21% of severe traffic injuries and deaths. 0. 10. 20. 30 .... resulted in a severe injury or death. Almost 80%of RWC aut
SUMMARY FACT SHEET: Bicycling in Redwood City 2% of residents bike to work today
!A
San Francisco Bay
£ [
!B
101
a tri us
82
Blvd
d In
}
gu Ar
ay lW
Seaport
!A
Bike lanes or routes are provided on over 25% of RWC streets
lo
el
St
Most bicycle trips are in Downtown RWC and along Broadway, Brewster, and Alameda
ay EB
Veteran
s Blvd
d Re K en
tfi
Vi
am
lvd ll B Hi
ni
a
ta
Rd
el
d
o
Re a
l
Ave 2nd
efi
el
d
Rd
Av e
} 82
rin
gS t
Redwood City Limits Sphere of Influence Parks
Schools
Railroad
Public Facilities
Bicyclists account for 21% of severe traffic injuries and deaths
Pilot Bicycle Lanes (Class II) Bicycle Route (Class III)
Bicycle Volume 0 - 50 51 - 150 151 - 300 1 MILE
* Volumes shown in locations with data
The bicycle network is an important piece of the transportation network in Redwood City. The bike network should meet the needs of all cyclists: casual recreational riders, commuters, transportationists, and enthusiasts. A key issue identified through community outreach is the need for more bicycle facilities that "everyday riders" are comfortable using.
5% of all collisions in RWC involve bicyclists
Existing Bicycle Facilities Bicycle Lanes (Class II)
82
1 MILE
Over 15% of survey respondents stated they would be interested in biking to work if better facilities were available
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Av e
as lg Pu
Far m
s a de l a ed
101
Va lo
rg i
Al
£ [
}
d
o wo
e Av
in
dl
Sp
A key solution identified through analysis of existing conditions is to develop a citywide bicycle network that provides low stress connectivity.
Number of Bicycle Collisions
Sh or e
Ro
wy Pk
Re dw oo d
Pk ne
a ri
e os
am
Mi d
e Rd
ve
d
s
84
Woods id
ny
M
wy
}
e Av lt
El C
101
Ave
St
Ca
R
las ug
Je
ffe
rs o
St
wy on
Ave
er art
n
e
Br
£ [ 5th
Ma p
e Av
so
er
t ws
shor e Rd Broad way S t Bay Rd
Do
Ho
e Av d Hu
arwater She Pk
ns
i pk
Ch
hi
W
e
Av
Av e
e
l pp
n
ge
Ed
Broadway
le St
d
! B
Main St
od R wo
60 50
52 45
44
45
2014
2015
43
40 30 20 10 0
2011
2012 2013 Fatal or Severe Injury
Other Injury or Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only
Source: Morning (7-9 AM) and Evening (4-6 PM) Peak Periods
Source: Statewide Integrated Traffic System (SWITRS) database, January 1, 2011-December 31, 2015
SUMMARY FACT SHEET: Walking in Redwood City !A
San Francisco Bay
£ [
!B
work today
101
d In a tri us St
n rs o ffe Je
las
rin
e Av
e Av
s a de l a ed
d oo dw e K R e nt fie ld Va Av lo e t Vi aR rg d in ia Av e
El C
am
Mi d
dl
in
o
Re a
l
efi
el
101
gS t
4% of all collisions in RWC involve pedestrians
d
Rd
} 82
Redwood City Limits Sphere of Influence Parks
Schools
Railroad
Public Facilities
Existing Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalk Gap
51 - 150
as lg Pu
151 - 300 301 - 600 601 - 1,400 1 MILE
* Volumes shown in locations with data
Redwood City has many amenities that make walking an important and accessible mode of travel, including level terrain, temperate weather, and numerous destinations that are attractive to walkers. A key issue identified through public outreach is low visibility at pedestrian crossings
Pedestrians account for 33% of all severe traffic injuries and deaths
Pedestrian Volume 0 - 50
82
1 MILE
Downtown RWC
£ [
A key solution identified through analysis of existing conditions is to enhance pedestrian crossings
Number of Pedestrain Collisions
am
lvd ll B Hi
84
e Rd
wy Pk es
Al
Re d
wo
od
Sh
a ri
or
ne
Pk
d
Ro
Far m
lt
ve
e os
101
}
} Woods id
ny
R
£ [
2nd
St
n
Ca
wy
Most walking trips are in
Sp
ug
so
wy on
Ave
er art Ch
e Av
d Hu
er
t ws
e
Br
Ma p
e Av
s
p
Ho
arwater She Pk
e
Av
n ki
shor e Rd Broad way S t Bay Rd
Do
pp
hi
W
le
Av e
Ed
s Blvd
le St
d
Broadway
ge
B
ay EB
!
