Draft US 101 South County Multimodal Strategy: Public Review

I would strongly like to see an elevated transit system (e.g. the MTS blue line in La Jolla, San Diego) which allows for grade separation the entire length of the route, and allows for more space to build bicycle and pedestrian facilities underneath.

This is a great project; I use Pulgas Ave every day by car and/or bike.

There is a proposed 1933 Pulgas Avenue townhome project which will dedicate 20 feet of right of way as proposed, if approved by the City of East Palo Alto. This right of way makes it possible to continue these bicycle improvements on Pulgas Ave between East Bayshore and Gaillardia.

How can private developers be made aware of these potential funding sources, as it would make it more likely that they would dedicate land? There are still a couple more properties on the stretch of Pulgas Ave between E Bayshore and Gaillardia that would need to dedicate some right of way to complete the bicycle improvements project.

I'm not going to go through a 100+ page document listing each and every issue. People deserve to be safe using every mode of travel: cars, mass transit, bikes, pedestrians. People should be able to transit efficiently using every mode of travel. We should favor the most efficient least harmful modes of travel. Cars get a disproporionate level of access and consideration. We need much more frequent mass transit. Mass transit should have much better access and usage of road space, in particular bus rapid transit. We generally do okay-ish with pedestrian access, and while more needs to be done, we recognize and are doing this. Cycling is heavily disfavored. Cyclists are forced to either have no bike lanes, or to use class 2 and 3 bike lanes providing no separation and safety. When bike lanes are present, delivery vehicles and cars constantly park/block them forcing cyclists into traffic. Cyclists need continuous, connected, and separate (class I or IV) bike lanes that go places they want to go. Cars are the least efficient and most dagnerous mode of transit, vastly less efficient and safe than bikes. Cars cause vastly more social ills and issues than bikes. As such, when space is constrained cycling infrastructure should be favored over car access. And stop pitting cyclists against pedestrians. Infrastructure should support both. For example, stop with the automatic and thoughtless use of pedestrian bulb outs. These force cyclists into traffic with cars. Protected intersections are better and safer than bulb out for pedestrians, cyclists and cars. Sidewalk grade intersections are safer for pedestrians, cyclists, and cars. And on and on and on.

I am not anti car. I own and regularly use two cars. When I use my cars I want good and well maintained roads. But I want to be able to use the best mode for the trip, Car, mass transit, bike, walking. Right now we prioritize cars and only cars and set mass transit, cycling, and pedestrians against each others. Cars get all the space they want, mass transit, cycling, and walking are pit against each other for the scraps.

Mass transit is generally the most efficient and most beneficial mode and should be most favored. It should get the road space it needs, the funding it needs.

Bikes should be favored next. Why bikes rather than walking? Because folks can cycle 5x the distance they can walk, meaning they can cover 25x the area in a given amount of time. In order to get to mass transit, in order to get around moderate distances, folks need a mode that can do this. Walking can not. Prevent folks from cycling, and support only walking, and folks will do neither, and will drive a car.

Walking should be next most favored. You just have to be able to walk. You make it hard to walk and folks won't. They'll drive. How often do you see cross walks on only one side of a street, with folks prevented from walking on the other. Walkers now need to traverse across three streets, rather than one. Just so they do not inconvenience car drivers. That is upside down, backwards and inside out. Cars cause the danger, cars cause climate change, cars cause congestion, cars cause a multitude of social ills. While necessary, they should not get priority. Walkers should.

Last priority should be cars. There 100% are times you need them. I do regularly. I use them without guilt or shame when I need them. But I recognize that very few of my trips require them.

The "funny" thing is, that in cities, countries, societies that recognize this, the road usage is so efficient, that the car trips that are taken are generally much faster and less congested. Prioritizing mass transit, cycling, and walking actually makes driving cars for the few remaining trips faster, more pleasant, and safer.

Bike lanes prioritize using class I, class IV, and class II in this order of priority. Class III bike lanes shouldn't be a considered bike lane.

Yes, the pedestrian crossing is very bare bones and minimal.

Important bike corridor for high school students

Yes, this major connector needs a lot of help - all of these points are valid. Add difficulty for pedestrians to cross!!

