese speakers who speak English less than "very well" Tagalog speakers who speak English less than "very well"

Table 13: Rates of Limited English Language Proficiency Among Residents in San Bruno CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of San Bruno, 2022
Residents who say they speak
English less than "very well"
Total
San Bruno
CBTP Area
San Bruno
6041.03
San Bruno
6041.04
City of San
Bruno
Speakers of all languages who speak
English less than "very well" 37.6% 36.2% 39.1% 19.3%
Spanish speakers who speak
English less than "very well" 61.1% 53.9% 68.6% 45.3%
Chinese speakers who speak
English less than "very well" 55.2% 51.2% 69.8% 48.5%
Tagalog speakers who speak
English less than "very well" 36.2% 45.3% 0.0% 32.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. "Language Spoken at Home for the Population 5 Years and Over." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Detailed Tables, Table C16001, 2022 Table 14: Rates of Limited English Language Proficiency Among Residents in South San Francisco CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of South San Francisco, 2022 Residents who say they speak
English less than "very well"
Total
South San
Francisco
CBTP Area
South San
Francisco
6021
South San
Francisco
6022.01
South San
Francisco
6022.02
South San
Francisco
6023
City of
South San
Francisco
Speakers of all languages who speak
English less than "very well" 27.3% 36.6% 25.7% 35.7% 15.7% 19.3% Spanish speakers who speak
English less than "very well" 44.1% 50.1% 41.5% 53.5% 25.7% 38.9% Chinese speakers who speak
English less than "very well" 52.5% 69.1% 36.3% 69.9% 40.3% 46.4% Tagalog speakers who speak
English less than "very well" 34.2% 35.8% 37.2% 24.2% 37.8% 31.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau. "Language Spoken at Home for the Population 5 Years and Over." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Detailed Tables, Table C16001, 2022

Vehicle Ownership
Approximately 11.3 percent of households in the San Bruno CBTP Area and 8.4 percent of households in the South San Francisco CBTP Area do not have at least one vehicle at home.

Many households without cars live in two Equity Priority Community Areas, in 6041.03 in San Bruno, where 16.9 percent of households do not have a vehicle, and 6022.02 in South San Francisco, where 12.6 percent of households do not have at least one vehicle. The percentages in the neighboring South San Francisco census tract 6022.01 also has high rates of households without vehicles (9.5%). The tables below this percentage for each of the six Equity Priority Community Areas.

Table 15: Households with Zero Vehicles, San Bruno CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of San Bruno, 2022
Households with Zero
Vehicles
Total
San Bruno
CBTP Area
San Bruno
6041.03
San Bruno
6041.04
City of San
Bruno
No vehicle available 11.3% 16.9% 4.3% 6.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. "Household Size by Vehicles Available." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Tables, Table B08201, 2022
Table 16: Households with Zero Vehicles, South San Francisco CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of South San Francisco, 2022
Households with Zero
Vehicles
Total
South San
Francisco
CBTP Area
South San
Francisco
6021
South San
Francisco
6022.01
South San
Francisco
6022.02
South San
Francisco
6023
City of
South San
Francisco
No vehicle available 8.4% 6.8% 9.5% 12.6% 4.4% 5.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. "Household Size by Vehicles Available." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Tables, Table B08201, 2022

Travel Mode
Nearly three fourths of residents in both CBTP Areas drive to work—73 percent in the San Bruno CBTP Area and 73.8% in the South San Francisco CBTP Area. But many do not drive alone. In the South San Francisco CBTP Area, 19.2 percent of residents carpool to work, and this is as high as 25 percent of residents in some communities, as shown in the tables which follow below. Approximately 6.6 percent of residents in the San Bruno CBTP Area carpool to work.

Figure 6: Workers Who Commute in the CBTP Community Areas and Related Geographies, by Travel Mode, 2022
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. "Commuting Characteristics by Sex." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Tables, Table S801, 2022
Nine percent of all South San Francisco CBTP Area residents use public transit (9.3%) to get to work, while

3.5 percent of CBTP Area residents walk and 2.2 percent bike to work. In some neighborhoods within the South San Francisco CBTP Area, 10 percent of residents walk to work. In the San Bruno CBTP Area, 8.2 percent of residents use public transit, 5.5 percent bike to work and 3.3 percent walk. In parts of the CBTP Study Area, one in ten residents (10.7%) bike to work.

The map in Figure 7 and the tables that follow show this commute mode split for each of the six Equity Priority Community Areas in the CBTP Area.

19.0%

2.4%

1.3%

7.4%

9.0%

59.0%

6.9%

3.3%

5.5%

8.2%

6.6%

66.4%

10.2%

3.5%

2.2%

9.3%

19.2%

54.5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Worked from Home
Walked
Biked
Used Public Transit
Carpooled
Drove alone to work
South San Francisco CBTP
Area
San Bruno CBTP Area
San Mateo County

Figure 7: Commute Mode Split, San Bruno and South San Francisco CBTP Equity Community Priority Areas, 2022
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. "Commuting Characteristics by Sex." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Tables, Table S801, 2022

Table 17: Means of Transportation to Work and Work Location, San Bruno CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of San Bruno
Means of Transportation to
Work and Work Location
Total
San Bruno
CBTP Area
San Bruno
6041.03
San Bruno
6041.04
City of San
Bruno
Means of Transportation to Work
Car, Truck or Van 73.0% 82.5% 63.1% 69.9%
Drove alone to work 66.4% 75.4% 57.1% 59.3%
Carpooled 6.6% 7.1% 6.0% 10.7%
Used Public Transit 8.2% 7.7% 8.8% 9.6%
Walked 3.3% 2.6% 4.0% 2.8%
Biked 5.5% 0.4% 10.7% 1.4%
Worked from Home 6.9% 5.2% 8.7% 14.6%
Worked in place of residence 31.2% 25.2% 37.5% 26.0%
Worked in county of residence 73.7% 68.4% 79.3% 64.5%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. "Commuting Characteristics by Sex." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Tables, Table S801, 2022

Table 18: Means of Transportation to Work and Work Location, South San Francisco CBTP Area, CBTP Census Tracts and City of South San Francisco
Means of Transportation to
Work and Work Location
Total
South San
Francisco
CBTP Area
South San
Francisco
6021
South San
Francisco
6022.01
South San
Francisco
6022.02
South San
Francisco
6023
City of
South San
Francisco
Means of Transportation to Work
Car, Truck or Van 73.8% 74.6% 67.8% 78.0% 75.7% 73.0%
Drove alone to work 54.5% 53.6% 51.7% 53.0% 59.0% 60.5% Carpooled 19.2% 21.1% 16.1% 25.0% 16.7% 12.6%
Used Public Transit 9.3% 12.6% 11.4% 5.3% 8.1% 10.1%
Walked 3.5% 2.4% 0.0% 10.1% 2.8% 1.8%
Biked 2.2% 3.5% 3.2% 1.7% 0.7% 1.0%
Worked from Home 10.2% 6.3% 16.2% 2.8% 12.7% 12.9%
Worked in place of residence 30.5% 33.6% 26.4% 40.2% 25.1% 28.1% Worked in county of residence 70.1% 67.2% 67.4% 72.7% 72.8% 63.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau. "Commuting Characteristics by Sex." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Tables, Table S801, 2022

Work Location and Commute
Approximately one in three workers in both the San Bruno CBTP Area (31.2%) and South San Francisco CBTP Area (30.5%) work in the city they live in. Nearly three fourths of San Bruno CBTP Area residents (73.7%), and 70.1 percent of South San Francisco CBTP Area residents work in San Mateo County.

Ten percent of South San Francisco CBTP Area residents work from home, at least part of the week, which is less than half of the percentage of all San Mateo County residents who work from home (19%). Only 6.9 percent of San Bruno CBTP Area residents say they work from home.

Two thirds of all workers in the San Bruno CBTP Study Area (62.9%) and half of South San Francisco CBTP Area workers (54.6%) travel 20 to 24 minutes or less to get to work. While the commute for most CBTP Area residents is 45 minutes or less, 5.9% of San Bruno CBTP Area residents and 13.5% of South San Francisco CBTP Area residents travel 45 minutes or longer to get to work.

Figure 8: Travel Time (in Minutes) to Work for CBTP Area Residents Source: U.S. Census Bureau. "Commuting Characteristics by Sex." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Tables, Table S801, 2022

6.3%

32.8%

21.7%

25.7%

7.2%

6.3%

19.0%

30.2%

20.7%

24.3%

3.1% 2.8%

8.0%

27.5%

21.0%

24.3%

9.8% 9.4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Less than 10
minutes
10 to 20 minutes 20 to 30 minutes 30 to 45 minutes 45 to 60 minutes More than 60 minutes
South San Francisco CBTP Area San Bruno CBTP Area San Mateo County

Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel and Barriers
Existing Pedestrian Infrastructure
The 2022 Active South City Plan highlights several pedestrian infrastructure elements including sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, signals and beacons, and other pedestrian support facilities, such as shade structures, benches, and landscaping. The plan identifies several gaps in the existing pedestrian network, such as sidewalk gaps and degraded pedestrian support facilities. Within the study area, most of these sidewalk gaps are in the east of US-101 area, with additional gaps along El Camino Real and Railroad Avenue. The map in Figure 9 illustrates the gaps in sidewalks in and around the South San Francisco CBTP Area.

The 2016 City of San Bruno Walk ‘n Bike Plan identified existing pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks, crosswalks, and off-street footpaths. The plan highlights that the city has a comprehensive system of sidewalks, marked crosswalks, and pedestrian crossing signals, especially on arterials and collectors.

Additionally, many residential streets have sidewalks on at least one side of the street, and many intersections in residential areas have marked crosswalks, particularly when crossing a major street. Offstreet footpaths are found within two parks, San Bruno City Park and Juniper Serra County Park, both within walking distance of the study area. San Bruno does not have an inventory of missing sidewalks.

Figure 9: Missing Sidewalks, South San Francisco CBTP Area Source: Active South City Plan, 2022. Note: Data not available for the City of San Bruno

Existing Bicycle Network
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recognizes four classifications of bicycle facilities as described below.

Class I—Shared-Use Pathway: Provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of cyclists and pedestrians with crossflow minimized (e.g., off-street bicycle paths).

Class II—Bicycle Lanes: Provides a striped lane for one-way travel on a street or highway. May include a “buffer” zone consisting of a striped portion of roadway between the bicycle lane and the nearest vehicle travel lane.

Class III—Bicycle Route: Provides for shared use with motor vehicle traffic; however, are often signed or include a striped bicycle lane.

Class IV—Separated Bikeway: Provides a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a roadway and which are protected from vehicular traffic. Types of separation include, but are not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking.

South San Francisco’s existing bicycle network includes a mix of these facility types and totals to more than 50 miles, or 31% of the city’s roadways. Within the network, 24.25 miles, or 16% of the city’s roadways, are dedicated facilities, separated from vehicle traffic. The existing network is comprised of 10 miles of Class I shared-use paths, 14 miles of Class II bike lanes, 22 miles of Class III bike routes, and 0.25 miles of Class IV separated bikeways.

Based on the 2016 City of San Bruno Walk ‘n Bike Plan, the city has a limited bicycle network, with Class II bike lanes on only a handful of streets including Sneath Lane, Commodore Drive, and Sharp Park Road.

Within the study area, San Bruno’s bike network primarily consists of bicycle facilities along the length of the Huntington/San Antonio Avenue corridor. The City does not have any formal off-street bicycle paths.

The map in Figure 10 displays the existing bicycle networks by class in the CBTP Areas and surrounding neighborhoods in South San Francisco and San Bruno. An additional view on the next page (Figure 11) shows the bike network in San Bruno as proposed in its Walk n Bike Plan.

Physical Travel Barriers
Several physical barriers present challenging crossings in the study area, reducing mobility for pedestrians and cyclists. The barriers include US-101, Interstate 380, and State Highway 82 (El Camino Real) as well as Colma Creek and Caltrain’s right of way. See the map in Figure 12, which visualizes these barriers across the CBTP Study Area. Some of these are impassable outside of designated crossings while some are more permeable but involve a high-stress and time-consuming crossing.

Figure 10: Existing Bicycle Networks in South San Francisco and San Bruno Source: C/CAG Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan

Figure 11: Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network in San Bruno (2016) Source: City of San Bruno Walk n Bike Plan, p.83

Figure 12: Travel Barriers in the CBTP Study Area

Key Recommendations from Relevant Plans
The previous South San Francisco/San Bruno Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) included a strategy aimed at improving pedestrian amenities. Since the previous CBTP was developed in 2012, South San Francisco upgraded El Camino Real between the BART station and Arroyo Drive and will be launching a study of additional improvements. San Bruno and South San Francisco are also in the process of planning access improvements around the San Bruno BART Station along Huntington Avenue and Sneath Lane. In addition to the goals set forth in the 2022 Active South City Plan, the South San Francisco General Plan proposes policies to improve pedestrian connections and sidewalks and expand pedestrian amenities such as street furniture and lighting. The Lindenville Specific Plan also envisions a network of connected trails, greenways, and open spaces, that would enhance the pedestrian experience in much of South San Francisco.

Figure 13: Lindenville Specific Plan, Parks and Open Space Framework Source: Lindenville Specific Plan, 2023, p.101. Lindenville Specific Plan – Shape South San Francisco

The San Bruno Walk ‘n Bike Plan sets the goal of making walking more pleasant and convenient by filling existing sidewalk gaps, removing pedestrian obstacles, and providing more pedestrian amenities such as street lighting and benches. The Active South City Plan and the San Bruno Walk ‘n Bike Plan each identify intersections and corridors for pedestrian infrastructure improvements within the study area. Many of the pedestrian improvements along El Camino and San Bruno Avenue have since been implemented.

Figure 14: Proposed Pedestrian Projects, San Bruno Walk n Bike Plan Source: San Bruno Walk n Bike Plan, p. 72

Figure 15: Pedestrian Priority Areas, Active South City Plan Source: Active South City Plan, p. 58
In the previous CBTP, “Improve Bicycle Amenities” was also listed as a strategy. Since then, South San Francisco developed the Active South City Plan, and San Bruno developed the Walk n Bike Plan. The 2022 Active South City Plan sets goals to improve bicycle and pedestrian network connectivity to major transit stops and community destinations such as parks, schools, libraries, and community centers. The plan specifically identifies gaps in the network and recommends upgrading 29 miles of the network, for a full buildout milage of approximately 73 miles. The proposed bicycle network would include over 20 miles of Class IV separated bikeways. Within the study area, there are many corridors with proposed added and improved bicycle infrastructure, including upgraded Class IV separated bikeways on E. Grand Avenue, Utah Avenue, Airport Boulevard, El Camino Real, Sister Cities Boulevard, and Chestnut Avenue.

