Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Task 3.a:  Inventory of Key Eastern Neighborhood Priority Corridors
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Task 3.a: Inventory of Key Eastern Neighborhood Priority Corridors

571
views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Real Estate

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
571
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. SFMTAEN TRIPS Corridor Screening andRecommendations May 2011
  • 2. Table of Contents PageExecutive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 10 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 11 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 42 Next Steps ................................................................................................................................. 46Appendix A. EN TRIPS Preliminary Corridor Screening - Indicators of Need by ModeAppendix B. EN TRIPS Preliminary Corridor Screening - Indicators of Need by ModeTable of FiguresFigure 1  Eastern Neighborhood Modal Networks ............................................................. 13 Figure 2  South of Market Area Corridor Segments ........................................................... 14 Figure 3  Mission, Potrero Hill/Showplace Square, and Central Waterfront Corridor Segments......................................................... 15 Figure 4  High Growth Corridor Segments – South of Market Area ................................... 16 Figure 5  High Growth Corridor Segments - Mission, Potrero Hill/ Showplace Square, and Central Waterfront........................................................ 17 Figure 6  Growth Score by Eastern Neighborhoods Corridor Segment – South of Market ................................................................................................... 18 Figure 7  Growth Score by Eastern Neighborhoods Corridor Segment – Mission, Potrero Hill/Showplace Square, and Central Waterfront ....................... 19 Figure 8  Modal Need Score for Eastern Neighborhoods High Multimodal Need’ Segments ....................................................................... 23 Figure 9  Modal Need Score by Eastern Neighborhoods Corridor Segment – South of Market .................................................................. 25 Figure 10  Modal Need Score by Eastern Neighborhoods Corridor Segment – Mission, Potrero Hill/Showplace Square, and Central Waterfront ....................... 26 Figure 11  Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions on South of Market North-South Streets (2004 – 2008) ..................................................................... 28 Figure 12  Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions on South of Market North-South Streets (2004 – 2008) ..................................................................... 28 Figure 13  PM Period Max Transit Load (Projected 2035) ................................................... 29 Figure 14  Areas with ¼ Mile of TEP Rapid Route ............................................................... 30 Figure 15  Forecast Volume/Capacity for North-South Corridors (2035) ............................. 37 Figure 14  Forecast Volume/Capacity for North-South Corridors (2035) ............................. 37 Figure 16  Forecast Volume/Capacity for South of Market Screenlines ............................... 39 Figure 17  Forecast Volume/Capacity for South of Market Screenlines (north-south corridors)......................................................................................... 40 Figure 17  Forecast Volume/Capacity for South of Market Screenlines (east-west corridors) ........................................................................................... 41  i
  • 3. Executive SummaryThe Eastern Neighborhoods Transportation Implementation Planning Study (EN TRIPS) isidentifying and developing transportation infrastructure improvements to serve the needs of SanFrancisco’s Eastern Neighborhoods, as envisioned by the Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plans.To ensure that EN TRIPS resources are focused on places that would benefit most, the currentphase of the study has screened and prioritized transportation needs in the large study area bystreet segment. Using this technique, combined with input from the public, the study team haschosen a small number of street segments to recommend for near-term corridor improvementprojects. The aim of these projects is that they will not only address a specific transportation issuein the study area, but will also work to develop a solution for problems that occur widelythroughout the study area. In addition, the project will investigate ways to mitigate recurringtransportation challenges in the study area through existing SFMTA projects and programs.The recommended segments not only have major local transportation challenges, but they playimportant roles in the overall Eastern Neighborhoods circulation system. Making these segmentswork better is key to meeting the explicit goals of the Eastern Neighborhoods Planning process.They make up important parts of the corridors that knit these diverse neighborhoods together;they will bear the burden of a significant share of the growth forecast to occur as a result of theEastern Neighborhoods; and they are the focus of community interest as expressed through theEastern Neighborhoods Community Planning Process, the EN TRIPS outreach workshop, andrelated planning processes.This report explains the method that the EN TRIPS team used to rank and prioritize streetsegments, and recommends projects that should be carried through for design andimplementation. These recommendations will be reviewed by the Eastern NeighborhoodsCitizens Advisory Committee before the SFMTA makes a final determination of priority corridorsegments for improvement. The method is summarized below.Step 1. Divide the major transportation corridors in the study area intofunctional segments.The study considered for near-term corridor improvement projects only those streets that are partof one of the city’s modal transportation networks as designated through existing City policy.These networks are: the vehicular network (San Francisco General Plan); truck routes (SFMTArecommended Truck Routes); bicycle network (San Francisco Bicycle Plan); transit prioritystreets (SFMTA Transit Effectiveness Project).The streets that belong to