V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
1. Overview and Organization
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 1‐ 1
NOVEMBER 2008
V. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION
MEASURES
A. TRANSPORTATION
1. OVERVIEW AND ORGANIZATION
This Transportation section of the Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) presents both program‐level
and project‐ level analysis of the potential transportation‐ related impacts resulting from the
Bicycle Plan Project. This Introduction subsection provides an overview of the Bicycle Plan as
well as a description of the Plan’s elements. In addition, this section provides information
about the San Francisco Bicycle Plan Update Transportation Impact Study ( TIS), prepared by Wilbur
Smith Associates for the San Francisco Bicycle Plan Update, and published on October 28, 2008.
The TIS provides the basis for the transportation analysis in this EIR and an explanation
regarding program‐ level review and project‐ level review for potential transportation impacts
has also been provided. Subsection V. A. 2, Program‐ Level Review, on p. V. A. 2‐ 1, provides
program‐ level review of the updated Bicycle Plan including its goals, objectives, and action
items to further the plan goals. Subsection V. A. 3, Project‐ Level Review, on p. V. A. 3‐ 1, presents
the complete project descriptions as well as the project‐ level analysis for the 60 design‐ ready
near‐ term bicycle improvements. Project drawings for the near‐ term improvements are
provided in Appendix B. Many of these drawings are the same as those attached to the Initial
Study for this project. However, there have been some minor revisions so there are drawings in
this Appendix B which differ from those attached to the Initial Study. 1 These near‐ term
improvements are anticipated to be implemented within five years of project approval.
Subsections V. A. 4 and V. A. 5, minor improvements and long‐ term improvements, which begin
on p. V. A. 4‐ 1 and p. V. A. 5‐ 1, respectively, provide program‐ level review of the minor
improvements and long‐ term improvements anticipated as part of the ongoing or future
activities of the Bicycle Program, and provide a summary of the conclusions regarding the
1 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 attached to this as
Appendix B. Therefore, Appendix A of the Initial Study is not attached to this document. The old
project drawings are available online at the Planning Department Wed site, www. sfplanning. org/ mea as
part of the Initial Study, or they may be viewed by appointment at the Planning Department, 1650
Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, as part of Case File 2007.0347E.
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
1. Overview and Organization
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 1‐ 2
NOVEMBER 2008
transportation‐ related potential environmental effects resulting from the implementation of the
Bicycle Plan Project.
PURPOSE OF THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY
The Transportation Impact Study2 ( TIS) completed by Wilbur Smith Associates provides a
comprehensive analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project on the
transportation system, which is herein incorporated into the Draft Environmental Impact
Report ( DEIR).
A comprehensive local transportation system considers overlapping segments related to
regional transportation, congestion management, vehicle circulation, transit, pedestrians,
bicycles, citywide parking, and goods movement. Under the California Vehicle Code, bicycles
are permitted on any street in the local street network. However, conditions for cyclists within
the City’s street network vary. The Bicycle Plan includes a network of interconnected streets on
which bicycling is encouraged, through the implementation of bicycle facilities and other
treatments that improve conditions for cyclists. Although some bicycle facilities were
implemented in San Francisco prior to 1997, the City’s first defined bicycle route network was
developed as part of the 1997 Bicycle Plan.
The Bicycle Plan continues to strive for a comprehensive bicycle route network that provides
safe access for bicyclists to all areas of the City. As described above in Section IV. Project
Description, on p. IV. A‐ 1, the 2002 planning process identified gaps in the network and
suggested improvement projects, both near‐ term and long‐ term, to address these gaps. In
addition, the Bicycle Plan has identified a set of minor improvement treatments that would be
used, as necessary, to improve conditions for cyclists throughout the City. The intention of the
ongoing Bicycle Program is to refine and expand the bicycle route network and to achieve its
vision of making bicycling an integral part of daily life in San Francisco.
Environmental review of transportation impacts of the Bicycle Plan, and its ongoing programs,
has been conducted at a program level. Near‐ term improvements have been reviewed at the
project level, because these have specific project designs and are proposed for adoption and
implementation when the environmental review process is complete and the injunction has
been lifted. This transportation section presents the existing transportation conditions and
assesses the transportation impacts associated with the Bicycle Plan Project. The following
2 Wilbur Smith Associates – San Francisco Bicycle Plan Update Transportation Impact Study, October 28,
2008; available for viewing as part of Case File No. 2007.0347E.
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
1. Overview and Organization
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 1‐ 3
NOVEMBER 2008
transportation elements are addressed in this study: traffic impacts, transit impacts, parking
impacts, pedestrian impacts, bicycle impacts, and loading impacts. 3
ORGANIZATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY
This document has been organized to provide the project‐ level and program‐ level review of
transportation and transportation‐ related impacts in four primary subsections. Each of these
subsections is followed by a checklist which shows the project or action contemplated, and
indicates the potential for that project or action to create a significant impact for the physical
environment. These impacts are separated into potential impacts on traffic, parking, transit,
pedestrians, bicycles, and loading facilities.
THE BICYCLE PLAN ( policies) ( Subsection V. A. 2)
The Bicycle Plan policies discussed in V. A. 2 consist of eight goals, namely, ( 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, all of which are analyzed at a program
level ( see Subsection V. A. 2, p. V. A. 2‐ 1) in order to assess the transportation impacts resulting
from their implementation. Many of the goals, objectives and action items would not directly
change conditions within the environment, but are still discussed in this report. For those that
may result in potential environmental impacts, an analysis is being provided to identify what
the potential effects are, as well as the level of significance of those effects.
NEAR- TERM IMPROVEMENTS ( Subsection V. A. 3)
Each of the segments proposed for improvement is part of a transportation network, the goal of
which is to promote safe access via travel by bicycle to all areas of the City. The project‐ level
transportation analysis for the 60 near‐ term improvements must consider the potential impacts
of each project, including the variations encompassed by the alternative options being
considered. However, as alterations to a city‐ wide transportation network, the analysis of these
near‐ term improvements must also address the combined impacts of multiple projects within
the same vicinity. For this reason, the near‐ term improvements have been grouped by
geographic proximity into eight clusters in order to evaluate and understand the potential
3 As required by the San Francisco Planning Department Guidelines.
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
1. Overview and Organization
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 1‐ 4
NOVEMBER 2008
combined transportation‐ related impacts related to the implementation of projects in close
proximity to one another. When a specific project is referred to by number in this EIR, the first
number represents the analysis cluster in which the project is located. The second number
represents an identifier to distinguish projects within an analysis cluster.
This EIR provides information regarding the extent of potential environmental impacts
resulting from the Bicycle Plan. It also covers several options for the near‐ term improvements
so that decision makers may decide between several near‐ term options based on full disclosure
of likely impacts on all modes of transportation. These near‐ term improvements are identified
and discussed in Subsection V. A. 3, p. V. A. 3‐ 1.
MINOR IMPROVEMENTS ( Subsection V. A. 4)
The Bicycle Program staff has also identified a set of minor improvement treatments which may
be used to address issues as they arise. The Bicycle Program would benefit from the ability to
implement these minor improvements on an as‐ needed basis to further the goals of the Bicycle
Plan. These treatments would result in minor modifications to the physical environment,
wherever implemented. These treatments are analyzed at a program level ( see Subsection
V. A. 4, p. V. A. 4‐ 1). The transportation impact analysis provided here addresses the potential
environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of these treatments. Upon
completion of the environmental review process, it is anticipated that these treatments may be
utilized in appropriate locations throughout the City to improve conditions for cyclists and
further the Bicycle Plan goals.
LONG- TERM IMPROVEMENTS ( Subsection V. A. 5)
The segments proposed for long‐ term improvements have been identified to address gaps
within the City bicycle route network. Specific designs for these segments are unknown at this
time. However, potential design elements for these projects have been identified. The
program‐ level transportation impact analysis for the long‐ term improvements addresses the
role of these segments in the network as well as how they facilitate the goals of the ongoing
program ( see Subsection V. A. 5, p. V. A. 5‐ 1). The analysis discusses the program‐ level effects of
including these segments in the network.
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
1. Overview and Organization
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 1‐ 5
NOVEMBER 2008
PROGRAM- LEVEL VS. PROJECT- LEVEL ANALYSIS OF
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
PROGRAM- LEVEL REVIEW
Under CEQA, program‐ level environmental review is used in environmental analyses for a
series of actions that can be characterized as one large project because they are logically related.
The series of actions can be related geographically or can be logical parts in a chain of
contemplated actions.
Program‐ level review is used in connection with issuance of rules, plans, or other general
criteria, to govern the conduct of a continuing or proposed program. For some site‐ specific
purposes, a program‐ level environmental document may provide enough detail to enable an
agency to make informed site‐ specific decisions within the program, allowing an agency to
carry out an entire program without having to prepare additional site‐ specific environmental
documents. In other cases, the formulation of details regarding site‐ specific issues is unknown
until subsequent design development and the preparation of later project‐ level environmental
documents. In such situations, the program‐ level EIR may properly focus on “ broad policy
alternatives and programmatic mitigation measures,” as well as “ regional influences, secondary
effects, cumulative impacts… and other factors that apply to the program as a whole,” [ CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15168, subds. ( b)( 4), ( d)( 2).] Program‐ level review is also appropriate for
individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority,
having generally similar environmental effects that can be mitigated in similar ways. [ CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15168.]
The San Francisco Bicycle Program is an ongoing program to facilitate and increase the safe use
of bicycles as a mode of transportation with the City. The updated Bicycle Plan sets the
foundation for the associated near‐ term, long‐ term, and minor improvements to the existing
bicycle route network. These improvement projects are a logically related series of actions to
achieve the overall goal of increasing bicycle use within the City.
The program‐ level review in this section will provide program‐ level transportation impact
analysis of the following elements of the Bicycle Plan Project: the Bicycle Plan’s goals, objectives
and action items including the existing bicycle route network, minor improvements, and long‐term
improvements. All of these further the goals of the Bicycle Plan and Program. These
elements are described in more detail above and in Subsections V. A. 2, V. A. 4, and V. A. 5 of this
Transportation section.
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
1. Overview and Organization
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 1‐ 6
NOVEMBER 2008
PROJECT- LEVEL REVIEW
Under CEQA, project‐ level environmental analysis examines the environmental impacts of an
individual project, and examines phases of the project including construction and operation.
Project‐ level analysis may be conducted once a sufficient level of detail is known regarding a
proposed project. With a detailed project description and an understanding of the existing
environmental conditions, the potential environmental effects of the proposed project may be
understood and analyzed.
As previously described, the Bicycle Plan Project proposes 60 near‐ term improvements for the
bicycle route network. These projects are fully described in Subsection V. A. 3, Project‐ Level
Review, on p. V. A. 3‐ 1 of this Transportation section of this EIR. The implementation of these
design‐ ready projects would close network gaps and improve bicyclists’ safety and experience,
increasing ridership to meet the overall Bicycle Program goal. The analysis provides an
assessment of traffic, transit, parking, pedestrian, bicycle, and loading impacts resulting from
the near‐ term improvements. Most of these projects include two potential alternatives: one
alternative that offers an option that would affect one or more modes ( e. g., removal of mixed
traffic lanes and/ or greatest potential to impede transit operations), and another alternative that
would be less likely to impact other modes ( e. g., parking removals instead of traffic lane
removals, changes to sidewalks, installation of sharrows, or alternate routing of bicycle routes).
The existing conditions for each area of project effect are provided as well as an evaluation of
the changes that would result following implementation of each project, including those
resulting from implementation of proposed alternative options.
