www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF San Francisco Transportation Plan Complete Streets Initiative January 15, 2013
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF
San Francisco Transportation Plan
Complete Streets Initiative
January 15, 2013
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 2
San Francisco Transportation Plan – Fall Outreach
Objectives: 1. Educate the public about transportation needs and
available revenues
2. Use “Budget Game” to gather input on how best to prioritize available funds
Maintenance and operations vs. smaller programs vs. larger expansion projects
2. Obtain feedback about potential new revenues for “Vision” scenario investments
3. Reach a broad cross-section of San Francisco stakeholders
Geographic, ethnic, racial, income diversity Residents, employees, business owners
SFTP Budget Game Queen became a popular image around town
Getting the Word Out
Email notification 500+ SFTP email list, 3,500+ Authority-wide list
Fact sheets ~1000 (English, Chinese, Spanish) distributed at 14 locations
Advertisements on buses/shelters + in newspapers 1100 on buses, 450 in shelters, 10 newspaper ads
Community events and presentations ~2000 postcards distributed at 11 events citywide 18 presentations to Boards, Commissions, various groups
Social Media (facebook/twitter)
Press release and media coverage SF Business Times, SF Examiner, Bay Citizen, SF Streetsblog
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 3
A Strong Response
The public response was strong: ~800 submittals for the
Budget Czar Game Engaged audiences at
presentations to community groups and Boards/ Commissions
Appreciation for the informative content of the Game
Desire for another round relating to revenue options
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 4
What We Heard
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 5
SF Zip Code: 350 | Non-SF Zip Code: 57 | Did not report: 331
Budget Game Results –
Demographics:
All age, racial, ethnic and income groups reached, but
Over-representation of: Ages 25-40 White Higher-Income Central Supervisorial
districts (5, 8, 9)
Stronger desire for moderate and aggressive increase in transit O+M (80%) vs. street maintenance (44%)
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 6
Investment In Maintenance and Operations
Walking, cycling, + Muni enhancements most popular categories for moderate or aggressive increase in investment
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 7
Investment in Programs
High-Performing Transit Efficiency Projects Lead the Pack
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 8
Demand for Projects (top 10 vote-getters)
What We Heard - Key Themes
1. Appreciation for Budget Game as a useful tool for public engagement.
2. Strong desire to get back to the basics: prioritize maintenance and operations of the existing Muni system, improve its reliability, and address crowding
3. Conviction that San Francisco deserves a world-class public transportation system, with faster, more frequent service
4. Strong desire to improve cycling and walking conditions.
5. High priority for a focus on core capacity improvements
6. Quite a bit of support, but also some skepticism about congestion pricing; interest in parking-based alternatives.
7. Desire for institutional reforms: cost savings, faster project delivery
8. Support for more revenue, and more discussion about new revenue options
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 9
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF
San Francisco Transportation Plan
Complete Streets Initiative
January 15, 2013
Final Vision Scenario
FINAL ADOPTED PLAN Summer 2013
Draft Vision Scenario New Revenues
Developing the San Francisco Transportation Plan
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 11
Total Available Funding $64.3B
State of Good Repair Needs (O&M)
DRAFT Financially Constrained Plan Spring 2013
Projects
Public Feedback
Programs
Sector Policies
The Role of Strategic Policy Initiatives
Strategic Initiatives are sector strategies intended to complement and support the SFTP Investment Program:
Identify timely or emerging areas of transportation policy need
Set policy direction for these areas of need and recommend sector strategies and activities that can respond to needs
Guide the Authority’s work and those of other agencies working in the transportation sector
Suggest new opportunities for experimentation and innovation
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 12
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 13
Three strategic policy initiatives in the 2004 CWTP
Investments to support key land use goals
Transit improvements to serve growth areas T-Third, Central Subway, Transbay Terminal, Caltrain Electrification Van Ness and Geary BRT, TEP New generation of developer mitigation measures
Coordinated land use/transportation planning efforts Bi-County Study, Park Merced, Treasure Island, Balboa Park Station Area, Central-
Freeway/Market Octavia Study, Eastern Neighborhood TRIPS Study
Transportation Sustainability Program and CEQA streamlining
Phot
o cr
edit:
Ste
ve B
olan
d
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 14
Three strategic policy initiatives in the 2004 CWTP
Streets as vital public spaces
Better Streets Plan, Pedestrian Strategy
Pavement to Parks Ped plazas (16th, 24th, Balboa BART) Parkletts
Sunday Streets
Streetscape improvement projects Valencia, Newcomb, Leland
Better Market Street pilots, planning/design
Shared streets Linden, planned Western SOMA alleys
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 15
Three strategic policy initiatives in the 2004 CWTP
Travel demand and parking management
SFpark pilot implementation
Mobility Access and Pricing Study
