DATE: November 26, 2008
TO: Distribution List for the San Francisco Bike Plan Project
FROM: Bill Wycko, Environmental Review Officer
SUBJECT: Request for the San Francisco Bike Plan Project
( Case No. 2007.0347E)
This is the Draft of the Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) for the San Francisco
Bike Plan Project Project. A public hearing will be held on the adequacy and
accuracy of this document. After the public hearing, we will prepare and publish
a document titled “ Summary of Comments and Responses” that will contain a
summary of all relevant comments on this Draft EIR and our responses to those
comments. It may also specify changes to this Draft EIR. Those who testify at the
hearing on the Draft EIR will automatically receive a copy of the Comments and
Responses document, along with notice of the date reserved for certification;
others may receive such copies and notice on request or by visiting our office.
This Draft EIR together with the Summary of Comments and Responses
document will be considered by the City Planning Commission in an advertised
public meeting( s) and certified as a Final EIR if deemed adequate.
After certification, we will modify the Draft EIR as specified by the Comments
and Responses document and print both documents in a single publication called
the Final EIR. The Final EIR will add no new information to the combination of
the two documents except to reproduce the certification resolution. It will simply
provide the information in one, rather than two, documents. Therefore, if you
receive a copy of the Comments and Responses document in addition to this copy
of the Draft EIR, you will technically have a copy of the Final EIR.
We are aware that many people who receive the Draft EIR and Summary of
Comments and Responses have no interest in receiving virtually the same
information after the EIR has been certified. To avoid expending money and
paper needlessly, we would like to send copies of the Final EIR to private
individuals only if they request them. If you would like a copy of the Final EIR,
therefore, please fill out and mail the postcard provided inside the back cover to
the San Francisco Planning Department within two weeks after certification of the
EIR. Any private party not requesting a Final EIR by that time will not be mailed
a copy. Public agencies on the distribution list will automatically receive a copy of
the Final EIR.
Thank you for your interest in this project.
www. sfplanning. org
2
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
San Francisco Planning Department
City and County of San Francisco
Case No. 2007.0347E
November 2008
State Clearinghouse No. 2008032052
Draft EIR Publication Date: November 26, 2008
Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: January 8, 2009
Draft EIR Public Comment Period: November 26, 2008 - January 13, 2009
Environmental Review Officer • San Francisco Planning Department
1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94103
Written comments should be sent to:
Table of Contents
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
‐ i‐
NOVEMBER 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Glossary....................................................................................................................... . I- 1
II. Executive Summary.................................................................................................. ES- 1
A. Project Synopsis ...................................................................................................... ES‐ 1
B. Environmental Issues............................................................................................. ES‐ 4
C. Summary of Project Alternatives........................................................................ ES‐ 74
D. Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved ............................................. ES‐ 74
III. Introduction ................................................................................................................. III- 1
A. History of Project ..................................................................................................... III‐ 1
B. Project Summary...................................................................................................... III‐ 3
C. Purpose of this EIR .................................................................................................. III‐ 4
D. Type of EIR ............................................................................................................... III‐ 5
E. Environmental Review Actions and Public Responses...................................... III‐ 6
F. To Learn More........................................................................................................ III‐ 10
IV. Project Description .................................................................................................... IV- 1
A. Project Objectives..................................................................................................... IV‐ 1
B. Project Location........................................................................................................ IV‐ 4
C. Project Characteristics ............................................................................................. IV‐ 7
D. Intended Uses of the EIR ...................................................................................... IV‐ 57
F. Plans and Policies .................................................................................................. IV‐ 57
V. Environmental Setting and Impacts ....................................................................... V. A. 1
A. Transportation....................................................................................................... V. A‐ 1
1. Overview and Organization ............................................................... V. A. 1‐ 1
2. Program‐ Level Review ........................................................................ V. A. 2‐ 1
3. Project Level Review ............................................................................ V. A. 3‐ 1
4. Minor Improvements ........................................................................... V. A. 4‐ 1
5. Long‐ Term Improvements .................................................................. V. A. 5‐ 1
6. Conclusion ............................................................................................. V. A. 6‐ 1
B. Air Quality.............................................................................................................. V. B‐ 1
C. Noise....................................................................................................................... V. C‐ 1
VI. Other Statutory Sections........................................................................................... VI- 1
A. Significant and Unavoidable, and Cumulative Environmental Impacts......... VI‐ 1
B. Growth‐ Inducing Impacts ...................................................................................... VI‐ 8
Table of Contents
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
‐ ii‐
NOVEMBER 2008
VII. Alternatives................................................................................................................ VII- 1
A Method of Alternatives Selection ........................................................................ VII‐ 2
B. Summary of Alternatives.................................................................................... VII‐ 14
VIII. EIR Authors and Consultants ................................................................................. VIII- 1
EIR Authors ........................................................................................................................... VIII‐ 1
EIR Consultants.................................................................................................................... VIII‐ 1
Project Sponsor...................................................................................................................... VIII‐ 2
Table of Contents
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
‐ iii‐
NOVEMBER 2008
TABLES
Matrix 1.1 Summary of Program‐ Level Impacts......................................................... V. A. 2‐ 57
Matrix 1.2 Summary of Project‐ Level Impacts.......................................................... V. A. 3‐ 626
Table ES‐ 1 Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures.......................... ES‐ 6
Table ES‐ 2 Summary of Improvement Measures............................................................. ES‐ 71
Table ES‐ 3 Summary of Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Identified in the Initial Study ( see Appendix A)........................................... ES‐ 72
Table V. 0‐ 1 All AM Intersections Studied ....................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 5
Table V. 0‐ 2 Study Intersections – PM Peak Hour........................................................... V. A. 3‐ 6
Table V. 0‐ 3 Transit Study Corridors................................................................................. V. A. 3‐ 9
Table V. 0‐ 4 Transit Spot Study Locations........................................................................ V. A. 3‐ 9
Table V. 0‐ 5 Parking and Loading Corridors ................................................................. V. A. 3‐ 10
Table V. B‐ 1 2006 Estimated Average Daily Emissions in
San Francisco County and the San Francisco Bay Area................................ V. B‐ 5
Table V. B‐ 2 Summary of Local Ambient Air Quality in the Project Vicinity.................. V. B‐ 7
Table V. B‐ 3 Motor Vehicle Eight‐ Hour Average
Carbon Monoxide Concentrations ( ppm)..................................................... V. B‐ 17
Table V. B‐ 4 Motor Vehicle Traffic TAC Emissions on
Selected Streets in the Plan Area .................................................................... V. B‐ 18
Table V. C‐ 1 Traffic Noise Levels at Selected Residential Receptors................................ V. C‐ 4
Cluster 1
Table V. 1‐ 1 Cluster 1 – Project 1‐ 1 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour............................................................................. V. A. 3‐ 25
Table V. 1‐ 2 Cluster 1 – Project 1‐ 3 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour............................................................................. V. A. 3‐ 29
Table V. 1‐ 3 Cluster 1 – Project 1‐ 1 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing and Existing plus
Project Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour ......................................... V. A. 3‐ 193
Table V. 1‐ 4 Cluster 1 – Project 1‐ 1 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and
Cumulative plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour ........ V. A. 3‐ 194
Table of Contents
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
‐ iv‐
NOVEMBER 2008
Table V. 1‐ 5 Cluster 1 – Project 1‐ 3 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing and Existing plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour....................................... V. A. 3‐ 200
Table V. 1‐ 6 Cluster 1 – Project 1‐ 3 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and
Cumulative plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour ........ V. A. 3‐ 200
Table V. 1‐ 7 Cluster 1 – Project 1‐ 3 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay Comparison 2025 Cumulative plus Project
Conditions with Mitigation Measures ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour..... V. A. 3‐ 210
Cluster 2
Table V. 2‐ 1 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 1 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour............................................................................. V. A. 3‐ 46
Table V. 2‐ 2 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 2 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour............................................................................. V. A. 3‐ 49
Table V. 2‐ 3 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 3 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour ............................................................................ V. A. 3‐ 52
Table V. 2‐ 4 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 3 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour............................................................................. V. A. 3‐ 52
Table V. 2‐ 5 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 4 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour............................................................................. V. A. 3‐ 54
Table V. 2‐ 6 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 6 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour............................................................................. V. A. 3‐ 57
Table V. 2‐ 7 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 7 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour............................................................................. V. A. 3‐ 59
Table V. 2‐ 8 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 3 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour ............................................................................ V. A. 3‐ 64
Table of Contents
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
‐ v‐
NOVEMBER 2008
Table V. 2‐ 9 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 11 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour............................................................................. V. A. 3‐ 64
Table V. 2‐ 10 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 12 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour ............................................................................ V. A. 3‐ 67
Table V. 2‐ 11 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 12 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour............................................................................. V. A. 3‐ 67
Table V. 2‐ 12 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 16 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour............................................................................. V. A. 3‐ 72
Table V. 2‐ 13 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 1 Intersection Level of Service
and Average Delay – Existing and Existing plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour....................................... V. A. 3‐ 212
Table V. 2‐ 14 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 1 Intersection Level of Service
and Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and 2025 Cumulative plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour....................................... V. A. 3‐ 213
Table V. 2‐ 15 Cluster 2 ‐ Comparison of Level of Service and Average Delay
for 2nd Street/ Townsend Street Existing and Existing plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour....................................... V. A. 3‐ 220
Table V. 2‐ 16 Cluster 2 – Projects 2‐ 1 and 2‐ 16 Comparison of
Level of Service and Average Delay for 2nd Street/
Townsend Street 2025 Cumulative and 2025 Cumulative plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour...................................... V. A. 3‐ 221
Table V. 2‐ 17 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 2 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing And Existing Plus
Project Conditions – Weekday PM Peak Hour ...................................... V. A. 3‐ 235
Table V. 2‐ 18 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 2 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and 2025 Cumulative
plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour .............................. V. A. 3‐ 235
Table V. 2‐ 19 Cluster 2 – Combined Projects 2‐ 3 and Project 2‐ 11 Intersection Level of