The project‐ level transportation analysis in Subsection V. A‐ 3, p. V. A. 3‐ 1 of this chapter is
intended to provide project‐ level environmental clearance for these 60 design‐ ready near‐ term
improvements. Following certification of the Bicycle Plan Project EIR, no further environmental
review would be required to implement these 60 near‐ term improvements. Implementation of
these near‐ term improvements is anticipated within five years of project approval.
TRANSPORTATION SETTING
The geographic setting of San Francisco is a fundamental part of its celebrated quality of life.
The City is challenged to accommodate the transportation needs of its residents, while
preserving and enhancing the qualities that make it a desirable place to live, despite its being
surrounded on three sides by water and having a varied topography. As mandated by its
Transit First Policy, the City’s transportation system seeks to achieve balance between travel
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
1. Overview and Organization
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 1‐ 7
NOVEMBER 2008
modes, in order to control and reshape the impact of automobiles on the City. To that end, the
City’s goals include improvements to and promotion of alternative transportation modes such
as public transit, ridesharing, bicycling and walking. Below is a general summary and
overview of transportation conditions in San Francisco.
Roadway Network
Most San Francisco roadways are aligned on a grid system. The typical block in the South of
Market area is four times as large as the typical block North of Market. The grid offers multiple
route options for getting from place to place, although aberrations in the grid ( particularly
along Market Street and in the vicinity of hills) can offer connectivity challenges. The San
Francisco General Plan ( General Plan) contains definitions and regulatory requirements for a
variety of roadway classifications that make up the City’s grid.
City roadway designations include ( listed in order of potential capacity) Freeways, Major
Arterials, Transit Conflict Streets, Secondary Arterials, Recreational Streets, Collector Streets,
and Local Streets. Each of these roadways has a different potential capacity for traffic, and for
changes that may alter traffic patterns on the given roadway. The General Plan also recognizes
certain Transit Preferential Streets from among the City’s various roadways, each of which is
identified as a Primary Transit Street – Transit Oriented, a Primary Transit Street – Transit
Important, or a Secondary Transit Street. The Pedestrian Network is a classification of streets
throughout the City used to identify streets devoted to or primarily oriented to pedestrian use,
and include Citywide Pedestrian Network Streets, and Neighborhood Network Streets. 4
Regional Access
San Francisco is well‐ served by regional facilities, including Interstate 80 ( I‐ 80), United States
Highway 101 ( US 101), and Interstate 280 ( I‐ 280). In addition, State Highways 1 and 35 also
serve portions of the City.
US 101 serves San Francisco and the Peninsula/ South Bay and extends north via the Golden
Gate Bridge to the North Bay. Within the City, portions of US 101 follow the local street
network, primarily along Van Ness Avenue and Lombard Street west of Van Ness Avenue. I‐ 80
connects San Francisco to the East Bay and points east, via the San Francisco‐ Oakland Bay
Bridge. I‐ 280 provides regional access to western San Francisco and the South Bay/ Peninsula.
4 San Francisco General Plan, 2007 Transportation Element, Table 1. Classification of Elements in Vehicle
Circulation Plan.
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
1. Overview and Organization
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 1‐ 8
NOVEMBER 2008
In addition, state highways on local streets include the following: California Highway 1 follows
along 19th Avenue, Cross Over Park Drive through Golden Gate Park, Park Presidio Boulevard,
Veterans Boulevard, and Doyle Drive in the Presidio. California Highway 35 follows along
Skyline Boulevard and Sloat Boulevard.
In general, bicycles and pedestrians are not allowed on freeways, but are permitted on the state
highways within San Francisco. Additionally, the Golden Gate Bridge has both
bicycle/ pedestrian facilities, and the new eastern span of the San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge
will add a Class I Bike facility that will terminate at Treasure Island.
Local Roadway Network
San Francisco has over 880 lane miles of streets in its roadway network. 5 As described in
General Plan ( and discussed above) there are a variety of types of roadways in the City, and the
function and design of each street are consistent with the character and use of adjacent land.
These roadway classifications also consider desired travel speed and appropriate provision of
access. Pursuant to the California Vehicle Code, bicycles are allowed on any street within the
local street system. However, the existing bicycle route network identifies a series of
interconnected streets and pathways on which bicycling is encouraged. The particular local
street setting, for near‐ term and long‐ term improvements proposed by the Bicycle Plan, are
more specifically described in the analysis in Subsections V. A. 4 and V. A. 5 of this report.
Local Access and Circulation
Portions of the City’s roadway network have a regular grid pattern with north‐ to‐ south and
east‐ to‐ west roadways such as that found in the Sunset, the Richmond, much of the area north
of Market Street in North Beach, Chinatown, and Nob Hill, Castro/ Noe Valley, the Mission, and
portions of Potrero Hill. However, in a number of areas, roadway development has been
influenced by the hilly terrain. These areas include Twin Peaks, Glen Park, Forest Hill,
Diamond Heights, and Bernal Heights, among others. In addition, the area south of Market
Street was aligned in a grid oriented as Market Street in a southwest to northeast orientation
with much larger blocks.
5 San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, 2008. Traffic. Online at http:// www. sfmta. com/ cms/
vhome/ hometraffic. htm_[ Accessed August 24, 2008].
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
1. Overview and Organization
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 1‐ 9
NOVEMBER 2008
Intersection Control
The City maintains more than 1,100 traffic signals to manage intersection operations. 6 These
operations are measured in terms of a grading system called Level of Service ( LOS), which is
based on the average motor vehicle delay experienced at a given intersection. That delay is a
function of motor vehicle volumes, lane configuration, and signal timing, among other factors.
Intersection operating conditions are provided in Subsection V. A. 3 of this report, the project‐level
analysis of the near‐ term improvements.
Transit Network
This section describes the transit network within San Francisco. Generally, the City is well‐served
by public transit; however, there are isolated areas without nearby transit service, and/ or
with infrequent service. Due to topography constraints and discontinuity of the street network
in places, portions of neighborhoods can be isolated from convenient transit service.
Local service is provided by the San Francisco Municipal Railway ( Muni), the transit division of
the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency ( SFMTA). Muni bus, cable car and light
rail lines can be used to access regional transit operators. Service to and from the East Bay is
provided by BART, AC Transit and ferries; service to and from the North Bay is provided by
Golden Gate Transit buses and ferries; and service to and from the Peninsula and South Bay is
provided by Caltrain, SamTrans, and BART.
Local Muni Service
Specific information regarding conditions of the local Muni service for the near‐ term
improvements is provided in the analysis in Subsection V. A. 3. In addition, general information
regarding local Muni service is provided for the long‐ term improvements in Subsection V. A. 4.
In general, bicycles may be placed on the front rack of Muni buses. Bicycles are not allowed on
Muni light rails vehicles or cable cars.
Regional Providers
Five principal regional transit providers serve San Francisco: BART from the East Bay and
Peninsula; SamTrans and Caltrain from the Peninsula; AC Transit from the East Bay, and
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District ( GGBHTD) from the North Bay.
6 San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency ( SFMTA 2008). Traffic. Online at
http:// www. sfmta. com/ cms/ vhome/ hometraffic. htm [ Accessed August 17, 2008].
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
1. Overview and Organization
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 1‐ 10
NOVEMBER 2008
There are two additional ferry providers, besides GGBHTD, and these are discussed in the
section on ferry service.
BART
BART operates regional rail transit service in the metropolitan Bay Area. BART provides
service along Market and Mission Streets. BART currently operates six lines: Pittsburg/ Bay
Point to Millbrae, Fremont to Daly City, Richmond to Daly City, Fremont to Richmond,
Dublin/ Pleasanton to San Francisco International Airport ( SFIA), and Millbrae to SFIA. During
the weekday p. m. peak period, headways are generally 5 to 15 minutes for each line.
Bicycles are allowed on most trains, except those highlighted in the BART schedule, which are
peak commute times morning and evening. Bicycles are never allowed on crowded cars and
bicyclists must yield to all other passengers and yield priority seating to seniors and persons
with disabilities. 7
Caltrain
Caltrain provides rail passenger service on the Peninsula, between Gilroy and San Francisco.
The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board ( JPB), a joint powers agency consisting of San
Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, operates the service. Caltrain currently
operates 86 trains each weekday, with a combination of baby bullet, express, and local services.
Headways during the PM peak period are approximately ten to thirty minutes. The San
Francisco Caltrain terminal is located on Fourth Street, between King and Townsend Streets.
The 22nd Street Caltrain station is located at 22nd Street and Pennsylvania Street. Caltrain also is
planned to run to the new Transbay Terminal on Mission Street through an underground
tunnel. This project is anticipated to be constructed after reconstruction of the Transbay
Terminal and when project funding becomes available.
Bicycles are allowed on designated cars on Caltrain trains. Should a designated bicycle car be
full, waiting bicyclists must wait to board the next train. The number of bicycles is limited to 32
per gallery car train and 16 per Baby Bullet train. 8
7 BART. 2008. Bikes on BART. Online at http:// www. bart. gov/ guide/ bikes/ index. aspx [ accessed
August 17, 2008].
8 Caltrain. 2008. Caltrain’s Bicycle Program. Online at
http:// www. caltrain. com/ info_ bicycle_ program. html [ accessed August 17, 2008].
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
1. Overview and Organization
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 1‐ 11
NOVEMBER 2008
SamTrans
SamTrans operated by the San Mateo County Transit District, provides bus service between San
Mateo County and San Francisco. SamTrans operates 12 diesel bus lines that serve San
Francisco, including nine routes into the downtown area. Nine of these routes operate as peak‐only
commute routes, one route operates as an express route, and two routes provide service
throughout the day. Headways during the PM peak period are approximately 20 to 30 minutes
per line.
In general, SamTrans service to downtown San Francisco operates along Mission Street to the
Transbay Terminal located at first and Mission Streets. It should be noted that SamTrans cannot
pick up northbound passengers at San Francisco stops, and southbound passengers boarding in
San Francisco may not disembark in San Francisco. SamTrans buses are equipped with bicycle
racks, which hold two bicycles. Two additional bicycles are allowed inside the bus, depending
on passenger loads. 9
AC Transit
AC Transit is the primary bus operator for the East Bay, including Alameda and western Contra
Costa Counties. AC Transit operates 37 routes between the East Bay and San Francisco, all of
which terminate at the Transbay Transit Terminal, located on Mission Street, between First and
Fremont Streets. Most transbay service is peak‐ hour and peak‐ direction ( to San Francisco
during the AM peak period and from San Francisco during the PM peak period), with
headways of 15 to 30 minutes per route. All AC Transit buses are equipped with front‐ mounted
racks that hold two bicycles. On commuter coaches, two additional bicycles can be stored in the
cargo bays ( one bicycle per bay) when the front rack is full. 10
Golden Gate Transit ( bus service)
Golden Gate Transit, operated by the GGBHTD, provides bus service between the North Bay
( Marin and Sonoma Counties) and San Francisco. Golden Gate Transit operates 18 commute
bus routes and two basic routes, with service between cities in the North Bay and San Francisco.
Most routes serve either the Civic Center ( via Van Ness Avenue and Mission Streets) or the
Financial District ( via Battery and Sansome Streets). Basic bus routes operate at 15 to 90 minute
9 SamTrans. 2008. Bikes on SamTrans. Online at http:// www. samtrans. org/ bikes. html [ accessed
August 17, 2008].
10 AC Transit. 2008. Bikes on Buses. Online at http:// www2. actransit. org/ riderinfo/ bikes. wu [ accessed
August 17, 2008].