The City of San Bruno Walk ‘n Bike plan set a goal of creating a bicycle network that connects residents to destinations within and beyond San Bruno, including downtown, rail transit stations, schools, parks, and other key destinations. The plan identifies a total of 53 corridors for bike network expansion, including several proposed Class III bike routes along Euclid Avenue, Angus Avenue, Mastick Avenue, and San Mateo Avenue within the study area. These would all intersect with the existing bike lanes on the Huntington/San Antonio corridor, which the city is in the process of upgrading to a Class IV bikeway.

Transit Service and Ridership
Service Coverage
The following transit operators serve the study area, offering rail, bus, shuttle, and ferry services, illustrated in the map in Figure 16.

Rail
BART provides regional rail service between the East Bay, San Francisco, and San Mateo County. The South San Francisco, San Bruno, and San Francisco International Airport stations are within a mile of the study area. Two BART lines serve the South San Francisco, San Bruno, and San Francisco International Airport Stations: the Yellow Line connecting Antioch with San Francisco International Airport, and the Red Line connecting Richmond and Millbrae. Both lines travel to the East Bay via San Francsico. The Yellow line operates every 15 minutes throughout the day, and the Red Line has 20-minute headways.

Caltrain provides passenger rail service on the Peninsula between San Francisco and San José, and limited service to Morgan Hill and Gilroy during weekday commute periods. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station serves local, limited, and express trains, with approximately 15-minute headways during peak times and 30-minute headways during off-peak times in both the northbound and southbound directions.

The San Bruno Caltrain Station serves local trains, with 30-minute headways throughout the day in both the northbound and southbound directions. The Caltrain stations are both within the study area.

Bus
SamTrans is the regional bus provider for San Mateo County. Several routes connect the study area to Palo Alto, Daly City, and downtown San Francisco. SamTrans routes that serve the study area include the those listed in the chart in Figure 17 on the next page. Figure 18 illustrates SamTrans stop locations by the average number of weekly boardings, taken from data collected in August 2024. The bus stops with the greatest number of boardings include BART stops in South San Francisco and San Bruno, and several stops in downtown South San Francisco.

Ferry
The Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) provides weekday commuter ferry service between the Oakland/Alameda ferry terminals and the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal. There are three morning departures from Oakland/Alameda to South San Francisco, and three evening departures from South San Francisco to Oakland/Alameda.

Figure 16: Transit Service in the CBTP Study Area
Sources: GTFS; SamTrans; BART; Commute.org

Figure 17: SamTrans Bus Routes with Service in the CBTP Study Area Route Hours of Service
Route 41 (Parkside IL – San Bruno BART) School-Oriented Service Route 130 (Daly City BART - Airport &
Linden/Oyster Point)
Weekdays: Operates between 5:00 AM and 12:04 AM
with 10- to 15-minute peak hour headways
Weekends: Operates between 6:00 AM and 10:25 PM
with 15-minute peak hour headways
Route 138 (Safe Harbor Shelter) Limited outbound AM service and inbound PM service on weekdays and weekends
Route 141 (Airport/Linden - Skyline College) Weekdays and Weekends: Operates between 6:15 AM and 10:48 PM with 30-minute peak hour headways
Route 142 (SFO - Shelter Creek) Weekdays and Weekends: Operates between 6:02 AM and 6:21 PM with 60-minute peak hour headways
Route 292 (San Francisco - SFO - Hillsdale Mall) Weekdays: Operates 24 hours per day with 20-minute peak hour headways
Weekends: Operates between 4:00 AM and 2:52 AM
with 30-minute peak hour headways
Route 397 (San Francisco - Palo Alto Transit Ctr) Weekdays and Weekends: Overnight service with 40 – 60-minute headways
Route ECR (Daly City BART - Palo Alto Transit Ctr) Weekdays: Operates between 5:00 AM and 2:00 AM with 15-minute peak hour headways
Weekends: Operates between 4:50 AM and 2:20 AM
with 15-minute peak hour headways
Route EPX (East Palo Alto - San Bruno BART and
San Francisco)
Weekdays: Operates between 5:05 AM and 8:15 PM
with 40- to 50-minute headways
Source: SamTrans
Shuttle
The City of South San Francisco operates three free shuttles: the Western Shuttle Route (Orange Route), the Clockwise Shuttle Route (Blue Route), and the Counterclockwise Shuttle Route (Green Route). The Orange Route offers connections between the Serramonte Center, South San Francisco BART/Route 130, schools, and parks. The Blue and Green Routes connect with South San Francisco BART/Route 130, Route ECR, City Hall, medical facilities, recreation facilities, schools, and parks.

Commute.org operates seven shuttle routes in the South San Francisco study area that connect various employment centers in the area east of US-101 to the South San Francisco BART and Caltrain stations and the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal. The shuttle routes include One Tower Place, Oyster Point BART, Oyster Point Caltrain, Oyster Point Ferry, Utah-Grand ABRT, Utah-Grand Caltrain, and Utah-Grand Ferry.

Oyster Point Mobility provides commuting options in the Oyster Point area of South San Francisco, offering connections to BART, Caltrain, and the SF Bay Ferry at the Oyster Point Marina Terminal.

Figure 18: SamTrans Transit Stops by Average Weekly Boardings, August 2024 Source: SamTrans

Service Gaps
While there are a number of transit options available in and around the study area, several factors limit their impact on residents’ mobility. First, due to the high number of transit providers, service in the area is not always well integrated, and a single trip often involves navigating more than one system. Additionally, many of the providers primarily serve traditional commuters, so service is sparser during off-peak hours, including the middle of the day and later in the evening.

The focus on commuters is also reflected in the imbalance between the prevalence of north-south routes, which connect the study area to San Francisco and the South Bay, and the relative lack of east-west routes, which enable trips between the study area and the surrounding communities. Finally, the same physical barriers which limit pedestrian and bicycle mobility also limit residents’ access to transit. These include the freeways running through the study area, Colma Creek, and Caltrain’s right of way.

Key Recommendations from Relevant Plans
Several local plans have implications for the future of transit in the study area. The previous South San Francisco/San Bruno CBTP identified several strategies related to transit improvements, including improving stop amenities and security, improving affordability of transit, increasing SamTrans bus service, improving connectivity of existing service, and enhancing access to the South San Francisco Caltrain station. Programs such as the free South City Shuttle have supported the implementation of some of these strategies. Since that time the South San Francisco Caltrain station has been relocated to connect directly with Grand Avenue and E. Grand Avenue for easier access and a more open, pleasant rider experience on the platforms.

The 2022 Shape South San Francisco General Plan includes recommended actions to improve station access, leverage employee transportation demand management programs, and implement transit improvements including transit signal priority, bus bulb outs, and bus-only lanes on transit priority corridors. The 2013 San Bruno Transit Corridors Plan lays out a vision of the city’s commercial corridors that are accessible by transit and full of more dense, mixed-use land uses. Key transit recommendations identified in the Corridors Plan include implementing a circulator shuttle route, enhancing bus shelters and waiting areas, and promoting opportunities to increase transit ridership.

Additionally, as a result of the Reimagine SamTrans project, SamTrans finished implementing an updated bus network in August 2024. The new network includes improved frequency, expanded service hours, more direct routes, new connections, and a new on-demand service. SamTrans also initiated the Bus Stop Improvement Plan (BSIP) in 2022 to enhance the bus stop experience for all customers by upgrading amenities and facilities. This included changing stop locations and consolidating bus stops on El Camino Real to improve service travel times.

Traffic Hotspots and Vehicle Volumes
Due in part to the study area’s location on the peninsula between San Francisco and Silicon Valley, several heavily trafficked arterials and freeways run through it. US-101, CA-82 (El Camino Real), and I-380 all increase access to regional destinations for residents of the study area. They also enable vehicle travel to and from adjacent employment centers such as the East of 101 employment area and San Francisco International Airport. While these freeways improve mobility for study area residents, their high levels of vehicle traffic also bring negative consequences to the area. The map in Figure 19 shows the traffic volumes during afternoon peak hour travel in the CBTP Study Area.

Several portions of the study area have disproportionately high pollution burdens from diesel particulate matter and congestion, two pollution sources that stem from the area’s industrial and logistics uses and its proximity to high-volume roadways. The high proportion of freight truck traffic traveling to, from, and through the area disperse diesel particulate matter, and exhaust from non-diesel vehicles contains many toxic chemicals that may pose health risks to the study area’s residents and workers. Based on these and other socio-economic factors, Caltrans has identified the portions of the study area west of US-101 as Transportation-Based Priority Populations, meaning that residents in those areas are most burdened by the transportation system and receive the fewest benefits from it. See the Caltrans Transportation Equity Index (EQI) map in Figure 20 which illustrates these communities in the CBTP Study Area.

Another local transportation burden is the congestion caused by the high traffic volumes on adjacent freeways. During the afternoon peak period (4-6pm), US-101 and I-380 both experience congested conditions, most notably at the interchange between the two freeways. Traffic congestion on US-101 also backs up onto the roadways near its on and off ramps, including Linden Avenue and Grand Avenue to the west and East Grand Avenue and Gateway Boulevard to the east.

Key Recommendations and Actions from Relevant Plans
South San Francisco, in their 2040 General Plan, Shape SSF, identified congestion as a potential hindrance to economic growth of the city, as it could deter commercial and residential growth. The plan identifies that traffic congestion could particularly threaten growth of the East of 101 portion of the study area where many jobs are distant from Caltrain. However, the city has begun to address this issue by partnering with large employers in the area, including Genentech, to implement transportation demand management measures such as commute shuttles. At the time of the writing of the general plan, South San Francisco was also working to establish a community facilities district to fund transportation and infrastructure upgrades in the East of 101 area. Shape SSF also identifies walkable station areas and first/last mile options as critical to reducing congestion and improving the overall transportation system in South San Francisco. These improvements are particularly importation for the East of 101 and Lindenville areas where buses and shuttles provide reliable connections and can substantially reduce burdens from traffic congestion and delays.

Figure 19: Traffic Volumes in the CBTP Study Area
Source: South San Francisco Sub Area Model

Figure 20: Caltrans Transportation Equity Index (EQI) in the CBTP Study Area

Source: Caltrans Transportation Equity Index (EQI) Caltrans Transportation Equity Index (EQI) Version 1.0 Web Map

Roadway Safety
Extensive roadway safety planning has been conducted in South San Francisco and San Bruno and both cities have Local Roadway Safety Plans (LRSP) that identify collision patterns and trends as well as recommended safety interventions. South San Francisco and San Bruno have both identified high injury networks in previous planning documents, as displayed in the maps which follow below in Figures 21 and

22. These networks represent roadway segments and intersections in each city that pose the highest safety risks.

In San Bruno, the high injury network accounts for 55 percent of injury collisions and 83 percent of fatal or seriously injured collisions between 2015 and 2019. In South San Francisco, the high injury network accounts for 75 percent of injury collisions between 2015 and 2019, with greater weight being assigned to collisions that resulted in a fatality or serious injury. Focusing safety improvements along these corridors would have the highest level of impact.

Key Recommendations and Actions from Relevant Plans
The LRSP for each city identifies priority roadway segments and intersections for future roadway safety improvements. In San Bruno, many of the priority intersections are concentrated along El Camino Real and San Bruno Avenue, both of which run through the study area. Safety projects, including intersection improvements at both signalized and unsignalized intersections (installing raised pavement and striping, advanced stop bars, and RRFBs) and roadway segment improvements (installing separated bike lanes) are identified for many intersections and segments throughout San Bruno, including several intersections along El Camino Real. In South San Francisco, the priority intersections within the study area include:
• Linden Avenue and Grand Avenue,
• Grand Avenue and Spruce Avenue,
• Spruce Avenue and North Canal Street,
• Commercial Avenue and Chestnut Avenue, and
• Shaw Road and San Mateo Avenue.

The South San Francisco 2040 General Plan Shape SSF and LRSP identify broad policies and actions that the city can take to enhance safety for all road users. Shape SSF discusses improving safety for pedestrians and cyclists by enhancing street crossings at key locations like El Camino Real and near the South San Francisco BART station. The city plans to implement measures such as median refuges, bulb-outs, highly visible crosswalks, and flashing beacons to increase safety at intersections throughout the city.

Additionally, there is a broader effort to reduce vehicle speeds and implement traffic calming measures across the city to decrease the frequency and severity of collisions, with an emphasis on high-risk areas like school zones and streets with vulnerable users. South San Francisco has also developed an action item to develop a Vision Zero Action Plan, which is consistent across Shape SSF and their LRSP.