Service ( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing and Existing plus Project
Conditions ‐ Weekday AM Peak Hour ................................................... V. A. 3‐ 251
Table of Contents
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
‐ vi‐
NOVEMBER 2008
Table V. 2‐ 20 Cluster 2 – Combined Projects 2‐ 3 and 2‐ 11 Intersection
Level of Service ( LOS) and Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and
2025 Cumulative plus Project Conditions ‐
Weekday AM Peak Hour .......................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 252
Table V. 2‐ 21 Cluster 2 – Projects 2‐ 3 and 2‐ 11 Comparison of
Level of Service ( LOS) and Average Delay for
Church Street/ Market Street/ 14th Street ‐ Existing and
Existing plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour............... V. A. 3‐ 252
Table V. 2‐ 22 Cluster 2 – Projects 2‐ 3 and 2‐ 11 Comparison of Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay for Church Street/ Market Street/
14th Street 2025 Cumulative and 2025 Cumulative plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour....................................... V. A. 3‐ 253
Table V. 2‐ 23 Cluster 2 ‐ Projects 2‐ 4 and 2‐ 6 Comparison of
Level of Service ( LOS) and Average Delay for
10th Street/ Brannan Street/ Potrero Avenue/ Division
Street Existing and Existing plus Project Conditions ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 262
Table V. 2‐ 24 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 4 c Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing and Existing plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour....................................... V. A. 3‐ 262
Table V. 2‐ 25 Cluster 2 – Projects 2‐ 4 and 2‐ 6 Comparison of
Level of Service ( LOS) and Average Delay for
10th Street/ Brannan Street/ Potrero Avenue/ Division
Street 2025 Cumulative and 2025 Cumulative plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour....................................... V. A. 3‐ 263
Table V. 2‐ 26 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 4 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and 2025
Cumulative plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour ........ V. A. 3‐ 263
Table V. 2‐ 27 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 6 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing and Existing plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour....................................... V. A. 3‐ 277
Table V. 2‐ 28 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 6 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and 2025
Cumulative plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour ........ V. A. 3‐ 277
Table of Contents
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
‐ vii‐
NOVEMBER 2008
Table V. 2‐ 29 Cluster 2 – Projects 2‐ 6 and 2‐ 4 Comparison of
Level of Service ( LOS) and Average Delay for
10th Street/ Brannan Street/ Potrero Avenue/ Division
Street Existing and Existing plus Project Conditions ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 278
Table V. 2‐ 30 Cluster 2 – Projects 2‐ 6 and 2‐ 4 Comparison of
Level of Service ( LOS) and Average Delay for
10th Street/ Brannan Street/ Potrero Avenue/ Division
Street 2025 Cumulative and 2025 Cumulative plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour....................................... V. A. 3‐ 278
Table V. 2‐ 31 Cluster 2 – Projects 2‐ 7 and 2‐ 9 Combined Comparison of
Level of Service ( LOS) and Average Delay for
Fremont Street / Howard Street Existing and Existing plus
Project Conditions – Weekday PM Peak Hour ...................................... V. A. 3‐ 285
Table V. 2‐ 32 Cluster 2 – Projects 2‐ 7 and 2‐ 9 Comparison of Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay for Fremont Street/ Howard Street
2025 Cumulative and 2025 Cumulative plus Project Conditions ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 286
Table V. 2‐ 33 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 9 Comparison of Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay for Fremont Street/ Howard Street
Existing and Existing plus Project Conditions ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 290
Table V. 2‐ 34 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 9 Comparison of Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay for Fremont Street/ Howard Street
2025 Cumulative and 2025 Cumulative plus Project Conditions ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 291
Table V. 2‐ 35 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 11 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing and Existing plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday AM Peak Hour ...................................... V. A. 3‐ 297
Table V. 2‐ 36 Cluster 2 – projects 2‐ 3 and 2‐ 11 Comparison of
Level of Service ( LOS) and Average Delay for
Church Street/ Market Street/ 14th Street ‐ Existing and
Existing plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour............... V. A. 3‐ 297
Table V. 2‐ 37 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 11 Intersection Level of Service ( LOS) and
Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and 2025 Cumulative
plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday AM Peak Hour.............................. V. A. 3‐ 298
Table of Contents
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
‐ viii‐
NOVEMBER 2008
Table V. 2‐ 38 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 11 Intersection Level of Service ( LOS) and
Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and 2025 Cumulative
plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday AM Peak Hour.............................. V. A. 3‐ 298
Table V. 2‐ 39 Cluster 2 – project 2‐ 3 and 2‐ 11 Comparison of
Level of Service ( LOS) and Average Delay for
Church Street/ Market Street/ 14th Street ‐ 2025
Cumulative and 2025 Cumulative plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour....................................... V. A. 3‐ 299
Table V. 2‐ 40 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 11 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing and Existing plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour....................................... V. A. 3‐ 299
Table V. 2‐ 41 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 11 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and
2025 Cumulative plus Project Conditions ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 300
Table V. 2‐ 42 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 16 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing and Existing plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour....................................... V. A. 3‐ 317
Table V. 2‐ 43 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 16 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and
2025 Cumulative plus Project Conditions ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 317
Table V. 2‐ 44 Cluster 2 – Projects 2‐ 1 and 2‐ 16 Comparison of
Level of Service ( LOS) and Average Delay for 2nd Street/
Townsend Street Existing and Existing plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour....................................... V. A. 3‐ 318
Table V. 2‐ 45 Cluster 2 – Projects 2‐ 1 and 2‐ 16 Comparison of
Level of Service ( LOS) and Average Delay for 2nd Street/
Townsend Street 2025 Cumulative and 2025
Cumulative plus Project Conditions ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 318
Table V. 2‐ 46 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 1 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay Comparison Existing plus
Project Conditions with Mitigation Measures ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour 2nd Street/ Harrison Street ............................ V. A. 3‐ 333
Table of Contents
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
‐ ix‐
NOVEMBER 2008
Table V. 2‐ 47 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 1 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay Comparison 2025 Cumulative
plus Project Conditions with Mitigation Measures ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour 2nd Street/ Harrison Street ............................ V. A. 3‐ 335
Table V. 2‐ 48 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 1 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay Comparison Existing plus
Project Conditions with Mitigation Measures ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour 2nd Street/ Folsom Street............................... V. A. 3‐ 336
Table V. 2‐ 49 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 1 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay Comparison 2025 Cumulative
plus Project Conditions with Mitigation Measures ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour 2nd Street/ Folsom Street............................... V. A. 3‐ 337
Table V. 2‐ 50 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 2 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay Comparison Existing plus
Project Conditions with Mitigation Measures ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 345
Table V. 2‐ 51 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 3 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay Comparison Existing plus
Project Conditions with Mitigation Measures ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 347
Table V. 2‐ 52 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 6 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay Comparison Existing
plus Project Conditions with Mitigation Measures ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 351
Table V. 2‐ 5 3 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 7 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay Comparison Existing
plus Project Conditions with Mitigation Measures ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 352
Table V. 2‐ 54 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 7 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay Comparison 2025 Cumulative
plus Project Conditions with Mitigation Measures ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 353
Table V. 2‐ 55 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 9 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay Comparison Existing plus
Project Conditions with Mitigation Measures ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 353
Table of Contents
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
‐ x‐
NOVEMBER 2008
Table V. 2‐ 56 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 9 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay Comparison 2025
Cumulative plus Project Conditions with
Mitigation Measures ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour ................................... V. A. 3‐ 355
Table V. 2‐ 57 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 16 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay Comparison Existing plus
Project Conditions with Mitigation Measures ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour 7th Street/ Townsend Street .......................... V. A. 3‐ 357
Table V. 2‐ 58 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 16 Intersection Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay Comparison 2025 Cumulative plus
Project Conditions with Mitigation Measures ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour 7th Street/ Townsend Street .......................... V. A. 3‐ 359
Table V. 2‐ 59 Cluster 2 – Project 2‐ 16 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay Comparison 2025
Cumulative plus Project Conditions with
Mitigation Measures ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour ................................... V. A. 3‐ 360
Cluster 3
Table V. 3‐ 1 Cluster 3– Project 3‐ 1 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour............................................................................. V. A. 3‐ 83
Table V. 3‐ 2 Cluster 3 – Project 3‐ 2 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour ............................................................................ V. A. 3‐ 85
Table V. 3‐ 3 Cluster 3 – Project 3‐ 2 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour............................................................................. V. A. 3‐ 86
Table V. 3 4 Cluster 3 – Projects 3‐ 1 and 3‐ 2 Comparison of
Level of Service ( LOS) and Average Delay for
Masonic Avenue/ Fell Street Existing and Existing plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour....................................... V. A. 3‐ 364
Table V. 3‐ 5 Cluster 3 – Projects 3‐ 1 and 3‐ 2 Comparison of Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay for Masonic Avenue/ Fell Street
2025 Cumulative and 2025 Cumulative plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour....................................... V. A. 3‐ 366
Table of Contents
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
‐ xi‐
NOVEMBER 2008
Table V. 3‐ 6 Cluster 3 – Project 3‐ 2 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing and Existing
plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday AM Peak Hour.............................. V. A. 3‐ 371
Table V. 3‐ 7 Cluster 3 – Project 3‐ 2 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing and Existing
plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour .............................. V. A. 3‐ 372
Table V. 3‐ 8 Cluster 3 – Project 3‐ 2 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and
2025 Cumulative plus Project Conditions –
Weekday AM Peak Hour .......................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 372
Table V. 3‐ 9 Cluster 3 – Project 3‐ 2 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and
2025 Cumulative plus Project Conditions —
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 373
Table V. 3‐ 10 Cluster 3 Comparison of Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay for Masonic Avenue/
Fell Street Existing and Existing plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour....................................... V. A. 3‐ 373
Table V. 3‐ 11 Cluster 3 Comparison of Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay for Masonic Avenue/
Fell Street 2025 Cumulative and 2025 Cumulative
plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour .............................. V. A. 3‐ 374
Table V. 3‐ 12 Cluster 3 – Projects 3‐ 1 and 3‐ 2 Combined
Intersection Level of Service ( LOS) and Average Delay
Comparison Existing plus Project Conditions with
Mitigation Measures ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour ................................... V. A. 3‐ 400
Table V. 3‐ 13 Cluster 3 – Project 3‐ 2 Intersection Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay Comparison Existing plus
Project Conditions with Mitigation Measures ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 403
Table V. 3‐ 14 Cluster 3 – Project 3‐ 2 Intersection Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay Comparison 2025 Cumulative plus
Project Conditions with Mitigation Measures ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 405
Table of Contents
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
‐ xii‐
NOVEMBER 2008
Cluster 4
Table V. 4‐ 1 Cluster 4 – Project 4‐ 3 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 101
Table V. 4‐ 2 Cluster 4 – Project 4‐ 3 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing and Existing
plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour .............................. V. A. 3‐ 409
Table V. 4‐ 3 Cluster 4 – Project 4‐ 3 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and
2025 Cumulative plus Project Conditions ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 411
Cluster 5
Table V. 5‐ 1 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 1 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 120