Main St
od R wo
Ave
St
Veteran
5th
lo
el
ay lW
gu Ar
Sidewalks are provided on almost all of RWC streets
Ave
82
Blvd
}
Seaport
!A
M
3% of residents walk to
60 50
45
39
40
30
30
30
30
20 10 0
2011
2012 2013 Fatal or Severe Injury
2014
2015
Other Injury or Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only
Source: Morning (7-9 AM) and evening (4-6 PM) peak periods
Source: Statewide Integrated Traffic System (SWITRS) database, January 1, 2011-December 31, 2015
SUMMARY FACT SHEET: Driving in Redwood City 73% of residents drive alone and 10% of residents carpool to work today
!A
£ [
San Francisco Bay
101
!B
82
ay lW
8%
gu Ar
RWC mitigates neighborhood cut-through traffic by responding to requests and prioritizing traffic calming
t
S lo el
8%
5%
ia
Blvd
In du st r
}
Seaport
!A
Some downtown RWC roads have traffic slowdowns in the AM and PM peak hours
Vetera
y
w
B
n
o rs fe
wy Pk
o Ro
Re dw oo d
s
1% am
vd
Bl H
Va lo ni
a
en
tfi
ta
Rd
el
d
am
Av e
Ave
rin
gS t
4%
Redwood City Limits Sphere of Influence
in
o
Re a
l
10%
xx%
Auto-only collisions make up
Parks
Schools
Railroad
Public Facilities
over 90% of all RWC collisions
Trip Distribution
Less than 1% of auto-only collisions
Existing Street Network Transit Street
resulted in a severe injury or death
Bicycle Boulevard Pedestrian Street
Almost 80% of RWC auto-only
Connector Street
4%
collisions result in property damage only
Industrial Street
10%
Boulevard Auto Dominant Higway
82
1 MILE
1 MILE
Local Street
Redwood City's fully developed street system allows easy movement within the City, while several larger roadways link the community to the region. The City is focused on maintaining vehicular access as it works toward a more balanced mode split with pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit.
Key issues identified through community outreach are increased congestion and high vehicle speeds along residential streets
Downtown parking supply is able to successfully accomodate the parking demand generated by use of downtown business & amenities
101
5th
er
Sp
Av e
as lg Pu
4%
rm Fa
ill
s a de l a ed
9%
d Re K
rg i
Al
101
od
e Av
wo
Vi
£ [
}
ve tA
l ve
El C
e Rd
Sh or e
Mar i
d
11%
R se
St
} 84
Woods id
ny
on
y Pkw
Rd
6%
Ca
ne
lefi eld
£ [
A key solution identified through existing conditions analysis are increased traffic calming measures to reduce traffic speeds and volumes on neighborhood streets
1 MILE
Number of Auto Collisions
re
Mi dd
e Av
f Je
St
ws
e Av
n
5%
r te
so
Pk
pk
Ho
e Av
t in S
W
s in
d Hu
arwat She er
e
Av
art
h
le
Ma
p ip
way S t Bay Rd
Ch
Ed
measures
sho re R d
Broad
Ma ple
ge
B
10%
St
d
!
od R wo
ay EB
ns Blv d
5%
1000
802
800 600
901
807
780
2014
2015
627
400 200 0
2011
2012
2013
Fatal or Severe Injury Other Injury or Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Source: Statewide Integrated Traffic System (SWITRS) database, January 1, 2011-December 31, 2015
SUMMARY FACT SHEET: Using Transit in Redwood City 101
!B
& 295
&
5% of residents take transit to work today
!A
San Carlos Caltrain 61 260 261 295 397 398 ECR KX
398
St
ve tA
el
v se
o Ro
79
Vi
ni
a
tfi
ta
Rd
el
d
Av e
Blvd
Seaport
St
St art Ch
5th
Over 10% of survey respondents
gS t
stated they would be interested in commuting by local shuttle
Parks
Schools
o
Railroad
Public Facilities
in
Re a
l
} 82
Local shuttle network ridership is over 2,500 riders per month and provides connection for job centers to Caltrain stations
Transit Lines Caltrain Lines and Stations AC Transit Service
& 296
Average Daily Weekday Ridership
&
0 - 100 101 - 500
£ [
1 MILE
501 - 1,398
SamTrans Routes connecting to Caltrain Stations SamTrans Routes connecting to MenloBART/Caltrain Park Caltrain Stations 85 286 296 Shuttle ECR Local
ü û ú
Center shuttle per week
Park & Ride Lot
