Vision Zero Coalition’s Street Design Manual Recommendations

Dear City of San Diego Elected Officials and Staff,

On behalf of the Vision Zero Coalition, we appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on the

updated Street Design Manual draft. To begin we’d like to commend the efforts of the City to

create a draft that more closely aligns with Vision Zero, Complete Streets, the Climate Action

Plan. It marks a significant step forward from previous street design practices. While this

document demonstrates progress, we have identified several critical areas where improvements

are necessary to ensure the design manual is aligned with NACTO best practices and

guidelines to create a safer, more sustainable, and more equitable San Diego. Below are our

seven top-priority recommendations:

1. Prioritize Safety and Vision Zero in Design Principles

The manual must explicitly state that safety is the highest priority, reinforcing Vision Zero

goals. Language regarding design speed, lane widths, and intersection treatments

should prioritize human life over vehicular throughput, ensuring safer conditions for

people walking, cycling, scooting, skating, using wheelchairs/strollers, and drivers. We

strongly recommend that this manual be named “The Complete Streets Design Manual”

to reflect the priorities outlined in Council Policy 900-23. In addition, we request a

resolution that uses language similar to the City of Alameda’s adoption of a design

manual to document that the City is prioritizing Vision Zero strategies for safety.

2. Reduce Vehicle Lane Widths to Improve Safety

The current draft allows for 12-foot-wide lanes, and in too many cases the preferred lane

width is 11 feet, which encourages higher vehicle speeds. Instead, lane widths should be

reduced to 10 feet in urban and residential areas, with 11 feet as a maximum for transit

and truck routes, aligning with best practices from NACTO, and state guidance set in

Caltrans’ DIB-94.

3. Default to Protected Bike Infrastructure Instead of On-Street Parking in Street

Designs

Whenever excess roadway capacity exists, bikeways should be prioritized over parking,

especially on designated bike routes. The manual should explicitly state that if parking is

to be retained, the city must justify its necessity based on revenue generation or

essential access needs. The justification should analyze adjacent roadways that provide

a high-quality, safe bike route. If a safe route does not exist, the parking should be

removed. Additionally, we request the removal of parking if a roadway is designated as a

Safe Route to School for children, families, and employees.

4. Improve Pedestrian Infrastructure and Accessibility

Pedestrian safety must be a core component of street design. The manual should

require Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) at all traffic signal modifications and

eliminate push-button actuators (aka “beg buttons”) so pedestrian signals activate

automatically in accordance with the signalization priorities from the NACTO Urban

Street Design Guide. In addition, the design manual should provide clear guidance on

crosswalk placement at uncontrolled intersections and mid-block locations. Curb

extensions, pedestrian refuge islands, and ADA-compliant infrastructure should be

incorporated wherever feasible in alignment with the crosswalks and crossings guidance

from the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide.

5. Enhance Protection for Bicyclists with Raised and Buffered Bikeways

All buffered bike lanes should incorporate durable, protective barriers such as raised

curbs rather than relying solely on flexible plastic traffic delineators. Raised bikeways,

where feasible, provide a safer environment for cyclists and prevent vehicle

encroachment. The manual should default to designs that comply with the NACTO

Design Guidelines for All Ages and Abilities in compliance with City Council Policy

900-23.

6. Set Lower Design Speeds and Eliminate Inconsistent Policies

Design speeds should align with safety goals: 20 mph or less in neighborhoods, 25 mph

in urban centers, and a maximum of 35 mph elsewhere in agreement with NACTO’s City

Limits Design Guide. To prioritize safety across all street classifications, inconsistencies

in buffer treatments and speed limits should be resolved.

The current draft of the Street Design Manual would prevent future projects like the

Georgia-Meade Avenue Bikeway by prohibiting road lumps on collector streets. Road

lumps are one of the most effective tools for slowing vehicle speeds while maintaining

emergency access. Yet, the draft manual restricts their use on any street with a

centerline or more than two lanes, limiting them solely to Residential Streets.

This policy is counterproductive. Collectors serve as critical links in San Diego’s Bicycle

Network, and traffic calming is essential to making them safe for people of all ages and

abilities. Without speed management on these streets, achieving the City’s Vision Zero

and Climate Action Plan goals will be nearly impossible. We urge the City to allow Traffic

Calming measures on roadway classifications higher than local streets by revising the

first bullet of “Guidelines” in section 5.8.2, and remove references to "collector" from

Traffic Calming Techniques like page 5-111 of Chapter 5, Road Lumps Guidelines so that

traffic calming tools remain available where they are most needed.

7. Transparency and Shared Governance for Deviations

Several of the standards are subject to the City Engineer's approval. Suppose a roadway

design must deviate from current best practices and guidelines (e.g., the National

Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guide, Urban

Bikeway Design Guide, Designing for All Ages & Abilities Contextual Guidance, and

Transit Street Design Guide). In that case, the manual should articulate how that

deviation is approved and documented.

We strongly urge the City of San Diego to incorporate these recommendations to create a more

people-centered, sustainable, and safe transportation network. We welcome further discussion

and look forward to working together to improve the final version of the Street Design Manual.

We have attached specific feedback in the appendix.

Appendix: Consolidated Street Design Manual Feedback

Category	Issue	Recommendation
General Concerns	Lack of acknowledgments	Include contributors and their expertise in bike/ped safety.
General Concerns	Car-centric tone	Shift language to emphasize multimodal safety and accessibility.
General Concerns	LOS references in the CEQA section	Remove LOS references in favor of SB 743 compliance.
Street Width & Lane Dimensions	Excessive lane widths	Reduce travel lanes to 10’ (NACTO standard), max 11’ where necessary.
Street Width & Lane Dimensions	Inconsistent bike lane widths	Standardize at 6’ minimum per NACTO.
Intersection & Signalization	Lack of LPIs (Leading Pedestrian Intervals)	Require LPIs for all signal modifications and remove beg buttons.
Intersection & Signalization	Crosswalk installation based on outdated policies	Update council policies and include clear crosswalk placement guidelines.
Transit & Mobility Priorities	Bus/bike lane trade-off	Always show bus and bike lanes as options, not either/or.
Public Space & Amenities	Lack of consideration for street trees, lighting, and shade	Integrate stormwater management, seating, and vegetation into design.
Rural & Industrial Streets	High-speed design for rural roads	Lower speed limits, raise paved shoulders and add protection for pedestrians/bikes.
Roundabouts & Medians	No bike markings in roundabouts	Add sharrows through roundabouts.
Roundabouts & Medians	Medians prioritized over bikeways	Remove medians where bike lanes are needed. If medians are used, ensure that they provide pedestrian refuge.