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
1. Overview and Organization
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 1‐ 12
NOVEMBER 2008
intervals, depending on the time and day of the week. Commute and ferry feeder bus routes
operate at more frequent intervals in the mornings and evenings. Golden Gate Transit does not
provide local service within San Francisco. On buses from the North Bay to San Francisco,
beyond the Golden Gate Bridge toll booth and Richardson Transfer Center, only alighting is
allowed at stops within downtown San Francisco. Conversely, on buses from San Francisco to
the North Bay, only boarding is allowed at stops within downtown San Francisco. All GGT
buses are equipped with bicycle racks. Articulated buses, and buses that are 40‐ feet long or less
are equipped with exterior bicycle racks at the front of the bus. Luggage bay bicycle racks are
installed on all 45‐ foot MCI buses. 11
Golden Gate Transit ( ferry service)
The GGBHTD also provides ferry service between the North Bay and San Francisco. During the
AM and PM peak periods, ferries operate between Larkspur and San Francisco and between
Sausalito and San Francisco. The San Francisco ferry terminal is located at the Ferry Building,
on the Embarcadero at Market Street. Approximately 1,400 passengers ride the ferry to
Larkspur and approximately 340 passengers ride the ferry to Sausalito during the PM peak
hour. Bicycles are welcome aboard all Golden Gate Ferries on a first‐ come, first‐ served basis.
GGF vessels can accommodate a limited number of bicycles depending on the destination and
vessel type. 12
Other Ferry Service
Ferry terminals in San Francisco are located at the Ferry Building, at the foot of Market Street,
and at Pier 41 at Fisherman’s Wharf. Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry connects Harbor Bay Isle with
the Ferry Building on weekdays during the AM and PM peak periods, and has bicycle racks on
board. 13 The Blue & Gold Fleet operates ferries between San Francisco and Vallejo, via the
Vallejo Baylink that operates daily from approximately 5: 30 a. m. to 9: 50 p. m. The Blue & Gold
Tiburon Ferries travel from Tiburon to the Ferry Building from 6: 00 a. m. to 8: 30 a. m. and from
4: 30 p. m. to 7: 30 p. m. peak hours weekdays. The company also operates mid‐ day and weekend
service in both directions, between Tiburon and San Francisco’s Pier 41. Alameda/ Oakland
Ferry Service operates approximately hourly each day from Oakland’s Jack London Square, via
11 Golden Gate Transit. 2008. Bikes & Buses. Online at http:// goldengatetransit. org/ services/ bikes. php
[ accessed August 17, 2008].
12 Golden Gate Ferries. 2008. Bikes & Ferries. Online at http:// goldengateferry. org/ services/ bikes. php
[ accessed August 17, 2008].
13 Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry. 2008. http:// www. alamedaharborbayferry. com/ index1. php [ accessed
August 17, 2008].
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
1. Overview and Organization
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 1‐ 13
NOVEMBER 2008
Alameda Gateway Ferry Terminal, to the Ferry Building. Bicycles are allowed on ferries subject
to the specific restrictions of each ferry provider.
Pedestrian
San Francisco is a pedestrian‐ oriented city as a result of its high density of development, the low
level of resident automobile ownership, the widespread availability of transit, the existence of
large areas of parkland, and the provision of extensive pedestrian amenities. In addition, the
City’s temperate climate makes year‐ round walking possible. Out of all US cities with at least
250,000 people, San Francisco has the 3rd highest percentage ( 9.6 percent) of commuters that
walk to work for cities, just behind Boston and Washington D. C. 14
There are few locations throughout the city where sidewalks are not provided. Sidewalks and
walkways vary, but generally range from 7 to 15 feet in width. Some boulevards, such as the
Embarcadero, have widths up to 25 feet. Market Street also has wider than average sidewalks
for much of its length. A number of roadways include street trees and planting strips, between
the sidewalk and curb, to separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic and provide aesthetic
benefit. Most of the City’s major intersections have crosswalks and pedestrian signals. Over 50
intersections have Accessible Pedestrian Signal ( APS) 15 installed. 16 In addition, 740 of 1155
signalized intersections ( 65 percent) have pedestrian countdown signals for all crosswalks. 17
There are approximately 5,300 square blocks of sidewalks citywide. The fronting property
owners are responsible for the maintenance of a majority ( 97 percent) of these sidewalks. In
2007, the Department of Public Works ( DPW) implemented the Sidewalk Inspection and Repair
Program ( SIRP), with a goal of inspecting and repairing approximately 200 square blocks each
year. This ongoing facility maintenance and management process would systematically
evaluate the city ʹ s sidewalks for hazardous conditions such as vertical displacement, cracks or
14 United States Census. 2005. 2005 American Community Survey. Walk to Work, 50 Cities with The
Most Workers Age 16 and Over, by Percentage. Online at http:// www. census. gov/ Press‐
Release/ www/ 2007/ Pub_ Trans_ Tables. xls [ Accessed August 25, 2008.].
15 An Accessible Pedestrian Signal ( APS) is a pedestrian pushbutton that communicates when to cross
the street in a non‐ visual manner, such as audible tones, speech messages, and vibrating surfaces.
16 San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. 2008. Accessible Pedestrian Signals. Online at
http:// www. sfmta. com/ cms/ wproj/ aps. htm [ Accessed August 25, 2008].
17 San Francisco. Draft Better Streets Plan. 2008. Online at http:// www. sfgov. org/ site/ uploadedfiles/
planning/ Citywide/ Better_ Streets/ index. htm [ Accessed August 25, 2008].
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
1. Overview and Organization
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 1‐ 14
NOVEMBER 2008
voids among other conditions. 18 Work areas would be prioritized and needed work
scheduled. 19
Bicycle
San Francisco has had a bicycle route network since the adoption of the 1997 Bicycle Plan. The
goal of the Bicycle Program is to provide bicycle facilities to promote the use of bicycles so that
they can successfully be used for most transportation needs, including commuting, shopping,
errands, and recreation. Bikeways are typically classified as Class I, Class II, or Class III
facilities. Class I bikeways are bicycle paths with exclusive right‐ of‐ way for use by bicyclists or
pedestrians. Class II bikeways are bicycle lanes striped with the paved areas of roadways, and
established for the preferential use of bicycles, while Class III bikeways are signed bicycle
routes that allow bicycles to share streets or sidewalks with vehicles or pedestrians. Bicycle
parking, both within the public right‐ of‐ way and within parking structures and other buildings,
support bicycle travel in the city. Some deficiencies and gaps in the City’s bicycle infrastructure
have been identified and would be addressed through the implementation of the updated
Bicycle Plan.
Existing bikeways are described in Chapter 2 of this EIR. Currently, San Francisco has 23 miles
of Class I facilities, 45 miles of Class II facilities, 79 miles of Class III facilities, 53 miles of Class
IIIA20 facilities, and eight miles of other facilities that do not have official Caltrans designation.
The public right‐ of‐ way throughout San Francisco also includes over 3,500 parking spaces for
cyclists. The Municipal Transportation Agency issues permits for bicycle rack installation in the
public right‐ of‐ way. Although the bicycle racks would be installed by the SFMTA Bicycle
Program free of charge, a permit is required. In addition, more than 50 garages have been
brought into compliance with the City Ordinance requiring bicycle parking. SFMTA’s Bicycle
Program administers over 60 bicycle lockers in various locations, and makes them available for
rent by bicycle commuters.
18 San Francisco Department of Public Works. 2008. Good Neighbor Guidelines for the Repair of
Sidewalk Defects ( DPW Order 177, 526) and Guidelines for Inspection of Sidewalk Defects ( DPW
Order 177,525). These documents are available for review by appointment at the Planning
Department, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco as part of Case File 2007.0347E.
19 San Francisco Mayor’s Office on Disability and Department of Public Works. 2008. Americans with
Disabilities Act Transition Plan for Curb Ramps and Sidewalks, Updates and Revisions, 2007‐ 2008.
Online at http:// www. sfgov. org/ site/ uploadedfiles/ mod/ RampSidewalk08. pdf. [ Accessed August 25,
2008].
20 Class III bikeways are signed bicycle routes that allow bicycles to share streets or sidewalks with
vehicles or pedestrians.
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
1. Overview and Organization
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 1‐ 15
NOVEMBER 2008
Parking
Provision of parking varies depending upon the location within the City. Most San Francisco
streets include curbside parking, and metered parking is typical in the downtown area and in
commercial districts throughout the City. Downtown, and in some local shopping areas, where
demand is highest, parking is also available in above‐ ground and below‐ ground parking
structures, as well as in surface lots. Most, if not all, of these facilities charge a fee for the
provision of parking. San Francisco’s streets with on‐ street parking allow for a range of parking
configurations, including parallel parking, diagonal parking, and perpendicular parking. Un‐metered
( or otherwise unrestricted) on‐ street parking is generally available in residential areas,
except for those area with residential parking permits ( RPP). RPP regulations generally restrict
on‐ street parking to a one‐ hour or two‐ hour period except for residents, but vary on the days of
week and the time of day that the regulations are in effect. Residential properties may include
garages, or may require on‐ street parking.
OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS
In addition to changes resulting from implementation of the Bicycle Plan, there are several
current planning efforts that would also affect the design of streets and facilities within them in
San Francisco. These are the Better Streets Plan, Livable Streets ( particularly the Traffic
Calming component), and Transit Effectiveness Project ( TEP). The Better Streets Plan is a multi‐agency
effort to comprehensively plan for streets that was initiated by the adoption of the City’s
Better Streets Policy in 2006.21 The draft Better Streets Plan was published in June 2008. The
Better Streets Plan seeks to develop street design concepts that balance the needs of all street
users, but has a focus on the pedestrian environment, generally the areas of sidewalks and
crosswalks. A supporting principle of the Better Streets Policy is to support and invite streets
with multiple uses including safe, active, ample space for pedestrians, bicycles and public
transit. Such streets are more conducive to the public life of an urban neighborhood, and the
efficient movement of people and goods, than streets designed to move automobiles. Decisions
regarding the design and use of the City’s limited public street space shall prioritize space for
pedestrians, bicycles, and public transit over space for automobiles. 22
21 San Francisco Administrative Code, Chapter 98, Better Streets Policy. Adopted February 2006.
22 San Francisco Planning Department. 2008. Better Streets San Francisco. Online at:
http:// www. sfgov. org/ site/ uploadedfiles/ planning/ Citywide/ Better_ Streets/ index. htm
[ Accessed August 24, 2008].
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
1. Overview and Organization
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 1‐ 16
NOVEMBER 2008
SFMTA’s Traffic Calming Program, is part of the City’s Livable Streets effort to improve safety
on San Francisco ʹ s streets. Livable Streets was launched in 2000 to address some of the traffic
problems associated with the growing number of cars in San Francisco. A goal of the Traffic
Calming Program is to make neighborhood streets friendlier for pedestrians, children,
bicyclists, and motorists. The Traffic Calming Program uses innovative tools and methods to
address traffic problems such as speeding, reckless driving, pedestrian safety, traffic spillover
from main arterials to local roads, excessive noise and traffic levels, road rage, and the impact of
crowded highways and main streets on driver behavior. The goal of the Traffic Calming
Program is safer streets for everyone, without restricting access to anyone. 23
The TEP is a partnership between the SFMTA and the Controller ʹ s Office, to increase the
effectiveness of the City ʹ s public transit system. The TEP was launched in May 2006 and is the
first comprehensive effort in over 25 years to review Muni and recommend ways to transform it
into a faster, more reliable and more efficient public transit system for San Francisco.
