San Francisco Transportation Plan - May 30, 2013 Board Workshop Presentations

www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

San Francisco Transportation Plan

Overview and Introduction

May 30, 2013

Purpose of the San Francisco Transportation Plan

2

What is it?

San Francisco’s transportation investment

program for all modes, operators to year 2040

Supporting policies and strategic initiatives

Funding and implementation strategy

How will it be used?

Informs local plans and investments

(Transportation Element Update, SFMTA and

CCSF capital plans)

Guides SF’s input to regional planning efforts (BART Strategic Plan, 2017 RTP)

Advocating together for San Francisco’s fair share

Positions SF for future funding opportunities and policy discussions at

state, national level

S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y

Accomplishments of 2004 Countywide

Transportation Plan

New Capital Projects – Constructed or Underway

T-Third, Central Freeway/Octavia Blvd

Doyle Drive (Presidio Parkway)

Central Subway, Transbay Terminal Phase 1

Development of a Network of Rapid Buses

$45M FTA funds committed to Van Ness BRT

EIRs for Geary BRT and SFMTA’s Transit Effectiveness

Project underway

Bicycle, Pedestrian, Traffic Calming, Streetscape Improvements

Provided stable stream of funding for traffic calming

Leland, Valencia and Broadway re-designs

Parking management and road pricing

$20M USDOT grant for SFpark

Mobility Access & Pricing Study, Treasure Island Program

3

Neighborhood Transportation Plans

Outer Mission,

Mission/Valencia

Tenderloin/Little Saigon

Bayview

W. SOMA

Balboa, Cesar Chavez East

New transportation goals and city development objectives

2013 Regional Transportation Plan: new projects

Blended High Speed Rail/Caltrain

Electrification/Transbay/Downtown extension

BART Metro, Transit Effectiveness Project, SF Pricing Program

SB375, SF Climate Action Strategy

SF goal: reduce GHGs to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050

Regional Transportation Plan Update includes a Sustainable

Communities Strategy

Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Directives

BoS: 20% Bicycle Mode Share by 2020

Mayor’s Directive: 50% reduction in pedestrian injuries by 2020

Demand Management to Support Approved Plans

Bayview Waterfront, Treasure Island, Park Merced Plans

SFMTA Parking and Shuttle Management policies

4


The Challenge -101k households, 191k jobs in San

Francisco in Plan Bay Area Preferred Scenario

Source: ABAG, Jobs-Housing Connection Scenario

Final Vision Scenario

FINAL ADOPTED

PLAN

Summer /Fall

2013

Draft Vision Scenario

Revenue Strategy

Developing the SFTP

6

Goals, Needs, &

Available

Funding

$64.3B

State of Good

Repair Needs

(O&M)

DRAFT

Financially

Constrained Plan

Spring 2013

Projects

Public

Feedback

Programs

Sector Policies


Public

Feedback

6

• 4 strategic initiatives

• 3 special market analyses

• 2 equity initiatives

• New revenue / legislative

advocacy platform

“What would it take” to achieve our goals?

Create a more

livable city

Ensure a healthy

environment

Provide

world-class

infrastructure

& service

Strengthen the

city’s regional

competitiveness

Non-auto mode

share >50%

No change in

commute travel

time to SF

~50% below

1990 GHG

emissions

State of

good repair

SFTP needs assessment framework

Healthy Environment

Vehicle miles traveled

Greenhouse gas emissions

Active Transportation (walking & biking)

Trips

Livability

Travel safety

Transfers/Transit trip

Non-auto trip shares

School trip needs

State of Good Repair

Crowded Transit Lines

Pavement Condition Index

Transit Reliability

Structural Sufficiency

Economic Competitiveness

Congested Streets, Commute times

Peak: Off-peak Drive Travel Time

Goods movement needs and visitor

access

Equity

Public Input

Transportation System Performance

Total trip-making

Mode share

Avg Occupancy (PMT/VMT)

Transit: Auto Travel Time Ratio

S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y 8

Our growth and transportation challenge Planned growth through 2040

101,000 new households

191,000 new workers

603,000 more daily car trips (more than the combined daily volume of Bay Bridge and Golden Gate Bridge crossings)