Table V. 5‐ 2 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 2 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 122
Table V. 5‐ 3 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 3 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 124
Table V. 5‐ 4 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 4 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour .......................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 126
Table V. 5‐ 5 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 4 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 127
Table V. 5‐ 6 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 5 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 129
Table V. 5‐ 7 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 6 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour .......................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 130
Table of Contents
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
‐ xiii‐
NOVEMBER 2008
Table V. 5‐ 8 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 6 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 131
Table V. 5‐ 9 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 9 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour .......................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 136
Table V. 5‐ 10 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 9 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 137
Table V. 5‐ 11 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 12 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 141
Table V. 5‐ 12 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 1 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing and Existing
plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour .............................. V. A. 3‐ 418
Table V. 5‐ 14 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 2 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing and Existing
plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour .............................. V. A. 3‐ 424
Table V. 5‐ 15 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 2 Intersection Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and 2025 Cumulative
plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour .............................. V. A. 3‐ 425
Table V. 5‐ 16 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 3 Intersection Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay – Existing and Existing
plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour .............................. V. A. 3‐ 431
Table V. 5‐ 17 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 3 Intersection Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and 2025 Cumulative
plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour .............................. V. A. 3‐ 432
Table V. 5‐ 18 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 4 Intersection Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay – Existing and Existing
plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday AM Peak Hour.............................. V. A. 3‐ 436
Table V. 5‐ 19 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 4 Intersection Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and 2025 Cumulative
plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday AM Peak Hour.............................. V. A. 3‐ 436
Table V. 5‐ 20 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 4 Intersection Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay – Existing and Existing plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour....................................... V. A. 3‐ 438
Table of Contents
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
‐ xiv‐
NOVEMBER 2008
Table V. 5‐ 21 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 4 Intersection Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and 2025 Cumulative
plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour .............................. V. A. 3‐ 438
Table V. 5‐ 22 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 5 Intersection Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay – Existing and Existing plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour....................................... V. A. 3‐ 451
Table V. 5‐ 23 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 5 Intersection Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and 2025 Cumulative
plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour .............................. V. A. 3‐ 453
Table V. 5‐ 24 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 6 Intersection Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay – Existing and Existing plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday AM Peak Hour ...................................... V. A. 3‐ 458
Table V. 5‐ 25 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 6 Intersection Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and 2025 Cumulative
plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday AM Peak Hour.............................. V. A. 3‐ 459
Table V. 5‐ 26 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 6 Intersection Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay – Existing and Existing plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour....................................... V. A. 3‐ 460
Table V. 5‐ 27 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 6 Intersection Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and 2025 Cumulative
plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour .............................. V. A. 3‐ 461
Table V. 5‐ 28 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 9 Intersection Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay – Existing and Existing plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday AM Peak Hour ...................................... V. A. 3‐ 486
Table V. 5‐ 29 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 9 Intersection Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and 2025 Cumulative
plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday AM Peak Hour.............................. V. A. 3‐ 487
Table V. 5‐ 30 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 9 Intersection Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay – Existing and Existing plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour....................................... V. A. 3‐ 488
Table V. 5‐ 31 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 9 Intersection Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and 2025 Cumulative
plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour .............................. V. A. 3‐ 488
Table V. 5‐ 32 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 12 Intersection Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay – Existing and Existing plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour....................................... V. A. 3‐ 505
Table of Contents
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
‐ xv‐
NOVEMBER 2008
Table V. 5‐ 33 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 12 Intersection Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and 2025 Cumulative
plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour .............................. V. A. 3‐ 506
Table V. 5‐ 34 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 4 Intersection Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay Comparison 2025 Cumulative
plus Project Conditions with Mitigation Measures ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 515
Table V. 5‐ 35 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 6 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay Comparison 2025 Cumulative
plus Project Conditions with Mitigation Measures ‐
Weekday AM Peak Hour .......................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 518
Table V. 5‐ 36 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 6 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay Comparison 2025 Cumulative
plus Project Conditions with Mitigation Measures ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 519
Table V. 5‐ 37 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 6 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay Comparison Existing plus
Project Conditions with Mitigation Measures ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 522
Table V. 5‐ 38 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 6 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay Comparison 2025 Cumulative
plus Project Conditions with Mitigation Measures ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 523
Table V. 5‐ 39 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 6 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay Comparison Existing plus
Project Conditions with Mitigation Measures ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 526
Table V. 5‐ 40 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 6 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay Comparison 2025 Cumulative
plus Project Conditions with Mitigation Measures ‐
Weekday AM Peak Hour .......................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 526
Table V. 5‐ 41 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 6 Intersection Level of Service ( LOS) and
Average Delay Comparison Existing plus Project Conditions
with Mitigation Measures ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour .......................... V. A. 3‐ 529
Table of Contents
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
‐ xvi‐
NOVEMBER 2008
Table V. 5‐ 42 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 6 Intersection Level of Service ( LOS) and
Average Delay Comparison Existing plus Project Conditions
with Mitigation Measures ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour .......................... V. A. 3‐ 529
Table V. 5‐ 43 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 6 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay Comparison 2025 Cumulative
plus Project Conditions with Mitigation Measures ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 530
Table V. 5‐ 44 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 6 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay Comparison
2025 Cumulative plus Project Conditions
with Mitigation Measures ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour .......................... V. A. 3‐ 534
Table V. 5‐ 45 Cluster 5 – Project 5‐ 6 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay Comparison
Existing plus Project Conditions with
Mitigation Measures ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour ................................... V. A. 3‐ 534
Cluster 6
Table V. 6‐ 1 Cluster 6– Project 6‐ 2 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 151
Table V. 6‐ 2 Cluster 6– Project 6‐ 3 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 153
Table V. 6‐ 3 Cluster 6 – Project 6‐ 5 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour .......................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 156
Table V. 6‐ 4 Cluster 6 – Project 6‐ 5 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 156
Table V. 6‐ 5 Cluster 6 – Project 6‐ 6 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 158
Table V. 6‐ 6 Cluster 6 Comparison of Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay for Burnett Avenue/
Clipper Street/ Portola Drive Existing and Existing
plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour .............................. V. A. 3‐ 543
Table of Contents
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
‐ xvii‐
NOVEMBER 2008
Table V. 6‐ 7 Cluster 6 Comparison of Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay for Burnett Avenue/ Clipper Street/
Portola Drive 2025 Cumulative and 2025 Cumulative
plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour .............................. V. A. 3‐ 543
Table V. 6‐ 8 Cluster 6 – Project 6‐ 3 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing and Existing
plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour .............................. V. A. 3‐ 549
Table V. 6‐ 9 Cluster 6 – Project 6‐ 3 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and
2025 Cumulative plus Project Conditions ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 549
Table V. 6‐ 10 Cluster 6 – Projects 6‐ 5 and 6‐ 6 Comparison of
Level of Service ( LOS) and Average Delay for
Woodside Avenue/ O ʹ Shaughnessy Boulevard/
Portola Drive Existing and Existing plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday AM Peak Hour ...................................... V. A. 3‐ 556
Table V. 6‐ 11 Cluster 6 Comparison of Level of Service ( LOS) and
Average Delay for Woodside Avenue/ O ʹ Shaughnessy
Boulevard/ Portola Drive Existing and Existing plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour....................................... V. A. 3‐ 557
Table V. 6‐ 12 Cluster 6 Comparison of Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay for Woodside Avenue/ O ʹ Shaughnessy
Boulevard/ Portola Drive 2025 Cumulative and 2025
Cumulative plus Project Conditions ‐
Weekday AM Peak Hour .......................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 558
Table V. 6‐ 13 Cluster 6 Comparison of Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay for Woodside Avenue/ O ʹ Shaughnessy
Boulevard/ Portola Drive 2025 Cumulative and
2025 Cumulative plus Project Conditions ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 559
Table V. 6‐ 14 Cluster 6 Comparison of Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay for Burnett Avenue/
Clipper Street/ Portola Drive Existing and
Existing plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour............... V. A. 3‐ 563
Table V. 6‐ 15 Cluster 6 Comparison of Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay for Burnett Avenue/
Table of Contents
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
‐ xviii‐
NOVEMBER 2008
Clipper Street/ Portola Drive 2025 Cumulative
and 2025 Cumulative plus Project Conditions ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 564
Table V. 6‐ 16 Cluster 6 Comparison of Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay for Woodside Avenue/
O ʹ Shaughnessy Boulevard/ Portola Drive Existing
and Existing plus Project Conditions ‐
Weekday AM Peak Hour .......................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 573
Table V. 6‐ 17 Cluster 6 Comparison of Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay for Woodside Avenue/ O ʹ Shaughnessy
Boulevard/ Portola Drive Existing and Existing plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour....................................... V. A. 3‐ 574
Table V. 6‐ 18 Cluster 6 Comparison of Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay for Woodside Avenue/ O ʹ Shaughnessy
Boulevard/ Portola Drive 2025 Cumulative and
2025 Cumulative plus Project Conditions ‐
Weekday AM Peak Hour .......................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 575
Table V. 6‐ 19 Cluster 6 Comparison of Level of Service ( LOS)
and Average Delay for Woodside Avenue/
O ʹ Shaughnessy Boulevard/ Portola Drive
2025 Cumulative and 2025 Cumulative plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour....................................... V. A. 3‐ 576
Table V. 6‐ 20 Cluster 6 – Project 6‐ 6 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing and Existing
plus Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour .............................. V. A. 3‐ 579
Table V. 6‐ 21 Cluster 6 – Project 6‐ 6 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and
2025 Cumulative plus Project Conditions ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 579
Cluster 7
Table V. 7‐ 1 Cluster 7– Project 7‐ 1 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 168