one or more of these networks were then divided into segments thathave a cohesive character and function. To divide segments, the study team considered modalpriorities (for example, some segments of a particular street have transit service, while others donot), directionality (for example, transitions from one-way to two-way operations), and consistency( we have tried to break street segments for adjacent and parallel streets at roughly the samepoint in order to maintain consistency across segments).The outcome of this balance of priorities is as follows: In the South of Market (SOMA) area, mostof the east-west streets (Mission through Brannan) have been divided into three parts: aTransbay/Financial District segment from the Embarcadero to either Second or Third street,where the streets have mostly two-way operations; a short mid-market segment where the streetsshift to one-way operations (roughly between Third and Fifth streets); and a longer WesternSouth of Market segment, stretching roughly from Fifth Street to Division Street. King Street, 1
  • 4. EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING STUDYCorridor Screening Methodology and Recommendationswhich is much shorter, has been assessed as a single segment. Outside of the South of Marketarea, most of the north-south streets are divided at 16th Street. Most of the east-west streets havebeen divided at Potrero Avenue. In Potrero Hill, the analysis considers the full length of any streetthat has transit service. In some cases, breaks between segments were redefined in later phasesof the evaluation.Step 2. Assess which corridors fall in high growth areas.Next, each corridor segment was ranked based on forecast growth in residential and employmentdensity by 2035. For each corridor segment, the average increase in employment (jobs persquare acre) and population (persons per square acre) was calculated for the land next to thecorridor segment. The resulting values were then ranked and grouped in to quartiles. The quartilescores for population and for employment growth were then added together, to give an overallgrowth score between 2 and 8.Step 3. Score each corridor segment based on the need for bicycle,pedestrian, and transit improvements.The project team developed a set of transportation performance measures, which were used torank the corridor segments and to identify high multimodal needs segments. These measureswere grouped by mode of transportation, and included measures related to need for bicycle,pedestrian, and transit improvements. While vehicle circulation need was not considered as astand-alone category, several measures were included related to vehicles, including vehiclevolume and vehicle delay.1For each mode of transportation, four performance measures were chosen. Each measure wasgiven a normalized “score” of 1-4, where a score of 4 represents the greatest need forimprovement and 1 represents the lowest need, compared with the other segments in the studyarea. The four normalized scores for each mode were then added together and normalized againby mode, and then added together to reach an overall multimodal need score. This techniquemakes it possible to equitably assess transportation need using a range of variables that are eachmeasured differently. The performance criteria are:  Transit Score: Transit Priority Category (based on TEP); Forecast PM transit volume; Forecast transit capacity constraint; Traffic delay.  Pedestrian Score: Pedestrian priority category (based on zoning); pedestrian injury collisions 2004 – 2008; forecast residential density; number of existing pedestrian facilities below city standards (including sidewalk width, closed crosswalks and multiple turn lanes, distance between crossings).  Bicycle Score: Bicycle Priority Category (based on SF Bike plan); Bicycle collisions 2004 – 2008; completeness of proposed bicycle facilities; Forecast PM vehicle volume.Step 4. Assess outliers that may represent special opportunities.Steps 1-3 prioritized streets that have significant needs across multiple measures. In Step 4, wegave special attention to those street segments that stand out because they have a particularlyurgent need in just one performance measure.1 Most of the quantitative data for this evaluation was drawn from the city’s travel demand model, SF CHAMP 4.1(ABAG projections 2009), which provided estimates of present vehicle and transit conditions, as well as forecasts for2035. Detailed analysis of vehicle travel in the South of Market area and on 16th Street was performed by the ENTRIPS study team through the South of Market Circulation Study. 2
  • 5. We noted street segments that stood out from the others based on high rates of pedestrian andbicycle collisions: in particular, the northern segment of Sixth Street has far more pedestriancollisions than any other segment in this analysis.We also noted street segments that had great need in the areas of transit service and transitcapacity. Several Muni routes in the study area are forecast to have ridership demands that farexceed the available vehicle capacity during the PM peak period, including the T-Third (both onthe surface in Mission Bay and in the Central Subway); the 47 Van Ness Mission (on the northernMission District segment of Mission Street); the 9 San Bruno (in the northern segment of PotreroAvenue); and the 22 Fillmore (in the Mission District segment of 16th Street). Of these, the 22Fillmore is of particular concern because of its role linking several neighborhoods wheresignificant growth is forecast.Step 5. Of the ‘high growth,’ ‘high need’, and ‘outlier’ corridor segments,identify candidates that best fit into the EN TRIPS proejct timeframe.Through steps 1-4, a group of street segments was identified as falling in high growth areas,having high needs for more than one mode of transportation, or have especially high needs in atleast one mode. Of these identified segments, some may present better opportunities than othersfor near-term corridor improvement projects through EN TRIPS. This section further narrowscandidate corridors by identifying segments that are either being studied elsewhere, haveimmediate needs that can be addressed outside of this study process or have major unknownsthat make studying them further not practical.Mission Street - Third Street to Fifth Street. The middle segment of Mission Street has a veryimportant overall circulation function, and