Redwood City aims to create easier access to all types of transit. RWC is working to influence this through land use and zoning decisions, increasing connectivity for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers, and improving traffic operations within key corridors to facilitate bus headways. A key issue identified through community outreach is that transit service serving local roadways, neighborhoods, and schools could be improved
Over 1,100 riders use the Senior
SamTrans School-day Only Routes
72
295
ü û ú
270
Sphere of Influence
&
82
1 MILE
am
&
&
SamTrans Express Route
78
&
El C
rin
Av e
as lg Pu
Far m
Va lo
rg i
s a de l a ed
San Carlos Caltrain 61 260 261 295 397 398 ECR KX
lvd ll B Hi
o dw
am
78
e Av
Re K en
& &
od
e Rd
60 67
Sp
stated they would be interested in commuting by public transit
101
Redwood City Limits
Woods id
Sh or e
& &
Re dw oo d
wy Pk
Al
}
}
£ [
efi 286 el d Rd
84
R
101
KX
Ma ple
er
n
s
& dl
d
y Pkw
on
Over 20% of survey respondents
Rd Broad way S t Bay Rd
79
M id
274
£ [ &
278
&
y
ny
Mar i
so
273
&
d Hu
&
te
ws
e Br
270
Ca
261
ne
H
&
ve rA
w
&
Pk
s
in
Av e
73
le
k op
e Av
shor e
n
& arwat She er
pp
hi
W
e Av
rs o
d
ge
Ed
256
ns Blv d
ay EB
od R wo
57
Caltrain ridership increased by nearly 20% from 2015 to 2016
Vetera
Main St
&
ay St W lo al el tri gu us Ar
!& B
d In
82
Ave
ü û ú
}
ffe
95
Je
&
!A
Caltrain averaged over 3,800 boardings each weekday in 2016
Redwood City Transit Center 95 273 274 275 276 278 296 297 397 398 ECR KX
A key solution identified through existing conditions analysis is the opportunity to support enhanced transit service and reliability that provide connection with neighborhoods and schools
DAILY CALTRAIN RIDERS IN RWC
1 MILE
2006
POPULATION GROWTH 2006
73% GROWTH
3,240
2015
2015 Source: SamTrans Automated Passenger Counter (APC) database, August 20, 2017-August 26, 2017
1,870
4% GROWTH
£ [
San Francisco Bay
78,100 81,400
SUMMARY FACT SHEET: Plan Development Survey Findings !A
£ [
San Francisco Bay
101
Over 1,000 visited the site, 800 provided 2,040 map responses
!B In du st r
} 82
ia
Over 65% live in, ~30% work or go to school in, and ~3% are visitors to RWC
gu Ar
ay lW
Seaport
!A
Blvd
Respondents placed 1,530 negative pins and ~500 positive pins
t
S lo el
Vetera
Je
St
St
101
Biking, public transit, and private bus/shuttle were listed as preferred alternate commute modes
er art Ch
Rd
£ [
Sp
rin
gS t
wy Pk
o Ro
wo
d Re K
Vi
am
vd
Bl
ni
a
en
ta
tfi
el
Rd
d
Av e
am
in
o
New or improved infrastructure was requested: 365 responses for pedestrian facilities 360 responses for auto facilities 350 responses for bicycle facilities 210 responses for transit service
Re a
l
Redwood City Limits Sphere of Influence
Av e
Schools Public Facilities
Number of Survey Responses Low
1 MILE
High
Community engagement provided an exciting opportunity to engage residents, workers and business owners – people who walk, bike, take transit and drive in the City – and to understand how their experience could not only be improved but how quality of life could be transformed with a great transportation system.
Negative pins were placed most frequently for biking and driving
Railroad
82
1 MILE
Positive pins were placed most frequently for walking and biking
Parks
as lg Pu
ll
s a de l a ed
rm Fa
Hi
Va lo
rg i
Al
101
od
e Av
El C
1 MILE
Downtown RWC, El Camino Real, and Woodside/ Broadway received the most comments
94065
ZIP CODE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS
se
Re dw oo d
Sh or e
ve tA
l ve
e Rd
R
d
Mar i
way S t Rd
Woods id
ny
84
£ [
}
lefi eld
}
Ca
on
y Pkw
s
Bay
B
w
ne
Broad
Ma ple n
o rs ffe
n
e
st
w re
ve rA
Mi dd
e Av
t in S
k
p Ho
y
e Av so
Pk
s in
d Hu
arwat She er
W
le
A
Ma
pp
ve
Ave
St
d
ge
Ed
hi
sho re R d
5th
od R wo
!B
Over 70% stated they would be interested in commuting by a different mode if better infrastructure were available
ay EB
ns Blv d
Redwood Shores Downtown/ East of ECR
94063
South of Jefferson
94061 North of Jefferson
94062 94025 North Fair Oaks
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Note: Some respondents live and work or attend school in more than one Redwood City zip code.