Figure 21: City of South San Francisco, High Injury Network Source: Shape SSF

Figure 22: City of San Bruno High Injury Network
Source: City of San Bruno, Local Roadway Safety Plan, p.33

Appendix: CBTP Community Area
Data Profiles

Data Sources
The source data for the profiles on the following pages are from U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates data tables used by the MTC to determine where census tracts met the designation of Equity Priority Area Community. These sources are:
• "Demographic and Housing Estimates." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles, Table DP05, 2012 and 2022
• “Median Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2022/2012 Inflation adjusted dollars).” American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles, Table S1903, 2022 • “Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months.” American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables, Table S1701, 2022
• “Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months of Families by Family Type by Work Experience of Householder and Spouse.” American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles, Detailed Table B17016, 2022
• "Disability Characteristics." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables, Table S1810, 2022
• "Language Spoken at Home for the Population 5 Years and Over." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Detailed Tables, Table C16001, 2022 • "Household Size by Vehicles Available." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Tables, Table B08201, 2022
• "Commuting Characteristics by Sex." American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Tables, Table S801, 2022

Total San Bruno – South San Francisco CBTP Study Area
Community Data Points (U.S. Census, ACS 5-year estimates, 2022) Number % Total Population 24,012
Total Households 7,743
Total Single Parent Families 1,790 34.2%
Household Median Income $104,458
Residents with incomes 200% of poverty threshold 5,325 22.3% Single Parent Families below poverty 298 5.7%
Rent-burdened households (30% or more of income toward housing costs) 2,816 54.4% Severely rent-burdened households (50% or more toward housing costs) 1,653 31.9% Non-white residents 17,625 73.4%
Latino or Hispanic 12,858 53.5%
Asian 6,121 25.5%
Chinese 1,780 7.4%
Filipino 2,350 9.8%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 1,562 6.5%
Black or African American 575 2.4%
American Indian or Alaska Native 485 2.0%
Speaks English less than very well (all residents) 7,066 30.9% Speaks Spanish at home 9,550 41.7%
Spanish speaker speaks English less than very well 4,828 50.6% Speaks Chinese (incl Mandarin, Cantonese) at home 1,405 6.1% Chinese speaker speaks English less than very well 750 53.4% Speaks Tagalog (incl. Filipino) at home 1,379 6.0%
Tagalog speaker speaks English less than very well 477 34.6% Residents 75 years of age and older 1,097 4.6%
Resident under 16 years old 4,326 18.0%
Residents with Disabilities 2,032 8.5%
Zero Vehicle Households 724 9.4%
Drives Alone to Work 7,923 58.9%
Carpools to Work 1,970 14.6%
Uses Public Transit to Work 1,204 8.9%
Walks to Work 462 3.4%
Bikes to Work 455 3.4%
Works From Home 1,213 9.0%
Mean Travel Time to Work, in minutes 20 to 24 mins
Works in City of Residence 4,142 30.8%
Works in San Mateo County 9,616 71.4%

San Bruno CBTP Area (Census Tracts 6041.03 and 6041.04) Community Data Points (U.S. Census, ACS 5-year estimates, 2022) Number % Total Population 8,206
Total Households 2,576
Total Single Parent Families 585 36.2%
Household Median Income $108,625
Residents with incomes 200% of poverty threshold 1,483 18.2% Single Parent Families below poverty 73 4.5%
Rent-burdened households (30% or more of income toward housing costs) 930 52.6% Severely rent-burdened households (50% or more toward housing costs) 680 38.4% Non-white residents 5,481 66.8%
Latino or Hispanic 4,650 56.7%
Asian 1,838 22.4%
Chinese 604 7.4%
Filipino 467 5.7%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 550 6.7%
Black or African American 0 0.0%
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0.0%
Speaks English less than very well (all residents) 2,979 37.6% Speaks Spanish at home 3,630 45.8%
Spanish speaker speaks English less than very well 2,217 61.1% Speaks Chinese (incl Mandarin, Cantonese) at home 440 5.6% Chinese speaker speaks English less than very well 243 55.2% Speaks Tagalog (incl. Filipino) at home 265 3.3%
Tagalog speaker speaks English less than very well 96 36.2% Residents 75 years of age and older 287 3.5%
Resident under 16 years old 1,417 17.3%
Residents with Disabilities 750 9.2%
Zero Vehicle Households 291 11.3%
Drives Alone to Work 3,248 66.4%
Carpools to Work 321 6.6%
Uses Public Transit to Work 403 8.2%
Walks to Work 161 3.3%
Bikes to Work 267 5.5%
Works From Home 338 6.9%
Mean Travel Time to Work, in minutes 20 to 24 mins
Works in City of Residence 1,527 31.2%
Works in San Mateo County 3,606 73.7%

San Bruno- Lomita Park (Census Tract 6041.03)
Community Data Points (U.S. Census, ACS 5-year estimates, 2022) Number % Total Population 4,344
Total Households 1,431
Total Single Parent Families 385 40.4%
Household Median Income $102,899
Residents with incomes 200% of poverty threshold 846 19.7% Single Parent Families below poverty 73 7.7%
Rent-burdened households (30% or more of income toward housing costs) 497 50.5% Severely rent-burdened households (50% or more toward housing costs) 415 42.2% Non-white residents 2,785 64.1%
Latino or Hispanic 2,505 57.7%
Asian 1,092 25.1%
Chinese 386 8.9%
Filipino 306 7.0%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 171 3.9%
Black or African American 0 0.0%
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0.0%
Speaks English less than very well (all residents) 1,514 36.2% Speaks Spanish at home 1,860 44.5%
Spanish speaker speaks English less than very well 1,003 53.9% Speaks Chinese (incl Mandarin, Cantonese) at home 344 8.2% Chinese speaker speaks English less than very well 176 51.2% Speaks Tagalog (incl. Filipino) at home 212 5.1%
Tagalog speaker speaks English less than very well 96 45.3% Residents 75 years of age and older 217 5.0%
Resident under 16 years old 940 21.6%
Residents with Disabilities 378 8.7%
Zero Vehicle Households 242 16.9%
Drives Alone to Work 1,879 75.4%
Carpools to Work 177 7.1%
Uses Public Transit to Work 192 7.7%
Walks to Work 65 2.6%
Bikes to Work 10 0.4%
Works From Home 130 5.2%
Mean Travel Time to Work, in minutes 24
Works in City of Residence 628 25.2%
Works in San Mateo County 1,705 68.4%

San Bruno- San Bruno Park and Downtown San Bruno (Census Tract 6041.04)
Community Data Points (U.S. Census, ACS 5-year estimates, 2022) Number % Total Population 3,862
Total Households 1,145
Total Single Parent Families 200 30.3%
Household Median Income $115,781
Residents with incomes 200% of poverty threshold 637 16.7% Single Parent Families below poverty 0 0.0%
Rent-burdened households (30% or more of income toward housing costs) 433 55.2% Severely rent-burdened households (50% or more toward housing costs) 265 33.8% Non-white residents 2,696 69.8%
Latino or Hispanic 2,145 55.5%
Asian 746 19.3%
Chinese 218 5.6%
Filipino 161 4.2%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 379 9.8%
Black or African American 0 0.0%
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0.0%
Speaks English less than very well (all residents) 1,465 39.1% Speaks Spanish at home 1,770 47.3%
Spanish speaker speaks English less than very well 1,214 68.6% Speaks Chinese (incl Mandarin, Cantonese) at home 96 2.6% Chinese speaker speaks English less than very well 67 69.8% Speaks Tagalog (incl. Filipino) at home 53 1.4%
Tagalog speaker speaks English less than very well 0 0.0% Residents 75 years of age and older 70 1.8%
Resident under 16 years old 477 12.4%
Residents with Disabilities 372 9.7%
Zero Vehicle Households 49 4.3%
Drives Alone to Work 1,369 57.1%
Carpools to Work 144 6.0%
Uses Public Transit to Work 211 8.8%
Walks to Work 96 4.0%
Bikes to Work 257 10.7%
Works From Home 209 8.7%
Mean Travel Time to Work, in minutes 17.2
Works in City of Residence 899 37.5%
Works in San Mateo County 1,902 79.3%

South San Francisco CBTP Area (Census Tracts 6021, 6022.01, 6022.02, 6023)
Community Data Points (U.S. Census, ACS 5-year estimates, 2022) Number % Total Population 15,806
Total Households 5,167
Total Single Parent Families 1,205 33.3%
Household Median Income $102,380
Residents with incomes 200% of poverty threshold 3,842 24.3% Single Parent Families below poverty 225 6.2%
Rent-burdened households (30% or more of income toward housing costs) 1,886 55.3% Severely rent-burdened households (50% or more toward housing costs) 973 28.6% Non-white residents 12,144 76.8%
Latino or Hispanic 8,208 51.9%
Asian 4,283 27.1%
Chinese 1,176 7.4%
Filipino 1,883 11.9%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 1,012 6.4%
Black or African American 575 3.6%
American Indian or Alaska Native 485 3.1%
Speaks English less than very well (all residents) 4,087 27.3% Speaks Spanish at home 5,920 39.6%
Spanish speaker speaks English less than very well 2,611 44.1% Speaks Chinese (incl Mandarin, Cantonese) at home 965 6.5% Chinese speaker speaks English less than very well 507 52.5% Speaks Tagalog (incl. Filipino) at home 1,114 7.4%
Tagalog speaker speaks English less than very well 381 34.2% Residents 75 years of age and older 810 5.1%
Resident under 16 years old 2,909 18.4%
Residents with Disabilities 1,282 8.1%
Zero Vehicle Households 433 8.4%
Drives Alone to Work 4,675 54.5%
Carpools to Work 1,650 19.2%
Uses Public Transit to Work 801 9.3%
Walks to Work 301 3.5%
Bikes to Work 188 2.2%
Works From Home 875 10.2%
Mean Travel Time to Work, in minutes 20 to 24 mins
Works in City of Residence 2,614 30.5%
Works in San Mateo County 6,010 70.1%

South San Francisco- Paradise Valley (Census Tract 6021) Community Data Points (U.S. Census, ACS 5-year estimates, 2022) Number % Total Population 3,484
Total Households 1,007
Total Single Parent Families 312 42.8%
Household Median Income $87,853
Residents with incomes 200% of poverty threshold 1,066 30.7% Single Parent Families below poverty 51 7.0%
Rent-burdened households (30% or more of income toward housing costs) 406 57.0% Severely rent-burdened households (50% or more toward housing costs) 209 29.4% Non-white residents 2,860 82.1%
Latino or Hispanic 2,174 62.4%
Asian 724 20.8%
Chinese 319 9.2%
Filipino 287 8.2%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 124 3.6%
Black or African American 178 5.1%
American Indian or Alaska Native 120 3.4%
Speaks English less than very well (all residents) 1,222 36.6% Speaks Spanish at home 1,729 51.8%
Spanish speaker speaks English less than very well 867 50.1% Speaks Chinese (incl Mandarin, Cantonese) at home 194 5.8% Chinese speaker speaks English less than very well 134 69.1% Speaks Tagalog (incl. Filipino) at home 212 6.3%
Tagalog speaker speaks English less than very well 76 35.8% Residents 75 years of age and older 93 2.7%
Resident under 16 years old 668 19.2%
Residents with Disabilities 309 8.9%
Zero Vehicle Households 68 6.8%
Drives Alone to Work 951 53.6%
Carpools to Work 374 21.1%
Uses Public Transit to Work 224 12.6%
Walks to Work 43 2.4%
Bikes to Work 62 3.5%
Works From Home 112 6.3%
Mean Travel Time to Work, in minutes 26.6
Works in City of Residence 596 33.6%
Works in San Mateo County 1,192 67.2%

South San Francisco- 6022.01
Community Data Points (U.S. Census, ACS 5-year estimates, 2022) Number % Total Population 4,761
Total Households 1,747
Total Single Parent Families 241 23.5%
Household Median Income $82,015
Residents with incomes 200% of poverty threshold 1,222 25.7% Single Parent Families below poverty 13 1.3%
Rent-burdened households (30% or more of income toward housing costs) 831 58.9% Severely rent-burdened households (50% or more toward housing costs) 430 30.5% Non-white residents 2,820 59.2%
Latino or Hispanic 2,238 47.0%
Asian 1,212 25.5%
Chinese 317 6.7%
Filipino 513 10.8%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 78 1.6%
Black or African American 150 3.2%
American Indian or Alaska Native 244 5.1%
Speaks English less than very well (all residents) 1,121 25.7% Speaks Spanish at home 1,470 33.7%
Spanish speaker speaks English less than very well 610 41.5% Speaks Chinese (incl Mandarin, Cantonese) at home 339 7.8% Chinese speaker speaks English less than very well 123 36.3% Speaks Tagalog (incl. Filipino) at home 317 7.3%
Tagalog speaker speaks English less than very well 118 37.2% Residents 75 years of age and older 304 6.4%
Resident under 16 years old 1,099 23.1%
Residents with Disabilities 352 7.4%
Zero Vehicle Households 166 9.5%
Drives Alone to Work 1,241 51.7%
Carpools to Work 387 16.1%
Uses Public Transit to Work 274 11.4%
Walks to Work 0 0.0%
Bikes to Work 77 3.2%
Works From Home 389 16.2%
Mean Travel Time to Work, in minutes 25.5
Works in City of Residence 634 26.4%
Works in San Mateo County 1,618 67.4%

South San Francisco- 6022.02
Community Data Points (U.S. Census, ACS 5-year estimates, 2022) Number % Total Population 3,142
Total Households 1,127
Total Single Parent Families 167 21.4%
Household Median Income $86,491
Residents with incomes 200% of poverty threshold 636 20.2% Single Parent Families below poverty 64 8.2%
Rent-burdened households (30% or more of income toward housing costs) 478 53.8% Severely rent-burdened households (50% or more toward housing costs) 249 28.0% Non-white residents 2,755 87.7%
Latino or Hispanic 1,894 60.3%
Asian 924 29.4%
Chinese 304 9.7%
Filipino 425 13.5%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0 0.0%
Black or African American 82 2.6%
American Indian or Alaska Native 88 2.8%
Speaks English less than very well (all residents) 1,076 35.7% Speaks Spanish at home 1,562 51.8%
Spanish speaker speaks English less than very well 836 53.5% Speaks Chinese (incl Mandarin, Cantonese) at home 256 8.5% Chinese speaker speaks English less than very well 179 69.9% Speaks Tagalog (incl. Filipino) at home 252 8.4%
Tagalog speaker speaks English less than very well 61 24.2% Residents 75 years of age and older 180 5.7%
Resident under 16 years old 429 13.7%
Residents with Disabilities 298 9.5%
Zero Vehicle Households 142 12.6%
Drives Alone to Work 986 53.0%
Carpools to Work 465 25.0%
Uses Public Transit to Work 99 5.3%
Walks to Work 188 10.1%
Bikes to Work 32 1.7%
Works From Home 52 2.8%
Mean Travel Time to Work, in minutes 22.8
Works in City of Residence 748 40.2%
Works in San Mateo County 1,352 72.7%

South San Francisco- 6023
Community Data Points (U.S. Census, ACS 5-year estimates, 2022) Number % Total Population 4,419
Total Households 1,286
Total Single Parent Families 485 44.8%
Household Median Income $155,345
Residents with incomes 200% of poverty threshold 918 20.8% Single Parent Families below poverty 97 9.0%
Rent-burdened households (30% or more of income toward housing costs) 171 43.1% Severely rent-burdened households (50% or more toward housing costs) 85 21.4% Non-white residents 3,709 83.9%
Latino or Hispanic 1,902 43.0%
Asian 1,423 32.2%
Chinese 236 5.3%
Filipino 658 14.9%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 810 18.3%
Black or African American 165 3.7%
American Indian or Alaska Native 33 0.7%
Speaks English less than very well (all residents) 668 15.7% Speaks Spanish at home 1,159 27.3%
Spanish speaker speaks English less than very well 298 25.7% Speaks Chinese (incl Mandarin, Cantonese) at home 176 4.1% Chinese speaker speaks English less than very well 71 40.3% Speaks Tagalog (incl. Filipino) at home 333 7.8%
Tagalog speaker speaks English less than very well 126 37.8% Residents 75 years of age and older 233 5.3%
Resident under 16 years old 713 16.1%
Residents with Disabilities 323 7.3%
Zero Vehicle Households 57 4.4%
Drives Alone to Work 1,497 59.0%
Carpools to Work 424 16.7%
Uses Public Transit to Work 205 8.1%
Walks to Work 71 2.8%
Bikes to Work 18 0.7%
Works From Home 322 12.7%
Mean Travel Time to Work, in minutes 27.1
Works in City of Residence 637 25.1%
Works in San Mateo County 1,847 72.8%
San Bruno South San Francisco CBTP (2012)
Review of Implementation of Transportation Strategies Action Plan Strategy Description Expected Outcomes Lead Agency Partners Completed,
Ongoing, Not
Started Status/Follow up Needed
Improve Transit Stop Amenities
and Security
Provide amenities at transit stops and stations to
enhance the comfort and safety of transit users.