Table of Contents
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
‐ xix‐
NOVEMBER 2008
Table V. 7‐ 2 Cluster 7– Project 7‐ 2 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 170
Table V. 7‐ 3 Cluster 7– Project 7‐ 3 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 172
Table V. 7‐ 4 Cluster 7 – Project 7‐ 1 Intersection Level of Service
and Average Delay – Existing and Existing Plus
Project Conditions ‐ Weekday PM Peak Hour....................................... V. A. 3‐ 598
Table V. 7‐ 5 Cluster 7 – Project 7‐ 1 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and
Cumulative plus Project Conditions ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 599
Table V. 7‐ 6 Cluster 7 – Project 7‐ 2 Intersection Level of Service and
Average Delay – Existing and Existing plus
Project Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour ......................................... V. A. 3‐ 601
Table V. 7‐ 7 Cluster 1 – Project 7‐ 2 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and
Cumulative plus Project Conditions ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 602
Table V. 7‐ 8 Cluster 7 – Project 7‐ 3 Intersection Level of Service and
Average Delay – Existing and Existing Plus Project
Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour ...................................................... V. A. 3‐ 605
Table V. 7‐ 9 Cluster 1 – Project 7‐ 3 Intersection Level of Service
( LOS) and Average Delay – 2025 Cumulative and
Cumulative plus Project Conditions ‐
Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................................... V. A. 3‐ 606
Table of Contents
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
‐ xx‐
NOVEMBER 2008
FIGURES
Figure IV. B. 1‐ 1 Project location and Site Plan.......................................................................... IV. B‐ 5
Figure IV. D. 1‐ 1 Illustration of Sharrows................................................................................. IV. D‐ 56
Figure V. A. 3‐ 1 A Sharrow........................................................................................................ V. A. 3‐ 2
Figure V. A. 3‐ 2 Project Level Analysis Study Clusters......................................................... V. A. 3‐ 4
Figure V. A. 3‐ 3 Sensitivity of Vehicle Delay to Volume/ Capacity Ratio.......................... V. A. 3‐ 16
Figure V. A. 3‐ 4 Average Bus Reentry Delay into Adjacent Traffic................................... V. A. 3‐ 18
Figure V. A. 3‐ 5 Cluster 1 ‐ Study Area.................................................................................. V. A. 3‐ 20
Figure V. A. 3‐ 6 Cluster 2 ‐ Study Area.................................................................................. V. A. 3‐ 32
Figure V. A. 3‐ 7 Cluster 3 ‐ Study Area.................................................................................. V. A. 3‐ 82
Figure V. A. 3‐ 8 Cluster 4 ‐ Study Area.................................................................................. V. A. 3‐ 99
Figure V. A. 3‐ 9 Cluster 5 ‐ Study Area................................................................................ V. A. 3‐ 106
Figure V. A. 3‐ 10 Cluster 6 ‐ Study Area................................................................................ V. A. 3‐ 149
Figure V. A. 3‐ 11 Cluster 7 ‐ Study Area................................................................................ V. A. 3‐ 162
Figure V. A. 3‐ 12 Cluster 8 ‐ Study Area................................................................................ V. A. 3‐ 179
Figure V. A. 4‐ 1 Sharrow............................................................................................................ V. A. 4‐ 3
Figure V. A. 4‐ 2 Example “ U” Rack and On Street Bicycle Parking.................................... V. A. 4‐ 5
Figure V. A. 4‐ 3 Bicycle Box Schematic.................................................................................... V. A. 4‐ 7
Figure V. A. 4 4 Bicycle Box on 14th Street.............................................................................. V. A. 4‐ 8
Figure V. A. 5‐ 1 Long‐ Term Improvements............................................................................ V. A. 5‐ 2
Table of Contents
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
‐ xxi‐
NOVEMBER 2008
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Initial Study.................................................................................................... A- 1
Appendix B: Near- term Improvement Project Drawings ................................................ B- 1
Project 1‐ 1 Existing Broadway St, Polk St to Webster St .......................................................... B‐ l
Project 1‐ 1 Proposed Broadway St, Polk St to Webster St....................................................... B‐ 2
Project 1‐ 2 Existing Broadway Tunnel Powell St to Larkin St................................................ B‐ 3
Project 1‐ 2 Proposed Broadway Tunnel West Portal............................................................... B‐ 4
Project 1‐ 2 Proposed Broadway Tunnel East Portal ................................................................ B‐ 5
Project 1‐ 3 Existing North Point St, The Embarcadero to Van Ness Ave ............................. B‐ 6
Project 1‐ 3 Proposed North Point St, The Embarcadero to Van Ness Ave........................... B‐ 8
Project 2‐ 1 Existing 2nd St, King to Market Sts ...................................................................... B‐ 10
Project 2‐ 1 Proposed Option 1, 2nd St, King to Market Sts .................................................. B‐ 12
Project 2‐ 1 Proposed Option 2, 2nd St, King to Market Sts .................................................. B‐ 14
Project 2‐ 2 Existing 5th St, Market to Townsend Sts ............................................................. B‐ 16
Project 2‐ 2 Proposed Option 1, 5th St, Market to Townsend Sts.......................................... B‐ 17
Project 2‐ 2 Proposed Option 2, 5th St, Market to Townsend Sts.......................................... B‐ 19
Project 2‐ 3 Existing 14th St, Dolores to Market Sts ................................................................ B‐ 21
Project 2‐ 3 Proposed Option 1,14th St, Dolores to Market Sts ............................................. B‐ 22
Project 2‐ 3 Proposed Option 2,14th St, Dolores to Market Sts ............................................. B‐ 23
Project 2‐ 4 Existing 17th St, Corbett Ave to Kansas St .......................................................... B‐ 24
Project 2‐ 4 Proposed Option 1,17th St, Corbett Ave to Kansas St........................................ B‐ 31
Project 2‐ 4 Proposed Option 2,17th St, Corbett Ave to Kansas St........................................ B‐ 37
Project 2‐ 5 Existing Beale St, Folsom St to Bryant St.............................................................. B‐ 44
Project 2‐ 5 Proposed Beale St, Folsom St to Bryant St ........................................................... B‐ 45
Project 2‐ 6 Existing Division St, 9th St to 11th St.................................................................... B‐ 46
Project 2‐ 6 Proposed Option 1, Division St, 9th St to 11th St................................................ B‐ 47
Project 2‐ 6 Proposed Option 2, Division St, 9th St to 11th St................................................ B‐ 48
Project 2‐ 7 Existing Fremont St, Harrison St to Howard St .................................................. B‐ 49
Project 2‐ 7 Proposed Fremont St, Harrison St to Howard St................................................ B‐ 50
Project 2‐ 8 Existing Howard St, Westbound Short Extension at 9th St............................... B‐ 51
Project 2‐ 8 Proposed Option 1, Howard St, Westbound Short Extension at 9th St........... B‐ 52
Project 2‐ 9 Existing and Proposed Howard St, The Embarcadero to Fremont St.............. B‐ 53
Project 2‐ 10 Existing Market St, Valencia St, Intersection Improvement.............................. B‐ 54
Project 2‐ 10 Proposed Market St, Valencia St, Intersection Improvement ........................... B‐ 55
Project 2‐ 11 Existing Market St, 17th St to Octavia Blvd......................................................... B‐ 56
Table of Contents
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
‐ xxii‐
NOVEMBER 2008
Project 2‐ 11 Proposed Option 1, Market St, 17th St to Octavia Blvd ..................................... B‐ 58
Project 2‐ 11 Proposed Option 2, Market St, 17th St to Octavia Blvd ..................................... B‐ 60
Project 2‐ 12 Existing Market St, Octavia Blvd to Van Ness Ave............................................ B‐ 62
Project 2‐ 12 Proposed Market St, Octavia Blvd to Van Ness Ave ......................................... B‐ 63
Project 2‐ 13 Existing McCoppin St, Market to Valencia Sts.................................................... B‐ 64
Project 2‐ 13 Proposed McCoppin St, Market to Valencia Sts ................................................. B‐ 65
Project 2‐ 14 Existing McCoppin St, Gough St to Valencia St.................................................. B‐ 66
Project 2‐ 14 Proposed McCoppin St, Gough St to Valencia St ............................................... B‐ 67
Project 2‐ 15 Existing Otis St, Gough St to South Van Ness Ave ............................................ B‐ 68
Project 2‐ 15 Proposed Otis St, Gough St to South Van Ness Ave.......................................... B‐ 69
Project 2‐ 16 Existing Townsend St, 8th St to The Embarcadero............................................. B‐ 70
Project 2‐ 16 Proposed Option 1 ‐ Townsend St, 8th St to The Embarcadero ....................... B‐ 73
Project 2‐ 16 Proposed Option 2 ‐ Townsend St, 8th St to The Embarcadero ....................... B‐ 76
Project 3‐ 1 Existing Fell St and Masonic Ave Intersection.................................................... B‐ 79
Project 3‐ 1 Proposed Option 1, Fell St and Masonic Ave Intersection ................................ B‐ 80
Project 3‐ 1 Proposed Option 2, Fell St and Masonic Ave Intersection ................................ B‐ 81
Project 3‐ 2 Existing Masonic Ave, Fell St to Geary Blvd....................................................... B‐ 82
Project 3‐ 2 Proposed Option 1, Masonic Ave, Fell St to Geary Blvd ................................... B‐ 84
Project 3‐ 2 Proposed Option 2, Masonic Ave, Fell St to Geary Blvd ................................... B‐ 86
Project 3‐ 3 Existing and Proposed McAllister St, Market St to Masonic Ave .................... B‐ 88
Project 3‐ 4 Existing Polk St, Market to McAllister Sts ........................................................... B‐ 89
Project 3‐ 4 Proposed Option 1, Polk St, Market to McAllister Sts ....................................... B‐ 90
Project 3‐ 4 Proposed Option 2, Polk St, Market to McAllister Sts ....................................... B‐ 91
Project 3‐ 5 Existing Scott St, Fell to Oak Sts ............................................................................ B‐ 92
Project 3‐ 5 Proposed Option 1, Scott St, Fell to Oak Sts ........................................................ B‐ 93
Project 3‐ 5 Proposed Option 2, Scott St, Fell to Oak Sts ........................................................ B‐ 94
Project 3‐ 6 Existing The Wiggle, Duboce/ Steiner/ Waller/ Pierce/ Haight/ Scott .................. B‐ 95
Project 3‐ 6 Proposed The Wiggle, Duboce/ Steiner/ Waller/ Pierce/ Haight/ Scott ................ B‐ 98
Project4‐ l Existing 16th St, 3rd St to Terry Francois Blvd.................................................. B‐ 101
Project 4‐ 1 Proposed 16th St, 3rd St to Terry Francois Blvd ............................................... B‐ 102
Project 4‐ 2 Existing Cargo Way, 3rd St to Jennings St......................................................... B‐ 103
Project 4‐ 2 Proposed Option 1, Cargo Way, 3rd St to Jennings St ..................................... B‐ 104
Project 4‐ 2 Proposed Option 2, Cargo Way, 3rd St to Jennings St ..................................... B‐ 106
Project 4‐ 3 Existing Illinois St, 16th St to Cargo Way .......................................................... B‐ 107
Project 4‐ 3 Proposed Illinois St, 16th St to Cargo Way........................................................ B‐ 110
Project 4‐ 4 Existing Innes Ave, Donahue St to Hunters Point Blvd .................................. B‐ 113
Table of Contents
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
‐ xxiii‐
NOVEMBER 2008
Project 4‐ 4 Proposed Option 1, Innes Ave, Donahue St to Hunters Point Blvd .............. B‐ 114
Project 4‐ 4 Proposed Option 2, Innes Ave, Donahue St to Hunters Point Blvd .............. B‐ 115
Project 4‐ 5 Existing and Proposed Mississippi St, Mariposa St to 16th St........................ B‐ 116
Project 5‐ 1 Existing and Proposed 23rd St, Kansas St to Potrero Ave............................... B‐ 117
Project 5‐ 2 Existing Alemany Blvd, Westbound Bayshore to Rousseau........................... B‐ 118
Project 5‐ 2 Proposed Alemany Blvd, Westbound Bayshore to Rousseau ........................ B‐ 123
Project 5‐ 3 Existing Alemany Blvd, Rousseau St to San Jose Ave ..................................... B‐ 128
Project 5‐ 3 Proposed Alemany Blvd, Rousseau St to San Jose Ave................................... B‐ 134
Project 5‐ 4 Existing Bayshore Blvd, Cesar Chavez to Silver Ave....................................... B‐ 140
Project 5‐ 4 Proposed Option 1, Bayshore Blvd, Cesar Chavez to Silver Ave................... B‐ 144
Project 5‐ 4 Proposed Option 2, Bayshore Blvd, Cesar Chavez to Silver Ave................... B‐ 148
Project 5‐ 5 Existing, Options 1 and 2 Cesar Chavez, US 101 ( Kansas) to
1‐ 280 ( Mississippi)................................................................................................. B‐ 152
Project 5‐ 6 Cesar Chavez St, Hampshire St/ US 101 to Sanchez St ..................................... B‐ 153
Project 5‐ 7 Existing Glen Park Area ( a) ‐ Arlington, Bosworth, Lyell, Milton,
Rousseau, Still, Alemany Blvd to San Jose Ave ................................................ B‐ 154
Project 5‐ 7 Proposed Option 1, Glen Park Area ( a) ‐ Arlington, Bosworth, Lyell,
Milton, Rousseau, Still, Alemany Blvd to San Jose Ave .................................. B‐ 156
Project 5 ‐ 7 Proposed Option 2, GlenParkArea( a) Arlington, Bosworth, Lyell, Milton,
Rousseau, Still, Alemany Blvd to San Jose Ave ................................................ B‐ 158
Project 5‐ 7 Existing Glen Park Area ( b) San Jose/ Monterey Ramps,
Monterey Blvd to Milton St.................................................................................. B‐ 160
Project 5‐ 7 Proposed Glen Park Area ( b) ‐ San Jose/ Monterey Ramps,
Monterey Blvd to Milton St.................................................................................. B‐ 161
Project 5‐ 8 Existing Kansas St, 23rd St to 26th St.................................................................. B‐ 162
Project 5‐ 8 Proposed Kansas St, 23rd St to 26th St ............................................................... B‐ 164
Project 5‐ 9 Existing Ocean Ave, Alemany Blvd to Lee Ave................................................ B‐ 166
Project 5‐ 9 Proposed Option l, Ocean Ave, Alemany Blvd to Lee Ave ............................. B‐ 169
Project 5‐ 9 Proposed Option 2, Ocean Ave, Alemany Blvd to Lee Ave............................ B‐ 172
Project 5‐ 10 Existing Phelan Ave, Judson Ave to Ocean Ave............................................... B‐ 174
Project 5‐ 10 Proposed Option 1, Phelan Ave, Judson Ave to Ocean Ave........................... B‐ 175
Project 5‐ 10 Proposed Option 2, Phelan Ave, Judson Ave to Ocean Ave........................... B‐ 176
Project 5‐ 11 Existing Potrero Ave and Bayshore Blvd, 25th St to Cesar Chavez............... B‐ 177
Project 5‐ 11 Proposed Potrero Ave and Bayshore Blvd, 25th St to Cesar Chavez............. B‐ 178