Challenges which Muni hopes to address through the TEP include changing travel patterns,
increasing costs, and operational and physical constraints that affect on‐ time performance.
These challenges highlight the need for system‐ wide improvements. The collection of ridership
data, and proposals from the public, city staff, and many community organizations, inform the
TEP staff in this process. 24
All of these programs look to improve the function of San Francisco streets as a system for
travel, but seek also to maintain public space and open space. These programs overlap in their
ultimate goal of improving the conditions of San Francisco’s streets for transportation by all
modes of travel. While each program or project has a slightly different focus, all consider the
compatible implementation of improvements to balance and facilitate multiple travel modes
within San Francisco’s streetscape.
23 San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. 2008. Livable Streets: Traffic Calming. Online at
http:// www. sfmta. com/ cms/ ocalm/ indxlicalm. htm [ accessed August 24, 2008].
24 San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. 2008. The Transit Effectiveness Project. Online at
http:// www. sfmta. com/ cms/ mtep/ tepover. htm [ Accessed August 24, 2008].
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 1
NOVEMBER 2008
2. BICYCLE PLAN PROGRAM- LEVEL REVIEW
INTRODUCTION
This section discusses the program‐ level impacts that would result from the revised policies,
goals, objectives, and action items of the Bicycle Plan. Subsections V. A. 3, V. A. 4, and V. A. 5 of
this document provide further environmental analysis of improvements and physical changes
proposed under these policies.
Program‐ level analysis of impacts under CEQA, for policies such as those discussed in this
chapter, requires two primary levels of review. The actions resulting from the goals and
objectives of the Bicycle Plan, discussed in this section, result from policies that would be
adopted as part of the Bicycle Plan. Under CEQA, the given policy must therefore be analyzed
to establish the extent to which the act of adopting the policy might create physical
environmental impacts and the significance of those impacts, if any.
In addition to analyzing the impacts of the primary action, indirect or secondary impacts of that
action, such as whether the adoption of a policy would lead to physical environmental impacts,
must also be identified and evaluated for their potential to have a significant impact on the
physical environment. In this case, the actions supported by Bicycle Plan policies, such as
creation of new bicycle paths, must be analyzed for their potential to have a significant impact
on the environment.
The following discussion is organized to coincide with Chapter 2 of the Wilbur Smith
Associates San Francisco Bicycle Plan Update Transportation Impact Study1 ( TIS). This CEQA
analysis reviews and discusses each proposed policy Action in sequence.
OVERALL BICYCLE PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND ACTION ITEMS
Chapter 2 of the transportation impact study includes the program‐ level review for the revised
policies of the Bicycle Plan to be incorporated into the San Francisco General Plan, Planning Code,
and Transportation Code. These Bicycle Plan Goals, Objectives and Action Items are described in
this Subsection V. A. 2, and evaluated for their potential to affect physical change to the
environment through the proposed changes to the transportation network. In sum, the Bicycle
1 Wilbur Smith Associates. 2008. San Francisco Bicycle Plan Update Transportation Impact Study. This
document is available for review by appointment at the San Francisco Planning Department, 1650
Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA as part of Case File No. 2007.0347E.
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 2
NOVEMBER 2008
Plan Goals, Objectives and Action items are intended to achieve the following goals and
objectives:
Overall Plan Goal:
• Increase Safe Bicycle Use
Overall Plan Objectives:
• Increase the daily number of bicycle trips in San Francisco;
• Develop improved methods for tracking bicycle usage; and
• Reduce the rate of bicycle collisions as bicycle usage increases.
The overall goal of the Bicycle Plan is to provide safe conditions for cyclists through provision
of a network of bicycle facilities. This network is designed to connect bicyclists safely and
conveniently with their destinations by providing the routes with the least geographic
impediments balanced by the routes with the best opportunities for road sharing between
bicyclists and other modes. Projects and treatments proposed for the Bicycle Plan are designed
to reduce conflicts between bicyclists and other vehicles, and, thereby, safely accommodate
increased bicycle use in the City. The actions proposed to meet the objective of increasing
bicycle use in San Francisco and a determination of their impacts to the environment are
included in Subsection V. A. 2.
Developing improved methods for tracking bicycle usage would provide the Bicycle Program
and other City agencies with the data needed to refine and improve the bicycle network as
needs change. This action is not likely to result in significant transportation impacts. Data
collection activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental
resource, are exempt from environmental review [ CEQA Guidelines Section 15358 ( b)].
With improved roadway conditions for cyclists as well as increased road safety education and
enforcement, there may be fewer bicycle collisions even as bicycle usage increases. This
objective would not by itself lead to a physical change in the environment. It may be achieved
by the implementation of specific Bicycle Plan projects and programs discussed and analyzed in
this Environmental Impact Report ( EIR).
The overall goal and objectives of the Bicycle Plan would be achieved by meeting the more
specific goals, objectives, and action items outlined in the Bicycle Plan. The analysis of potential
transportation impacts that would result from the more specific goals, objectives, and action
items is included in this Subsection of the report.
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 3
NOVEMBER 2008
The following analysis of these goals and objectives reveals that, the policies, goals, objectives,
and action items would not lead to direct impacts. Analysis of other proposed changes to the
transportation network that may result from the implementation of these policies, goals,
objectives, and action items, and their potential environmental impacts, are presented in either
the project‐ level analysis for the 60 near‐ term improvements, Subsection V. A. 3 of this report, or
in the program‐ level analysis in Subsections V. A. 4 and V. A. 5 of this report.
BICYCLE ROUTE NETWORK GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND ACTION ITEMS
This Bicycle Route Network discussion in Chapter 1 of the Bicycle Plan defines the action items
to fulfill the following goals and objectives:
Chapter 1 Goal:
• Refine and Expand the Existing Bicycle Route Network
Chapter 1 Objectives:
• Establish a comprehensive network of bikeways that are appropriately signed, marked,
and/ or traffic‐ calmed and that provide convenient and direct connections to all of San
Francisco’s neighborhoods ‐ the facilities along the bicycle route network should include
conventional treatments depending on the design of the bicycle improvements and
conditions:
‐ on‐ street signed bicycle routes,
‐ shared roadway bicycle markings,
‐ bicycle lanes, and
‐ off‐ street bicycle and mixed‐ use paths; and,
‐ traffic‐ calmed streets
• Utilize innovative designs, where appropriate, to improve bicycle usage and safety; and
• Ensure that the bicycle route network:
‐ provides bicycle access to all commercial and residential areas;
‐ provides bicycle access to all San Francisco Municipal Railway ( Muni) metro, Bay
Area Rapid Transit ( BART), and Caltrain stations, ferry terminals, and other major
transit hubs; and
‐ is well signed, well striped, and well paved.
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 4
NOVEMBER 2008
Network gaps have been identified by the public and staff at City agencies. The Bicycle Plan’s
goal is to fill these gaps and provide a comprehensive network of bikeways which offer
convenient and direct connections between all of San Francisco’s neighborhoods. Improvements
would be implemented over time to address the identified gaps. The network is evaluated as a
whole in this environmental review process considering the potential impacts from the Bicycle
Plan to the complete transportation system and on all modes. The proposed improvements fall
into three major categories, namely, near‐ term improvements, long‐ term improvements, and
minor improvements. These improvements are discussed in detail in Subsections V. A. 3, V. A. 4,
and V. A. 5 of this document. The action items in this Bicycle Route Network Goals, Objectives
and Action Items discussion, including those related to near‐ term, long‐ term, and minor
improvements, as well as informational and maintenance projects, have been recommended to
complete the bicycle network in San Francisco. The potential for any element or improvement
resulting from the Bicycle Plan Project to cause a significant environmental impact is identified
and discussed below as well as in the other sections of this report.
Action 1.1
Implement improvements to streets and paths identified as proposed near- term bicycle
improvement projects and implement minor improvements to other streets and paths on
the existing bicycle route network, if feasible.
The act of adopting a policy to implement improvements to streets and paths proposed as near‐term
bicycle improvement projects, and to implement minor improvements to other streets and
paths on the existing bicycle route network, would have no direct significant effect on the
physical environment. Predictable indirect impacts from the implementation of this policy
would include construction of the aforementioned improvements. The impacts of constructing
these improvements are analyzed at a project level in Subsection V. A. 3 of this EIR with respect
to traffic, transit, parking, pedestrians, bicycles, and loading for the near‐ term improvements,
and at a program level in Subsection V. A. 4 of this EIR with respect to traffic, transit, parking,
pedestrians, bicycles, and loading for the minor improvements.
Subsection V. A. 3 identifies project‐ level impacts including both potentially‐ significant impacts,
and significant and unavoidable impacts, including a potential reduction of traffic levels of
service, potential slowing of transit movement in the City, and potential reduction of truck
loading spaces. Of the remaining elements reviewed in Subsection V. A. 3 project‐ level review,
all impacts were identified as being less‐ than‐ significant or as having no potential to impact the
physical environment. Subsection V. A. 4 recognizes no significant program‐ level impacts for
either the individual minor improvements, or for those minor improvements in a cumulative
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 5
NOVEMBER 2008
context. Although no direct environmental impacts would result from adoption of this policy,
some of the indirect impacts noted above would be potentially significant and unavoidable.
Significant Impact TR‐ A1.1
Predictable indirect impacts from approval of a policy to implement improvements to streets
and paths proposed as near‐ term bicycle improvement projects, 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 Action 1.1
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 with respect to traffic, transit, parking, pedestrians, bicycles, and loading and the
program‐ level impacts resulting from implementation of minor improvements with respect to
traffic, transit, parking, pedestrians, bicycles, and loading. The results of this analysis are
summarized in Subsections V. A. 3 and V. A. 4 of this report. No significant impacts were
identified from the minor improvements in V. A. 4. 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 to a less‐ than‐ significant level. 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.
Action 1.2
Complete the required design and engineering for improvements to streets and paths
identified as proposed long- term bicycle improvement projects and implement these
improvements, if feasible.
Long‐ term improvements are either major improvements to segments of the existing bicycle
route network or are potential future additions to the streets and pathways that comprise the
bicycle route network. Completion of the design and engineering for the proposed long‐ term
improvements would have no direct impact on the physical environment. Similarly, the act of
adopting the policy allowing for the implementation of these improvements is a purely
administrative activity, and would have no direct impact on the physical environment. The
potential subsequent implementation of bicycle facilities, such as installation of colored paving,
installation of bicycle lanes, installation of sharrows, and related design changes, have been
analyzed in Subsection V. A. 5 of this document with respect to traffic, transit, parking,
pedestrians, bicycles, and loading. Subsection V. A. 5 recognizes four potentially‐ significant and
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 6
NOVEMBER 2008
unavoidable impacts that could result from long‐ term improvements. These potential impacts
were identified at the program level and include the following:
• Potential reduction in roadway capacity and increased traffic delays; reduction in the
number of travel lanes could subject vehicles, including transit using the affected
roadways, to increased congestion and delays; increased delays could result in drivers
diverting to other, potentially less convenient, routes to access their destinations.
• Potential to cause the level of service at an intersection’s worst approach, to deteriorate
from LOS D or better to LOS E or F with Caltrans signal warrants met; and/ or potential
to have significant adverse impacts at intersections that operate at LOS E or F under
existing conditions. 2
• Potential to cause transit to experience increased travel time on streets where these
improvements reduce capacity of roadways and result in significant increases in delay.
• Potential to result in elimination of curb space currently dedicated to yellow commercial
vehicle freight loading zones or active passenger loading/ unloading zones.