Additional shelters and other amenities proposed at
~19 locations in study area in SSF; 5 in study area in
San Bruno along ECR SamTrans
Caltrans for stops on
El Camino; cities have
responsibilty for many
bus stop elements Ongoing
SamTrans to implement bus shelters beginning with
priority stops identified in its Bus Stop Improvement
Plan. [includes 27 in City of SSF and 14 in City of SB
(https://www.samtrans.com/media/33311)]
Improve Affordability of Public
Transit for Low-Income Users
Expand pass and discount fare programs available to
low income transit riders, especially those who have
to transfer once or more during travel.

Reduce transit costs for low-income riders, especially
those who have to ride multiple buses to complete
trip. MTC, HSA SamTrans Ongoing
South San Francisco launched the free South City
Shuttle for local trips. MTC has also rolled out Clipper Start for discounted bus and rail fares. However,
Clipper Start adoption has been low due to
compexities of eligibility and sign up. Fare coordination discussions are ongoing at the regional level.

Improve Bicycle Amenities
Improve safety and access for bicyclists by: expanding
bicycle network; providing additional bike parking near transit stops and stations; providing more bike storage on transit vehicles.

More bicycle services would expand low income
residents' access to transit stations and other near
destinations
San Bruno, South San
Francisco, C/CAG,
SamTrans, BART,
Caltrain MTC for Bay Trail Ongoing
San Bruno: developed Walk n Bike Plan (2016)
including proposed additions to Bicycle network, need
info on implementation
SSF - Planning: Adopted Active South City Plan in 2022; Local Roadway Safety Plan in 2022; City Council
adopted a Vision Zero Policy, and the City was just this week! awarded $440K in SS4A funds to develop a
Vision Zero Action Plan.

Provide Free or Low Cost Bicycles
Partner with CBOs to develop, enhance or expand a
bicycle donation program
Improve mobility of low-income population by
providing free or low-cost bicycles to those in need
City of South San
Franciso; CBOs
(Silicon Valley Bicycle
Coalition?)
Thrive Alliance, bike
shops and
committees, Social
Service, Community
orgs listed as potential
partners Ongoing
City of SSF has a "Every Kid Deserves a Bike Program"
which gave out 150 bicycles in 2022, and 350 in 2023.

Operated by the City Manager's Office. Bike share
program briefly existed in 2017 in SSF (Lime/Spin) but
was not financially sustainable. CCAG continuing to
evaluate micromobility options.

Peninsula Clean Energy has an e-bike rebate of up to
$1,000.

Improve Pedestrian Amenities
Suggested improvements to pedestrian safety and
access at key locations across study area using traffic calming techniques, closing gaps in pedestrian
network and installing landscaping
Provide traffic calming activities at key intersections in SB and SSF, along El Camino Real and near BART
stations; address identified gaps in pedestrian
network; improve street crossings, add landscaping or
sidewalk ramps at recommended locations
San Bruno, South San
Francisco Ongoing
SSF upgraded El Camino Real between BART Station
and Arroyo Drive and will be launching a study of
additional improvements. San Bruno and SSF planning
access improvements around San Bruno BART Station
along Huntington and Sneath.

Increase Public Access to
Information about Transportation
Options
Improvements to education, information and outreach
related to transit to address residents' needs for
information and info availabilty related to transit
schedules, bicycle use and safety, driver education
and sharing the road, info and incentives related to
carpooling and carshare programs
Create/expand educational Mobility Ambassador
programs; conduct targeted outreach with CBOs that
serve low income residents; provide SamTrans
schedule information at bus stops CBOs, SamTrans
CBOs, SamTrans,
BART, adult schools,
community colleges,
churches, HAS
Completed and
Ongoing
Mobility Ambassadors, How to Ride and Senior Mobility
Guides on samtrans website. SSF webpage on the Free
South City Shuttle. SamTrans team requests their
creative services team be invited to hear feedback from community related to information.

Appendix B
San Bruno South San Francisco CBTP (2012)
Review of Implementation of Transportation Strategies Action Plan Strategy Description Expected Outcomes Lead Agency Partners Completed,
Ongoing, Not
Started Status/Follow up Needed
Increase SamTrans Bus Service
Increase frequency and service hours of SamTrans
bus service to address resident needs, including more
frequent service, additional service on
nights/weekends
Increased service frequency on SamTrans routes
390/391, 292, 122; provide additional late night,
weekend and special event service on selected routes
(extended Sunday service: 130, 132, 133; weekend
and holiday service to senior centers, library and key
communities, weekend service on 141, 24 hour
service on selected routes. SamTrans
Changes and
updates
ongoing
SamTrans cut service in SSF and San Bruno in 2013.

The South City Shuttle partially backfilled these service cuts. Reimagine SamTrans incrementally expanded
service in 2022 but service levels have not reached the targets identified in the CBTP.

Improve Connectivity of Existing
Transit Service
Improved connections between SamTrans routes,
coordination with regularly scheduled events like end
of school day, and timed connections with Caltrain
and BART
Improved connectivity between SamTrans routes and
San Bruno BART and CalTrain Station by timing
connections for arrivals and departures; include a
direct connection between SamTrans routes and SSF
CalTrain station; timed connections at end of high
school days which match student departure times;
timed connections for SamTrans routes 141 and
390/391 SamTrans Ongoing
Schedules are not timed due to inconsistency of
Caltrain service and low frequency of SamTrans
service. Upcoming service expansion due to Caltrain
Electrification presents opportunities for improved
transfers.

Improve Access to the South San
Francisco Caltrain Station
Improved access at stations is needed for seniors,
people with disabilities, bicyclists and pedestrians;
Provide safety and wayfinding improvements,
including redesign to link to Grand Ave and downtown
SSF, ADA compliance, accomodation for shuttle
services; add sidewalks and bicycle lanes in
immediate vicinity of station
CalTrain, South San
Francisco Completed
Station was relocated in 2021; the new station includes direct entrances to downtown and East Grand Avenue.

The City is continuing to work on access
improvements along Airport Boulevard and east of 101.

SSF: In a few weeks, the City will be opening the new
Karyl Matsumoto Plaza, the new plaza at the SSF
Caltrain station
Prepared by MIG, Inc. with Fehr & Peers 1
San Bruno / South San Francisco
Community-Based Transportation Plan Update
Task 3.1: Review of Updates to Specific Intersections named in the 2012 CBTP Action Plan
The lists below include corridors and intersections recommended by community members as areas in need of additional bicycle and/or pedestrian amenities and improvements. MIG and Fehr and Peers reviewed available datasets including the street views on Google and Bing search engine maps and the San Mateo County Bicycle Facilities GIS dataset for updates to these corridors and intersections. An in-person review of existing facilities and improvements should be included during engagement and/or before this plan update is finalized.

Strategy 3: Improve bicycle amenities (p.43-44)
List of streets identified for consideration by residents for Class II bicycle lanes (painted stripe bike lane at side of road):

A. Huntington Avenue/San Antonio Avenue in San Bruno: newly created facilities along the corridor, in GIS dataset (2024)
B. Grand Ave, SSF: bike facilities in portions of Grand Avenue east of 101 and west of Spruce Avenue (GIS dataset, 2024)
C. West Orange Ave, SSF: class 2 along orange memorial park, recent facilities extend beyond park in both directions (GIS dataset)
D. San Bruno Ave, San Bruno: no visible bike facilities in study area (2022 and 2023 Map Streetview review and GIS dataset)
E. ECR in SSF and San Bruno: Class II lanes north of Westborough Blvd in SSF, none are visible south of Westborough and into San Bruno (2022 and 2023 Map Streetview review)
F. Airport Blvd to Caltrain, SSF: bike facilities on Airport Boulevard north of the Caltrain station (2022 and 2023 Map Streetview review and GIS dataset, 2024) Prepared by MIG, Inc. with Fehr & Peers 2
Strategy 5: Improve pedestrian amenities (p.48-49)
Several intersections in South San Francisco and San Bruno identified by residents and in the 2012 action plan as in need of specific types of upgrades. The list below reviews these intersections and locations, and the types of improvements recommended and provides updates as available to each. Review did not include suggestions for traffic calming and improved crossings at “various locations along ECR.”
I. Traffic calming techniques:

San Bruno
A. 2nd Avenue and San Bruno Avenue
o None visible (2022); pedestrian yield sign on San Bruno crosswalks B. 7th and Pine Street
o None visible (2022). No visible crosswalks
C. Green Avenue and San Bruno Avenue
o None visible (2022). Crosswalks (white lines)
D. Huntington Avenue/San Antonio Avenue
o Expanded median (with missing bollards) at stop sign on San Antonio Ave south of Huntington. No visible crosswalks (2022)
E. BART Stations
o Bart San Bruno: Median barriers
o Bart SSF: Chicanes and medians on Colma Creek, N of Station; none visible on Mission Ave
South San Francisco
F. Grand Avenue and Linden Avenue
o Bulb outs on Grand Ave W and E of Linden; brick crosswalk (2022) G. West Orange Avenue and Tennis Drive
o None visible (2022); “ped crossing” paint, white crosswalk with diagonal lines on W Orange at Orange Memorial Park
H. Airport Boulevard to Caltrain
o Sidewalk with barrier along Grand between Airport and Caltrain I. Baden Avenue and Chestnut Avenue
o None visible, no crosswalks
J. Baden Avenue and Linden Avenue
o Bulb out on Linden Ave, NE of intersection with Baden at bench K. El Camino Real and the areas surrounding BART stations were also identified for traffic calming.

Prepared by MIG, Inc. with Fehr & Peers 3
II. Gaps in the pedestrian network
A. Across U.S. Route 101 from downtown South San Francisco to the South San Francisco Caltrain station and east of U.S. Route 101 (South San Francisco) o Walking path and stairs along Grand
B. Westborough Boulevard between Camaritas Avenue and Junipero Serra Boulevard (South San Francisco – not in the study area)
C. El Camino Real from Hickey Boulevard to Serramonte Boulevard (South San Francisco – not in the study area)
III. Improved Street Crossings
A. El Camino Real and San Bruno Avenue (San Bruno)
o 6 lanes of traffic, white line crosswalks (2022 view) B. Green Avenue and San Bruno Avenue (San Bruno)
o White line crosswalks (2022 view)
C. Angus and 1st Avenue (San Bruno)
o White line crosswalks, painted “STOP” (2022 view)
D. Various locations across El Camino Real (San Bruno and South San Francisco) IV. Sidewalk landscaping and street trees needed
A. San Bruno Avenue (San Bruno) [notes heading west:]
o Median at Mills Ave – one tree
o Median at second Ave – one tree
o Single street trees along SB between Easton and ECR, no median or landscaping
o Median with street trees and landscaping between ECR and Elm B. Airport Boulevard and 2nd Lane (South San Francisco) o One tree, otherwise empty median, new construction in area (2022) C. Hillside Boulevard (South San Francisco)
o High vis cross walks at Arden, and nearby school crossing, bike lane, still need trees/landscaping near Paradise Valley Park
o New landscaping and trees in medians near hillside elementary D. 2nd Avenue (San Bruno) (out of current study area)
E. Hickey Boulevard (out of current study area)
San Bruno / South San Francisco
Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) Update
Community Engagement Summary
I. Needs Assessment Overview
Between November 2024 and June 2025, consultant staff from MIG and Redwood Resources partnered with the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (CCAG) to gather community input for San Bruno / South San Francisco Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP or Plan). The Plan will provide recommendations, including potential projects and programs, for how communities and transit agencies can help to improve access to transportation services and amenities, especially for residents more likely to use or need transit access, or those more likely to walk or bike. The Plan is focused on several key community areas within these two cities, identified by MTC as “Equity Priority Communities,” those with high numbers of potential transit-dependent residents, or key jurisdictions where expanded transportation access and programs would benefit residents with limited means.

The purpose of this engagement was to understand the transportation needs and priorities of residents in Equity Priority Communities (EPCs). These areas have a significant concentration of underserved populations, like households with low incomes, people of color, and a combination of additional factors. Feedback was collected through a combination of in-person and virtual methods, including stakeholder interviews, community focus groups, pop-up events, briefing sessions, and a paper survey. These activities enabled the project team to hear directly from community members about their transportation challenges and suggestions for improvements to transportation services in their community. Participants were also asked to identify any unsafe locations and key destinations they travel to in their neighborhoods and community.

Themes from the input are described in the summary below.

Much of this input was also geographically located onto a map of San Bruno / South San Francisco County and Equity Priority Communities. This can be accessed at:
https://bit.ly/46AYMCT.

A. Key Stakeholder Interviews
As a foundational step, the team identified and talked to representatives from five community organizations that have direct relationships with residents living in Equity Priority Communities (EPCs). These organizations were selected for their trusted roles within the community and their deep understanding of local needs.

Appendix C
San Bruno / South San Francisco Community-Based Transportation Plan Update 2 Community Engagement Summary MIG, Inc.

Through a series of one-on-one and small group interviews, representatives from these organizations shared insights that helped the team better understand the broader context of community life as well as the specific transportation challenges faced by EPC residents. These conversations shaped our understanding of both everyday barriers and opportunities for improvement.

The organizations interviewed included:

Low-Income, Homeless or Housing-Challenged, Environmental Justice • Nicolas Rackard-Hilt, Founder, San Bruno Healthy Homes • Julio Garcia, Rise South City
• Elida Valencia Sobalvarro, YMCA Resource Center
Small Businesses, Transit Station Neighbors
• Hermes Monzon, Brittany Burgo, and Dana Abarca, Friends of Old Town Bike Activists, Micro-Mobility Enthusiasts
• Matt Jones, Silicon Valley Bike Coalition
These interviews and conversations provided a comprehensive view of the transportation challenges faced by San Bruno / South San Francisco’s Equity Priority Communities.

Transit Affordability and Access
• Cost is a major barrier, especially for low-income residents and warehouse workers. • Loss of previous bus pass assistance programs has worsened access. • Infrequent or unreliable transit service makes commuting inefficient and especially difficult for residents with multiple jobs or family responsibilities.