Project 5‐ 12 Existing Sagamore St and Sickles Ave,
Alemany Blvd to Brotherhood Way................................................................... B‐ 179
Table of Contents
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
‐ xxiv‐
NOVEMBER 2008
Project 5‐ 12 Proposed Option 1, Sagamore St and Sickles Ave,
Alemany Blvd to Brotherhood Way................................................................... B‐ 180
Project 5‐ 12 Proposed Option 2, Sagamore St and Sickles Ave,
Alemany Blvd to Brotherhood Way................................................................... B‐ 181
Project 5‐ 13 Existing San Bruno Ave, Paul Ave to Silver Ave.............................................. B‐ 182
Project 5‐ 13 Proposed Option 1, San Bruno Ave, Paul Ave to Silver Ave.......................... B‐ 184
Project 5‐ 13 Proposed Option 2, San Bruno Ave, Paul Ave to Silver Ave.......................... B‐ 186
Project 6‐ 1 Existing Claremont Blvd, Portola Drive to Dewey Circle ............................... B‐ 188
Project 6‐ 1 Proposed Claremont Blvd, Portola Drive to Dewey Circle............................. B‐ 189
Project 6‐ 2 Clipper St, Douglass St to Portola Drive............................................................ B‐ 190
Project 6‐ 2 Proposed Option 1, Clipper St, Douglass St to Portola Drive......................... B‐ 191
Project 6‐ 2 Proposed Option 2, Clipper St, Douglass St to Portola Drive......................... B‐ 193
Project 6‐ 3 Existing Laguna Honda Blvd, Plaza St to Woodside Ave............................... B‐ 195
Project 6‐ 3 Proposed Option 1, Laguna Honda Blvd, Plaza St to Woodside Ave........... B‐ 196
Project 6‐ 3 Proposed Option 2, Laguna Honda Blvd, Plaza St to Woodside Ave........... B‐ 197
Project 6‐ 4 Existing Laguna Honda Blvd, Portola Drive to Woodside Ave..................... B‐ 198
Project 6‐ 4 Proposed Laguna Honda Blvd, Portola Drive to Woodside Ave................... B‐ 199
Project 6‐ 5 Existing Portola Drive, Corbett Ave to O’Shaughnessy Blvd......................... B‐ 200
Project 6‐ 5 Proposed Portola Drive, Corbett Ave to O’Shaughnessy Blvd....................... B‐ 204
Project 6‐ 6 Existing, Proposed Options 1 & 2 Portola Drive O’Shaughnessy Blvd
to Sloat Blvd ........................................................................................................... B‐ 207
Project 7‐ 1 Existing and Proposed Seventh Ave, Lincoln Way ‐ Intersection.................. B‐ 208
Project 7‐ 2 Existing Seventh Ave, Lincoln Way to Lawton St ............................................ B‐ 209
Project 7‐ 2 Proposed Seventh Ave, Lincoln Way to Lawton St.......................................... B‐ 210
Project 7‐ 3 Existing Great Highway and Point Lobos,
Balboa St to El Camino Del Mar.......................................................................... B‐ 211
Project 7‐ 3 Proposed Great Highway and Point Lobos, Balboa St to
El Camino Del Mar................................................................................................ B‐ 213
Project 7‐ 4 Existing John F. Kennedy Drive and Kezar Drive, Stanyan Street to
Transverse Drive ................................................................................................... B‐ 216
Project 7‐ 4 Proposed John F. Kennedy Drive, Kezar Drive to Transverse Drive............. B‐ 220
Project 7‐ 5 Existing and Proposed Kirkham St, 9th Ave to Great Highway .................... B‐ 225
Project 7‐ 6 Existing and Proposed Page St, and Stanyan St Intersection.......................... B‐ 231
Project 8‐ 1 Existing 19th Ave, Buckingham Way to Holloway Ave.................................. B‐ 232
Project 8‐ 1 Proposed Option 1,19th Ave, Buckingham Way to Holloway Ave............... B‐ 233
Project 8‐ 1 Proposed Option 2,19th Ave, Buckingham Way to Holloway Ave............... B‐ 234
Table of Contents
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
‐ xxv‐
NOVEMBER 2008
Project 8‐ 2 Existing Buckingham Way, 19th to 20th Aves .................................................. B‐ 235
Project 8‐ 2 Proposed Buckingham Way, 19th to 20th Aves................................................ B‐ 236
Project 8‐ 3 Existing Holloway Ave, Junipero Serra Blvd to Varela Ave........................... B‐ 237
Project 8‐ 3 Proposed Option 1, Holloway Ave, Junipero Serra Blvd to Varela Ave....... B‐ 238
Project 8‐ 3 Proposed Option 2, Holloway Ave, Junipero Serra Blvd to Varela Ave....... B‐ 239
Project 8‐ 4 Existing John Muir Drive, Lake Merced Blvd to Skyline Blvd ....................... B‐ 240
Project 8‐ 4 Proposed John Muir Drive, Lake Merced Blvd to Skyline Blvd..................... B‐ 242
Project 8‐ 5 Existing Sloat Blvd, Great Highway to Skyline Blvd ....................................... B‐ 244
Project 8‐ 5 Proposed Sloat Blvd, Great Highway to Skyline Blvd..................................... B‐ 247
Appendix C MSAT Model Output...................................................................................... C- 1
Table of Contents
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
‐ xxvi‐
NOVEMBER 2008
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
I. Glossary
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
I‐ 1
NOVEMBER 2008
I. GLOSSARY
ACWS Asphalt Concrete Wearing Surface
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
BBATF BART Bicycle Accessibility Task Force
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BAC Bicycle Advisory Committee
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BAFUL Bicycles Allowed Full Use of Lane
BATA Bay Area Toll Authority
BFU Caltrans Bicycle Facilities Unit
BOS Board of Supervisors
BTP Bicycle Transportation Plan
BTIP Bayview Transportation Improvement Project
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CMUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
CTCDC California Traffic Control Device Committee
CVC California Vehicle Code
CMA Congestion Management Agency
DPT Department of Parking and Traffic
DPH Department of Public Health
DPW Department of Public Works
EMS Emergency Medical Services Division
EIR Environmental Impact Report
GGBHTD Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District
GGNRA Golden Gate National Recreation Area
GGT Golden Gate Transit
GIS Geographic Information System
HDM Caltrans Highway Design Manual
IS Initial Study
ISCOTT Interdepartmental Staff Committee on Traffic and Transportation
ISTEA Inter‐ modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
ITS Intelligent Transportation System
LAB League of American Bicyclists
LOS Level of Service
LRV Light Rail Vehicle
MEA Major Environmental Analysis
MMC methyl methacrylate
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MTA San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
MTA CAC Municipal Transportation Agency Citizen’s Advisory Council
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
I. Glossary
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
I‐ 2
NOVEMBER 2008
MUTCD Federal Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
Muni San Francisco Municipal Railway
OTS Office of Traffic Safety
OC Oversight Committee
PCO Parking Control Officer
PJPB Peninsula Joint Powers Board ( Caltrain)
PMS Pavement Management System
ROW Right‐ Of‐ Way
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RTPA Regional Transportation Planning Agency
SAR Strategic Analysis Report
SCCC Street Construction Coordination Center
SFBC San Francisco Bicycle Coalition
SFCTA San Francisco County Transportation Authority
SF Environment Department of the Environment
SFFD San Francisco Fire Department
SFGH San Francisco General Hospital
SFMTA San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
SFPD San Francisco Police Department
SFRA San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
SFUSD San Francisco Unified School District
Sharrow Shared Lane Pavement Marking
SR2S Safe Routes to School
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
SWITRS Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
TC San Francisco Transportation Code
TDA Transportation Development Act
TEA‐ 21 Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century
TFCA Transportation Fund for Clean Air
TIS Transportation Impact Study
TWG Technical Working Group
II. Executive Summary
A. Project Synopsis
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
ES‐ 1
NOVEMBER 2008
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) chapter provides a brief summary of the proposed San
Francisco Bicycle Plan Project ( the “ Proposed Project”) and its potential environmental
consequences. The chapter includes a summary description of the Proposed Project, a summary
list of related environmental issues to be resolved, a summary identification of the associated
significant environmental impact and mitigation findings of this EIR, and a summary of EIR‐identified
alternatives to the Proposed Project and their comparative environmental effects.
This summary should not be relied upon for a thorough understanding of the Proposed Project
and its individual impacts and mitigation needs. Please refer to Chapter IV of this EIR for a
more complete description of the Proposed Project and to Chapters V and VI for a more
complete description of associated impacts and mitigation needs, and Chapter VII of this EIR
for a more complete description of identified alternatives to the Proposed Project and their
comparative impacts.
A. PROJECT SYNOPSIS
The San Francisco Bicycle Plan ( Bicycle Plan Project), would provide for the implementation of
near‐ term bicycle route improvement projects ( near‐ term improvements), long‐ term bicycle
route network improvement projects ( long‐ term improvements), and minor improvements such
as signage and pavement marking changes. It would also adopt policy goals, objectives, and
actions to support the implementation of these and related changes, at this time and in the
future. By enacting these changes, the Bicycle Plan Project’s overall goal is to increase safe
bicycle use; the Bicycle Plan’s specific goals are to ( 1) refine and expand the existing bicycle
route network; ( 2) ensure plentiful, high‐ quality bicycle parking to complement the bicycle
route network; ( 3) expand bicycle access to transit and bridges ( 4) educate the public about
bicycle safety; ( 5) improve bicycle safety through targeted enforcement; ( 6) promote and
encourage safe bicycling; ( 7) adopt bicycle‐ friendly practices and policies; and ( 8) prioritize and
increase bicycle funding.
BICYCLE PLAN
In order to accomplish its goals, the Proposed Project would amend the City and County of San
Francisco’s General Plan, the Planning Code, and the Transportation Code to reflect the Bicycle Plan
or implement its policies.
II. Executive Summary
A. Project Synopsis
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
ES‐ 2
NOVEMBER 2008
In order to accomplish its goals, the Bicycle Plan Project would implement policy actions, near‐term
improvements, minor improvements, and long‐ term improvements. Implementation of
the policy actions, and implementation of the proposed improvements, would also require
amendments to the San Francisco General Plan and Planning Code. Some Transportation Code
amendments would also be required, to allow for bicycle safety education, issuance of bicycle
“ fix‐ it” tickets, and other actions. Each proposed policy; near‐ term improvement, long‐ term,
improvement, and minor improvement is described in Chapter IV, Project Description, and
analyzed in Chapter V, Subsections V. A. 2 through V. A. 5, pp. V. A. 2‐ 1 through V. A. 5‐ 30, of this
EIR. Applicable changes to the General Plan, Planning Code, or Transportation Code are proposed
to reflect the updated Bicycle Plan policies.
Near- term Improvements
The near‐ term improvements are bicycle route network improvement projects that will address
gaps and deficiencies within the existing bicycle route network. These near‐ term improvements
include bicycle projects that were originally listed as priority projects in the April 2005 draft
Network Improvement Document ( NID); projects that were already funded, but not
implemented prior to the Superior Court of California ruling that prevented implementation;
and projects that have recently been designed. There are 60 near‐ term improvements with
complete and specific project designs.
The proposed near‐ term improvements consist of design elements intended to enhance safety
and improve bicycle travel in the City. These elements vary from simple improvements such as
pavement markings, including sharrows, 1 to more complex treatments, like the installation of
bicycle lanes, pathways or other bicycle facilities. Some of these treatments may be
implemented in conjunction with the removal or narrowing of traffic lanes. For most of the
specific near‐ term improvements, more than one design option has been developed for
consideration by decision makers. The design options chosen for analysis for each project
represent a range in terms of resulting environmental effects. As such, these options now
constitute a suite of design elements from which decision‐ makers may choose in order to
address the network deficiencies at a specific location. With certification of the Bicycle Plan
Project EIR, no further environmental analysis would be required to implement any such design
1 Sharrows are a traffic control device which consists of pavement markings within the traffic lane.
The markings are intended to alert drivers that bicyclists share the traffic lane and also to reduce the
chance of bicyclists impacting the open doors of parked vehicles. For more information on sharrows,
please see http:// www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ traffops/ signtech/ mutcdsupp/ pdf/ camutcd/ CAMUTCDPart
9. pdf.
II. Executive Summary
A. Project Synopsis
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
ES‐ 3
NOVEMBER 2008
element that is within the range of design elements studied as part of this environmental review
process.
Written project descriptions for each of the 60 near‐ term improvements are included in the
Project Description section of this report and project drawings showing existing and proposed
road configurations are provided in Appendix B. The project‐ level analysis of potential
environmental effects is included in Chapter V, Section V. A. 3, p. V. A. 3‐ 1. The implementation
of these design‐ ready projects will close network gaps and improve safety and cyclists’
experience, thereby increasing bicycle ridership to meet the overall goal of the Bicycle Plan.
Minor Improvements
Minor improvements are treatments that may be implemented as necessary to improve
conditions for bicycle use within the City. They include the following design elements to
improve bicycle travel: minor pavement marking and signage changes such as the installation
of colored pavement materials or sharrows ( shared lane markings) or minor changes to parking
and traffic lane configurations; minor changes to intersection traffic signal timing plans; the
installation of bicycle boxes2 at certain intersections; and bicycle parking within the public
right‐ of‐ way, including bicycle racks on sidewalks meeting certain criteria and on‐ street bicycle
parking. Program‐ level review for the minor improvements is presented in Subsection V. A. 4,
( p V. A. 4‐ 1), of this report.
Long- term Improvements
Long‐ term improvements are bicycle route network improvement projects that consist of either
major improvements to segments of the existing bicycle route network or are potential future
additions of new streets and pathways to the bicycle route network. These proposed long‐ term
improvements include a wide range of potential design features that will improve the overall
connectivity and safety of the bicycle route network. Currently, neither a schedule nor specific
designs for these projects have been developed.