New Jobs by Plan Area

New Housing by Plan Area


> 5 Million trips to/from/within SF by 2040 33% more trips than today

10

Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3

2,025,000

765,000

72,000

932,000

603,000

279,000

40,000

329,000

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

Auto Transit Bike Ped

Total Trips To, From, and Within SF by Mode

2012: Total 2040: Additional Trips


• Projected growth in car trips is

40% MORE than current daily

Golden Gate and Bay Bridge

crossings

• Slightly over half of all daily

trips made by car

• Current 3.5% bike mode share

Pavley Law

11

Example: Healthy Environment Scenario can only approach goal w/aggressive policy change

Bundle

Previous Trend

Expected Trend

Goal

San Francisco GHG Emissions Trend vs. Goal (on-road mobile, weekday)

Source: SF CHAMP 4.1 Draft SCS, SFCTA, 2011

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Me

tric

To

ns/

Day

(1

00

0s)

More aggressive!!

$10B infrastructure Local road user pricing Up to 16% EV fleet

$10B+ infrastructure Regional pricing at 2x

today’s operating costs Up to 25% EV fleet


Change in local auto trips: 2012-40



Change in regional auto trips: 2012-40



Congestion impacts transit speeds

Transit trip takes 2-3 times longer than automobile trip in same market

Muni average transit speed – 8 mph;

Some Downtown streets between 5 and 10 mph

Transit Speeds, Spring 2009** Auto LOS, Spring 2009*

www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 14

Muni crowding Morning peak hour, 2012 and 2040

15



Crowding on regional transit systems | Morning peak hour, 2012 and 2040

16



Pedestrian Injuries: Total number of injuries

17

Sources:

Tract Populations: American Community Survey, 2009

Ped Collisions (2007-11): Statewide Integrated Traffic Reporting System (SWITRS)


Deep and Broad Public Involvement


4 Rounds of Outreach at various

stages (multi-lingual)

Community and Technical Advisory

Committee - 13 meetings to date

Website, Newsletters

Social Media sites (facebook,

twitter)

Dozens of presentations to Boards,

Commissions, neighborhood groups

Tabling at community events and

presentations

Response to calls for projects: public input

19

300 submittals from both agencies and

the public

Support for “Fix It First”

Support for projects to improve

transit reliability and provide

dedicated right-of-way

Demand for traffic calming,

pedestrian safety and

enhancement, and bicycle

improvements

Demand for more frequent transit

service (to alleviate crowding)


Desire for more investment in walking, cycling, + Muni enhancements

20

Investment in Programs


Prioritizing discretionary revenue

21 S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y

How should we prioritize $3.14 billion in

uncommitted funds?

State of Good Repair / Operations &

Maintenance (O&M)

Improve transit reliability

Pavement quality, state and local structures

Transportation enhancements and programs

Pedestrian safety, traffic calming

Bicycle facilities, Rapid Transit network

Expansion projects

Relieve crowding; long range strategic rail

investments

Develop freeway management strategies

(US101, HWY280)

Nearly 50 projects and programs were evaluated for cost

effective contribution to plan goals

Project performance evaluation


22

Final Vision Scenario

FINAL ADOPTED

PLAN

Summer /Fall

2013

Draft Vision Scenario

Revenue Strategy

Developing the SFTP

23

Goals, Needs, &

Available

Funding

$64.3B

State of Good

Repair Needs

(O&M)

DRAFT

Financially

Constrained Plan

Spring 2013

Projects

Public

Feedback

Programs

Sector Policies


Public

Feedback



Thank you!