And more crossings where the blocks are long (e.g. along El Camino, the arteries in RW Shores, Industrial, Veterans, etc.

These lanes need to be safe (e.g. buffered or protected on higher speed and higher traffic streets). These lanes need to be for bikes, not parked cars, delivery vehicles, passing lanes, etc., otherwise they are unsafe.

Yes! We need more than just El Camino Real connection. Alameda should have a through bus. And busses on perpendicular (ish) routes need to be timed to each other!!

Less traffic calming means faster drivers and fewer residents trying non-driving modes of travel. This point contradicts everything else the policy promotes.

I think implementing no turn on red, getting rid of any unprotected left turns (which turn while pedestrians are crossing), and adding illuminated no right turn signs which can be on when pedestrians are crossing could all improve safety.

Overall, I think this is a great list of projects. Thank you for prioritizing bike and pedestrian safety.

I think this should use a protected intersection design with tight turning radii at intersections to make cars slow down when turning into the crosswalk.For mid block crossings, it would be great to see curb bulb outs to reduce the crossing distance of this wide road.

I think this project is very important and should be ranked higher.

This should be higher priority to increase bikes and reduce traffic in a high traffic artery.

Focus on the bike/pedestrian aspects.

This is a good use of existing infrastructure, and should be higher priority.

This would be a significant improvement, but need to make sure it is connected to other neighborhoods, and doesn't create unsafe areas in between bike areas.

Better use as a pedestrian/bike path?

Need better bike safety infrastructure along Bay Rd and Marsh near Marsh Manor and across highway. Right now it is not a place I would fee safe biking

Agree, need to increase infrastructure to balance needs of commuters who use Willow as an artery, and residents who use Willow to get to/from school, etc.

Need connections to train stations to solve last mile problem. From many areas, it is difficult to get to the train station without driving.

Would be ideal to have bike path connecting Suburban Park and Encinal Elementary School (where those kids go), it would improve bike safety and reduce traffic in a high traffic area.

More connections between neighborhoods and train station or other central collection points

Need to make sure safe bike routes are continuous, so a biker is not forced to bike on unsafe streets to get from one area to another, especially important to think abut crossing 101 and other major roads.

Middlefield should be considered HIN for bicycles, considering accident last summer.

Bay Rd not listed as a bike route, but it is heavily used by children and adults.

Willow Rd has bike lanes but they are not protected, and I don't consider it a safe bike area, needs improvement

Bike safety along Bay rd approaching Willow should be improved.

Lack of bike lanes on March and on Bay Rd near Flood Park is a major problem. Especially with the new renovation of Flood park, need easy bike access.

Looks as this project portfolio is mainly focused on San Carlos and Redwood City, is there a reason for that? Is it because smaller cities like Atherton and Menlo Park don't have the staff resources to provide shovel ready projects? if so this is very concerning and additional funds should be provided to Atherton & Menlo Park to cover consulting costs to help them have the same level of opportunities and funding for these types of projects.

Fund the finding of the Coleman and Ringwood Avenues Transportation Study and the recommendations provided by the BPAC. This area is highly utilized by Menlo Oaks, Menlo Park, East Palo Alto students walking, biking, driving to schools along with other members of the greater community. This is needed due to no dedicated space for people walking or bicycling on Coleman (Menlo Oaks) and having concentrations of collisions involving a pedestrian or cyclist.

Please, fund the The Dumbarton Rail Corridor trail segment of
the Bay to Sea Trail which is envisioned to provide a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly transportation opportunity to support livable communities, improve health and wellness, and provide safe access to trails and urban destinations. It will also serve as a critical link to transit, goods and services, schools, jobs, open space and more.

Please, complete the Bay Trail to provide safe alternative to bicycling, walking, and rolling on roads with motorists.

US 101 South County Multimodal Strategy

Core Recommendation: The Strategy should pivot from a long-term capital planning document to an immediate "Quick-Build Action Plan" for El Camino Real (ECR). The current draft relies on obsolete timelines (2030+) that ignore the immediate availability of "Supplemental Roadways" funding and new Caltrans flexibility.

