Caltrans Approval Process:
Update
Van Ness Avenue BRT
Citizens Advisory Committee
September 8th, 2009
Outline

Caltrans Approval Process
 Review of EIR/EIS findings
 Project Study Report / Project Report (PSR/PR)
 Design Exceptions Fact Sheets

Design Exceptions Fact Sheets
 Stopping sight distance and grades
 Lane widths
 Shoulder widths
Caltrans Approval Requirements

Caltrans’ jurisdiction
 Van Ness Avenue designated US Highway 101
 Owned by Caltrans, property line to property line
 Approval required for modifications to the right of way

Local jurisdiction
 Maintenance agreement with City of San Francisco
 City responsible for operation of traffic signals, lighting
Design Exceptions and Justifications

Caltrans review of EIR/EIS technical work
 Responsible agency
 Courtesy review of traffic, cultural impact analysis findings
 Environmental document is typically an attachment to the PSR/PR (see next
bullet)

Project Study Report / Project Report
 Streamlined approach to documentation
 Contents similar to environmental analysis

Design Exception Fact Sheets
 Geometric standards for state facilities: Highway Design Manual (HDM)
 Document design exceptions and justifications
Highway Design Manual


One set of standards for all Caltrans facilities
Does not provide design standards for most multimodal roadway
features
 Pedestrian corner bulbs
 Transit lanes and station platforms

Caltrans “BRT Task Team” initiated HDM supplement in 2008
 Intended to provide distinct design standards for multimodal, urban roadways
 Still in progress
Design Exceptions and Justifications

Approach
 Safety: Are safe
 Reasonableness: Consistent with national roadway design guidance
 Context: Are consistent with San Francisco context
 Impacts: reduce environmental impacts
 Community Issues: advance community objectives

Flexibility in Applying Design Standards – Caltrans policies
 Context Sensitive Solutions
 Complete Streets
Where multiple design options are available, or where optimal design for
one mode conflicts with optimal design for another, the best design is
that which is most appropriate given context, environmental impacts,
and community issues.
Stopping Sight Distance and Grades




25 nonstandard
locations
Crest or sag vertical
curves

 Existing condition is nonstandard; project will not remedy
 Function of roadway grades – SF’s hilly terrain

Caused by roadway
grades
Grades above 9%
are nonstandard
Context
Reasonableness
 Nonstandard stopping sight distance common throughout
SF

Safety
 Existing condition not associated with safety problems
 Intersections with nonstandard SSD have collision rates
below statewide average
 Mast arms installed with project will improve signal
visibility

Impacts
 Re-grade Van Ness Avenue and cross streets
 Install retaining walls
Travel Lane Width


Standard is
12 feet
Existing
and
proposed
lane widths
are 10 feet

Context
 Existing condition is nonstandard; project will not remedy
 Function of SF’s hilly terrain

Reasonableness
 AASHTO and ITE recommend 10’ lanes for low speed urban arterials
 SFMTA standards allow 10’ lanes

Safety
 Existing condition not associated with collisions (e.g., sideswipe)
 Proposed project will reduce likelihood of sideswipe collisions by
removing buses from mixed flow traffic
 Research indicates that 12’ lanes are not safer than narrower lanes in
low speed, urban environment

Impacts
 Remove parking or reduce sidewalk or median width
 Would worsen pedestrian conditions over today
Shoulder Width



Standard is 8 feet
Existing and proposed
shoulder is generally 8
feet (used as parking
lane)
Non-standard (2 foot)
shoulder proposed where
pedestrian corner bulbs
are provided

Context
 Existing condition is nonstandard; project will not
remedy

Reasonableness
 AASHTO and ITE recommend 6’ width for corner bulbs
 Caltrans HDM has no design standards for corner bulbs

Safety
 Existing condition not associated with collisions
 Two foot buffer provided between edge of bulb and
travel lane
 Bulbs increase safety for pedestrians

Impacts
 Remove bulbs from project
 Would worsen pedestrian conditions over today
Next Steps




Caltrans review of Design Exception Fact Sheets – through mid
October
Caltrans review of cultural resources impacts analysis – through
beginning of October
Caltrans review of traffic operations analysis – through end of October
Draft PSR/PR for Caltrans review and concurrence prior to circulation of
Draft EIR/EIS – first quarter 2010
Questions