Significant Impact 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 Action 1.2 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 mitigation 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 environmental impacts that would
remain significant and unavoidable.
2 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, for Streets and Highways, Part 4: Highway
Traffic Signals. Sept 26, 2006. http:// www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ traffops/ signtech/ mutcdsupp/ pdf/ camutcd/
CAMUTCD‐ Part4. pdf
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 7
NOVEMBER 2008
Action 1.3
Maintain a San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency ( SFMTA) Geographic
Information System ( GIS) database of the bicycle route network, and update the database
whenever route changes occur.
The maintenance, and updating, of a SFMTA Geographic Information System ( GIS) database of
the bicycle network would result only in the sharing of information. There would be no
significant transportation impacts on the physical environment from this action.
Action 1.4
Work with other City agencies to ensure that San Francisco continues to implement the
Transit First Policy.
Collaboration between the SFMTA and other agencies, to ensure that San Francisco continues to
implement the Transit‐ First Policy, 3 would result only in the sharing of information, and not a
physical change subject to CEQA analysis. This collaboration, however, could lead to the
construction of improvements or implementation of other changes to meet Transit‐ First Policy
goals. Physical improvements known at this time are analyzed in Subsections V. A. 3, V. A. 4, and
V. A. 5 of this document, with respect to potential impacts on traffic, transit, pedestrians,
bicycles, and loading. As analyzed in Subsections V. A. 3, V. A. 4, and V. A. 5, these improvements
have the potential to create significant impacts to the physical environment. Implementation of
the mitigation measures identified in the transportation study would reduce some of these
impacts to less‐ than‐ significant. However, there are some significant impacts for which no
feasible mitigation measures have been identified. These would remain significant and
unavoidable. Future projects that may result from this action are not yet known, and would be
subject to separate technical review, analysis, and mitigation under CEQA.
Significant Impact 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‐ First Policy
goals. The indirect impacts of Action 1.4 would, therefore, include potential impacts identified
under 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
3 The City’s Transit‐ First Policy states, “ The primary objective of the transportation system must be the
safe and efficient movement of people and goods.” In addition to promoting transit as an attractive
alternative to travel by private vehicle, travel by bicycle and on foot must be attractive in the City. To
this end, the City should encourage safe streets for bicycle riding, convenient access to transit, bicycle
lanes, and secure bicycle parking. San Francisco City Charter Section 16.102.
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 8
NOVEMBER 2008
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.
Action 1.5
Conduct a before and after study on the impacts of allowing bicycles in exclusive
bus/ taxi lanes.
The study of impacts from allowing bicycles in exclusive bus/ taxi lanes would be conducted in
two stages to understand conditions before and after bicycles are allowed in these lanes. This
study might require the placement of observers or mechanical equipment adjacent to locations
at which these temporary mixed‐ mode lanes would be created. These observers would be
involved in short‐ term data collection and recordation of traffic flow rates, safety levels for
bicyclists, and other significant information. The presence of observers or monitoring
equipment could be a temporary distraction for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists in the areas
under study. Such distraction could indirectly cause a slight worsening in local air quality, as
motorists slow to observe the study activity. However, citizens using the public right‐ of‐ way
regularly pass by a variety of similar distractions. They may slow slightly to observe the
activity or navigate around it in a cautious manner but the increase in emissions released by
driver‐ observer vehicle slowing is not appreciable to the casual observer. Furthermore, the
study would be conducted for a limited duration so the increase in emissions from slowing
drivers would also be temporary. The environmental impacts from conducting this study
would, therefore, be less‐ than‐ significant.
It is possible that the observers or observational equipment could occupy one or more parking
spaces in the area in which the study is being conducted. This minor loss of parking spaces
would not result in a significant impact and would be temporary in nature. The total
environmental impact of the use of parking spaces for stationing observers or observation
equipment would be less than significant.
As an indirect result of this action, this study could lead to a proposal that bicyclists receive the
permanent right to use bus/ taxi lanes. Should this project eventually be proposed, it would be
subjected to separate environmental review. Such a project is not included in the current project
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 9
NOVEMBER 2008
scope, and is therefore not subject to project‐ specific environmental review at this time but
rather program‐ level review of this policy. There would be no indirect impact from this policy
to study multi‐ mode bicycle/ bus/ taxi shared lanes.
Action 1.6
Review multi- lane streets for excess capacity, and explore travel lane removals where
excess capacity exists to accommodate bicycle lanes or other bicycle- friendly
treatments.
A review of multi‐ lane streets for excess capacity and exploration of travel lane removals to
allow for bicycle lanes or bicycle‐ friendly treatments on streets where excess capacity is found,
might require the placement of observers or mechanical equipment adjacent to locations being
studied. These observers would be involved in short‐ term information gathering on traffic flow
rates and other relevant information. The presence of observers or monitoring equipment could
be a temporary distraction for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists in the areas under study. Such
distraction could indirectly cause a slight worsening in local air quality, as motorists slow to
observe the study activity and therefore generate a slight increase in vehicle emissions in the
area in which they have slowed. However, citizens using public right‐ of‐ way encounter a
variety of distractions on a regular basis, and often slow slightly to observe the activity or
navigate around it in a cautious manner. The resulting increase in emissions is minimal and
generally unnoticeable to the casual observer, and the study would be conducted on a
temporary basis, so any potential increase in emissions from slowing drivers would be
temporary. Therefore, this Action would have a less‐ than‐ significant impact on local air quality.
Placement of observation equipment or observers also could occupy some parking spaces,
temporarily reducing parking in the area around the studied site. The environmental impact of
stationing observation equipment or crews in a limited number of parking spaces would be less
than significant.
The completion of this review and analysis could lead to a proposal to create additional bicycle
lanes on additional City streets. Any new projects proposed would require separate
environmental review, after the projects were defined and streets and specific improvements
were developed. There would be no significant indirect environmental impact from the current
policy to study multi‐ lane streets for opportunities to create bicycle lanes and other bicycle
facilities.
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 10
NOVEMBER 2008
Action 1.7
Work with the California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans) to analyze and add
bicycle facilities where appropriate on current State highways within San Francisco.
The act of cooperation between the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency ( SFMTA)
and Caltrans, to analyze and add bicycle facilities on existing State highways within San
Francisco would not directly effect the physical environment. This cooperative arrangement
would involve a sharing of information. Any proposed transportation improvements for State
highways selected by SFMTA and Caltrans would require environmental review. SFMTA and
Caltrans may agree to implement treatments already studied at the program level, as minor
improvements, and discussed in Subsection V. A. 4. No significant impacts would result from the
implementation of these treatments.
There is only one near‐ term improvement proposed for a State highway in San Francisco,
Project 8‐ 1, 19th Avenue mixed‐ use path Buckingham Way to Holloway Avenue, Option 1.
Option 1 would occur on the right‐ of‐ way on 19th Avenue, which is also California State
Highway 1. The extent of project impacts has been analyzed and is presented in Subsection
V. A. 3. No significant impacts would result from this project. In addition, minor improvements
may be implemented on Sloat Boulevard between Skyline Boulevard and 19th Avenue ( State
Highway 35) which would require SFMTA coordination with Caltrans. The extent of project
impacts resulting from minor improvements has been analyzed and is presented in Subsection
V. A. 4. No significant impacts would result from this project.
Subsection V. A. 5, the analysis of long‐ term improvements, has not identified any potential
improvements on State highways. However, any projects not analyzed in Subsections V. A. 3,
V. A. 4, and V. A. 5 of this document would be studied through separate environmental analysis.
Therefore, the policy to continue the cooperative arrangement with Caltrans would have no
definable direct impact on the physical environment. There would be no significant impact as a
result of Action 1.7.
It should be noted that SFMTA also consults with Caltrans for improvements to the bicycle
route network constructed in proximity to Caltrans facilities, but which are not on State
highways in San Francisco. This coordination would not result in any direct environmental
impacts. Any such known improvements are discussed in Subsections V. A. 3 and V. A. 5 of this
report and considered as part of Actions 1.1 and 1.2, but are not within the actions anticipated
as part of this action item.
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 11
NOVEMBER 2008
Action 1.8
Work with the responsible San Francisco agencies to develop revisions to San
Francisco’s level of service ( LOS) standards and methodologies such that they better
respond to the multimodal nature of San Francisco’s transportation system, specifically
addressing bicycles.
Collaboration between SFMTA and responsible San Francisco agencies to develop revisions to
level of service ( LOS) policies and methodologies would not, in itself, create change in the
physical environment. Therefore, it would not constitute an environmental impact under
CEQA. However, the specific changes to these policies and methodologies have not yet been
defined and cannot be analyzed in this document. Therefore, this collaboration and proposal to
revise LOS policies and methodologies would have no direct or indirect impact on the physical
environment.
Action 1.9
Define “ bicycle boulevards” and develop criteria for identifying streets that could be
designated as bicycle boulevards.
The definition of “ bicycle boulevards,” and criteria for designating streets as bicycle boulevards,
would require information gathering through research and the sharing of information between
departments in the City of San Francisco and other jurisdictions that contain bicycle boulevards.
Gathering of information and drafting of bicycle boulevard street designation definitions would
have no direct impact on the physical environment.
The definition of “ bicycle boulevards” and designation criteria would ultimately provide
potentially long‐ lasting guidance on, and influence over, circulation patterns on San Francisco
streets. This definition would affect the use of those streets that would be defined as “ bicycle
boulevards,” or could be so designated under the definition formulated under this policy.
Therefore, this policy could indirectly impact the physical environment, with potential impacts
that could arise from temporary activities such as bicycle lane striping, the elimination of
parking spaces, or lane reconfiguration to allow right‐ of‐ way space for bicyclists. Streets not
designated, or meeting the criteria for designation, also could be physically affected if vehicle
traffic moves to those streets to avoid sharing the designated bicycle boulevard streets with
cyclists. The ultimate designation of specific bicycle boulevards would require environmental
analysis once the City has arrived at a definition, so that affected streets could be identified and
studied for project‐ level impacts. In the current absence of such a definition, there is no way to
ascertain the level of indirect impacts that would result from the policy to adopt this new
definition nor are these impacts yet authorized ( pending separate environmental analysis) by
adoption of the policy here considered. That which is currently contemplated is only the
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 12
NOVEMBER 2008
adoption of this policy, and this action would have no direct or indirect impact on the physical
environment.
Action 1.10
Review international best practices and implement innovative design treatments along
the bicycle route network with an appropriate level of analysis and study.
A review and analysis of international best practices for ideas on design treatments along the
bicycle network and of the innovative design treatments themselves, would involve research
and analysis, and would have no impact on the physical environment. The implementation of
innovative design treatments such as the installation of colored paving, installation of
directional signage, installation of sharrows, and related design changes, have been analyzed in
Subsection V. A. 4 of this document, and have been found to have no potentially‐ significant
environmental impacts. Separate environmental analysis would be required for any design
treatments not yet proposed and analyzed in this environmental document. Adoption of this
policy, therefore, would have no significant direct or indirect impact on the physical
environment.
Action 1.11
Prioritize installation of shared roadway bicycle markings where safety could be
improved.
Action 1.11 would result in assigning priority to certain streets over others for the installation of
shared roadway markings where bicycle travel‐ related safety could be improved. The act of
prioritizing certain street on the bicycle route network over others for the implementation of
sharrows would have no direct effect on the physical environment. However, the indirect effect
would be the installation of the sharrows. Analysis of potential environmental impacts for the
installation of sharrows is provided in Subsection V. A. 4. Sharrows have been determined not to
result in significant environmental effects. Thus, the prioritization of shared roadway bicycle
markings, to improve safety, would have no significant effect on the physical environment.