For more information see:

www.movesmartsf.org





Draft San Francisco Transportation Plan

May 30, 2013

Draft SFTP Financially Constrained Investment Scenario


Total: $72.6Billion

What we heard from the

public:

• More investment in

operations and

maintenance of the

existing system

Committed projects

(Baseline) - $9.43B


public:


operations and

maintenance of the

existing system

• Better transit

reliability, reduced

transit crowding


public:


operations and

maintenance of the

existing system

• Better transit


transit crowding

• Investment in safety

projects, pedestrian

infrastructure, traffic

calming


public:


operations and

maintenance of the

existing system

• Better transit


transit crowding

• Investment in safety

projects, pedestrian

infrastructure, traffic

calming

• Support for cost-

effective projects that

improve system

efficiency

Transit SOGR

$55.18

76%

Local Streets &

Roads SOGR

$7.78

11%

Programs and

Enhancements

$1.22

2%

Expansion

Projects

$8.27

11%

Transit Service

Expansion

$0.41

0%

Draft SFTP Total plan summary by type


Total discretionary

revenue: $3.14Billion

$YOE Billions

Total $72.6

Knitting it all together

Investment Scenario Approach

Complementary choices among investment types (e.g.

replacement vehicles, rapid transit network

development can increase effective level of transit

service)

But also:

Tradeoffs between and within investment types (e.g.

Operations, Maintenance, Programs, Expansion), modes,

geographic areas and

Plan development considered multiple factors: Need,

Performance, Cost-Effectiveness, Public Input , Policy/Plan

status, Equity


4

Transit SOGR

$0.28

9%

Local Streets &

Roads SOGR

$0.46

15%

Programs and

Enhancements

$1.11

35%

Expansion Projects

(excluding Baseline)

$0.88

28%

Transit Service

Expansion

$0.41

13%

Draft SFTP Discretionary funds by type


Total discretionary

revenue: $3.14Billion

Findings & Recommendations Transit Operations

Crowding, unreliability, and service reductions continue without more investment; moreover,

current Muni service is financially unsustainable, need to study alternatives


6

Plan recommendations:

Invest $410M (13% of discretionary revenues)

toward continued/new transit services (mostly

Muni, plus potentially, a small amount for new

contracted regional bus service)

Result: Slows the decline of service, cuts

would still be inevitable

Other policy recommendations:

• Advocate for new, dedicated transit

operating revenue

• Pursue Muni cost management strategies,

in concert with regional efforts

Source: MTC Transit Sustainability Project

Findings & Recommendations Transit Operations

7



Other policy recommendations, continued:

• Enable regional operator inbound pick ups

• Study/pilot new models of service delivery

Findings & Recommendations Transit Maintenance

Unreliability and cost trends will continue to worsen unless we act decisively to address SOGR.


8

Plan rec’s:

Increase transit SOGR investment by $10M/

year (9% of discretionary revenue) toward

capital asset maintenance (vehicles, facilities,

guideways) to fund 70% of most critical needs

Result: Replace all vehicles and 70% of other

mission critical assets on time

Other policy rec’s:

• Finish Muni Asset Mgmt System, C3 and

Radio Replacement projects

• Implement Muni Facilities Plan

• Develop pipeline of projects and funding

strategy

Source: SFMTA Transit Effectiveness Project

Findings & Recommendations Local Streets and Roads Maintenance

Without significant investment pavement degradation will impair safe travel by all modes.


9

Plan rec’s:

Increase LS&R investment by $460M (over

$16M/year, 15% of discretionary revs) for pavement

resurfacing and reconstruction

Result: Over time, worsens PCI about 15% to 50’s (vs.

64 today)


• Do “Smart SOGR” – follow the paving/sewer

project for complete streets, reduced costs

• Support full roll-out of Envista as a map-based

coordination platform for street/sewer

improvement projects

• Must advocate for additional resurfacing funding

Findings & Recommendations Programmatic Enhancements

The city can deliver Complete Streets more efficiently and effectively than today.


10

Plan rec’s: Invest $640M (20% of

discretionary revenue) into multi-modal

(pedestrian, bicycling, traffic calming,

signal) projects.

Note: This investment level represents

aspirational delivery rates, based on past and

current indications; it could be delivered in ½

the Plan period with strong policy and political

support.

Result: Safer, more complete pedestrian,

bicycle and transit networks; calmer

streets, smoother traffic flows

Source: SFMTA Pedestrian Strategy

Findings & Recommendations Programmatic Enhancements – complete streets

The city can deliver Complete Streets more efficiently and effectively than today.


