san francisco transportation plan · san francisco transportation plan – fall outreach...

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


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


What We Heard


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%)


Investment In Maintenance and Operations

Walking, cycling, + Muni enhancements most popular categories for moderate or aggressive increase in investment


Investment in Programs

High-Performing Transit Efficiency Projects Lead the Pack


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



San Francisco Transportation Plan


January 15, 2013

Final Vision Scenario

FINAL ADOPTED PLAN Summer 2013

Draft Vision Scenario New Revenues

Developing the San Francisco Transportation Plan


Total Available Funding $64.3B

State of Good Repair Needs (O&M)

DRAFT Financially Constrained Plan Spring 2013

Projects

Public Feedback

Programs

Sector Policies

Presenter

Presentation Notes

The results of the project performance evaluation will be combined with estimated needs for programmatic enhancements, operations, and maintenance, to develop draft financially constrained investment scenarios, and one or more vision scenarios, that would identify new investment beyond available revenues, this fall. We plan to seek public input this October and November on investment priorities, and bring a final plan for your consideration in the Spring 2013.

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


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



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



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


The goals of the SFTP

Create a more livable city

Ensure a healthy environment

Provide world-class

infrastructure

Strengthen the city’s regional

competitiveness

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Ability to attract workers and customers: Transit service, reliability Auto travel times, well-managed road network World-class streetscapes, vibrant public realm Strengthen the City’s Regional Competitiveness Create a more Livable City Ensure a Healthy Environment Provide World-Class Infrastructure Livability: Range of affordable and mixed-income housing Attractive walking, biking, and transit options Reliable and efficient infrastructure: Resurfaced streets and efficient signal timing State of good repair for transit systems


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

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Street management and improvement decisions require policy direction and coordination (leadership, culture)



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


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


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?


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


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

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Page 205 of Grouped Enclosure The requested Prop K funds will be used to construct a bus-bulb at the southwest corner of the 24th Street and Mission BART Plaza. Prop K is funding final design of larger project; Includes pedestrian infrastructure and safety improvements to the BART station entrance area and adjacent streets, including ADA ramps, landscaping and irrigation, and public art. Construction through an existing Department of Public Works (DPW) contract to repave Mission Street between 20th and Cesar Chavez. Already includes installation of bus bulb adjacent to NE plaza Adding the bus-bulb scope to the paving project allows BART to avoid the 5-year moratorium on construction on a newly paved street as well as achieve time and cost savings. BART anticipates construction of the larger project will begin in December 2012 and be completed by November 2013.

Example: Prop AA & Complete Streets


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


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


Questions?

Thank You.

san francisco transportation plan · san francisco transportation plan – fall outreach...

Documents