1. Shift from "Study" to "Implementation" (Timeline)

Critique: The Draft treats ECR improvements as long-horizon capital projects comparable to interchange restructuring. This delays safety benefits for a decade.

Required Change: Insert a "Near-Term Action Plan (2026-2028)". Explicitly recommend using "quick-build" methodologies (paint, K71 bollards, Zicla islands) to deliver a continuous protected bikeway from Redwood City to Menlo Park within 24 months.

Rationale: We cannot wait for "perfect" concrete construction. The South San Francisco pilot proved that rapid, reversible implementation works on State Route 82.

2. Unlock the "Highway" Funding Pot

Critique: The Strategy likely assumes active transportation is limited to the small "Bicycle/Pedestrian" funding pots of Measure A & W.

Required Change: Reclassify ECR quick-builds as "Supplemental Roadway Safety Improvements" to access the Measure A/W Highway Program funds.

Rationale: The Highway program has significantly more funding available (~$200M in the 2025 cycle) and explicitly lists "Supplemental Roadways" (arterials like ECR) as eligible for congestion and safety improvements. This serves as a "congestion relief" strategy by moving local trips off US 101.

3. Leverage Caltrans DIB 94 (The Regulatory Key)

Critique: The document may implicitly accept old Caltrans constraints (e.g., "we can't fit bike lanes without widening").

Required Change: Explicitly mandate the use of Caltrans Design Information Bulletin 94 (DIB 94) for all ECR feasibility analysis.

Rationale: DIB 94 authorizes 10-11 foot travel lanes in "Suburban Main Street" contexts. This regulatory shift allows for the creation of buffered bike lanes within the existing curb-to-curb width, eliminating the need for expensive right-of-way acquisition.

4. Close the "Atherton Gap" with Unified Standards

Critique: Allowing individual jurisdictions (e.g., Atherton) to opt for inconsistent facility types creates a broken network that fails to serve regional mobility.

Required Change: The Strategy should recommend that SMCTA condition "Supplemental Roadways" funding on adherence to a Unified Corridor Design Standard (Class IV Protected Lanes).

Rationale: Regional connectivity requires consistency. A gap in Atherton forces cyclists back into traffic or onto sidewalks, negating the safety investments made by Redwood City and Menlo Park.

5. Economic & Transit Integration

Critique: The Strategy underplays the economic benefits of complete streets and the technical integration with bus service.

Required Change:

Cite data showing protected lanes boost retail sales (e.g., +49% in NYC studies) to counter "loss of parking" concerns.

Mandate floating bus islands (like the Zicla platforms used in South City) to resolve bike/bus conflicts and speed up SamTrans Route ECR.

My wife has difficulty getting onto Caltrain due to her having to haul her bike up the stairs. With an increase in ebike usage, those bikes are even heavier. If we want to encourage more multimodal trips, I think this could be a big win to encourage women and children to bike to Caltrain. I hope this gets prioritized higher.

YES!! Frequency is often the only thing keeping me from taking transit everywhere.

When I look up transit routes, I often see wait times longer than it would have taken me to drive. Or the last bus is way before I plan to head home. So I choose to drive instead of being stranded.

YES YES YES. This should be higher. Frequency is often the only thing keeping me from taking transit everywhere. When a bus is infrequent, I often end up waiting longer than it would have taken me to drive to my destination.

This last bullet is terrifying as a person who bikes and walks everywhere. It's the only thing keeping me from dying sometimes. I want to see more traffic calming. That's the only way I can convince my wife to come with me on my bike. If I can promise her that the road is safe.

I work from home. So I am not included in these number. However, I am an avid transit user outside of working hours and on weekends. Is there any way we could include those stats? I remember reading somewhere that post-pandemic transit ridership during commuting hours suffers. However, weekend ridership has increased. I feel that would be something to brag about and encourage.

Executive Summary of Feedback: US 101 South County Multimodal Strategy
Core Recommendation: The Strategy must pivot from a long-term capital planning document to an immediate "Quick-Build Action Plan" for El Camino Real (ECR). The current draft relies on obsolete timelines (2030+) that ignore the immediate availability of "Supplemental Roadways" funding and new Caltrans flexibility.