11


• Increase transparency and public

involvement through “Citizen’s Guide to

Transportation Improvements in SF”

• Clarify city’s Complete Streets design

policies, processes and standards.

• Support MTA’s revised Traffic Calming

program, Pedestrian Strategy, and

creation of signals investment strategy

(e.g., for the “Sfgo” program).

Findings & Recommendations Programmatic Enhancements - transit

Muni and Regional transit enhancements – a focus on “customer first” improvements


12


Maintain existing levels at $330M or $11.8M/year (10.5% of

discretionary revs) toward transit enhancements, e.g. development of

regional and local transit hubs with real-time information and access

improvements, including integration of bike/car sharing, taxi and

pedestrian safety, e.g. at Balboa Station

Result: More consistent and convenient user experience


• Coordinate major capital projects e.g. Embarc./Montgomery BART

stations with Transbay Terminal, Better Market Street

• Coordinate transit investment with land use development plans, M-

Line, Bayview Waterfront Transit Center, Geneva BRT, Treasures Island

• Increase regional partnerships & advocacy to develop project pipeline

Findings & Recommendations Programmatic Enhancements – Transportation Demand Mgmt

We must broaden our Transportation Demand Management (TDM) efforts to reach our goals.


13


Increase TDM investment to $60M ($2.1M/year, or 2% of

discretionary revs) for strategies to encourage time and mode

shifts away from single-occupant automobile trips.


• Continue to develop pricing and other peak–spreading

strategies (Treasure Island, Cordon Pricing, parking pricing,

and Employer policies)

• Develop MTA regulatory programs to allow safe integration

of 3rd party providers (Muni Partners, taxi/ride-sharing)

• Encourage, grow community-based mobility solutions, e.g.

vehicle sharing, volunteer driver program

• Explore area-wide parking cap or employer trip reduction

programs for SoMA/MissionBay

Findings & Recommendations Efficiency and expansion projects

We must improve system performance (reliability, travel times) to meet existing and future

demands.


14


Investment $880M ($31M/year, or 28% of discretionary revs) in new projects and studies to raise

the operational efficiency of our system and meet the demands of growth.



demands.


15

In addition to the Committed Projects,

the Plan includes:

• Continued rapid transit network

development for travel times and

reliability (TEP, Geary, Geneva and

Potrero/Bayshore BRT

• Address rapid network

capacity and

performance

bottlenecks (Transit

Performance

Initiative, BART

Metro)



demands.


16

In addition to the Committed Projects, the Plan includes:

• Setting a vision for SF freeway management strategies

• Study of our long range BART/Muni/Caltrain transit

network development

Other Policy Rec’s:

• Seek the delivery of Caltrain Electrification by 2019

• Solidify the plan for delivering DTX

• Expansion of P3s, value capture to replace

Redevelopment mechanism, and pursue other innovative

project delivery approaches, with strong revenue

advocacy for our priorities.

Findings & Recommendations Equity-focused Investments

The draft Plan responds to recent findings of Authority’s equity analysis identifying some

geographic and socio-economic disparities


17

Geographic equity support:

• Enhance regional transit system

access – new regional transit access

pilot, e.g. West side to Caltrain,

BART

• Improve reliability, especially in

outer parts of the city – SOGR,

transit enhancement (real time

information displays) and transit

priority network development

• Implement neighborhood

transportation improvements in

every district, e.g. through upcoming

5-year Prop K programs

Findings & Recommendations Equity-focused Investments

The draft Plan responds to recent findings of Authority’s equity analysis identifying some

geographic and socio-economic disparities


18

Socio-Economic equity support:

• Pedestrian Safety funding, including SR2S, SR2T, traffic

calming , education, outreach, and enforcement funds

• Bicycle network development and implementation

• Mobility management support for CBOs (e.g. Bayview shuttle-

sharing)

• Bikeshare/carshare initiatives (address affordability)