The anticipated long‐ term improvements may include, but are not limited to, the following
design elements to improve bicycle travel: signage changes; pavement marking such as the
2 Bicycle boxes are striped waiting areas for bicyclists situated behind a crosswalk and in front of a
motor vehicle stop bar where a bicycle lane approaches a signalized intersection. Bicycle boxes allow
bicyclists approaching an intersection in a bicycle lane to move to the front of a queue of motor
vehicles and position themselves for turning movements at the intersection. Bicycle boxes include a
stenciled bicycle marking and are generally accompanied by signs communicating where bicycles
and motor vehicles should stop.
II. Executive Summary
B. Environmental Issues
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
ES‐ 4
NOVEMBER 2008
installation of colored pavement materials and the installation of sharrows; modifications to bus
zones and parking configurations such as changes to the location, configuration, and number of
metered or unmetered parking spaces and loading zones; changes to the locations and
configurations of curbs, sidewalks and medians ( including both planted and unplanted),
including widening of roadways; reconfiguration of intersections to improve bicycle crossings,
including installation of bicycle traffic signals; the installation of traffic calming devices,
including designation of bicycle boulevards that prioritize bicycle travel over other
transportation modes; installation of bicycle lanes, pathways or other bicycle facilities, including
in conjunction with the narrowing or removal of traffic lanes; the removal of parking spaces,
and the designation of shared bicycle and transit lanes.
The impacts of these future improvements are evaluated at a program level in this analysis with
regard to the Proposed Project footprint ( the affected street right‐ of‐ way and park land). Once
fully developed, these future improvements, individually or collectively, may require further
project‐ level environmental analysis that would consider the potential environmental effects of
these improvements. The program‐ level analysis for these long‐ term improvements is
presented in Chapter V, Subsection V. A. 5, p. V. A. 5‐ 1, of this report.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
As provided for in the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) statues and guidelines,
the environmental focus of this EIR is limited to those environmental issues known to the San
Francisco Planning Department ( Planning Department, the Lead Agency under CEQA),
including those concerns identified as possibly significant in their preliminary review of the
Proposed Project ( Initial Study, attached in Appendix A3) and Notice of Preparation ( NOP), and
by other interested agencies and individuals in response to the NOP. These identified areas of
environmental concern include possible project impacts on:
• Cultural Resources
• Transportation and Circulation
• Noise
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Mandatory Findings of Significance
3 The Initial Study for the Bicycle Plan Project EIR was published on March 15, 2008 with an Appendix
of Project Drawings ( Appendix A of the Initial Study). Some of the project drawings have been
modified. A current set of project drawings for the near‐ term improvements is being provided here
as Appendix B. Therefore, Appendix A of the Initial Study is not being attached to this document.
These drawings are available online at the Planning Department Web site, www. sfplanning. org/ mea,
or may be viewed by appointment at the Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San
Francisco, as part of Case file 2007.0347E.
II. Executive Summary
B. Environmental Issues
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
ES‐ 5
NOVEMBER 2008
The following Table ES‐ 1, “ Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures” on
p. ES‐ 6, identifies the potential impacts that the Bicycle Plan Project could potentially have on
the physical environment. Where applicable, this table identifies project revisions or conditions,
expressed as mitigation measures, which would reduce the identified impact( s) to a less‐ than‐significant
level. All of the impacts identified in this table have been identified as significant .
The impact’s level of significance after implementation of the required Mitigation Measure is
provided in the column labeled, “ Potential Significance With Mitigation.” This table further
separates the anticipated impacts according to the separation of analysis provided in this
document.
These impacts are listed in the same internal order as they appear in the text of Chapter 3 of this
document. Transportation and transportation‐ related impacts are listed first in this table.
Program policy action impacts are identified by the abbreviation “ TR‐ Ax. x” where the “ x. x”
matches the numbering provided for each policy action, in the Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level
discussion of Subsection V. A. 2, p. V. A. 2‐ 1, of this EIR. Project‐ level impacts follow, and are
identified by the abbreviation “ TR‐ Px‐ xx” where the “ x‐ xx” matches the numbering provided
for each of the 60 specific near‐ term projects analyzed in Subsection V. A. 3, p. V. A. 3‐ 1, of this
EIR. No significant impacts were identified for any of the nine minor improvements, as is noted
in the table. The potentially‐ significant impacts that would result from long‐ term improvements
are presented next, and are identified by the abbreviation “ TR‐ LTx. x” where “ x. x” matches the
numbering provided for each long‐ term improvement analyzed in Subsection V. A. 5, p. V. A. 5‐ 1,
of this EIR. Air Quality and Noise entries follow the review of Transportation impacts.
However, no significant Air Quality or Noise impacts were identified in the environmental
analysis of this Bicycle Plan Project. The headings for these entries are included in the table as
place‐ holders, but no significant impacts or mitigation measures are included under either
header.
This table should not be relied upon for a thorough understanding of the Proposed Project and
its impacts and mitigation needs, but is presented for the reader’s reference as a simplified
overview of project impacts and mitigation measures. In addition, summary matrices for policy
actions and near‐ term project‐ level impacts may be found at the end of transportation impact
Subsections V. A. 2 ( program‐ level review of the Bicycle Plan policy actions), and V. A. 3 ( project‐level
review of the 60 near‐ term improvements).
II. Executive Summary
B. Environmental Issues
SUI = Significant unavoidable Impact
Unless other wise noted all Traffic Impacts refer to PM peak hour
LTS = Less than Significant
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
ES- 6
NOVEMBER 2008
TABLE ES- 1
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impacts
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance With
Mitigation
SIGNIFICANT TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS OF PROGRAM‐ LEVEL BICYCLE PLAN POLICY ACTIONS
Bicycle Route Network Goals, Objectives and Action Items
TR‐ A1.1: Predictable indirect impacts from approval of
a policy to implement improvements to streets and
paths proposed as near‐ term improvements, and to
implement minor improvements to other streets and
paths on the existing bicycle route network, or in the
case of bicycle parking, to implement minor
improvements within the street right‐ of‐ way, would
include construction of the aforementioned
improvements. The indirect results of this action
would, therefore, include all of those environmental
impacts identified under the sections of the
transportation study for the Bicycle Plan related to the
project‐ level impacts of the near‐ term improvements
and the program‐ level impacts resulting from
implementation of the minor improvements. The
results of this analysis are summarized in Subsections
V. A. 3 and V. A. 4 of this report. The mitigation measures
identified in Subsection V. A. 3 would lessen some of the
impacts that may result from implementation of the
near‐ term improvements. No significant impacts were
identified from the minor improvements in Subsection
V. A. 4. However, there would be some environmental
impacts from the near‐ term improvements that would
remain significant and unavoidable as described in
Subsection V. A. 3 of this report
Traffic, Transit
and Loading
M‐ TR‐ A1.1: Mitigation Measures defined in
Subsection V. A. 3 shall be implemented in
association with the 60 near‐ term improvements
proposed and implemented under the Bicycle Plan.
For those identified significant impacts with respect
to traffic, transit, and loading in Subsection V. A. 3 for
which no feasible mitigation measures have been
identified, the impacts remain significant and
unavoidable.
SUI
II. Executive Summary
B. Environmental Issues
SUI = Significant unavoidable Impact
Unless other wise noted all Traffic Impacts refer to PM peak hour
LTS = Less than Significant
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
ES- 7
NOVEMBER 2008
TABLE ES- 1 ( CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impacts
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance With
Mitigation
TR‐ A1.2: Predictable indirect impacts from
approval of a policy to implement improvements to
streets and paths proposed as long‐ term
improvements on the existing bicycle route
network as well as additions to the network would
include construction of the aforementioned
improvements. The indirect results of this action
would, therefore, include all of those
environmental impacts identified under the
sections of the transportation impact study for the
Bicycle Plan related to the program‐ level impacts of
the long‐ term improvements. The results of this
analysis are summarized in Subsection V. A. 5 of this
report and include potentially significant and
significant and unavoidable impacts. As has been
previously stated, the specific designs for the long‐term
improvements are unknown at this time. The
mitigations measures identified in Subsection V. A. 5
would lessen some of the impacts that may result
from implementation of the long‐ term
improvements. However, there would be some
that would remain significant and unavoidable.
Traffic,
Transit, and
Loading
M‐ TR‐ A1.2: Mitigation Measures discussed and
defined in Subsection V. A. 5 shall be implemented in
association with long‐ term improvements proposed
and implemented under the Bicycle Plan. Specific
designs for the long‐ term improvements are unknown
at this time. Once specific project designs for the long‐term
improvements are developed and analyzed for
potential environmental impacts with respect to traffic,
transit, parking, pedestrian, bicycles and loading,
mitigation measures may be identified and
implemented.
SUI
TR‐ A1.4: Predictable indirect impacts from the
collaboration between the SFMTA and other
agencies to ensure that San Francisco continues to
implement the Transit‐ First Policy could include
the construction of improvements or
implementation of other changes to meet Transit‐
Traffic,
Transit, and
Loading
M‐ TR‐ A1.4: The indirect impacts of Action 1.4 could
result in the implementation of improvements to
support the City’s Transit First Policy. Therefore, it
would include potential impacts identified under all
sections of this environmental review for the Bicycle
Plan such as those discussed in the transportation
SUI
II. Executive Summary
B. Environmental Issues
SUI = Significant unavoidable Impact
Unless other wise noted all Traffic Impacts refer to PM peak hour
LTS = Less than Significant
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
ES- 8
NOVEMBER 2008
TABLE ES- 1 ( CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impacts
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance With
Mitigation
First Policy goals. The indirect impacts of Action
1.4 would, therefore, include potential impacts
identified under the environmental review for all
sections of the Bicycle Plan such as those discussed
in the analysis of the potential impacts of the near‐term
improvements, long‐ term improvements, and
minor improvements, as well as impacts that may
result from future projects which would be similar
to those discussed in this analysis. Physical
improvements known at this time are analyzed in
Subsections V. A. 3, V. A. 4, and V. A. 5 of this
document. As discussed in Subsection V. A. 4, no
significant impacts would result from
implementation of the minor improvements.
Mitigation measures have been identified in
Subsections V. A. 3 and V. A. 5 that would address
some of the significant impacts for near‐ term and
long‐ term improvements. However, there are some
impacts that would remain significant and
unavoidable, and those are also discussed in the
above referenced Subsections.
impact analysis of the potential impacts of the near‐term
improvements, long‐ term improvements, and
minor improvements as well as impacts that may
result from future projects which would be similar to
those discussed in this analysis. Physical
improvements known at this time are analyzed in
Subsections V. A. 3, V. A. 4, and V. A. 5 of this EIR. As
discussed in Subsection V. A. 4, no significant impacts
would result from implementation of the minor
improvements. Mitigation measures have been
identified in Subsections V. A. 3 and V. A. 5 that would
address some of the significant impacts for near‐ term
and long‐ term improvements. However, there are
some impacts that would remain significant and
unavoidable and those are also discussed in the above
referenced sections.
General Plan Amendments, Environmental Review, and Citywide Coordination Goals, Objectives and Action Items
TR‐ A7.1: Incorporation of the Bicycle Plan into the
General Plan, and amendment of sections of the
Area Plans relevant to bicycling would accomplish
the goals otherwise described in this Bicycle Plan.
An indirect result of this action would, therefore,
support the construction of improvements or
Traffic,
Transit, and
Loading
M‐ TR‐ A7.1: As described under the mitigation
measures M‐ TR‐ A1.1 and M‐ TR‐ A1.2 above for
potential significant impacts TR‐ A1.2 and TR‐ A 1.2
resulting from Actions A1.1 and A1.2, Mitigation
Measures defined in Subsections V. A. 3 and V. A. 5 shall
be implemented in association with improvements
SUI
II. Executive Summary
B. Environmental Issues
SUI = Significant unavoidable Impact
Unless other wise noted all Traffic Impacts refer to PM peak hour
LTS = Less than Significant
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
ES- 9
NOVEMBER 2008
TABLE ES- 1 ( CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impacts
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance With
Mitigation
implementation of other changes presented as part
of the Bicycle Plan and analyzed in Subsections
V. A. 3, V. A. 4, and V. A. 5 of this EIR. Some of these
improvements would have a significant impact on
the physical environment. The indirect impacts of
these actions would include the significant impacts
identified for the near‐ term and long‐ term
improvements in Subsections V. A. 3 and V. A. 5 of
this EIR, including potential worsening of traffic
levels‐ of‐ service, potential slowing of transit
movement in the City, and potential reduction of
truck loading spaces. Some of these significant
impacts have been determined to be significant and
unavoidable.
proposed and implemented under the Bicycle Plan for
potential indirect impacts resulting from Action 7.1.