Connectivity and Coverage Gaps
• Limited transit routes and first/last-mile connectivity force people to rely on cars. • Key locations like the YMCA Resource Center and food distribution sites are hard to access without a car.
• Underutilized free shuttle services due to poor promotion and lack of awareness.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Issues
• Poor walkability due to narrow or damaged sidewalks and unsafe crossings. • Lack of bike lanes and connectivity, particularly along major corridors and at key intersections (e.g., El Camino Real, San Bruno BART, San Mateo Avenue in San Bruno).
• Unsafe infrastructure deters walking and biking, especially for youth and seniors.

Transit Infrastructure Needs
San Bruno / South San Francisco Community-Based Transportation Plan Update 3 Community Engagement Summary MIG, Inc.
• More bus shelters with seating, lighting, and weather protection are needed— especially at key high-traffic stops.
• Improved wayfinding and signage can enhance user experience and safety.

Proposed Transportation Solutions
• Expand shuttle routes and improve frequency for buses and Caltrain. • Add dedicated bus lanes or BRT on corridors like El Camino Real. • Enhance bike and pedestrian infrastructure, including safer crossings, extended bike lanes, and sidewalk improvements.
• Improve connections between major transit hubs and underserved neighborhoods.

Geographic and Policy Considerations
• Community organization representatives urged the inclusion of East San Bruno and San Bruno Avenue in the study area due to upcoming redevelopment (e.g., Tanforan Mall).
• They also encouraged alignment with the San Bruno Transit Corridors Plan and soliciting input from advisory committees such as the South San Francisco Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) and San Bruno Complete Streets Committee.

B. Engaging Directly with Community Members
Pop ups, Trusted Messengers, Bilingualism
To effectively engage residents in San Bruno and South San Francisco—particularly those from historically underserved and transit-dependent communities—community representatives interviewed by the project team emphasized the importance of culturally responsive and accessible outreach strategies. In-language engagement is essential, especially for residents who primarily speak Spanish, or other non-English languages. Outreach efforts should be tailored to reflect the diversity of the community, ensuring that language is not a barrier to participation.

Pop-up events at trusted, high-traffic locations such as schools, churches, laundromats, and food distribution sites offer practical opportunities to reach residents where they already gather.

These informal settings create a more comfortable environment for engagement and increase the likelihood of participation.

To further encourage involvement, small incentives such as gift cards were recommended.

Engagement activities should be brief and easy to participate in, recognizing that many residents have limited time and availability.

San Bruno / South San Francisco Community-Based Transportation Plan Update 4 Community Engagement Summary MIG, Inc.

Stakeholders also highlighted the value of partnering with local community-based organizations (CBOs), such as Rise South City, Friends of Old Town, and the YMCA. These groups have established relationships and trust within the community and are well-positioned to lead grassroots outreach. Leveraging their networks can significantly improve participation and ensure the process is community-driven.

Additionally, offering virtual engagement options like Zoom focus groups and scheduling sessions outside of regular business hours can help reach working families and individuals with constrained schedules. These strategies together provide a foundation for equitable, inclusive, and effective community engagement.

To initiate the engagement process, we developed large-format posters featuring detailed maps of each Equity Priority Community (EPC), accompanied by key questions such as: “What is most frustrating about transportation in your area?” and “What ideas do you have for improving mobility?” We also created a survey designed to gather more in-depth information about residents’ transit and mobility habits.

With these materials prepared, we reached out to a range of community settings to ensure broad participation. This included outreach to community-based organizations, pop ups events outside churches and stores, and focus groups collaborating with key partners.

Pop up Events
• Rico Pan Latin Pastries, 532 San Mateo Ave, San Bruno, CA - April 17, 2025 • La Hacienda Market, 249 Hillside Blvd, South San Francisco, CA - April 26, 2025 • All Souls Catholic Church, 315 Walnut Avenue, South San Francisco, CA - April 27, 2025 • La Mexicana Produce Market, 512 San Mateo Ave, San Bruno, CA - May 18, 2025 Focus Groups
• Resilient San Bruno – April 30, 2025
• Friends of Old Town – May 15, 2025
• San Bruno Healthy Homes – May 12, 2025
• YMCA Community Resource Center – May 29, 2025

San Bruno / South San Francisco Community-Based Transportation Plan Update 5 Community Engagement Summary MIG, Inc.

II. Key Findings
Participants provided comments at events through the survey across a multitude of transportation needs and issues. The team organized these across Infrastructure categories.

A. Infrastructure and Service Improvements
Community feedback collected between November 2024 and June 2025 revealed a range of infrastructure and service needs across San Bruno and South San Francisco Equity Priority Communities. Residents and stakeholders offered targeted recommendations to address longstanding barriers to mobility, emphasizing both physical improvements and service enhancements that would better support everyday travel.

Pedestrian Infrastructure
Across 37 individual comments, community members emphasized the urgent need for safer, more accessible, and better-connected pedestrian infrastructure across San Bruno and South San Francisco. Many comments reflect concerns over unsafe walking conditions, particularly in areas with high traffic volumes, near schools, or in neighborhoods where sidewalks and lighting are inadequate or deteriorating.

Poor Sidewalk Conditions
A recurring issue was the poor condition of sidewalks, with residents noting that many walkways are narrow, uneven, or poorly maintained—posing risks to people using wheelchairs, pushing strollers, or navigating on foot, especially seniors and children. Specific concerns included cracked pavement, missing sections of sidewalk, and obstacles like utility poles or overgrown vegetation.

Lighting and Visibility
Lighting and visibility were frequently mentioned as key safety concerns. Multiple commenters described feeling unsafe walking at night due to dim or inadequate street lighting, particularly in areas like Kains Avenue and along corridors like Sneath Lane in San Bruno, and South Linden Avenue south of Canal Street in South San Francisco*, and on the Centennial Way Trail between Orange Park and Maple Avenue. Women, in particular, expressed safety fears when walking in these poorly lit areas.
*Note: The City of South San Francisco recently completed a project (September 2025) to upgrade lighting in Old Town and Downtown, which included enhancing light fixtures with LED bulbs along Linden Avenue from Railroad Avenue to Airport Blvd.

San Bruno / South San Francisco Community-Based Transportation Plan Update 6 Community Engagement Summary MIG, Inc.

Intersection Safety
Community members also called for improved crosswalks and intersection safety, especially near parks, schools, and along major roads such as El Camino Real, San Mateo Avenue, and Spruce Avenue. Suggestions included the installation of enhanced crosswalks, bulb-outs, pedestrian refuge islands, raised crosswalks, and stop signs with flashing lights. There were also specific mentions of intersections where pedestrians are forced to navigate confusing or dangerous crossings, including the area near San Bruno BART Station and under Highway 380.

Pedestrian Gaps
Participants advocated for a more comprehensive and connected network of pedestrian pathways, highlighting that gaps in walkability prevent residents from reaching transit stops, parks, schools, and neighborhood services. This lack of connectivity especially affects children walking to school and people trying to access public transit without a car.

People Scale Streets
Beyond functionality, respondents also recommended Complete Streets design elements, such as adding benches, shade trees, and signage along walking corridors. These enhancements would make walking more inviting and comfortable, while simultaneously addressing environmental concerns.

Finally, several comments stressed that pedestrian improvements must be prioritized not just in busy commercial districts but also in underserved residential neighborhoods where residents rely heavily on walking and transit. There is a clear demand for equitable investment in infrastructure that supports safe and active transportation for all community members.

Suggested Locations for Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure Improvements • Walkability improvements such as safer pedestrian crossings or raised crosswalks in key corridors and areas including: El Camino Real; under 280 and 380; in South San Francisco on Spruce Avenue; near Centennial Way Trail and surrounding area (including connectivity to San Bruno BART and Caltrain stations; and in downtown San Bruno, particularly on Pacific Avenue and Huntington Avenue (especially from bus depot/BART station); along San Mateo Avenue in San Bruno; near schools such as Lomita Park Elementary School in San Bruno, and high-traffic intersections such as Linden Avenue and Armour Avenue.
• Add benches, better lighting and emergency phones on Centennial Way Trail • Replacement of sidewalks in San Bruno, especially West and East San Bruno Avenue • Address flooding issues at Belle Air Elementary School San Bruno / South San Francisco Community-Based Transportation Plan Update 7 Community Engagement Summary MIG, Inc.

Bicycle Infrastructure
Community feedback revealed a strong and consistent demand for safer, more connected, and more accessible bicycle infrastructure in South San Francisco and San Bruno. Across 53 individual comments, residents emphasized the need to shift from fragmented, high-risk biking environments to a more bike-friendly network with first/last-mile connections to transit.

Disconnected and Inadequate Routes
Many participants described the existing bicycle network as incomplete or unsafe, especially along major corridors and near schools, parks, and commercial centers. Bicyclists reported feeling forced to share the road with fast-moving vehicles due to a lack of dedicated bike lanes or shoulders. Comments highlighted that even where bike lanes exist, they are often unprotected, too narrow, or interrupted by unsafe intersections, creating stress and discouraging ridership.

The lack of east-west connections from key locations like Skyline College, especially across Highway 101 and the Caltrain corridor, was cited as a key gap. Riders noted that many arterial streets feel intimidating or hazardous, especially for younger riders and families.

Call for Protected and Separated Facilities
Numerous comments explicitly requested protected bike lanes separated from traffic by curbs, barriers, or parked cars as a way to improve safety and encourage broader use. Community members noted that protected lanes would particularly benefit:
• Students biking to school
• Low-income workers using bikes for commuting
• Seniors and new riders who currently avoid biking due to fear of traffic Supportive Infrastructure and Amenities
In addition to lanes and routes, several comments focused on the need for basic bike amenities that make cycling more practical. These included:
• Secure bike racks at transit hubs, shopping areas, and public buildings • Wayfinding signage to help riders navigate safe routes • Improved lighting along popular biking corridors – especially on Centennial Trail and corridors leading to BART like Linden Avenue – for safety after dark There was also interest in bike repair stations, particularly near transit nodes, to support maintenance and promote bike-transit integration.

San Bruno / South San Francisco Community-Based Transportation Plan Update 8 Community Engagement Summary MIG, Inc.

Equity and Access Considerations
Feedback underscored that better bike infrastructure is not just about recreation—it’s a matter of transportation equity. For residents who cannot afford a car or who rely on bicycles as a primary mode of travel, current conditions are often unsafe or insufficient. In neighborhoods with higher proportions of essential workers, immigrants, and youth, improved bike facilities could offer a low-cost, sustainable alternative for reaching jobs, schools, and services.

Suggested Locations for Bicycle Infrastructure improvements • Extend bike lane connectivity, especially to Caltrain and BART where possible and throughout both cities’ downtowns: in key corridors such as El Camino Real, Spruce Avenue, Centennial Way Trail and surrounding area; in South San Francisco near Orange Memorial Park, on First Lane, Mayfair Village, and Myrtle Avenue; and in San Bruno on San Mateo Avenue and Huntington Avenue (as part of the Huntington Avenue Cycle Track and Southline Projects), on First Avenue, San Bruno Avenue, from downtown San Bruno to the Airport, around San Bruno BART Station, under the 380 Freeway, and from the Crestmoor / Highlands area to downtown.
• Add more bike racks / bike parking on San Mateo Avenue and at First Avenue and Angus Avenue.
• Improve lighting on Centennial Trail (between Orange Park and Maple Avenue specifically mentioned).

Roadway Infrastructure
A total of 54 comments pointed to roadway-related concerns, including poor pavement conditions, unsafe intersections, and traffic flow issues. Some suggested redesigning specific intersections to reduce collisions, while others asked for traffic calming and speed enforcement in neighborhoods. These improvements were often framed as necessary for safety but also for improving transit performance and multimodal integration.

Suggested Locations for Roadway improvements
• Improve safety measures including lighting, more safety signs and stoplights, near schools and high-traffic intersections including: in South San Francisco, at Linden and Armour Avenues, South Maple Street, Cypress and Pine Avenues, and outside the Municipal Services Building (street not specified); and in San Bruno on North San Anselmo Avenue, Kains Avenue, Green Avenue, and First Avenue • Improve street lighting in San Bruno on Angus Avenue, Sneath Lane, 2nd Avenue, Third Avenue, 7th Avenue, Walnut Street (east of San Bruno Avenue) and San Bruno Avenue; in South San Francisco on Linden Avenue.

San Bruno / South San Francisco Community-Based Transportation Plan Update 9 Community Engagement Summary MIG, Inc.
• More safety or stop signs in San Bruno outside Lions Park area, on San Antonio, San Diego, and South San Anselmo, along with nearby area
• Improve safety measures at places where drivers don’t look for pedestrians or bikes including turning left at Starlite Street and South Spruce Avenue; on Spruce Avenue between Canal and Victory; and on Grand Avenue between Maple and Linden • Add speed humps on Cypress and Pine, Spruce Avenue, and First Lane • Limit speed on Park Way in South San Francisco
• Add measures to limit street racing and speeding on Linden Avenue in South San Francisco between Railroad Avenue and San Mateo Avenue; and on Cypress Avenue in Old Town South San Francisco
• Repair torn-up paving or holes in road on El Camino; in South San Francisco on the Westborough Freeway Exit Ramp; and in San Bruno on 2nd Avenue, Easton Avenue, Green Avenue, Kains Avenue, and Hensley Avenue
• Paint stripes or provide pavement delineation on the street at 7th Avenue and Angus Avenue
• Add safety/traffic cameras at Grand Ave and Mission Road, San Felipe • Fix situation at the Caltrain crossing at South Linden where the railroad crossing lights get turned sideways by the wind
B. Transit System Improvements
Community members across South San Francisco and San Bruno expressed strong and consistent interest in improving the area’s public transit system. The comments gathered through interviews, surveys, and outreach activities reveal the importance of frequent, reliable, and well-connected transit options, especially for residents who rely on transit as their primary means of mobility.

Expanding and Improving Bus Service
The most frequently cited need was for an enhanced local bus service network, with 69 individual comments identifying challenges and suggesting improvements. Residents called for more frequent buses, particularly in the evenings and on weekends, to better serve shift workers, students, and seniors. Many noted that long waiting times and irregular service schedules undermine confidence in transit and make it difficult to plan trips.

There was also a clear call for expanded coverage, particularly to areas that are currently underserved or disconnected from key destinations like medical facilities, schools, and job centers. Bus reliability, real-time information, and better customer experience were also emphasized, pointing to a need for consistent performance and communication.