Continued growth of car-sharing with City support
Bike sharing kick-off
Strategic analysis report (SAR) on Role of Shuttles
Muni Partners Program
Transportation Demand Management Partnership
Guaranteed Ride Home program
Bike parking ordinance for private buildings
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 16
The goals of the SFTP
Create a more livable city
Ensure a healthy environment
Provide world-class
infrastructure
Strengthen the city’s regional
competitiveness
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 17
Four proposed strategic policy initiatives for the SFTP
Complete Streets: Provide more benefit with each transportation investment by creating a cost-effective complete streets approach
Next-generation TDM: Broaden and deepen TDM efforts in order to manage the demand for driving and parking more effectively
Local-to-regional Connection: Strengthen San Francisco’s connection to the region and balance the needs of residents, commuters, visitors and through travelers
Project and Program Delivery: Review project delivery and street management approaches to increase timeliness, bang-for-the buck
Strategic Initiative #1: Complete Streets
18 www.sfcta.org | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/SFCTA
Complete Streets are wonderful and in high demand…
But they pose policy, funding and institutional challenges
19 www.sfcta.org | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/SFCTA
graphic: SFMTA
Dispersed responsibility for streets is a common feature among cities
Street management and improvement decisions require strong policy direction and coordination
What is right balance of doing many smaller, simpler projects vs. fewer full-featured ones?
How do we resolve modal conflicts when they arise?
How do we achieve consistent design decisions across multiple lead agencies?
Including multiple features an rapidly increase project cost, with varying implications for cost-effectiveness
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 20
Complete Streets Initiative
Goal: Provide more benefit with each transportation investment by creating a more cost-effective complete streets approach
Consider all modes from the conceptual stages of a project to reduce the cost and time to delivery of complete streets
Strengthen the modal strategies, especially pedestrian sector capital priorities
Clarify complete street expectations in terms of project development and implementation
Develop a consistent city approach for prioritization and funding of all stages of project development
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 21
Consider all modes, define modal priorities
Consider all modes from the conceptual stages of a project to reduce the cost and time to deliver complete streets Clarify format and use of City’s Complete Streets
Checklist
Continue to refine citywide project database to support inter-agency coordination
Further develop modal priorities, including:
Transit Effectiveness Project and next generation bicycle projects
Pedestrian Sector Development
City Pedestrian Strategy, Next-generation Traffic Calming Program, Pedestrian Implementation Strategy
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 22
Set realistic expectations, practices
Clarify complete streets expectations by creating more consistent approaches to: Design features/scope (how to establish “must,”
“should,” “may” practices)
Design processes (mainstreaming a culture of value engineering, alternatives analysis, phasing)
Funding practices (defining when a desired component is a “base” project cost vs. add-on funded by another “pot” of money)
Recognizing trade-offs, prioritizing our efforts: How many multi-featured projects can/should we deliver per year?
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 23
Increase consistency across funding programs
Develop a consistent city approach for prioritization and funding of all stages of project development:
Authority fund programs
OBAG – responding to regional program requirements, criteria
Prop AA – responding to voter-approved expenditure plan
Prop K – supporting OBAG, AA and other project development needs
Other city funding policies and programs?
City capital plan, streets bond program
SFMTA, other agencies’ capital programs
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 24
Expenditure Plan Three programmatic categories
1. Street Repair and Reconstruction 2. Pedestrian Safety 3. Transit Reliability and Mobility Improvements
Strategic Plan Policies (eligibility, evaluation criteria) Prioritization Criteria Programming of Projects ($26M over first 5 years)
Example: Prop AA and Complete Streets
Example: Prop AA & Complete Streets
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 25
Priority will be given to projects that: ● Include complete streets elements (ADA, bike, pedestrian, traffic calming, etc.)
● Improve upon prior conditions and directly benefit multiple system users
● Have clear and diverse community support and/or were developed through a community-based planning process
● Shorten crossing distances, minimize conflicts with other modes, and reduce pedestrian hazards
● Are identified through or consistent with WalkFirst or successor efforts (e.g., pedestrian master plan)
● Support existing or proposed rapid transit (e.g., TEP, Rapid Network)
Next Steps
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 26
Finalize Complete Streets Strategic Initiative Please provide your feedback to SFTP team
(Rachel Hiatt, SFTP Project Manager, [email protected])
Continued discussion through Capital streetscape working group? Presentations of other Strategic Initiatives in next 3 months Incorporation into SFTP recommendations by Plan adoption, Summer
2013
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF
Questions?
Thank You.