Action 1.12
Work with the Department of Public Works ( DPW) to develop and enforce a set of
standards that must be strictly adhered to by contractors for street excavation
restoration.
The coordination of work between SFMTA and the Department of Public Works ( DPW), to
develop and enforce a set of standards for street excavation restoration by contractors, would
have no impacts on the physical environment. This policy could encourage and allow DPW to
secure a higher level of workmanship by street excavation and restoration contractors. The
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 13
NOVEMBER 2008
physical impact of this improved workmanship would be positive, and would result in longer
time periods between street repairs, and therefore, fewer traffic disruptions and reduced
emissions arising from cars backed up in traffic behind street repair crews. This policy would
have no direct or indirect impact on the physical environment.
Action 1.13
Work with the responsible San Francisco agencies to create a prioritized citywide bicycle
and mixed- use pathway inventory that includes: surface condition; signage and lighting
status; required maintenance or improvements needed; and the agency responsible for
each pathway.
Work between the SFMTA and other San Francisco agencies would, be an activity involving the
cooperative exchange and management of information. This collaboration would not have an
impact on the physical environment. The result of this collaboration would be the creation of a
prioritized bicycle and mixed‐ use pathway inventory, including surface and other amenity
status, required improvements and maintenance, and the associated responsible agency.
Creation of such a list also would be an essentially administrative task and would have no
impact on the physical environment. The ultimate indirect result of adopting this policy would
be two‐ fold, namely:
Maintenance and improvement levels on the bicycle and mixed‐ use pathway system are an
aspect of the physical environment, and poor pathway systems could erode pathway use and
undermine the Bicycle Plan’s goal of promoting bicycle use in the City. Poor pathway
maintenance levels may result in some cyclists or pedestrians diverting their travel from
designated pathways to nearby streets. However, this would be an unusual circumstance. A
commitment to maintain the pathway system would have a less‐ than‐ significant impact on the
environment, as it would ensure that the pathway system is kept relatively unchanged, and in
the optimal usable condition.
The indirect result of the proposed policy to maintain the bicycle pathways would be the
execution of related maintenance tasks and construction of improvements. These activities
could temporarily block and slow pedestrians or bicycle travel depending on the pathway in
question. As the maintenance and improvements work would be temporary, likely to last no
more than a few days to a week, the impact of the total potential increase in vehicle emissions
arising from maintenance or repair activities would be less‐ than‐ significant. These actions
would have no significant impact under the current project.
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 14
NOVEMBER 2008
Action 1.14
Work with the DPW and the Recreation and Parks Department to maintain a regular
sweeping schedule of bicycle routes on City- accepted streets and City- maintained off-street
paths that are not currently cleaned on a regular schedule – in addition to
sweeping bikeways whenever there is an accumulation of debris such as gravel, glass,
and sand.
Collaboration between the SFMTA, DPW, and Recreation and Park Department to maintain a
regular sweeping schedule of bicycle routes would not affect the physical environment as the
collaborative process would consist solely of information sharing and coordination of ideas.
The indirect result of this collaboration would be the execution of scheduled sweeping, possibly
with increased frequency. Sweeping activities can affect the physical environment in two ways:
They can make paths safer for use and travel, and they can create temporary obstruction to
pathway users and individuals temporarily sharing the path of travel with the sweeping
equipment. The sweeping equipment may slow movement of vehicles, transit, bicycles and
pedestrians on paths being swept, and on roads that the sweeping equipment uses to reach the
sweeping location. This potential impact would occur on a temporary basis and only at the
time of sweeping, a periodic activity. Therefore, the indirect environmental impact of this
policy would be less than significant.
Action 1.15
Work with the DPW to prioritize streets on the bicycle route network within the DPW’s
street resurfacing program.
The SFMTA’s decision to work collaboratively with DPW to prioritize streets on the bicycle
route network for DPW’s street resurfacing program would have no impact on the
environment. This action would result in some streets being repaved before other streets. The
level of prioritization would only change the order in which streets would be repaved. It would
not result in an increased in street repaving. Therefore, no environmental impacts would result
from the imposition of this prioritization scheme.
Action 1.16
Work with the DPW to inspect streets on the bicycle route network on a yearly basis.
No direct physical impact would result from the SFMTA’s work with DPW to inspect streets on
the bicycle routes on an annual basis. An inspection process already occurs, and the policy
currently proposed would potentially add more observers or a new focus to the process, but
would involve no new or additional traffic slowing or other impact with potential
environmental implications. The inspection of streets could indirectly lead to additional
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 15
NOVEMBER 2008
maintenance, but it is likely that this maintenance would be called for by DPW under normal
working procedures. Therefore, there would be no direct or indirect impacts from these
inspections.
Action 1.17
Create an inventory of locations along the bicycle route network that intersect or run
parallel to railroad tracks, and identify appropriate measures to mitigate the impacts of
the track crossings to bicyclists.
The creation of an inventory of bicycle route locations that intersect or run parallel to railroad
tracks would be an information gathering exercise. The compilation of information would have
no physical impact on the environment. The subsequent identification of measures to mitigate
impacts of track crossings on bicyclists could lead to plans for new improvements, but any new
improvement projects, arising as a result of the compilation of this inventory, would require
separate environmental review and clearance. This policy, therefore, would have no direct or
indirect significant impact on the environment.
Additional Action
The Bicycle Program anticipates utilizing bicycle detectors to facilitate bicycle traffic
through signalized intersections that are traffic- actuated where existing detector devices
cannot adequately detect bicycles. Bicycle detectors are devices used at traffic- actuated
signalized intersections to ensure that signal phase actuation can be triggered by
bicycles in addition to motor vehicles.
In general, bicycle detectors allow bicyclists to actuate a traffic signal when they arrive at an
intersection. These devices provide a function similar to pedestrian crosswalk systems where a
pedestrian manually triggers the detector system by pressing a button. These devices would
prevent bicyclists from waiting at a traffic‐ actuated traffic signal for extended periods of time
when no other vehicles are present in order to cross the intersection legally. The installation of
such devices may involve minor excavation in the roadway. Once implemented, these devices
would limit unnecessary waiting by cyclists at intersections but would have no other
environmental effects. Therefore, the use of bicycle detectors would not result in direct or
indirect significant environmental impacts.
BICYCLE PARKING GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND ACTION ITEMS
This Bicycle Parking discussion relates to Chapter 2 of the Bicycle Plan, and defines action items
that would fulfill the following goals and objectives:
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 16
NOVEMBER 2008
Chapter 2 Goal:
• Ensure Plentiful, High‐ Quality Bicycle Parking
Chapter 2 Objectives:
• Provide secure short‐ term and long‐ term bicycle parking, including support for bicycle
stations and attended bicycle parking facilities at major events and destinations; and
• Provide current and relevant information to bicyclists regarding bicycle parking
opportunities through a variety of formats.
Despite recent progress toward providing ample secure bicycle parking throughout the City,
many office buildings, commercial districts, public transit stations, and tourist attractions still
lack adequate bicycle parking. The unavailability of bicycle parking, with protections against
theft, vandalism, and the weather, discourages people from cycling. The Bicycle Program
therefore desires to implement bicycle parking within the public right‐ of‐ way, where
appropriate, whenever a need is identified. The action items in this Bicycle Parking Goals,
Objectives and Action Items discussion have been recommended to ensure a protected and
ample supply of bicycle parking facilities throughout the City. These action items would have
no significant impact on the environment.
Action 2.1
Work with the Planning Department to consolidate Sections 155.1- 155.5 of the Planning
Code to provide clearer regulations, guidance, and exemptions related to bicycle
parking.
No direct impacts would result from collaboration between the SFMTA and the Planning
Department to consolidate Sections 155.1‐ 155.5 of the Planning Code, for the purpose of
providing clearer regulation, guidance, and exemptions related to bicycle parking. This
collaboration would involve meetings, sharing of information and recommendations, and
proposed amendments to the text of the Planning Code in accord with the conclusions reached
through this collaborative process. None of these actions would have a direct physical
component. However, while the goal is to provide greater clarity and guidance for the
application of existing bicycle parking requirements, it is possible that more bicycle parking
would be constructed as a result of Action 2.1. Therefore, an indirect result of this collaboration
could be the creation of additional bicycle parking in the City. The provision of more bicycle
parking could displace vehicular parking or other uses including residential floor area. The
potential level of impact would be minor. An increase in bicycle parking and any coincident
impacts would not constitute a significant impact under CEQA.
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 17
NOVEMBER 2008
Action 2.2
Work with the Planning Department to modify the Planning Code’s requirements for
bicycle parking so that they are less dependent on automobile parking provisions.
Action 2.2 would result in collaboration between SFMTA and the Planning Department to
modify Planning Code requirements for bicycle parking so that they are less dependent on
automobile parking provisions. The collaborative effort itself would have no impact on the
physical environment. One indirect impact of this collaboration could be the implementation of
policies allowing for a greater provision of bicycle parking spaces to residential units. This
would have no detrimental effect on the physical environment. It may result in a greater rate of
cycling among San Francisco residents. To the extent that these increased bicycle trips replace
vehicle trips, this may lead to a reduction in vehicle emissions. A secondary impact of this
collaboration could be the allowance of more bicycle parking. This could influence vehicle
parking requirements and result in a decrease in the space for vehicle parking required for some
development projects.
The exact reduction in automobile parking spaces resulting from the implementation of Action
2.2 is unknown. Parking deficits are considered to be social effects, rather than impacts on the
physical environment, as defined by CEQA. Under CEQA, a project’s social effects need not be
treated as significant impacts on the environment. Environmental documents should address
any secondary impacts that could be triggered by a social impact. ( CEQA Guidelines Section
15131( a)). The social inconvenience of parking deficits, such as having to hunt for scarce
parking spaces, is not an environmental impact, but there may be secondary physical
environmental impacts, such as increased traffic congestion at intersections, air quality impacts,
safety impacts, or noise impacts caused by congestion. In the experience of San Francisco
transportation planners, however, the absence of a ready supply of parking spaces, combined
with available alternatives to auto travel ( e. g., transit service, taxis, bicycles or travel by foot)
and a relatively dense pattern of urban development, induces many drivers to seek and find
alternatives parking facilities, shift to other modes of travel, or change their overall travel
habits. Any such resulting shifts to transit service in particular, would be in keeping with the
City’s “ Transit First Policy.” The City’s Transit First Policy, established in the City’s Charter
Section 16.102, provides that “ parking policies for areas well served by public transit shall be
designed to encourage travel by public transportation and alternative transportation.” Projects
and treatments proposed for the Bicycle Plan are designed to reduce conflicts between bicyclists
and other vehicles, and, thereby, safely accommodate increased bicycle use in the City.
Therefore, Action 2.2 is not likely to result in significant transportation impacts. Therefore,
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 18
NOVEMBER 2008
Action 2.2 would have no potential significant direct or indirect impact on the physical
environment under CEQA.
Action 2.3
Work with the Planning Department to amend the Planning Code to increase required
bicycle parking for new residential development and base this requirement on a
proportion of dwelling units.