San Bruno / South San Francisco Community-Based Transportation Plan Update 10 Community Engagement Summary MIG, Inc.

First/Last-Mile and Community Shuttle Services
A significant portion of feedback—31 comments—highlighted the need for community shuttles and last-mile connections especially in San Bruno. These services were seen as essential to link neighborhoods, housing developments, and community centers with major transit hubs such as BART and Caltrain stations. Many participants recommended flexible, circulator, or on-demand shuttles, especially to serve:
• Seniors and people with mobility challenges
• Residents in hillside and lower-density areas
• Commuters trying to bridge the gap between home and rail transit • Students trying to get to Skyline College
Residents requested shuttle services between BART and Caltrain stations and residential neighborhoods or new housing developments; a shuttle service that would hit the “hot spots” such as retail along San Mateo Avenue, Skyline College, BART and Caltrain stations and Skyline Trail; service between the airport and downtown San Bruno; along El Camino Real; and in South San Francisco between Old Town/Linden Avenue and other neighborhoods (note this is already potentially served by the city’s Free South City Shuttle).

Shuttles were viewed not only as a mobility solution, but also as a strategy to increase equity and reduce isolation that can promote economic development.

One community comment specifically suggested developing a system that allows people to get discounted Uber rides. This reflects an interest in subsidized or voucher-based ride-hailing options, particularly to fill service gaps or support residents without access to fixed-route transit.

Better Regional Connections
Twenty-five comments focused on the importance of improving regional transit connections, particularly with Caltrain and BART. Participants emphasized the need for better coordination between local buses and regional rail, including:
• Synchronized schedules to minimize wait times during transfers • Unified fare systems or discounts for multi-agency trips • Improved access to rail stations, especially for pedestrians and cyclists Many saw regional integration as a key to expanding economic opportunity and making longdistance travel more viable for work and family obligations.

San Bruno / South San Francisco Community-Based Transportation Plan Update 11 Community Engagement Summary MIG, Inc.

Other Transit System Enhancements
A few additional comments proposed technology-driven solutions and user experience upgrades, such as:
• Real-time bus arrival information
• Mobile trip-planning tools
• Expanded paratransit options for individuals with disabilities These suggestions reflect a desire for a modern, responsive transit system that serves a wide range of needs. Together, these insights underscore a clear community vision: a more frequent, connected, and flexible transit system that supports residents of all backgrounds in accessing opportunity.

Suggested Locations for Transit Service Improvements
• Improve transit connections from Skyline College / Skyline Boulevard to downtown areas, key corridors such as El Camino, and transit hubs, possibly by extending the free South City shuttle service or a shuttle being provided by College of San Mateo; add a shuttle stop at Berkshire in Monte Verde area at Skyline Boulevard. • Improve transit connections (shuttles or buses) between underserved areas and major transit hubs including: between Old Town South San Francisco/Linden Avenue and other key service areas; between the Avenues (1st to 7th Ave) and downtown San Bruno; between BART / Caltrain and residential neighborhoods and new developments; from SFO to downtown and other major destinations (idea: BART to Caltrain to Airport); around Antoinette Lane, Myrtle Avenue, and San Mateo Avenue, Angus Avenue, and Mastick Avenue area (especially for seniors – also provide free bus for community members in December in this area).
• Improve transit access to key locations for low-income residents including the YMCA Resource Center at Huntington and Spruce (bus stop out front but poor connections from Old Town and Linden Avenue); food distribution sites such as former library location near West Orange.
• Extend free South City shuttle routes on Huntington Avenue, in underserved areas like Old Town and West Orange
• Improve timing of South City shuttle so it follows the schedule / app on South Spruce Avenue. Community members say it is not arriving at the scheduled time. • Provide a San Bruno city shuttle hitting all of the “hot spots” - San Mateo Avenue, Skyline College, BART, Caltrain, and Skyline Trail.

San Bruno / South San Francisco Community-Based Transportation Plan Update 12 Community Engagement Summary MIG, Inc.
• Make improvements to the San Bruno BART / bus transfer station for a better commuter experience.
• More buses / service / new routes or better connections: Easton Avenue; Bus Rapid Transit or Shuttle services along ECR; Paradise Valley south on Linden Avenue to San Bruno BART; a direct bus from San Bruno to Daly City; from South San Francisco Caltrain through downtown along Grand Avenue to Orange Park; bus line from South San Francisco BART Station to access other transit without a long walk • Provide bus stops on Baden Avenue, Eucalyptus Avenue, Commercial Avenue Area; route 292 at or near Cypress and Pine in South San Francisco; Orange Avenue and Railroad Avenue (RR Ave x2); San Anselmo North; San Mateo Avenue; Pine Street and First Avenue; Santa Lucia Avenue; San Mateo and Walnut (for 41 line). • Provide more shelters or seating at bus stops: 200 Airport Boulevard; California and Airport; Armour Ave and Airport Boulevard; Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard; Baden Avenue; El Camino Real; South Linden Avenue; at Spruce and Tanforan Mall. • Extend bus route hours on San Bruno West and Green.
• Provide more frequent buses at Linden Avenue.
• Mitigate the vibration from passing Caltrain at First Avenue C. Community Safety Concerns
Safety was a recurring and deeply felt theme throughout community engagement for the South San Francisco and San Bruno CBTP. Across comments, residents expressed a desire for streets and transit environments that feel safe, secure, and welcoming for all users, whether walking, biking, or waiting for the bus. These concerns spanned both traffic-related safety and personal security, with particular emphasis on vulnerable users such as seniors, youth, and people with disabilities.

Pedestrian Safety
One of the most prominent concerns was pedestrian safety, especially in areas with high traffic volumes, limited crossings, or poorly maintained sidewalks. Residents identified numerous locations where crossing the street felt dangerous due to:
• Missing or faded crosswalks
• Wide intersections with fast-moving vehicles
• Lack of pedestrian signals or stop signs
These conditions were particularly of issue for community members near schools, transit stops, and senior housing, where residents often rely on walking as a primary mode of transportation.

San Bruno / South San Francisco Community-Based Transportation Plan Update 13 Community Engagement Summary MIG, Inc.

Several comments called for traffic calming measures, such as speed bumps, bulb-outs, and raised crosswalks, to make walking routes more visible and protective.

Avoiding Bicycling Due to Safety
While concerns about biking often centered around infrastructure, many also included safety risks. Riders described conflicts with cars, unsafe intersections, and a general lack of protection from traffic. In some cases, individuals reported avoiding biking altogether or not allowing their children to bike due to fear of being hit or harassed, especially along arterial roads. There was a strong demand for protected bike lanes, intersection upgrades, and clear right-of-way rules to enhance safety for both cyclists and drivers.

Personal Safety Fears While Using Transit
Several participants raised concerns about personal safety, particularly when waiting for transit in poorly lit or isolated areas. Some described feeling vulnerable to theft, harassment, or violence, especially in the early morning or evening hours. These concerns were heightened for women, older adults, and people with disabilities.

Community suggestions to improve the sense of personal safety included:
• Better lighting at bus stops and along walking paths
• More visible and maintained shelters
• Security features, such as emergency call buttons or cameras • A stronger presence of ambassadors or community safety patrols at transit hubs Safety Concerns as a Barrier to Youth Mobility
Parents and caregivers emphasized the importance of creating safe routes for children to walk or bike to school and transit. In neighborhoods with high youth populations, unsafe crossings and unmonitored bus stops were seen as barriers to independence and mobility. Many residents called for design features that prioritize children’s safety, including flashing beacons, curb extensions, and crossing guards.

Investment in Safey Requested
Across South San Francisco and San Bruno, residents are asking for a transportation environment that doesn’t just move people—it protects them. Community feedback clearly points to the need for investment in infrastructure, lighting, and design strategies that reduce risk and foster a sense of safety. These improvements are essential for building trust in the transportation system and encouraging broader participation in walking, biking, and transit use.

San Bruno / South San Francisco Community-Based Transportation Plan Update 14 Community Engagement Summary MIG, Inc.

Non-Transportation Related Issues
There were a number of comments made regarding issues in general and at specific locations that are outside the purview of the CBTP, as well as some that are located outside the EPC areas. These included issues regarding parking availability and cost, improvements to street cleanliness, better policing due to perceived safety threats due to dangerous behavior on the street, needed improvements to park facilities, and housing. These will be passed on to the appropriate City departments or agencies.

D. Affordability and Cost Barriers
For many residents in South San Francisco and San Bruno, the cost of transportation is a significant and ongoing barrier to mobility. Community feedback revealed that even when transit services are available, the price of riding – along with hidden costs related to time, reliability, and access – can deter regular use, particularly among lower-income households, youth, seniors, and residents in affordable housing.

Household Strain of Transit Costs
A recurring theme was the strain of paying for daily transit fares, especially for families or individuals who rely on multiple trips per day. Participants shared that even modest fare costs add up quickly, and current discount programs are either insufficient or not well known.

Concerns about affordability were especially common among:
• Seniors on fixed incomes
• Low-wage workers commuting to multiple jobs
• Youth and students without access to free or reduced-fare options Several comments suggested the need for free or subsidized transit programs for priority populations and proposed expanding existing youth and senior fare programs to reduce economic burden. They stressed that these efforts would undoubtably raise ridership.

Unequal Access to Fare Discounts
In addition to fare costs, residents pointed out the inaccessibility of discount programs due to complex eligibility requirements or lack of awareness. Some people said they were unsure how to apply, while others shared that language barriers or limited internet access prevented them from enrolling in reduced-fare programs.

The community called for:
• Simplified enrollment processes
San Bruno / South San Francisco Community-Based Transportation Plan Update 15 Community Engagement Summary MIG, Inc.
• More outreach and promotion in multiple languages
• Automatic fare capping or account-based discounts to reduce barriers to use Indirect and Hidden Costs
Affordability concerns extended beyond fares. Residents also described indirect costs that impact their ability to use transportation effectively:
• Long wait times or infrequent service force people to miss work or appointments • Lack of safe walking or biking access to transit leads some to rely on costly ride-hail services
• Missed connections between services result in paying multiple fares unnecessarily These indirect burdens disproportionately impact those with the fewest resources, reinforcing inequities and isolating residents from opportunity.

The Cost of Not Driving
Several residents without access to a personal vehicle expressed frustration with how much more expensive and time-consuming it can be to depend on public transportation, especially in a system that isn’t always reliable. While driving is often perceived as faster and more convenient, many low-income residents simply cannot afford to own and maintain a car— making the affordability of transit a fundamental equity issue.

These insights illustrate that affordability is not just about fare cost, it’s about equitable access to a transportation system that works for everyone. The CBTP process highlighted a need for more inclusive pricing structures, expanded discount programs, and thoughtful service design that considers the full cost of mobility from the rider’s perspective.

E. Informational, Promotional, and Awareness-Building Needs Community feedback from residents of South San Francisco and San Bruno revealed a significant need for better communication, outreach, and visibility around local and regional transportation services. While many people expressed interest in using transit, shuttles, and other mobility options, they often lacked the information or guidance to do so confidently. This disconnect was especially prominent among immigrant families, seniors, and low-income households—populations that are most likely to benefit from accessible transportation but are often least likely to receive or understand critical information.

Limited Awareness of Local Services
San Bruno / South San Francisco Community-Based Transportation Plan Update 16 Community Engagement Summary MIG, Inc.

Residents in both cities frequently stated they were unaware of key services, such as:
• The South San Francisco Senior Shuttle
• The San Bruno Caltrain Station’s connections to local buses • SamTrans route changes or service frequencies near El Camino Real and Sneath Lane • Free or reduced-fare programs for youth, seniors, and low-income riders This lack of awareness wasn’t due to a lack of interest, it stemmed from a lack of effective outreach, with many people learning about services only through word-of-mouth or not at all.

Multilingual and Community-Based Outreach is Essential
In both cities, community members highlighted the linguistic diversity of their neighborhoods and called for translated and culturally relevant materials, especially in Spanish, Tagalog, Cantonese, and Mandarin. Many residents – especially seniors and immigrant families – rely on printed materials and in-person outreach and are less likely to access transit info online.

Residents recommended:
• Posting translated schedules and flyers in places they already visit, such as churches, Filipino and Latino grocery stores, laundromats, and schools. • Partnering with trusted community organizations, like the YMCA, local senior centers, or school districts, to host info sessions and distribute materials. • Providing visual, step-by-step instructions on how to ride transit, transfer between services, and qualify for discount programs.

Program Promotion and Sign-Up Support
Many people in South San Francisco and San Bruno said they had never heard of discount programs or didn’t know how to apply. This was especially true for Clipper START, the Youth Clipper Card, and paratransit services. Even among those aware of the programs, some were deterred by confusing eligibility requirements or language barriers.

Residents suggested:
• Holding community enrollment events at schools or senior centers • Offering assistance with applications during food distribution or health fairs • Providing simple comparison charts of fare options and benefits in multiple languages Need for Real-Time, Easy-to-Use Information
San Bruno / South San Francisco Community-Based Transportation Plan Update 17 Community Engagement Summary MIG, Inc.

While some tech-savvy riders in South San Francisco mentioned using apps to check real-time arrivals, others—particularly in San Bruno—expressed frustration with outdated signage or difficulty finding updated schedules. There was a clear divide between those comfortable using digital tools and those who need low-tech solutions like printed brochures or staffed call lines.

Both groups agreed that information should be:
• Centralized and consistent across platforms
• Clearly indicate real-time delays, route changes, and shuttle availability • Posted at high-traffic areas like Tanforan Mall, BART/Caltrain stations, and senior housing complexes
Promoting a Culture of Transit Use
Finally, residents in both cities expressed that more positive messaging could help encourage transit use and reduce stigma—especially for people new to the system. Community members called for:
• “Try or Free Transit” days in South San Francisco neighborhoods like Westborough or Downtown
• Transit ambassadors or ride-alongs for seniors and youth in San Bruno • Social media or local radio campaigns showcasing real users and the benefits of riding transit
In both South San Francisco and San Bruno, improving access to information isn’t just about communication – it’s about equity, trust, and empowering people to move freely and confidently through their communities. By investing in multilingual outreach, community partnerships, and simple, human-centered tools, local agencies can ensure that more residents are aware of, and able to benefit from, the transportation resources available to them.