1. Shift from "Study" to "Implementation" (Timeline)
Critique: The Draft treats ECR improvements as long-horizon capital projects comparable to interchange restructuring. This delays safety benefits for a decade.

Required Change: Insert a "Near-Term Action Plan (2026-2028)". Explicitly recommend using "quick-build" methodologies (paint, K71 bollards, Zicla islands) to deliver a continuous protected bikeway from Redwood City to Menlo Park within 24 months.

Rationale: We cannot wait for "perfect" concrete construction. The South San Francisco pilot proved that rapid, reversible implementation works on State Route 82.

2. Unlock the "Highway" Funding Pot
Critique: The Strategy likely assumes active transportation is limited to the small "Bicycle/Pedestrian" funding pots of Measure A & W.

Required Change: Reclassify ECR quick-builds as "Supplemental Roadway Safety Improvements" to access the Measure A/W Highway Program funds.

Rationale: The Highway program has significantly more funding available (~$200M in the 2025 cycle) and explicitly lists "Supplemental Roadways" (arterials like ECR) as eligible for congestion and safety improvements. This serves as a "congestion relief" strategy by moving local trips off US 101.

3. Leverage Caltrans DIB 94 (The Regulatory Key)
Critique: The document may implicitly accept old Caltrans constraints (e.g., "we can't fit bike lanes without widening").

Required Change: Explicitly mandate the use of Caltrans Design Information Bulletin 94 (DIB 94) for all ECR feasibility analysis.

Rationale: DIB 94 authorizes 10-11 foot travel lanes in "Suburban Main Street" contexts. This regulatory shift allows for the creation of buffered bike lanes within the existing curb-to-curb width, eliminating the need for expensive right-of-way acquisition.

4. Close the "Atherton Gap" with Unified Standards
Critique: Allowing individual jurisdictions (e.g., Atherton) to opt for inconsistent facility types creates a broken network that fails to serve regional mobility.

Required Change: The Strategy should recommend that SMCTA condition "Supplemental Roadways" funding on adherence to a Unified Corridor Design Standard (Class IV Protected Lanes).

Rationale: Regional connectivity requires consistency. A gap in Atherton forces cyclists back into traffic or onto sidewalks, negating the safety investments made by Redwood City and Menlo Park.

5. Economic & Transit Integration
Critique: The Strategy underplays the economic benefits of complete streets and the technical integration with bus service.

Required Change:

Cite data showing protected lanes boost retail sales (e.g., +49% in NYC studies) to counter "loss of parking" concerns.

Mandate floating bus islands (like the Zicla platforms used in South City) to resolve bike/bus conflicts and speed up SamTrans Route ECR.

Agreed with this. Having a "Bus Pulse" schedule, especially for late night or infrequent route connections would be a great way to improve things. For instance I can take the hourly bus to take the half-hourly train, reliably and without a long wait that makes transit an attractive option to getting where I need to go.

This is last point is a major risk factor for anyone involved, it is the antithesis to Vision Zero and does not promote a South County that is for everyone. Additionally, if the region is removing traffic calming facilities, people will be more inclined to go to neighboring areas where there are more traffic calming features being placed - so there's a strong economic incentive.

Agree with this. How can people reliably take the bus to go places when the only bus that comes to them comes once an hour? Or how can I take it to get dinner when the last bus leaves at 7pm? And how do I go to that same spot on the weekend when the service isn't as strong?

This is a general comment, but this information is very commute focused. Why aren't we looking at recreational trips? I go to work during weekdays, but I also get groceries, eat out or meetup with friends. Why can't we consider that data for mode share evaluation?

Agreeing with the other comments on here. This goal can be interpreted so many ways currently, but we need to make sure the goal is to reduce VMT on freeways without increasing the capacity or size of freeway facilities. This can be done by really focusing on transit projects - rail or bus - along with improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

I cannot disagree more strongly with this proposed "improvement"--traffic calming & the resulting slower speeds they produce directly translate to safer streets for those outside of vehicles. If we don't want mode shift away from cars, then this "improvement" will fatally wound people and deter more walking and biking and mass transit use.

Wow--this is a statistic that should be well advertised!

Thank you for prioritizing this.