SUMMARY FACT SHEET: Draft Plan Survey Findings Favorite Tier 1 Projects
172 Redwood City residents, employees, and students completed the Draft Plan survey
Projects That Should Not Be Tier 1 Projects
#29: El Camino Real Corridor Plan Implementation - Short and Long Term Project
#125: On-Street Bicycle Parking Downtown Expansion
#23: Bicycle Master Plan
#5: James Street Cycle Track
#39: Theater Way Pedestrian Corridor Improvements
#4: Brewster Avenue Cycle Track
#84: Downtown Precise Plan Implementation: New Downtown Street Connections
~90% live in and ~45% work or go to school in RWC 75% of Draft Plan survey respondents had not previously provided input on the project
Draft Plan Survey Responses
#23: Bicycle Master Plan
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
(47 Responses)
0%
50%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Projects That Should Not Be Signature Projects
Favorite Signature Projects #71: US-101 and Woodside Road Interchange Improvements
#58: Broadway Street Streetcar Project - Phase II
#89: Whipple Avenue Railroad Grade Separation #59: Long-Term Vision for Downtown Transit Center and Redwood City Station
#62: Commuter Ferry Service
(96 Responses)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Where do you live? Where do you work/ go to school?
94025 North Fair Oaks
10%
(172 Responses)
20%
30%
(40 Responses)
0%
Feedback on the Draft Plan was solicited through
Active Transportation Corridors
the Draft Plan Survey, which was available online
Roadway Congestion and Delay Improvements
from early November 017 to mid-January 2018
Complete Street Corridors and Placemaking
and at three workshops. The survey intended to
Network Gap Closure, Connectivity and Safety
outlined in the Draft Citywide Plan.
North of Jefferson
94062
40%
50%
Redwood City Population and Number of Employees
#97: Chestnut Street Railroad Grade Separation
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Favorite Project Categories
prioritize and refine Tier 1 and Signature projects
South of Jefferson
94061
4.2 3.9 3.5
2.8
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Transportation Technologies and Innovations
2.2 1.9
Downtown/ East of ECR
94063
South of Jefferson
94061 North of Jefferson
94062
Where do you live? Where do you work/ go to school?
94025 North Fair Oaks
3.4
Transit Accessibility and Service Enhancements
Redwood Shores
94065
ZIP CODE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS
#57: Redwood City Transit Center Implement Short-Term Improvements
Downtown/ East of ECR
94063
0%
#98: Maple Street Grade Separation
Redwood Shores
94065
ZIP CODE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS
(146 Responses)
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
Note: Esri 2017 data by census block group. North Fair Oaks (94025) primarily includes residential areas of Menlo Park and would not accurately represent the North Fair Oaks area Draft Plan Survey responses includes feedback from workshops
SUMMARY FACT SHEET: Mode Split & Trip Generation of RWC Land Uses RESIDENTIAL LAND USES (PM PEAK HOUR) MODE SPLIT 1.00
4% 1% 54%
61% 16%
Trips per Dwelling Unit
15%
15%
16% 12%
ITE
9%
Drive-Alone
Carpool
Transit
Walk
Bike
0.62
0.93
TNC (Uber/Lyft)
0.46
0.46 0.32
Observed: Downtown
9%
ITE with DTPP Reductions
3%
Suburban and Downtown Apartment
Observed: Suburban
71%
Single-Family Home
ITE
4%
Downtown Apartment
Trips per Dwelling Unit
10%
Suburban Apartment
Observed
Single-Family Home
TRIP GENERATION
PM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Fehr & Peers, 2018.
OFFICE LAND USES (PM PEAK HOUR) MODE SPLIT
Suburban and Downtown Office per 1,000 SF
0.5%2.5% 45% 8%
Suburban and Downtown Office per Employee
1.49
0.46 1.20
Carpool
Transit
Walk
Bike TNC (Uber/Lyft)
PM Peak Hour
Observed: Suburban
0.27
ITE Office
0.65 Observed: Downtown
ITE with DTPP Reductions
Observed: Suburban
8%
ITE Office
Trips per KSF
36%
Drive-Alone
0.79
Trips per Employee
0.37
9%
0.20 Observed: Downtown
13%
Downtown Office
0.5% 0.5% 2% 75%
ITE with DTPP Reductions
Suburban Office
TRIP GENERATION
PM Peak Hour
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 9th Edition, 2012; Fehr & Peers, 2018.
Notes: • Data was collected in April, May, and December 2017 • Trip generation includes passenger cars/trucks, TNCs (Uber/Lyft) and employee shuttles
• Redwood City Downtown Precise Plan (DTPP) (2011) reduction: 25.1%
• Mode split is calculated as the number of trips of each mode compared to the total number of observed trips to and from the site