San Bruno / South San Francisco
Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) Update
Appendix A: Summary of Key Stakeholder Interviews
I. Introduction and Methodology

A. Introduction
MIG, Inc. conducted five interviews with key stakeholders to inform the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG)’s Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) 2025 Update. The CBTP focuses on identifying strategies to improve mobility and transportation access for historically underserved communities in San Bruno and South San Francisco with a high percentage of low-income residents, people of color, residents with limited English proficiency, seniors and persons with disabilities, and other vulnerable populations, many of whom are transit-dependent. In order to create a plan to equitably engage those most historically underserved and most impacted by transportation and mobility barriers, MIG interviewed the following representatives from organizations which serve communities in these areas, or who advocate for improved transportation options (listed by their constituent audience):
• Low-Income, Homeless or Housing-Challenged, Environmental Justice  Nicolas Rackard-Hilt, Founder, San Bruno Healthy Homes  Julio Garcia, Rise South City
 Elida Valencia Sobalvarro, YMCA Resource Center
• Small Businesses, Transit Station Neighbors
 Hermese Monzon, Brittany Burgo, and Dana Abarca, Friends of Old Town • Bike Activists, Micro-Mobility Enthusiasts
 Matt Jones, Silicon Valley Bike Coalition
B. Interview Methodology
Interviews were conducted via Zoom and were one-half hour in length. Interview subjects were provided with a brief presentation of the purpose and process for the CBTP update and asked to respond to the following questions:

Tell Us About Yourself and Your Organization

1. Please tell us about yourself and your organization. What is its mission, and who are the communities or individuals you serve?
Key Transportation Needs, Issues and Opportunities

2. What are the key transportation needs of the community members you serve? Where do they need to go?

3. What are the main challenges or barriers that prevent people from reaching where they need to be?
Son Bruno / South San Francisco CBTP Update A-2
Appendix A: Summary of Key Stakeholder Interviews

4. What solutions would you propose to have the most impact on improving the mobility of these community members, particularly within Napa County?

5. Are there any specific safety-related concerns related to transportation you can identify? (e.g., bike/pedestrian safety, collision prevention, etc.)

6. What can we do to encourage more active modes of transportation? Community Outreach

7. MIG has a range of community engagement strategies and methods for engaging the community members you serve. Are there specific events or locations that would work well to attract people and to engage them in a discussion about their transportation needs and priorities? Do you have any suggestions for how we might reach the “hard-to-reach” community groups?

8. Do you have any questions for us?
II. Summary of Community Feedback Organized by Major Themes Input provided during the interviews is summarized below by theme.

A. Transportation Needs, Issues, and Challenges
A1: Public Transit Issues
A1.1. Cost is a major barrier, especially for low-income residents trying to access needed services and workers in warehouse districts. Loss of previous bus ticket assistance program has made access more difficult.

A1.2. Lack of reliable transit connectivity in general, with limited routes and stops, irregular and/or too infrequent schedules leading to long and inefficient commutes, and limited options for first- and last-mile connectivity, such as shuttles or bike lanes, which encourage heavy reliance on cars over transit.

A1.2.a. Inefficient commutes make it particularly difficult for those with multiple jobs and family responsibilities to rely on transit.

A1.3. Transit connectivity issues and poor access for specific transit services or at specific locations:

A1.3.a. The free South City Shuttle doesn’t serve enough key locations; residents want more stops.

A1.3.b. Shuttles or other last-mile solutions between major transit hubs and stations (such as San Bruno BART) and residential areas and new developments in underserved neighborhoods.

A1.3.c. Poor access to key locations for low-income residents. These include:

A1.3.c1. The YMCA Resource Center at Huntington and Spruce in South San Francisco. There is a bus stop right in front, but connections from parts of the City such as Old Town and Linden Avenue are challenging.

A1.3.c2. Food distribution sites such as the former library location next West Orange are hard to access without a car, requiring multiple transfers on transit. The West Orange location is made additionally challenging by being a walk-up food distribution – there is no drive-through option.

A1.4. Lack of transit amenities
A1.4a. Many bus stops lack essential amenities like shelters, seating, and lighting, making them uncomfortable and unsafe, especially in high-traffic areas and busy locations. Harsh weather conditions make unsheltered transit stops uncomfortable.

Son Bruno / South San Francisco CBTP Update A-3
Appendix A: Summary of Key Stakeholder Interviews
A1.4b. Specific locations lacking bus shelters include: 200 Airport Boulevard (near (Pinefino and KFC); Grand Avenue & Airport Boulevard; and the 292 route stop, which serves workers traveling to the airport and hospitals.

A1.5. Transit options such as South San Francisco’s free shuttle service are underutilized due to a lack of awareness and promotion.

A2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety, Accessibility and Connectivity Issues A2.1. Pedestrian Accessibility and Safety
A2.1.a. Poor walkability and safety in many areas, including major streets, at key intersections, high-traffic areas and dangerous crossings near schools, due to traffic congestion; poor visibility / lighting; inadequate signs, signals, and other traffic management, as well as lax enforcement (see “Specific Locations” below).

Unsafe conditions discourage transit use.

A2.1.b. Narrow, uneven, or poorly designed sidewalks are a safety risk to pedestrians and prevent wheelchair and stroller access.

A2.2. Bicycle Safety and Connectivity
A2.2.a. Major streets and high-traffic intersections cutting through the community are difficult to cross for bicyclists.

A2.2.b. Lack of connectivity (including “first- and last-mile” connectivity for transit) and difficult navigation due to lack of dedicated bicycle lanes on major roads, busy intersections, and other high-traffic areas.

A2.3. Lack of strong connectivity within the designated study areas, which limits effective transportation solutions. Need for better connectivity within and between study areas for both cyclists and pedestrians.

A2.4. Specific locations identified:

A2.3.a. Major roads including El Camino Real, Highway 380, San Mateo Avenue, and areas such as Downtown San Bruno are difficult and dangerous to cross, lacking under- or overpasses or other options, as well as lacking bike lanes, making them unsafe for both cyclists and pedestrians.

A2.3.b. San Bruno BART Station and Centennial Trail: Poor pedestrian and bike access.

Dangerous crossings, forcing pedestrians to climb over barriers.

A2.3.c. San Mateo Avenue and Downtown San Bruno: unsafe pedestrian crossings, lack of visibility at intersections
A2.3.d. El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue (South San Francisco): Major road with no bike lanes, making it unsafe for cyclists and pedestrians.

A2.3.e. San Bruno BART Station and under 380 Freeway: Difficult pedestrian and bike connectivity under Highway 380.

A3: Challenges in Making Transportation Improvements
A3.1. It’s a problem that San Bruno Avenue and the east side of San Bruno are not included in the CBTP study area despite being the location of a major upcoming redevelopment (Tanforan Mall transformation).

A3.2. Difficulty in Collaborating with Local Government: Active transportation advocacy groups have faced initial challenges in building relationships with local authorities, though progress has been made through connections with city officials.

Son Bruno / South San Francisco CBTP Update A-4
Appendix A: Summary of Key Stakeholder Interviews
B. Proposed Solutions
B1: Improvements to Transit
B1.1. General transit access and reliability
B1.1.a. Better transit access for low-income residents (more shuttles, expanded bus service)
B1.1.b. Improved transit reliability & frequency, especially for Caltrain and SamTrans buses.

B1.1.c. Focus on residential areas for transportation improvements rather than biotech zones.

B1.1.d. Potential Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or dedicated bus lanes to improve transit flow.

B1.1.e. Coordination with the San Bruno Transit Corridors Plan (TCP) for integrated planning.

B1.1.f. Better marketing and information distribution is needed for the free shuttle service – many don’t know about it.

B1.2. Improvements to Transit Connectivity
B1.2.a. Consider shuttles or other transit solutions to connect underserved areas, provide last- and first-mile connectivity to major transit hubs, and improve travel efficiency. This includes shuttles between BART / Caltrain stations and residential neighborhoods or new developments.

B1.2.c. Enhanced bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, including dedicated bike paths, to link transit hubs to residential areas, improve safety, and encourage multimodal commuting.

B1.3. Specific locations identified:

B1.3.a. Better connectivity between BART and the Centennial Trail.

B1.3.b. Bike Lanes along San Mateo Avenue to Huntington Avenue, connecting to Caltrain and BART.

B1.3.c. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or shuttle services along El Camino Real B1.3.d. Shuttle Services between the avenues (1st to 7th Ave) and downtown San Bruno.

B1.3.e. Improve east-west transit connections from Skyline College to downtown areas and transit hubs.

B1.3.f. Expand the shuttle route to include underserved areas like Old Town and West Orange.

B1.4. Transit Amenities
B1.4.a. Install bus stop shelters with seating, lighting, and weather protection at key stops. Improved shelters with lighting and seating are critical for comfort and safety.

B1.4.b. Improvements to the San Bruno BART bus transfer station for a better commuter experience.

B2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Solutions
B2.1. Usability and Safety Improvements
B2.1.a. While bike lanes are underutilized, targeted investments like multi-use paths and safety measures for pedestrians and cyclists can encourage alternative transit.

Improve pedestrian safety through sidewalk repairs, traffic management initiatives, and features such as larger pedestrian refuges, bulb-outs, raised crosswalks.

B2.1.b. Redesign sidewalks to ensure wheelchair accessibility and sufficient space.

B2.1.c. Create safer pedestrian and bike crossings and stop signs with lights, especially near schools, on major roads, and near high-traffic intersections. Reconfigure Son Bruno / South San Francisco CBTP Update A-5
Appendix A: Summary of Key Stakeholder Interviews
confusing intersections, potentially with roundabouts or pedestrian overpasses, to enhance safety and clarity.

B2.1.d. Create more bicycle-friendly enhancements without dedicated cycle tracks.

B2.1.e. Long-Term Considerations: Ensure future developments, like those near 500 Linden, incorporate wider sidewalks and better infrastructure for pedestrians and transit users. Strategically plan bike and pedestrian improvements to maximize utility and address community concerns about underuse.

B2.2. Bicycle/Pedestrian Amenities
B2.2.a. Additional trees and shade along the cycle track to improve usability.

Environmental Enhancements along proposed bike paths and walking routes to integrate green spaces and reduce the environmental impacts of heavy car usage in the area. Need for additional amenities like tree cover, safety improvements, and bike lane expansions.

B2.3. Specific locations
B2.3.a. Extend bike lane connectivity and walkability improvements such as safer pedestrian crossings or raised crosswalks in key corridors and areas including: El Camino Real; Spruce Avenue; Huntington Avenue; San Mateo Avenue; Centennial Trail and surrounding area.

B2.3.b. Better bike lanes and pedestrian safety measures to connect BART and surrounding areas around San Bruno BART Station and under the 380 Freeway.

B2.3.d. Extend bike connectivity that is part of the Huntington Avenue Cycle Track and Southline Projects to San Mateo Avenue to enhance cyclist mobility.

B2.3.d. More bicycle-friendly enhancements without dedicated cycle tracks at San Mateo Avenue and Downtown San Bruno.

B2.3.e. Improve lighting and safety measures along corridors like Sneath Lane and Linden Avenue.

B2.3.f. Add enhanced crosswalks and stop signs with lights near schools and high-traffic intersections like Linden and Armour.

B2.3.g. Better bus or shuttle connectivity between Old Town South San Francisco / Linden Avenue and other key service areas.

B3: Land Use and Redevelopment Opportunities: In San Bruno’s District 4, new developments and rezoning for mixed-use housing offer opportunities to address affordability and mobility challenges.

C. Community Outreach Recommendations
C1: Enhancing Equitable Outreach
C1.1. Focus on engaging underserved communities, particularly low-income and non-Englishspeaking populations. Engage diverse community groups, such as the Chinese and Filipino communities, for broader representation in projects.

C1.2. Conduct focus groups with diverse community members to gather detailed input on transportation needs.

C1.3. Conduct workshops, outreach at schools, and planned pop-ups at markets or in market areas, churches, transit hubs, laundromats (e.g., La Cienega), dog parks, and local events to increase community participation. For pop-ups, use posters, stickers, and quick questions to gather input. Engage people as they pass by instead of a formal sit-down meeting.

Son Bruno / South San Francisco CBTP Update A-6
Appendix A: Summary of Key Stakeholder Interviews
C1.4. Bus Shelter & Transit Rider Engagement. Talk to transit riders at key bus stops and BART stations. Focus on gathering input on: Bus shelter improvements (wind protection, seating). Transit frequency issues (long waits, delays).

C1.5. Use existing public spaces like Orange Park or the Boys and Girls Club area for community events.

C1.6. Focus on direct communication, such as one-on-one outreach, to build trust.

C1.7. Offer small incentives like gift cards for participation in surveys and events, while addressing concerns about perceived bias.

C1.8. Collaborate with organizations like Rise South City and Friends of Old Town to conduct outreach.

C1.9. Flexible Community Engagement: Formats: Zoom focus groups and after-hours sessions to accommodate working residents. Rationale: To include diverse voices, including those with time constraints.

C1.10. Collaborate with existing housing surveys or separate surveys for transportation and housing to gather input on specific needs and priorities efficiently.

C1.11. Emphasize minimal and focused sessions to respect participants' limited availability.

C1.12. Community organizations have difficulty engaging the community in environmental efforts due to lack of trust and tangible results from past initiatives, and limited staffing to meet the growing needs of the community.

C2: Proposed Locations for Pop-Up Events
C2.1. Mexican Produce Market on San Mateo Avenue and Rico’s Panadería nearby. Rationale:

High visibility and accessibility for local residents.

C2.2. All Souls Church (Sunday Mass attendees)
C2.3. La Hacienda Market (Hillsdale area)
C2.4. San Bruno BART Station (high transit foot traffic) C2.5. Pop-up events at YMCA food distributions (350+ households attend). Held at YMCA Resource Center and other locations (e.g., West Orange former library site). Advantage:

Large turnout (350+ households), opportunity to engage residents while they wait in line. Consideration: Need to ensure engagement doesn’t disrupt food distribution.

C3: Collaboration with Local Groups
C3.1. Partner with organizations like the San Mateo County Bike Coalition and the San Bruno Climate Resilience Team to leverage existing networks.

C3.2. Collaborate with organizations like Families Taking Action and local civic groups to expand community outreach.

C3.3. Providing materials and allowing YMCA staff to collect feedback from residents. Paid partner to conduct outreach, lead focus groups & pop-up events, w/stipends for participants. Offering stipends to community members to incentivize survey participation.

C3.4. Potential partnership with MIG and city planners for outreach and engagement.

C3.5. Collaborate with community-based organizations and local businesses for outreach and engagement.

C3.6. Silicon Valley Bike Coalition proposed a partnership with the CBTP team to enhance community outreach and engagement. Proposed elements include:

C3.6.a Joint Outreach & Community Engagement: Partnering on public outreach efforts, particularly in underserved communities. Utilizing existing networks and relationships (e.g., Rise South City, Friends of Old Town) to gather feedback.