• Increased planning funds to build neighborhood capacity and

a strong pipeline of projects

Plan Performance

19

Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3 and DPW

• Despite limited new

resources, the Plan

achieves modest

performance in all goal

areas

• However, underfunding

road and transit

maintenance

counteracts SOGR gains

from reduced crowding

• Specific corridors see

more dramatic

performance gains


Differentiating Between Scenarios: Environment


2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

1990 2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Met

ric

Ton

s o

f GH

G E

mit

ted

Healthy Environment: Greenhouse Gas Emissions*

2040 Goal:

2,400

Plan With

Congestion Pricing:

3,915 to 4,100

Plan Without

Congestion Pricing:

4,215 to 4,400

Expected Trend:

4,440 to 4,500

*Average weekday on-road mobile emissions

Differentiating Between Scenarios: Livability


45%

47%

49%

51%

53%

55%

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Sh

are

of

All

Trip

s b

y A

uto

mo

bile

Livability: Percent of Weekday T rips Made by Auto

Plan With

Congestion Pricing:

47-50%

Plan Without

Congestion Pricing:

48% to 51%

2040 Goal: Below 50%

Expected Trend:

51% to 52%

Plan Investment vs. Need

0.41 0.28 0.46 1.03 0.88

0.99 0.75

0.56 0.51

0.72 0.63

2

4

1.53 1

2.9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6"Priority 2" Need

"Priority 1" Need

Discretionary Revenue

(Financially Constrained

Investment Strategy)

22 S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y

Bill

ion

s

Thank ou! For For meeting schedule through July,

see:

www.movesmartsf.org



www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA |

www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF


Making It Happen:

An Implementation Strategy for the SFTP

What’s working? What’s not?

Looking Back – past studies, Prop K and E data, public input

Looking Around – reviewing how transportation is done in other places, what can we learn?

Looking Ahead – continue what works, address areas that need improvement, pilot new approaches

SFTP Implementation Strategies

2 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Transportation in San Francisco is a complex machine:

Myriad of forces (too many to show here!) shape our transportation system


www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 3

Public Agencies

(i.e. SFMTA,

DPW, PUC,

SFCTA, BART,

MTC, Caltrans,

FTA, FHWA)

Funding

External

Forces

Transportation

network

Federal

State Regional

Local

Public

CEQA/NEPA

Land use

Economy

Daily

challenges

Collisions

Legal issues

Shifting

political

priorities

Weather

Top concerns we hear from the public


www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 4

We should be

able to deliver

projects faster

We deserve a

better

transportation

system

We need better

coordination

between

agencies and

with the public

We need to get

the biggest

bang for our

transportation

buck

What we found:

We are working on the right projects (pedestrian, traffic calming) but they are taking too long, and too often are uncoordinated.

Pilots are effective– high demand for more pilots and near-term improvements, but agencies can’t keep up, e.g. traffic calming.

Initial “complete streets” are popular, but expensive e.g. Valencia. The public wants more, but we lack strong policies and processes to prioritize, design and build them cost-effectively.

Looking Back


It’s not clear how transportation planning and funding processes work, and outreach is inconsistent, leading to shifting priorities and uneven or inadequate public involvement, with problematic outcomes.

Strategic Initiatives:

Complete Streets and Project Delivery


Complete Streets: Provide more benefit with each transportation investment by creating a cost-effective complete streets approach from planning to implementation

Project Delivery: Increase transparency, shorten the timeline for project delivery and increase “bang for the buck”

Complete Streets are wonderful, and in high

demand…

7 www.sfcta.org | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/SFCTA

But they pose policy, funding and institutional

challenges

8 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, coordination

Including multiple features rapidly increases a project’s cost, with varying implications for cost-effectiveness

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 9

Toward more Complete Streets:

Set realistic expectations, improve city practices We recommend program designed to clarify complete streets expectations

by creating a culture and consistent practice of multi-modal design:

Recognize trade-offs, prioritize our efforts: How many

multi-featured projects can/should we deliver per year?