The work of the SFMTA and Planning Department to amend the Planning Code to increase the
required bicycle parking for new residential developments would have impacts similar to those
discussed under Action 2.2. As noted above, the act of collaboration would have no impact on
the environment. The indirect impact of creating more bicycle parking, whatever the basis for
the proposed analysis used to define the number of spaces required, could lead to a
concomitant reduction in the provision of vehicle parking spaces. As discussed in Action 2.2,
above, parking deficits are considered to be social effects and not physical impacts on the
environment. Therefore, the potential loss of vehicle parking, to make way for more bicycle
parking would not be considered an impact under CEQA. By indirectly causing a reduction in
the parking provided in new residential projects, this policy also could indirectly lead to a
reduction in total vehicle travel in the City, and thus a reduction in vehicle emissions. There
would be no significant environmental impact as a result of Action 2.2.
Action 2.4
Work with the responsible San Francisco agencies and entities to ensure that all garage
bicycle parking is secure, well monitored, and well advertised at garage entrances and
other appropriate locations.
A policy of multi‐ agency cooperation to ensure that garage bicycle parking is secure, well
monitored, and well advertised at garage entrances and other appropriate locations would not
have a direct impact on the environment, in itself. If these provisions are enforced, they could
result in an indirect effect of encouraging more bicycling due to the availability of secure bicycle
parking. Projects and treatments proposed for the Bicycle Plan are designed to reduce conflicts
between bicyclists and other vehicles, and, thereby, safely accommodate increased bicycle use
in the City Therefore, an increase in bicycle use resulting from the enforcement of bicycle
parking provisions as specified in the Planning Code is not likely to result in significant
transportation impacts. Thus, there would be no significant environmental impacts with
implementation of Action 2.4.
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 19
NOVEMBER 2008
Action 2.5
Work with the Planning Department to increase monitoring and enforcement of bicycle
parking provisions in the Planning Code, especially when issuing building permits.
An increase in monitoring and enforcement of bicycle parking provisions in the Planning Code,
particularly when the City issues building permits, would lead to impacts similar to those
described for Action 2.1, which contemplates the clarification of bicycle parking provisions.
Any increased attention to the provision of bicycle parking may indirectly exert pressure on the
allocation of square footage for other uses including vehicle parking. However, both vehicle
parking and residential floor area would have to remain consistent with Planning Code
requirements. The impact of reducing vehicle parking and residential floor area for other uses
to allow for more bicycle parking would be minimal and less than significant. Therefore, the
policy to increase monitoring and enforcement of bicycle parking provisions would not
constitute a significant impact under CEQA.
Action 2.6
Hold meetings as needed between SFMTA and Planning Department staff to update
citywide bicycle parking compliance status and review bicycle parking information
posted on the SFMTA website.
The conduct of meetings between SFMTA and Planning Department staff, to update citywide
bicycle parking compliance status and review bicycle parking information on the SFMTA’s
website would be an administrative activity without the potential to impact the physical
environment. The focus of this activity is to ensure that both agencies have the most current
information to effectively address bicycle parking issues in the City. Indirect impacts that may
result from this action, such as the anticipated installation of additional bicycle parking
facilities, are analyzed in Subsection V. A. 4, and also have been found to have no significant
impacts on the physical environment.
Action 2.7
Conduct the SFMTA’s bicycle parking training for new Planning Department personnel,
as needed.
Provision of bicycle parking training for new Planning Department personnel, by SFMTA,
would involve the exchange of information. This action would have no direct impact on the
physical environment. Any indirect impact of this action would arise from the new staff
member’s direct implementation of bicycle parking provisions of the Planning Code as discussed
in Actions 2.1 to 2.5 above. There would be no significant environmental impact related to
Action 2.7.
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 20
NOVEMBER 2008
Action 2.8
Ensure that all City leases are negotiated to include the required level of bicycle parking
by cooperative efforts of the City Real Estate Department and SFMTA.
There would be no direct environmental impact from the act of adopting a policy that all City
leases ( leases of buildings by the City) include a requirement to provide the required level of
bicycle parking. Indirect impacts would include the potential encouragement of bicycle riding
in the City, to and from these City buildings. This could correspond to a reduction in vehicle
use, which may result in reduced vehicle emissions. This policy could also indirectly cause the
subject buildings to offer nominally fewer vehicle parking spaces because they may require
floor area in which to install bicycle parking. Should this be the case, vehicle parking stalls
might be eliminated to provide more floor area in which more bicycle parking could be
installed to meet this need. Some drivers could be displaced by any removal of vehicle parking
stalls to allow for the addition of bicycle parking. The displacement of cars from parking spaces
could lead to more circling and greater vehicle emissions that arise from cars circling and
seeking alternative parking spaces. Such greater emissions levels would qualify as an impact to
the physical environment. Notwithstanding this concern, as discussed in Action 2.2, above, San
Francisco transportation planners’ experience indicates that the absence of a ready supply of
parking spaces, combined with available alternatives to auto travel ( e. g. transit, bicycles, taxis or
travel by foot) and a relatively dense pattern of urban development, induces many drivers to
seek and find alternative parking facilities, shift to other modes of travel, or change their overall
travel habits. Thus, the impacts of reducing the number of parking spaces would likely not lead
directly to more circling behavior on a scale that would generate new vehicle emissions. Action
2.8 would not generate either a significant direct or indirect impact on the physical
environment.
A further indirect impact could be that Action 2.8 would encourage greater bicycle use in the
City. The Bicycle Plan proposes projects and treatments designed to reduce conflicts between
bicyclists and other vehicles, and thereby safely accommodate increased bicycle use in the City.
Therefore, an increase in bicycle use resulting from Action 2.8 would have no significant impact
on the environment.
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 21
NOVEMBER 2008
Action 2.9
Pursue a citywide policy to provide secure bicycle parking at all City buildings in areas to
be specified by the individual agencies, subject to safety regulations and available
space, by cooperative efforts of the City Real Estate Department, the Planning
Department, and the SFMTA.
Requirements for bicycle parking for City‐ owned and leased buildings are specified in Section
155.1 and 155.2 of the Planning Code. The pursuit of a citywide policy to provide secure bicycle
parking in City buildings subject to safety regulations and available space would have a similar
effect as the multi‐ agency efforts to ensure secure garage bicycle parking discussed in Action 2.4
above. While the pursuit of the policy would have no impact on the physical environment, the
policy could lead to the increased use of bicycles as cyclists find that their bicycles can be stored
safely and easily in City buildings. The Bicycle Plan proposes projects and treatments designed
to reduce conflicts between bicyclists and other vehicles, and thereby safely accommodate
increased bicycle use in the City. Therefore, an increase in bicycle use resulting from Action 2.9
would have no significant impact on the environment.
Action 2.10
Work with the Planning Department to amend the Planning Code to lower the number of
automobile parking spaces required in buildings where Class I bicycle parking is
provided.
Collaboration between SFMTA and the Planning Department, to amend the Planning Code to
lower the number of automobile parking space required in buildings where Class I bicycle
parking is provided, would not have any impacts on the physical environment. The act of
collaboration would have no significant impact on the physical environment. This collaboration
would potentially indirectly affect the availability of vehicle parking spaces in buildings
because availability of Class I bicycle parking would reduce requirements for vehicle parking
spaces in the those buildings that contain Class I bicycle parking.
The exact reduction in automobile parking spaces resulting from the implementation of Action
2.10 is unknown. However, parking deficits are considered to be social effects, rather than
impacts on the physical environment as defined by CEQA. Under CEQA, a project’s social
impacts need not be treated as significant impacts on the environment. Environmental
documents should, however, address the secondary physical impacts that could be triggered by
a social impact. ( CEQA Guidelines Section 15131( a)). The social inconvenience of parking
deficits, such as having to hunt for scarce parking spaces, is not an environmental impact, but
there may be secondary physical environmental impacts, such as increased traffic congestion at
intersections, air quality impacts, safety impacts, or noise impacts caused by congestion. In the
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 22
NOVEMBER 2008
experience of San Francisco transportation planners, however, the absence of a ready supply of
parking spaces, combined with available alternatives to auto travel ( e. g., transit service, taxis,
bicycles or travel by foot) and a relatively dense pattern of urban development, induces many
drivers to seek and find alternative parking facilities, shift to other modes of travel, or change
their overall travel habits. Any such resulting shifts to transit service in particular, would be in
keeping with the City’s “ Transit First” policy. The City’s Transit First Policy, established in the
City’s Charter Section 16.102 provides that “ parking policies for areas well served by public
transit shall be designed to encourage travel by public transportation and alternative
transportation.”
Projects and treatments proposed for the Bicycle Plan are designed to reduce conflicts between
bicyclists and other vehicles and thereby safely accommodate increased bicycle use in the City.
Therefore, an increase in bicycle use that may result from the provision of bicycle parking in
City‐ owned and City‐ leased buildings would not likely result in significant transportation
impacts. Therefore, there would be no significant direct or indirect impact on the physical
environment, as a result of Action 2.10.
Action 2.11
Work with the Planning Department to amend the Planning Code to require bicycle
parking in each individual building of large, multiple- building developments.
An amendment of the Planning Code that would require bicycle parking in each individual
building of large multiple‐ building developments would have no direct impact on the physical
environment as the amendment process would be a procedural activity involving the exchange
of information and collaboration. The indirect impact of the policy to create more localized
bicycle parking locations, rather than allowing all bicycle parking to be centralized in a single
building in a multiple‐ building development, would likely be an increased rate of bicycle riding
among residents of the multiple‐ building complex. All residents would presumably be able to
store their bicycles in their own buildings, where they would be more conveniently accessible
and therefore easier to use for local trips. The potential increase in bicycle use among residents
of multiple‐ building complexes could be accompanied by a matching decrease in resident use of
cars for short trips.
Projects and treatments proposed for the Bicycle Plan are designed to reduce conflicts between
bicyclists and other vehicles and thereby safely accommodate increased bicycle use in the City.
Therefore, an increase in bicycle use that may result from the provision of bicycle parking in all
buildings of multiple‐ building development would not likely result in significant transportation
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 23
NOVEMBER 2008
impacts. Therefore, there would be no significant direct or indirect impact on the physical
environment, as a result of Action 2.11.
Action 2.12
Work with the Planning Department to amend the Planning Code to require building
owners to allow tenants to bring their bicycles into buildings unless Class I bicycle
parking is provided.
Work between the SFMTA and Planning Department to amend the Planning Code to require
building owners to allow tenants to bring their bicycles into buildings unless Class I bicycle
parking is provided would have no significant impact on the physical environment. The
adoption of a provision for tenants to carry bicycles into the safety of their rental units would
have no significant indirect impact on the physical environment aside from potentially
encouraging more bicycling. An indirect result may be a decrease in vehicle trips which may
lead to reduced vehicle emissions.
Projects and treatments proposed for the Bicycle Plan are designed to reduce conflicts between
bicyclists and other vehicles and thereby safely accommodate increased bicycle use in the City.
Therefore, an increase in bicycle use that may result from allowing tenants to bring their
bicycles into buildings unless Class I bicycle parking is provided would not likely result in
significant transportation impacts. Therefore, there would be no significant direct or indirect
impact on the physical environment, as a result of Action 2.12.
Action 2.13
Work with the responsible San Francisco agencies to prepare additional guidelines for
the placement and design of bicycle parking within City rights- of- way, including curbside
on- street bicycle parking where feasible, and “ sleeve” ring racks on parking meters.
Collaboration by SFMTA with responsible San Francisco agencies to prepare guidelines for the
design and placement of bicycle parking in City rights‐ of‐ way would have no direct impact on
the environment as the preparation of guidelines is an administrative function involving only
the exchange of ideas, writing and analytical functions. The indirect effect of the preparation of
these guidelines would be the possible implementation of new bicycle parking policies and
ultimately the possible installation of new bicycle parking racks along City sidewalks and
elsewhere in the City right‐ of‐ way. The installation of bicycle racks is analyzed at the program‐level
in Subsection V. A. 4, which determines that there would be no significant impact as a
result of the placement of these bicycle racks. Therefore, no potential direct or indirect impact
on the physical environment would result from Action 2.13.