Integrating Bike Coalition outreach efforts into the broader transportation plan.

Son Bruno / South San Francisco CBTP Update A-7
Appendix A: Summary of Key Stakeholder Interviews
C3.6.a Inquired about potential funding support from the planning team to assist with outreach. Suggested that the Bike Coalition could help conduct surveys, host events, and engage cyclists and transit users if provided with resources.

C3.6.a Collaboration on Cycle Track & Infrastructure Promotion: The Bike Coalition is applying for funding to promote the new cycle track once completed. Proposed coordinating promotional events, such as group rides for “Bike to Work” or “Bike to Wherever” days. Advocating for additional bike-friendly infrastructure along Huntington Avenue, San Mateo Avenue, and El Camino Real.

C3.6.a Advocacy for Transportation Equity: Emphasized the importance of including low-income workers in transit planning, especially warehouse workers in South San Francisco. Encouraged the team to consider the equity impact of transportation decisions, even in non-residential employment zones.

C3.6.a Participation in Policy & Planning Discussions: Encouraged representation in BPAC (Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committees). Advocated for ensuring the transportation plan aligns with San Bruno’s Transit Corridors Plan (TCP).

C4: Proposed Additions for San Bruno Ave & East Side of San Bruno: Expand study area to include everything east of El Camino Real due to expected development. Ensure public engagement in the redevelopment process to include transportation improvements.

San Bruno / South San Francisco
Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) Update
Appendix B: Community Survey – Summary of Results
As part of their community engagement to solicit input on the 2025 Update to the San Bruno / South San Francisco Community-Based Transportation Plan, C/CAG circulated a survey, available both on-line and in hard copy format. Following is an analysis of results and key findings from the survey.

A. Public Transit Usage
Nearly half (41%) of the 122 survey respondents who answered the question of which SamTrans or other transit routes they currently use indicated that they use BART. A further 32.8% stated that they do not currently use any transit service. Respondents were provided with a list of possible reasons why they do not use transit and asked to identify all that apply. They gave a variety of reasons, of which the most common were “service is too slow,” (40%) “service is too infrequent,” (32.7%) and “transit doesn’t travel where I need to go” (30.9%). Those who selected “other” commented that the schedule was limited or unreliable, or that they prefer to drive themselves, among other reasons. Results are detailed in Tables 1 and 2 below.

TABLE 1
Which SamTrans Route(s) or other transit services do you currently use? (Mark all the routes that apply)
SamTrans Route or Transit Service Percentage Number
BART 41.0% 50
None 32.8% 40
ECR 26.2% 32
Caltrain 23.0% 28
Route 130 / B 18.0% 22
Free South City Shuttles 16.4% 20
Other 10.7% 13
Route 141 10.7% 13
Route 142 9.0% 11
Route 122 7.4% 9
Route 41 5.7% 7
Route 49 4.9% 6
Route 37 4.9% 6
Route 397 3.3% 4
EPX 1.6% 2
FCX 1.6% 2
Commute.org Shuttles 1.6% 2
Route 35 0.8% 1
N=122
Note that because respondents were allowed to make multiple selections, the percentages do not add up to 100%.

San Bruno / South San Francisco Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) Update B-2 Appendix B: Community Survey – Summary of Results
TABLE 2
If you answered “none” to the previous question, why?
(Mark all that apply)
Reason Why Not to Take Vine Transit Percentage Number
Service is too slow 40.0% 22
Service is too infrequent 32.7% 18
Transit doesn’t travel where I need to go 30.9% 17
Other 25.5% 14
It doesn’t fit my schedule 21.8% 12
Fares are too expensive 16.4% 9
Transit stop is too far 12.7% 7
Transit is too confusing / complicated 10.9% 6
N=55
Note that because respondents were allowed to make multiple selections, the percentages do not add up to 100%.

Please note: There was a difference between the survey as filled out online vs. the hard copy surveys.

Online, respondents only received this question if they had answered “none” to the previous question.

On the hard copy surveys, no such distinction was made. The majority of surveys were filled out in hard copy; therefore many of the respondents who responded to this question also marked transit routes that they currently use. It was decided that it was important to get the comments on issues with transit; therefore all responses are included.

Comments from respondents who selected “Other”:
• Doesn't go to Menlo Park
• I live in SB District 2, no bus goes there
• No Crestmoor / Highlands connection – need ability to connect with e-bike • Limited schedule
• The shuttle doesn't run on schedule. NOT reliable EVER! LOL • It takes too much time
• Parking is expensive
• Drive myself
• I have a car
• I have my own vehicle
• Much easier just to drive
• Just makes more sense for me to drive my own car.
• I currently drive but have used transit in the past or when cars are non working or between cars • I don’t use public transit
• I just don’t
• No need
• Work from home, basically don't go anywhere
• Dog and tools
B. Transportation Modes Used
Survey respondents were asked to identify which modes of transportation they use to commute to work or school, as well as those they use for non-commuting trips.

San Bruno / South San Francisco Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) Update B-3 Appendix B: Community Survey – Summary of Results
The most popular modes for commuting are transit (used by 44.3%) and driving alone (41.8%). Walking is somewhat less common (21.3%). Only a small percentage (9% or less) use the other modes listed.

For non-commuting-related trips, the most popular modes were the same: 50.4% take transit, 47.1% drive alone, and 18.2% walk. Once again, other modes are used by 9% or fewer respondents.

Results are detailed in Tables 3 and 4 below.

TABLE 3
How do you commonly commute to work or school?
(Select all that apply)
Commuting Mode Percentage Number
Transit 44.3% 54
Drive alone 41.8% 51
Walk 21.3% 26
Carpool / Vanpool 9.0% 11
Bicycle 9.0% 11
Ride Share (Uber, Lyft, etc.) 5.7% 7
I don’t work / go to school 4.9% 6
Other 3.3% 4
N=122
Note that because respondents were allowed to make multiple selections, the percentages do not add up to 100%.

Note: None of the respondents who selected “Other” identified a method.

TABLE 4
How do you commonly commute for NON work/school related trips? (Select all that apply)
Commuting Mode Percentage Number
Transit 50.4% 61
Drive alone 47.1% 57
Walk 18.2% 22
Bicycle 9.1% 11
Carpool / Vanpool 8.3% 10
Ride Share (Uber, Lyft, etc.) 8.3% 10
Other 4.1% 5
N=121
Note that because respondents were allowed to make multiple selections, the percentages do not add up to 100%.

Respondents who selected “Other” identified the following modes of transportation:
• Electric Scooter
• Bart/Caltrain
• Lyft to BART or train, because no public transit near my home in the hills • Drive with my wife
• Public transportation 13
• Lime Scooter
San Bruno / South San Francisco Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) Update B-4 Appendix B: Community Survey – Summary of Results
C. Mobility Programs and Other Transportation Issues
Two final questions were posed to respondents about transportation. The first asked them to identify whether they are currently enrolled in any Mobility Programs. The second asked whether they experience difficulties accessing medical facilities, grocery stores, and/or schools, and to further elaborate on those difficulties.

The majority of respondents to this question (87.5%) are not enrolled in any mobility programs. Of those who are, only two elaborated on the programs they’re enrolled in, mentioning Clipper Start.

Results are detailed in Tables 5 and 6 below.

TABLE 5
Are you currently enrolled in any of NVTA’s Mobility Programs? Mobility Program Percentage Number
No 87.5% 105
Yes 9.2% 11
Please elaborate 3.3% 4
TOTALS 100.00% 120
Respondents elaborated on what mobility programs they are enrolled in as follows:
• Clipper Start x 2
• Not sure what this means but I have a disabled placard and a discounted Clipper Start card. • GoPass Forward
• Ramps
• I don’t even have a card
• Paratransit, but does not use it – too confusing and she has Alzheimer’s TABLE 6
Do you experience difficulties accessing medical facilities, grocery stores, and/or schools?
Response Options Percentage Number
No 72.6% 85
Yes 21.4% 25
Please elaborate 6.0% 7
TOTALS 100.00% 117
The following comments were made by respondents who responded to “please elaborate”:
 Currently I can still drive. The 141 is about one mile away, a long walk, unless you cross busy Skyline Blvd. Maybe have the 141 make a stop on Skyline Blvd and Berkshire.  No – When I lived near Skyline College, it was way more difficult to access  Can’t drive
 Slow or too slow (x 4)
 No transport
San Bruno / South San Francisco Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) Update B-5 Appendix B: Community Survey – Summary of Results
 Yes - Arthritis in old age
 Yes - There are a lot of requirements
Respondents were also asked to provide any additional comments for improving their transportation experience within the Equity Priority Communities identified in San Bruno and South San Francisco. Their comments have been included separately in the matrix listing and categorizing comments, and/or on the location-specific map and associated data table.

D. Survey Respondent Demographics
Respondents were asked a number of demographic questions, including neighborhood of residence within San Bruno or South San Francisco (or elsewhere), age, and race/ethnicity, to clarify who had responded to the survey. Those results are shown below.

TABLE 7
Where Do You Live?
Neighborhood / Area Percentage Number
San Bruno 39.1% 43
San Bruno 4.5% 5
Downtown or Heart of San Bruno 4.5% 5
Crestmoor 4.5% 5
Belle Air 3.6% 4
7th Avenue San Bruno 2.7% 3
Rollingwood 2.7% 3
Huntington Park 1.8% 2
Mills Park 1.8% 2
Monte Verde 1.8% 2
Portola Highlands 1.8% 2
Easton, Near Forest Lane Park, Lomita Park, Parkview, Lower San Bruno Avenues, San Felipe, [exact address redacted] on Camino San Bruno, Easton Ave, Diamond Street, Santa Clara Ave

0.9% each 1 each
South San Francisco 50.9% 56
South San Francisco 10.0% 11
Baden Avenue 2.7% 3
Aspen Avenue 1.8% 2
Miller Ave 1.8% 2
Sign Hill / Hillside area 1.8% 2
San Bruno Ave. 1.8% 2
West Orange Ave 1.8% 2
San Bruno / South San Francisco Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) Update B-6 Appendix B: Community Survey – Summary of Results
TABLE 7
Where Do You Live?
Neighborhood / Area Percentage Number
La Magnolia, Old Town/Barrio Viejo, Buri Buri, Alta Vista, Avalon Area, South San Francisco, 2nd Lane, SSF, Arroyo Drive, Bantry Lane, Drake, Grand Chestnut, Paradise Valley, Maple Avenue, Northwood Dr, Poplar Ave, Rail Road, South San Francisco Hickey, Spruce, West Winston Manor,
Westborough, [exact address redacted] on Alta Mesa Drive SSF, Aspen Ave SSF, Baden Ave SSF, California Ave SSF,
Circlura (?) Street SSF, Commercial Avenue, Del Monte SSF, Garden Ave South San Fransico, Gardiner Ave South San
Francisco, Larch Avenue South San Fransico, Lewis Avenue SSF, Linden Ave South San Fransico, Maple Ave

0.9% 1 each
Other Areas 5.5% 6
Brentwood, CuriOdyssey, Daly City, Guatemala, San Anselmo, San Mateo 0.9% 1 each
Unclear Location 5.5% 6
El Camino 2.7% 3
Near downtown, Military, Mission Street, 5th Edition 0.9% 1 each TOTALS 100% 110
TABLE 8
Which of the following age categories
describe you best?
Age Categories Percentage Number
55-64 27.1% 32
34-44 23.7% 28
45-54 18.7% 22
>65 11.9% 14
25-34 11.0% 13
18-24 5.9% 7
<18 1.7% 2
TOTALS 100.00% 118
TABLE 9
Please describe your race/ethnicity.

Race / Ethnicity Percentage Number
Hispanic, Latino, Mexican, Latin American, South American 62.5% 55 White / Caucasian 19.3% 17
Asian (unspecified, Japanese, Palestinian, Indian, Iranian) 8.0% 7 Mixed race 5.7% 5
Black or African American 3.4% 3
Polynesian / Pacific Islander 1.1% 1
TOTALS 100.00% 88
San Bruno / South San Francisco Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) Update B-7 Appendix B: Community Survey – Summary of Results
TABLE 10
What is your primary language?
Language Percentage Number
Spanish 49.6% 58
English 41.9% 49
Other (please specify) 8.5% 10
TOTALS 100.00% 117
Languages specified by respondents who selected “Other” included:
 English and Spanish (x2)
 Bilingual
 Hindi
TABLE 11
How many people live in your household (total number of the people in your home)? / What is your household income (total income of all people in your home? Total Household Income Ranges Number of People in
Household
Percentage of
Overall Total Number
Under $25,000 All 15.3% 18
6 1.7% 2
4 1.7% 2
3 5.1% 6
2 0.8% 1
[no response] 5.9% 7
Between $26,000 and $45,000 All 22.9% 27
5 2.5% 3
4 3.4% 4
3 5.9% 7
2 0.8% 1
1 0.8% 1
[no response] 9.3% 11
Between $46,000 and $65,000 All 19.5% 23
6 2.5% 3
5 2.5% 3
4 3.4% 4
3 2.5% 3
[no response] 8.5% 10
Between $66,000 and $85,000 All 8.5% 10
8 0.8% 1
5 0.8% 1
3 2.5% 3
2 0.8% 1
San Bruno / South San Francisco Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) Update B-8 Appendix B: Community Survey – Summary of Results
TABLE 11
How many people live in your household (total number of the people in your home)? / What is your household income (total income of all people in your home? Total Household Income Ranges Number of People in
Household
Percentage of
Overall Total Number
[no response] 3.4% 4
Between $86,000 and $110,000 All 9.3% 11
6 0.8% 1
5 1.7% 2
4 1.7% 2
3 1.7% 2
2 2.5% 3
[no response] 0.8% 1
Between $111,000 and $150,000 All 10.2% 12
3 5.1% 6
2 5.1% 6
Over $150,000 All 5.1% 6
7 0.8% 1
6 0.8% 1
4 1.7% 2
3 0.8% 1
[no response] 0.8% 1
I would prefer not to answer N/A 7.6% 9
TOTALS 100.00% 118
San Bruno/South San Francisco CBTP Annual Tracking Checklist CBTP Adoption Date:

Number of Active Transportation Projects:

Tracking Start Date:

Number of Transit and Paratransit Projects:

Number of Safety Projects:

Tracking End Date:

Total Number of Recommended Projects:

Project Milestones
Project Name
(Projects may be repeated to accommodate
multiple milestones)
Category (Check 1 for each row)
Milestone Description and Date
Funding Local Adoption/
Programming Implementation
Total Projects Currently Tracked:

Appendix D