Design Standards – e.g. define standard bulb-out

designs and cost-estimates

Design rules - establish “must,” “should,” “may”

practices) for incorporating complete street elements

Design processes -mainstreaming practice of multi-

modal design, value engineering, alternatives analysis

Funding practices - Set up “joint opportunities” funding

pots to facilitate and incentivize add-ons to a project


Looking Around

How can we improve project delivery in the city?

source: LA Metro

Larger Project Delivery

► Review of SF experience

► Case Studies of Southern CA experience

Small Projects Delivery

► Review of past local studies, reports, Prop K data

► Interviews with local elected and civic, community leaders


SF Project Delivery Assessment

Preliminary Findings

Project identification, prioritization processes and status are not always transparent

Publish multi-agency “Citizen Guide to Transportation Project Development”

Expand monitoring and accountability tools and websites (like MyStreetSF.com)

Political champions and agency leadership needs to be focused on/aid project delivery

Support strong project designs, necessary trade-offs

Set clear expectations for project schedules, organizational culture shifts

Source: SANDAG


SF Project Delivery Assessment

Preliminary Findings

Coordination across and within agencies is a challenge

Multi-departmental leadership is required to make existing organizations more effective; Common tools, e.g. Envista GIS map, can help

Alternatively, re-organizing to focus roles and accountability is an option

Project managers are not empowered, resourced to deliver projects efficiently

Strong PMs, with integrated, co-located project teams are needed

Agencies should be encouraged to use alternative delivery methods, streamlined procurement processes


Looking Ahead - Proposed Early Action

Neighborhood Transportation Improvement Program This Early Delivery demonstration

program is designed to:

► Respond to SFTP equity analysis findings

► Demonstrate new complete streets and project delivery approaches

► Result in on-the-ground improvements within 5 years

If desired by Authority Board, could be approved through Prop K 5-year Program updates this fall.

Would seek to leverage Prop K with other funds

Sample NTI Program

District Project

1 Geary: near term Ped/Signal improvements

1 Anza Ped/Bike improvements

2 Lombard Street Pedestrian and Streetcape

2 Ped Safety Mini Program: Marina Boulevard, SR2S

3 Columbus Ave Phase 1 (coordinate with paving, TEP)

3 Broadway Neighborhood Transportation Plan, traffic calming

4 Ocean Beach Plan Phase 1 - Sloat (Bike, Ped, Traffic Calming)

4,7 19th Ave Bulbouts Phase 1 (coordinate with TEP)

5 Fillmore Fill - planning study and design

5 Ped Safety Mini Program: Octavia/Oak, re-open x-walks

6 Ped Safety Mini Program: 6th St (coordinate with BMS)+SR2S

6 Ellis/Eddy Traffic calming/pedestrian improvements

7 Ped Safety Mini Program: Traffic calming, bulbouts etc.

8 Glen Park Plan plaza/access improvements

8,9,11 SJ/Guerrero Re-design and multi-modal (Bike/Ped) improvements

9 Ped Safety Mini Program: SR2S/Ped or Mission Streetscape

10 Palou Streetscape and Paving

10 Ped Safety Mini Program: New sidewalks, SR2T (22nd Street Station) SR2S

11 Mission Terrace planning and project


5-Year Prop K Prioritization Programs

How do you want to spend Prop K sales tax dollars?

Check out MyStreetSF.com – anything missing? If so, propose it this summer

5-Year Program Updates: 21 categories of transportation investment in Prop K Sales Tax Program

► All modes, types of projects

► Local and regional agency sponsors

► Public outreach and involvement planned for Summer to Fall 2013

Stay tuned for updates at SFCTA website: sfcta.org or movesmartsf.com

Prop

K

Questions?



The San Francisco Transportation Plan

SFCTA Board Workshop May 30th, 2013

Land Use, Growth & Implementation

ExpressBus

Current

BARTMuni MetroCaltrain

Muni TEP RapidNetwork

1 Dot = 100

Central SubwayHigh Speed Rail

Bus Rapid Transit

HouseholdsJobs

Land Use Today

Households Change Jobs Change

REGION 700,000 27% 1,120,000 33%

SAN FRANCISCO 92,410 25% 190,740 34%

Priority Development Areas 80,000 48% 145,000 30%

Rest of City 12,410 6% 45,740 18%

GROWTH2010 - 2040

•Regionwillgrowsubstantially;SanFranciscowilltakelargeshare.