TR‐ A7.3: Collaboration between the SFMTA and
Planning Department to coordinate updates to the
General Plan in accord with subsequent updates and
amendments to the Bicycle Plan and bicycle route
network would accomplish the goals otherwise
described in this Bicycle Plan. An indirect result of
this action may be the construction of
improvements or implementation of other changes
similar to those presented as part of the Bicycle
Plan and analyzed here with respect to potential
impacts on traffic, transit, parking, pedestrians,
bicycles, and loading in Subsection V. A. 3, V. A. 4,
and V. A. 5 of this EIR. Future improvements
resulting from Action 7.3 may result in significant
impacts on the physical environment similar to
Traffic,
Transit, and
Loading
M‐ TR‐ A7.3: As described under the mitigation
measure M‐ TR‐ A1.4 above for potential significant
impact TR‐ A1.4 resulting from Action A1.4, Mitigation
Measures defined in Subsections V. A. 3 and V. A. 5 shall
be implemented in association with improvements
proposed and implemented under the Bicycle Plan for
potential indirect impacts resulting from Action 7.3.
SUI
II. Executive Summary
B. Environmental Issues
SUI = Significant unavoidable Impact
Unless other wise noted all Traffic Impacts refer to PM peak hour
LTS = Less than Significant
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
ES- 10
NOVEMBER 2008
TABLE ES- 1 ( CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impacts
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance With
Mitigation
those described in this report with respect to traffic,
transit, and loading for the near‐ term and long‐term
improvements in Subsections V. A. 3 and V. A. 5
of this EIR, including potential worsening of traffic
levels‐ of‐ service, potential slowing of transit
movement in the City, and potential reduction of
truck loading spaces. Some of these significant
impacts have been determined to be significant and
unavoidable. Therefore, there may be indirect
significant impacts as a result of Action 7.3.
TR‐ A7.4: The process to develop an Area Plan or
update an existing Area Plan to reflect Bicycle Plan
policies may indirectly result in the construction of
bicycle facility improvements or implementation of
other changes within an Area. These improvements
could result in impacts similar to those
summarized in Subsection V. A. 3, V. A. 4, and V. A. 5
of this report with respect to potential impacts on
traffic, transit, parking, pedestrians, bicycles, and
loading. Some of these improvements may have a
significant impact on the physical environment.
The indirect impacts of these actions would include
environmental impacts similar to the identified
significant impacts that may result from
implementation of the near‐ term and long‐ term
improvements in Subsections V. A. 3, and V. A. 5 of
this report, including potential worsening of traffic
levels‐ of‐ service, potential slowing of transit
movement in the City, and potential reduction of
Traffic,
Transit, and
Loading
M‐ TR‐ A7.4: As described under the mitigation
measure M‐ TR‐ A1.4 for potential indirect impact TR‐A1.4
resulting from Action A1.4, Mitigation Measures
defined in Subsections V. A. 3 and V. A. 5 shall be
implemented in association with improvements
proposed and implemented under the Bicycle Plan to
address potential indirect impacts resulting from
Action 7.4.
SUI
II. Executive Summary
B. Environmental Issues
SUI = Significant unavoidable Impact
Unless other wise noted all Traffic Impacts refer to PM peak hour
LTS = Less than Significant
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
ES- 11
NOVEMBER 2008
TABLE ES- 1 ( CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impacts
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance With
Mitigation
truck loading spaces. Mitigation measures have
been identified to address some of these significant
impacts. However, there are some for which no
feasible mitigation measures have been identified.
Therefore, there may be indirect significant impacts
as a result of Action 7.4.
Bicycle Funding Goals and Objectives
TR‐ A8.1: Collaboration between the SFMTA and
other agencies to identify funding to assist in
achieving the Bicycle Plan goals and objectives
would involve the exchange of information which
would have no direct impact on the physical
environment. However, success in identifying
funding sources would result in implementation of
projects to support the Bicycle Plan goals and
objectives. This action would, therefore, support
the construction of improvements or
implementation of other changes presented as part
of the Bicycle Plan and analyzed in Subsections
V. A. 3, V. A. 4, and V. A. 5 of this EIR; some of these
improvements would have a significant impact on
the physical environment as identified in the
analysis, including potential worsening of traffic
levels‐ of‐ service, potential slowing of transit
movement in the City, and potential reduction of
truck loading spaces.
Traffic, Transit
and Loading
M‐ TR‐ A8.1: As described under the mitigation
measures M‐ TR‐ A1.1 and M‐ TR‐ A1.2 above for
potential significant impacts TR‐ A1.2 and TR‐ A 1.2
resulting from Actions A1.1 and A1.2, Mitigation
Measures defined in Subsections V. A. 3 and V. A. 5 shall
be implemented in association with improvements
proposed and implemented under the Bicycle Plan to
address potential indirect impacts resulting from
Action 8.1.
SUI
II. Executive Summary
B. Environmental Issues
SUI = Significant unavoidable Impact
Unless other wise noted all Traffic Impacts refer to PM peak hour
LTS = Less than Significant
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
ES- 12
NOVEMBER 2008
TABLE ES- 1 ( CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impacts
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance With
Mitigation
SIGNIFICANT TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS OF NEAR‐ TERM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Cluster 1
TR‐ P1‐ 1a: As a result of the parking lane removal
on the south side of Broadway between Franklin
Street and Van Ness Avenue, school children
loading activities in front of Saint Brigid School
could continue to occur in the afternoon ( before 4
p. m.), but passenger loading activities would have
to be prohibited during the weekday AM peak
period ( 7: 00 a. m. to 9: 00 a. m.) because of City of San
Francisco Transportation Code Section 38N which
prohibits blocking of a bicycle lane during peak
periods. This prohibition would represent a
significant impact on passenger loading for the
students of Saint Brigid School under Existing plus
Project conditions for the AM peak hour as a result
of Project 1‐ 1.
Passenger
Loading
M‐ TR‐ P1‐ 1a: An alternative school passenger drop‐ off
location would have to be identified to accommodate
passenger loading demand, such as expanding the
existing passenger drop‐ off location along the east side
of Franklin Street between Pacific Avenue and
Broadway on the west side of the school building.
Alternatively, the passenger drop off zone on
Broadway could be maintained by eliminating the
proposed eastbound bicycle lane between Franklin
Street and Van Ness Avenue and having bicyclists
share the curb lane with motor vehicles, similar to
existing conditions. With the implementation of either
of these mitigation measures, the significant impact on
loading for the students of Saint Brigid School would
be reduced to less than significant under Existing plus
Project conditions for Project 1‐ 1.
LTS
TR‐ P1‐ 1b: Similar to that described above for
Significant Impact TR‐ P1‐ 1a, above, Project 1‐ 1
would result in a significant impact to passenger
loading for students of Saint Brigid School under
2025 Cumulative plus Project conditions as a result
of Project 1‐ 1.
Passenger
Loading
M‐ TR‐ P1‐ 1b: Refer to Mitigation Measure 1‐ 1a, above
for mitigation of this impact. With the implementation
of either of these mitigation measures, the significant
impact on loading for the students of Saint Brigid
School would be reduced to less than significant under
2025 Cumulative plus Project conditions for Project
1‐ 1.
LTS
II. Executive Summary
B. Environmental Issues
SUI = Significant unavoidable Impact
Unless other wise noted all Traffic Impacts refer to PM peak hour
LTS = Less than Significant
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
ES- 13
NOVEMBER 2008
TABLE ES- 1 ( CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impacts
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance With
Mitigation
TR‐ P1‐ 1c: As a result of the elimination of one
westbound travel lane on the north side of
Broadway between Buchanan and Webster Streets,
school children loading activities in front of Hamlin
School would also be prohibited during the
weekday AM peak period. This prohibition would
represent a significant impact on passenger loading
for the students of Hamlin School under Existing
plus Project conditions.
Passenger
Loading
M‐ TR‐ P1‐ 1c: Extend the existing passenger loading
zone on the north side of Broadway near Webster
Street towards the east, all the way to Buchanan Street.
The passenger zone extension would be located to the
right of the proposed bicycle lane and would be
operational during school arrival and dismissal
periods only ( typically from 7: 00 to 8: 30 a. m. and from
2: 00 to 3: 30 p. m.). This mitigation would reduce or
eliminate incidents of double parking related to
passenger loading and alleviate any associated
congestion. With the implementation of this mitigation
measure, the significant impact regarding loading for
the students of Hamlin School would be reduced to
less than significant under Existing plus Project
conditions for Project 1‐ 1.
LTS
TR‐ P1‐ 1d: Similar to that described above for
Significant Impact TR‐ P1‐ 1c, above, Project 1‐ 1
would result in a significant impact to passenger
loading for students of the Hamlin School under
2025 Cumulative plus Project conditions as a result
of Project 1‐ 1.
Passenger
Loading
M‐ TR‐ P1‐ 1d: Refer to Mitigation Measure M‐ TR‐ P1‐
1c, above, for mitigation of this impact. With the
implementation of this mitigation measure, the
significant impact on loading for the students of
Hamlin School would be reduced to less than
significant under 2025 Cumulative plus Project
conditions for Project 1‐ 1.
LTS
TR‐ P1‐ 3a: The three‐ way controlled intersection at
Van Ness Avenue/ North Point Street would
operate at LOS E under 2025 Cumulative plus
Project conditions for Project 1‐ 3.
Traffic M‐ TR‐ P1‐ 3a: Per the California Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices ( MUTCD), a signal warrant
analysis was conducted to determine the feasibility of
signalization of the Van Ness/ North Point Street
intersection. Signalization of the intersection would
improve the intersection operations from LOS E to
LTS
II. Executive Summary
B. Environmental Issues
SUI = Significant unavoidable Impact
Unless other wise noted all Traffic Impacts refer to PM peak hour
LTS = Less than Significant
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
ES- 14
NOVEMBER 2008
TABLE ES- 1 ( CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impacts
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance With
Mitigation
LOS B, and therefore would result in no significant
impacts under 2025 Cumulative conditions for Project
1‐ 3.
TR‐ P1‐ 3b: Due to double‐ parked vehicles and the
removal of general travel lanes, a significant
loading impact may occur along North Point Street
east of Columbus Avenue as a result of Project 1‐ 3
under Existing plus Project conditions.
Loading M‐ TR‐ P1‐ 3b: No feasible mitigation measures have
been identified to mitigate this loading impact.
Therefore, a significant loading impact may occur
along North Point Street east of Columbus Avenue
with implementation of Project 1‐ 3 under Existing plus
Project conditions
SUI
TR‐ P1‐ 3c: Due to double‐ parked vehicles and the
removal of general travel lanes, a significant
loading impact may occur along North Point Street
east of Columbus Avenue as a result of Project 1‐ 3
under 2025 Cumulative plus Project conditions.
Loading M‐ TR‐ P1‐ 3c: No feasible mitigation measures have
been identified to mitigate this loading impact.
Therefore, a significant loading impact may occur
along North Point Street east of Columbus Avenue
with implementation of Project 1‐ 3 under 2025
Cumulative plus Project conditions.
SUI
Cluster 2
TR‐ P2‐ 1a: The intersection of 2nd Street/ Bryant
Street would operate at LOS F under Existing plus
Project conditions for Project 2‐ 1 Option 1.
Traffic M‐ TR‐ P2‐ 1a: No feasible mitigation measures have
been identified for the 2nd Street/ Bryant Street
intersection under Existing plus Project conditions for
Option 1. Hence, a significant impact would occur at
this intersection with the implementation of Project 2‐ 1
Option 1.
SUI
TR‐ P2‐ 1b: The intersection of 2nd Street/ Bryant
Street would operate at LOS F under 2025
Cumulative plus Project conditions for Project 2‐ 1
Option 1.