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 24
NOVEMBER 2008
Action 2.14
Develop and maintain an SFMTA bicycle parking outreach campaign in various formats
to provide relevant bicycle information such as garage locations with bicycle parking and
bicycle locker availability.
The maintenance of an SFMTA bicycle parking outreach campaign to provide information on
bicycle parking and locker locations would be an administrative task without the potential to
impact the physical environment. The indirect result of the maintenance of this information
would likely include increased bicycle ridership as this information would allow riders to move
around the City knowing that they would not have trouble locating a bicycle parking spot at or
near their destination. This impact could indirectly lead to reduced reliance on auto
transportation, as bicycle riding might be seen as a more viable alternative, thanks to the
availability of bicycle parking information. With the potential reduction in auto use there may
be a potential reduction in auto emissions, which would be a positive impact on the physical
environment. Projects and treatments proposed for the Bicycle Plan are designed to reduce
conflicts between bicyclists and other vehicles and thereby safely accommodate increased
bicycle use in the City. Therefore, an increase in bicycle use that may result from increased
awareness of bicycle parking opportunities would not likely result in significant transportation
impacts. Therefore, there would be no significant direct or indirect impact on the physical
environment as a result of Action 2.14.
Action 2.15
Work with the San Francisco Police Department ( SFPD) to make bicycle theft
investigation a higher priority and create a better system for returning recovered bicycles
to their owners.
Collaboration between SFMTA and SFPD to prioritize bicycle theft investigations is an
administrative and outreach function that would have no impact on the physical environment.
The indirect result of this action would be a change in SFPD operating procedures to focus
additional attention on bicycle theft. This refocusing of police resources is not anticipated to
require an addition of officers beyond SFPD’s current approved capacity, or to require the
addition of more police patrol ( pollutant‐ emitting) vehicles on City streets. Should the SFPD
increased priority of bicycle crime investigation, this indirect result of Action 2.15 would have
no significant environmental impact.
TRANSIT AND BRIDGE ACCESS GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND ACTION ITEMS
This Transit and Bridge Access section refers to Chapter 3 of the Bicycle Plan, and defines action
items that would accomplish the following goals and objectives:
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 25
NOVEMBER 2008
Chapter 3 Goal:
• Expand Bicycle Access to Transit and Bridges
Chapter 3 Objectives:
• Provide bicycle access to transit vehicles whenever feasible;
• Provide convenient bicycle access and bicycle parking at transit stations; and
• Provide bicycle access to all local bridges wherever feasible.
The integration of bicycle and transit use at the local and regional level enhances the role of
each in providing convenient transportation and is essential in maximizing the bicycle’s
transportation utility for medium‐ range and long‐ range trips. Access to transit vehicles
through the provision of bicycle parking at transit stations, for example, provides an inter‐modal
link that improves the efficiency and range to both transit and bicycling that could
ensure maximum connectivity between destinations. The action items in this Transit and
Bridge Access Goals, Objectives and Action Items discussion would support the integration of
bicycle and transit use, and the Bicycle Plan bridge access goals. As discussed below, these
action items would have no significant impact on the environment.
Action 3.1
Create an SFMTA policy that explicitly permits folded bicycles on all SFMTA transit
vehicles.
The creation of an SFMTA policy to allow folded bicycles on all SFMTA transit vehicles would
have no environmental impact as the creation of policies is an administrative act involving only
the exchange of information, writing, and analysis. The indirect results of implementing such a
policy would be the allowance of folded bicycles4 on SFMTA transit vehicles. Currently, Muni
does not have a limitation on the baggage carried on board by passengers either as backpacks,
suitcases, baby strollers or packages. However, folded bicycles are explicitly excluded as
acceptable carry‐ ons. While allowing folded bicycles within Muni transit vehicles may impact
their carrying capacity for passengers, this impact would not differ from the impacts that now
occur as a result of current policies regarding other allowable baggage on board.
Implementation of Action 3.1 could potentially make combined bicycle‐ transit use more
convenient. The added convenience of combined bicycle‐ transit travel may cause some people
4 The dimensions of folded bicycles differ by manufacturer and bicycle style. Dimensions range from
22” x22” x10” at the smaller size to 36” x28” x12” at the larger size.
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 26
NOVEMBER 2008
to discontinue driving which could result in a potential decrease in vehicle emissions. Thus,
Action 3.1 would not have significant impacts on the environment.
Action 3.2
Develop a pilot program to provide bicycle access on SFMTA light rail vehicles for a trial
period that would be monitored for potential future implementation.
Similar to Action 3.1, the development of a pilot program to provide bicycle access on SFMTA
light rail vehicles for a trial period would have no environmental impact as the creation of
policies is an administrative act involving only the exchange and analysis of information and
the writing of documents. Indirect environmental impacts would include the temporary
allowance of bicycles on SFMTA light rail vehicles ( LRV). The added convenience of combined
bicycle‐ LRV travel may cause some people to discontinue driving, which could result in a
potential decrease in vehicle emissions. However, any indirect environmental impacts under
this pilot program would last for the duration of the pilot program only. Permanent
implementation of the program would require environmental review of the proposed project.
Thus, Action 3.2 would not have significant impacts on the environment.
Action 3.3
Update the SFMTA’s bicycle accessibility guidelines and widely distribute and publicize
these guidelines.
The SFMTA’s update, distribution, and publicizing of its bicycle accessibility guidelines would
involve the analysis of current accessibility guidelines, setting of accessibility goals, and
research on other potential bicycle accessibility measures, followed by the preparation and
printing of documents. These activities would have minimal impacts on the physical
environment. The update and publicizing of the bicycle accessibility guidelines would have the
indirect impact of encouraging more bicycle riding within the City and may lead to increased
use of both bicycle and transit modes on a single trip. Increased bicycle use may lead to a
corresponding decrease in vehicle trips. Projects and treatments proposed for the Bicycle Plan
are designed to reduce conflicts between bicyclists and other vehicles and thereby safely
accommodate increased bicycle use in the City. Therefore, an increase in bicycle use that may
result from increased awareness of bicycle accessibility guidelines would not likely result in
significant transportation impacts. Therefore, there would be no significant direct or indirect
impact on the physical environment as a result of Action 3.3.
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 27
NOVEMBER 2008
Action 3.4
Create a SFMTA policy that allows bicyclists with disabled bicycles to bring them aboard
SFMTA transit vehicles, interior space permitting and at the vehicle operator’s discretion,
when the SFMTA transit vehicle either does not have bicycle racks or when the racks are
full.
The creation of an SFMTA policy to allow bicyclists to bring disabled bicycles aboard SFMTA
vehicles, when space permits and at the transit vehicle operator’s discretion, would have no
significant environmental impact insofar as the creation of a policy involves the exchange of
information. The indirect environmental impact of this policy would be the actual
transportation of disabled bicycles on the interior of SFMTA transit vehicles rather than on
outside racks or in equivalent “ designated” locations. Since this new policy would allow
disabled bicycles on board Muni vehicles only when interior space is available and the buses are
not overly crowded as determined by the vehicle operator, there would be no impact on Muni
capacity. Thus, the implementation of Action 3.4 would have a less‐ than‐ significant
environmental impact.
Action 3.5
Install bicycle racks on all SFMTA- operated buses, and work with other transit operators
with buses operating in San Francisco to install bicycle racks on their bus fleets.
The installation of bicycle racks on SFMTA‐ operated buses and efforts to work with other bus
operators to install bicycle racks on their fleets would require ( a) the use of hand tools and
power tools to install nuts, bolts and other attachment devices, to hold the bicycle racks to the
buses, and ( b) outreach efforts to other bus providers, by the SFMTA. The outreach efforts
would only involve communication so would have no impact on the physical environment.
This action would not result in a significant impact on the environment.
Upon installation these new bicycle racks may encourage increased bicycle ridership which may
result in a potential reduction in total automobile emissions in the City. Projects and treatments
proposed for the Bicycle Plan are designed to reduce conflicts between bicyclists and other
vehicles and thereby safely accommodate increased bicycle use in the City. Therefore, an
increase in bicycle use that may result from additional bicycle racks on transit vehicles would
not likely result in significant transportation impacts. Therefore, there would be no significant
direct or indirect impact on the physical environment as a result of Action 3.5.
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 28
NOVEMBER 2008
Action 3.6
Work with Bay Area Rapid Transit ( BART) to analyze existing bicycle policies, identify
expanded bicycle access times, and create a trial program for non- folding bicycle access
in both directions on Transbay peak period trains.
Collaboration between SFMTA and Bay Area Rapid Transit ( BART) would involve the
exchange of information and would not have a direct impact on the physical environment. This
collaboration would be for the purpose of analyzing existing bicycle policies, expanding times
for bicycle access to BART, and creating a trial program for non‐ folding bicycle access on BART
through the Transbay tube on peak period trains. Were the collaboration to accomplish the
three goals outlined above, one would expect greater rates of bicycle movement through the
BART system including at peak commute hours Indirect environmental effects of this
collaboration may result in increased BART‐ bicycle trips which may lead to fewer Transbay
vehicle trips.
Concerns with bicycles on‐ board peak hour trains include impacts on train capacity and
conflicts with passengers in crowded stations, stairwells, and escalators. However, the impacts
of a pilot study are temporary and as such, there would be no significant impacts to
transportation. The consideration of potential impacts to the environment that may result from
permanent adoption of increased bicycle access to BART would be the responsibility of BART,
and would be addressed when policy or operational changes related to bicycles on BART are
made. Therefore, there would be no significant direct or indirect impact on the physical
environment as a result of Action 3.6
Action 3.7
Work with Caltrain to expand bicycle access on its trains and to its San Francisco
stations by promoting bicycling to stations and by providing secure bicycle parking at
station areas.
Collaboration between SFMTA and Caltrain would not have a direct impact on the physical
environment as this collaboration would only involve the exchange of information. However, if
the collaborative effort is successful, it may lead to the expansion of bicycle access to the San
Francisco Caltrain stations and the potential increase in secure bicycle parking provided at
station areas. Such changes could encourage bicyclists to complete more trips using Caltrain‐bicycle
transport in lieu of automobiles. This may lead to fewer vehicle trips from San Francisco
to the Peninsula. Action 3.7 also could have the indirect effect of encouraging more bicycling
due to the improved access to Caltrain stations and increased availability of bicycle parking at
the stations. Projects and treatments proposed for the Bicycle Plan are designed to reduce
conflicts between bicyclists and other vehicles, and, thereby, safely accommodate increased
V. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
A. Transportation
2. Bicycle Plan Program‐ Level Review
Case No. 2007.0347E Draft EIR
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
V. A. 2‐ 29
NOVEMBER 2008
bicycle use in the City. Therefore, Action 3.7 would not result in significant environmental
impacts.
Action 3.8
Ensure that all San Francisco transit stations, including the new Transbay Terminal,
provide barrier- free bicycle access and state- of- the- art bicycle parking facilities, and
work with the California High- Speed Rail Authority to ensure bicycles are accommodated
on its long- distance trains.
As previously discussed, access to transit for bicyclists provides an inter‐ modal link that
improves the efficiency and range for both bicycling and transit. Bicycle parking at transit
stations is an important aspect of this connectivity as is the ability of bicyclists to get to transit
vehicles and bicycle parking facilities at the station. Barrier‐ free bicycle access with the
inclusion of adequate an