•PDA’stodaycanaccommodate80%ofSanFrancisco’sgrowth.

•Newdevelopmentguidedtobuildnew,vibrant,mixeduse

Potential Housing

80,000 UNITSPotential Employment

145,000 JOBS

Priority Development Areas

ExpressBus

2040

BARTMuni MetroCaltrain

Muni TEP RapidNetwork

1 Dot = 100

Central SubwayHigh Speed Rail

Bus Rapid Transit

HouseholdsJobs

Projected Growth to 2040

Photo by Josef Willems

Implementation

Transportation Element Update

Central Corridor Plan

SoMa Circulation Plan

Parking Supply Management Strategies

BiCounty: T-Third to Bayshore Station

19th Avenue Transit Study

Better Market Street

Invest In Neighborhoods

ProjectsUnderway

LINkING TRaNSpORTaTION

& LaNd USe

Transportation Vision Initial Policy Analysis

05 | 30 | 2013

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

SFMTA | Municipal Transportation Agency Image: Market and Geary Streets, circa 1920s, Muni Centennial logo

SF Total Transportation Needs

• A well-functioning transportation system is

foundational to the City’s health and economic vitality

• >$4 billion already spent each year on transportation

– Over $1 billion public funds spent annually on transportation

– Approx. $3 billion private funds spent annually operating and

maintaining private transportation

• Almost $900 million a year needed to meet goals

– Operating, Maintenance, Repair and Expansion

2

Two-tiered strategy for the transport system Transport

Strategy

Travel Choices Demand Pricing

Demand Management

Priority Transit Complete Streets Vehicle Sharing

Infrastructure Support Smart Land-Use

4

Link land use

with

growing

travel

markets

Virtuous Cycle of Integrated

Investments Integration

Project Investment Mode Shift Effect

More comfortable bicycle

facilities = more transit

capacity

Car/bike/scooter

sharing, taxi demand

grows

investments in bicycling

infrastructure, facilities &

programs More transit and bicycle

trips = more walking and

more economic

development

investments in walking

infrastructure, facilities &

programs

investments in transit

reliability and frequency

programs

investments in demand

management and vehicle

sharing programs

48th Ave to Market/Third:

35 min-45 min

Ocean Beach

to Embarcadero:

40-50 min

Third St., Bayshore

to Embarcadero:

40-50 min

Caltrain,

Bayshore

to Fourth/King:

15 min (+9 to

Embarcadero)

BART, Daly City

to Embarcadero:

17 min

19th/Holloway

to Embarcadero:

30-45 min

Network:

• Rail

• Rapid Transitways

• Local Service

• Historic Network

Transit

Network

Travel Time

Variability

Assessment

Network

Conditions

West Portal

Market & Van Ness

Embarcadero

Fourth/King

Church & Duboce

Balboa Park

Network:

• Rail

• Rapid Network

• Local Service

• Historic Network

Increasing growth &

congestion can lead to:

• Reliability & travel

time variability

• Slower operating

speeds

• Vehicle capacity/

crowding

• Network

vulnerability

• Hotspots &

bottlenecks

Core Capacity Needs &

Rail Pinch-Points Transit

Strategy

Long-term

Transit

Vision

Upgrade the

core capacity

Lines

48th Ave to

Market/Third:

25 min

Ocean Beach

to Embarcadero :

25 min

Wharves

to Moscone:

10 min

Daly City

to Embarcadero:

25 min

Bayshore &

Hunters Point

to Market St.:

25 min DRAFT

9 Emerging Bicycle Core Area Bicycle

Strategy

10 Travel experience of network Bicycle

Strategy

DRAFT

Focus on

45 miles

11 Primary bicycle corridors analysis Bicycle

Strategy

DRAFT

12

12

12

12 Corridor Analysis Bicycle

Strategy

DRAFT

Source: SFMTA , US Census Data, Land-use & gradient analysis

Strategic Gap Closure High Stress Point in Network

13 Strategic Network Gap Closures Bicycle

Strategy

DRAFT

Funding Needs Investment Scenarios

14

• “Bicycle Plan Plus” Scenario:

– $60 million through 2018

• Strategic Plan Scenario :

– $200 million through 2018

• System Build-out Scenario:

– $600 million

=

+

44 Miles of High Priority Segments (HPS) Need

Complete Street Type Treatments by 2021

15 High Priority Streets for focused investment Pedestrian

Strategy

• Core Projects and Programs $ 60 m

• Best Practices Projects $303 m

Total Need $363 m

16 16 Core Investment Needs Pedestrian

Strategy

Vehicle &

Ride Sharing Increasing travel options

SF Private Auto Fleet Trends and Goals

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Goal

400

375

350

325

300

275

250

0%

Private

Auto

Fle

et (0

00s)

15- 25% fleet reduction potential with

significant vehicle sharing growth

Trend

Potential

Vehicle Sharing Opportunity

Vehicle &

Ride Sharing Vehicle sharing potential

Transportation System Needs Investment

• Today’s system is under-resourced for current and future needs, despite ongoing efficiency improvements

• Tradeoffs have to be made in rights of way priority and demand management tools to meet goals

• The key is to help reduce everyone’s transportation budget, improve overall transportation efficiency and increase our economic competitiveness.




Vision and Revenue Strategy

May 30, 2013

We need additional transportation revenues to bring our

system to a SOGR and to meet the public’s demand for

improvements, but must use existing revenues more efficiently

to build voter confidence

New/improved approaches to project delivery

Investing in projects that reduce ongoing

operations and maintenance costs (e.g. Transit

Effectiveness Project, staggered fleet replacements

to reduce average age of fleet)

Findings ways to control cost escalation

SFTP Revenue Strategies

Use Existing Revenues More Efficiently


Potential New Funding Sources

Key policy considerations


The size of SF’s unfunded need is so large, that it demands a multi-pronged

approach:

Use what we have more efficiently

Maximize capture of discretionary revenues and leverage private sector

Identify new sources of revenues

Continued uncertainty at the federal and state levels present opportunities (e.g.

Public-Private Partnerships), but also mean new revenues might need to be local

solutions in the near-term

Still, SF should proactively develop strong regional (e.g. future bridge toll), state

(e.g. cap and trade) and federal (next transportation act) advocacy platforms

Potential New Funding Sources

Local Sources Being Evaluated

Examples include:

Additional ½ cent sales tax (for a total of 1% of

SF local sales tax capacity dedicated to

transportation)

Parcel tax (flat rate or progressive)

Citywide community facilities district (Mello-

Roos)

Local & regional gas taxes

Vehicle license fee

Express lanes on US 101/I-280

General obligation bonds

Regional VMT fee


Each revenue source involves tradeoffs

Some sources present challenges from an equity standpoint – each

needs to be comprehensively evaluated

Other public priorities (education, health care, parks, etc.) are also

competing for public funding

Ongoing coordination with Mayor’s Transportation 2030 Task Force

“What If” scenarios let us

imagine what our transportation

system might look like if we

have additional transportation

revenues.

And, it helps to shape revenue

advocacy strategy by:

Increase efficient use of

existing funds

Demonstrating ability to

leverage other sources of

funding (public and private)

Building consensus on our

federal, state, regional “Asks”

What if….we had more revenues?

Revenue Levels for Vision Scenarios


$6+ billion more might require a mixture

of big, medium and smaller sources

such as:

• $4.0 B - another half-cent sales tax

• $1.0 B - general obligation bonds

• $0.8 B - additional Federal funds

• $0.5 B - community benefits district

$10 billion more might require all of the

above, plus something like:

• $2.7 B - 1.35% SF vehicle license fee

• $1.0 B - even more Federal funds

• $0.2 B - 0.5% MUNI op’g cost savings



Thank You. Questions?

San Francisco Transportation Plan - May 30, 2013 Board Workshop Presentations

Business

draft plan

improve system

recommendations

transit effectiveness

deliver complete

year program

additional

complete streets