Traffic M‐ TR‐ P2‐ 1b: No feasible mitigation measures have
been identified for the 2nd Street/ Bryant Street
intersection under 2025 Cumulative plus Project
conditions for Option 1. Hence, a significant impact
SUI
II. Executive Summary
B. Environmental Issues
SUI = Significant unavoidable Impact
Unless other wise noted all Traffic Impacts refer to PM peak hour
LTS = Less than Significant
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
ES- 15
NOVEMBER 2008
TABLE ES- 1 ( CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impacts
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance With
Mitigation
would occur at this intersection with the
implementation of Project 2‐ 1.
TR‐ P2‐ 1c: The intersection of 2nd Street/ Harrison
Street would operate at LOS F under Existing plus
Project conditions for Project 2‐ 1 Option 1.
Traffic M‐ TR‐ P2‐ 1c: It is proposed that five seconds of green
time be added to the northbound 2nd Street approach
and five seconds of green time be reduced from the
eastbound Harrison Street approach. This would
improve the 2nd Street/ Harrison Street intersection
operations from LOS F to LOS E. Nevertheless, this
mitigation measure would not reduce the project
impacts to a less‐ than‐ significant level for Project 2‐ 1
Option 1.
SUI
TR‐ P2‐ 1d: The intersection of 2nd Street/ Harrison
Street would operate at LOS F under Existing plus
Project conditions for Project 2‐ 1 Option 2.
Traffic M‐ TR‐ P2‐ 1d: It is proposed that five seconds of green
time be added to the northbound 2nd Street approach
and five seconds of green time be reduced from the
eastbound Harrison Street approach. This would
improve the 2nd Street/ Harrison Street intersection
operations from LOS F to LOS E. Nevertheless, this
mitigation measure would not reduce the project
impacts to a less‐ than‐ significant level for Project 2‐ 1
Option 2.
SUI
TR‐ P2‐ 1e: The intersection of 2nd Street/ Harrison
Street would operate at LOS F under 2025
Cumulative plus Project conditions for Project 2‐ 1
Option 1.
Traffic M‐ TR‐ P2‐ 1e: It is proposed that five seconds of green
time be added to the northbound 2nd Street approach
and five seconds of green time be reduced from the
eastbound Harrison Street approach, thus improving
the 2nd Street/ Harrison Street intersection operations
and reducing average delay by 50.2 seconds.
Nevertheless, this mitigation measure would not
SUI
II. Executive Summary
B. Environmental Issues
SUI = Significant unavoidable Impact
Unless other wise noted all Traffic Impacts refer to PM peak hour
LTS = Less than Significant
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
ES- 16
NOVEMBER 2008
TABLE ES- 1 ( CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impacts
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance With
Mitigation
reduce the project impacts to a less‐ than‐ significant
level for Project 2‐ 1 Option 1.
TR‐ P2‐ 1f: The intersection of 2nd Street/ Harrison
Street would operate at LOS F under 2025
Cumulative plus Project conditions for Project 2‐ 1
Option 2.
Traffic M‐ TR‐ P2‐ 1f: It is proposed that five seconds of green
time be added to the northbound 2nd Street approach
and five seconds of green time be reduced from the
eastbound Harrison Street approach. This will
improve the 2nd Street/ Harrison Street intersection
operations and reduce average delay. Nevertheless,
this mitigation measure will not reduce the project
impacts to a less‐ than‐ significant level for Project 2‐ 1
Option 2.
SUI
TR‐ P2‐ 1g: The intersection of 2nd Street/ Folsom
Street would operate at LOS E under Existing plus
Project conditions for Project 2‐ 1 Option 1.
Traffic M‐ TR‐ P2‐ 1g: The southbound 2nd Street approach
shall be modified from a protected phase to a
permitted phase with no changes to green time
allocation. This will improve the 2nd Street/ Folsom
Street intersection operations from LOS E to LOS D,
with 47.9 seconds of delay. Hence, this mitigation
measure would reduce the project impacts of Project 2‐
1 Option 1 to a less‐ than‐ significant level.
LTS
TR‐ P2‐ 1h: The intersection of 2nd Street/ Folsom
Street would operate at LOS E under Existing plus
Project conditions for Project 2‐ 1 Option 2.
Traffic M‐ TR‐ P2‐ 1h: The southbound 2nd Street approach
shall be modified from a protected phase to a
permitted phase with no changes to green time
allocation. This will improve the 2nd Street/ Folsom
Street intersection operations from LOS E to LOS D,
with 47.9 seconds of delay. Hence, this mitigation
measure would reduce the project impacts of Project 2‐
1 Option 2 to a less‐ than‐ significant level.
LTS
II. Executive Summary
B. Environmental Issues
SUI = Significant unavoidable Impact
Unless other wise noted all Traffic Impacts refer to PM peak hour
LTS = Less than Significant
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
ES- 17
NOVEMBER 2008
TABLE ES- 1 ( CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impacts
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance With
Mitigation
TR‐ P2‐ 1i: The intersection of 2nd Street/ Folsom
Street would operate at LOS F under 2025
Cumulative plus Project conditions for Project 2‐ 1
Option 1.
Traffic M‐ TR‐ P2‐ 1i: It is proposed that the southbound 2nd
Street approach be modified from a protected phase to
a permitted phase with no changes to green time
allocation. This would improve the 2nd Street/ Folsom
Street intersection operations and reduce the average
delay. Nevertheless, this mitigation measure would
not reduce the project impacts to a less‐ than‐significant
level for Project 2‐ 1 Option 1.
SUI
TR‐ P2‐ 1j: The intersection of 2nd Street/ Folsom
Street would operate at LOS F under 2025
Cumulative plus Project conditions for Project 2‐ 1
Option 2.
Traffic M‐ TR‐ P2‐ 1j: It is proposed that the southbound 2nd
Street approach be modified from a protected phase to
a permitted phase with no changes to green time
allocation. This would improve the 2nd Street/ Folsom
Street intersection operations and reduce the average
delay. Nevertheless, this mitigation measure would
not reduce the project impacts to a less‐ than‐significant
level for Project 2‐ 1 Option 2.
SUI
TR‐ P2‐ 1k: The intersection of 2nd Street/ Howard
Street would operate at LOS F under 2025
Cumulative plus Project conditions for Project 2‐ 1
Option 1.
Traffic M‐ TR‐ P2‐ 1k: No feasible mitigation measures have
been identified for the 2nd Street/ Howard Street
intersection under 2025 Cumulative plus Project
conditions. Hence, a significant traffic impact would
occur at the 2nd Street/ Howard Street intersection with
the implementation of Project 2‐ 1 Option 1.
SUI
II. Executive Summary
B. Environmental Issues
SUI = Significant unavoidable Impact
Unless other wise noted all Traffic Impacts refer to PM peak hour
LTS = Less than Significant
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
ES- 18
NOVEMBER 2008
TABLE ES- 1 ( CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impacts
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance With
Mitigation
TR‐ P2‐ 1l: The intersection of 2nd Street/ Howard
Street would operate at LOS F under 2025
Cumulative plus Project conditions for Project 2‐ 1
Option 2.
Traffic M‐ TR‐ P2‐ 1l: No feasible mitigation measures have
been identified for the 2nd Street/ Howard Street
intersection under 2025 Cumulative plus Project
conditions for Option 2. Hence, a significant traffic
impact would occur at this intersection with the
implementation of Project 2‐ 1 Option 2.
SUI
TR‐ P2‐ 1m ( combined Projects 2‐ 1 and 2‐ 16): The
intersection of 2nd Street/ Townsend Street would
operate at LOS E under 2025 Cumulative plus
Project conditions for combined Projects 2‐ 1 and 2‐
16 Option 1.
Traffic M‐ TR‐ P2‐ 1m: No feasible mitigation measures have
been identified to mitigate for the 2nd Street/ Townsend
Street intersection under 2025 Cumulative plus Project
conditions for Option 1. Hence, a significant traffic
impact would occur at the 2nd Street/ Townsend Street
intersection with the implementation of combined
Projects 2‐ 1 and 2‐ 16 Option 1.
SUI
TR‐ P2‐ 1n( combined Projects 2‐ 1 and 2‐ 16): The
intersection of 2nd Street/ Townsend Street would
operate at LOS E under 2025 Cumulative plus
Project conditions for combined Projects 2‐ 1 and 2‐
16 Option 2.
Traffic M‐ TR‐ P2‐ 1n: No feasible mitigation measures have
been identified to mitigate the 2nd Street/ Townsend
Street intersection under 2025 Cumulative plus Project
conditions for Option 2. Hence, a significant impact
would occur at the 2nd Street/ Townsend Street
intersection with the implementation of the combined
Projects 2‐ 1 and 2‐ 16 Option 2.
SUI
TR‐ P2‐ 1o ( combined Projects 2‐ 1 and 2‐ 16): Muni
bus line 10 would experience significant delays as a
result of combined Projects 2‐ 1 and 2‐ 16 Option 1
under Existing plus Project conditions.
Transit M‐ TR‐ P2‐ 1o: The implementation of combined
Projects 2‐ 1 and 2‐ 16 Option 1 under Existing plus
Project conditions would add approximately 863
seconds ( 14.4 minutes) of delay for Muni bus line 10.
With mitigation as described for the 2nd
Street/ Harrison Street, and 2nd Street/ Folsom Street
intersections ( Mitigation Measures M‐ TR‐ P2‐ 1c,
M‐ TR‐ P2‐ 1e, M‐ TR‐ P2‐ 1f, M‐ TR‐ P2‐ 1g, M‐ TR‐ P2‐ 1h,
LTS
II. Executive Summary
B. Environmental Issues
SUI = Significant unavoidable Impact
Unless other wise noted all Traffic Impacts refer to PM peak hour
LTS = Less than Significant
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
ES- 19
NOVEMBER 2008
TABLE ES- 1 ( CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impacts
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance With
Mitigation
M‐ TR‐ P2‐ 1i, and M‐ TR‐ P2‐ 1j), approximately 27
seconds of delay southbound and 266 seconds ( 4.4
minutes) of delay northbound would be added to
Muni bus line 10. The total added delay of 293 seconds
( 4.8 minutes) would be less than the transit delay
threshold of six minutes. Therefore, impacts to Muni
bus line 10 for combined Projects 2‐ 1 and 2‐ 16 Option 1
under Existing plus Project conditions would be
reduced to a less‐ than‐ significant level.
TR‐ P2‐ 1p ( combined Projects 2‐ 1 and 2‐ 16): Muni
bus line 10 would experience significant delays as a
result of combined Projects 2‐ 1 and 2‐ 16 Option 2
under Existing plus Project conditions.
Transit M‐ TR‐ P2‐ 1p: The implementation of combined
Projects 2‐ 1 and 2‐ 16 Option 2 under Existing plus
Project conditions would add approximately 524
seconds ( 8.7 minutes) of delay for Muni bus line 10.
With mitigation as described for the 2nd
Street/ Harrison Street, and 2nd Street/ Folsom Street
intersections, approximately 58 seconds of delay
southbound and 39 seconds of delay northbound
would be added to Muni bus line 10. The total added
delay of 97 seconds ( 1.6 minutes) would be less than
the transit delay threshold of six minutes. Therefore,
impacts to Muni bus line 10 for combined Projects 2‐ 1
and 2‐ 16 Option 2 under Existing plus Project
conditions would be reduced to a less‐ than‐ significant
level.
LTS
TR‐ P2‐ 1q ( combined Projects 2‐ 1 and 2‐ 16): Muni
bus line 10 would experience significant delays as a
result of combined Projects 2‐ 1 and 2‐ 16 Option 1
under 2025 Cumulative plus Project conditions.
Transit M‐ TR‐ P2‐ 1q: The implementation of combined
Projects 2‐ 1 and 2‐ 16 Option 1, under 2025 Cumulative
plus Project conditions, would add approximately 672
seconds ( 11.2 minutes) of delay for Muni bus line 10.
SUI
II. Executive Summary
B. Environmental Issues