important localized needs (particularly for pedestrians).It is a vital east-west transit corridor through the South of Market, as well as a busy pedestriancorridor with relatively long distances between crossings, multiple turn lanes at the intersection ofFourth Street, and high rates of pedestrian injury collisions between 2004 and 2008. Potentialimprovement projects could include investment in pedestrian facilities, as well as transit prioritytreatments. The Better Market Street plan will consider the function of Mission Street in the Southof Market circulation system, and its relationship to Market Street. Because of this plannedanalysis, a near-term design project on Mission Street is not advisable for the EN TRIPS projectdespite the identified needs and opportunities.Folsom Street - Third Street to Eleventh Street. Two segments of Folsom Street have beenidentified as having high multimodal needs: Folsom between Second and Fifth, and between Fifthand Eleventh. Both segments have substandard pedestrian facilities, such as long distancesbetween crossings and multiple turn lanes. Folsom also has relatively high pedestrian injurycollision rates between 2004 and 2008. Forecast growth suggests that overall pedestrian volumescould be expected to rise along the full length of Folsom Street. The Folsom and Howard Streetcouplet form the major east-west bicycle corridor through the South of Market, and the forecastincrease in vehicle volumes may challenge cyclists in this corridor. Folsom Street was alsoidentified as a high-need corridor in the Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plans and the WesternSOMA Community Plan. Folsom Street is a strong candidate for near term improvements, withpotential for upgraded pedestrian facilities, improved bicycle facilities, traffic calming and/or aroad diet, and potential vehicle circulation changes such as conversion to two-way operations.Townsend Street - Third Street to Fifth Street. Currently, Townsend Street has inadequatepedestrian infrastructure. The north side of the street does not have sidewalks, while thesidewalks on the south side of the street are very narrow and impeded by parked vehicles,especially the motorcycle parking area adjacent to the Caltrain station. While improvements to 3
  • 6. EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING STUDYCorridor Screening Methodology and RecommendationsTownsend Street are necessary, the corridor is receiving additional attention as part of projectsrelated to the implementation of high-speed rail and the upgrades planned for the site of thecurrent Caltrain station on the south side of Townsend west of Fourth. Any additionalimprovements to Townsend Street are contingent on final design of the high-speed rail station,which is not likely to be completed in the near term. Furthermore, improvements to Townsendcould be made as part of station construction. For these reasons, a design project for TownsendStreet may be premature as part of the EN TRIPS project.Second Street - Market Street to Bryant Street. While pedestrian conditions along SecondStreet are not as challenging as along some other SOMA streets, it is zoned commercial andsuffered from a relatively high pedestrian injury collision rate of 35 per mile between 2004 and2008. Second Street is also the primary bicycle route between the Financial District, Rincon Hilland South Beach. Bicycle lanes have been planned here, but deferred out of deference tocommunity concerns. Second Street also has extremely high forecast growth. While high growthmakes Second Street a high priority for investment, this corridor has numerous improvementsplanned as part of the Transbay Transit Center District plan, developed by the San FranciscoPlanning Department’s City Design group. Given the attention already invested, Second Street isprobably not a strong candidate for further near-term investment through the EN TRIPS project.Third and Fourth Street - Market Street to Bryant Street. Third and Fourth Streets, which forma one-way couplet in the eastern South of Market area, have inadequate pedestrian facilities,high rates of growth, and important roles for three modes of transportation (transit, pedestrians,and vehicles). Both streets are important pedestrian pathways between Market Street and theCaltrain station at Fourth and King Streets, and both have high pedestrian injury collision rates.Pedestrian facilities are inadequate, with narrow sidewalks, long crossings, and restrictedcrossings at several intersections. Third and Fourth Streets also work together as a crucial transitcorridor, with significant challenges. A major investment in transit service is already underway inthis corridor, in the form of the Muni Central Subway under Fourth Street. However, even with thisinvestment, the T-Third light rail service is forecast to be over-capacity by 2035. Currently, thespeed and reliability of 30 and 45 are poor, and forecast traffic congestion at on Third and FourthStreets could further degrade performance. Because of these challenges, both streets are strongcandidates for near term improvement. Fourth Street will very likely be the subject of a streetdesign effort by the San Francisco Planning Department in the near future, as part of a plannedrezoning associated with the construction of the Central Subway.Fifth Street - Market Street to Brannan Street. Fifth Street is a two-way arterial that servesmultiple roles in South of Market Street network. It is an important corridor for cyclists, connectingthe Union Square area to Caltrain and Mission Bay. Bike lanes are planned on Fifth, but have notyet been built. Between 2004 and 2008, the bicycle collision rate here was 39 per mile, amongthe highest in the evaluation. Fifth Street also has high pedestrian needs, with long crossingdistances, multiple turn lanes at Bryant, a restricted crosswalk at Harrison, and narrow sidewalks.Fifth Street north of Brannan is also an important transit street, with Muni’s route 27 planned tooperate in this segment. Fifth Street is a strong candidate for near-term improvement through theEN TRIPS project, particularly if the project wishes to provide a design template for a two-waySOMA arterial.Sixth Street - Market Street to Brannan Street. Sixth Street is another two-way arterial with ahigh need for improvements. While it carries large volumes of fast-moving traffic, particularlytraffic traveling between the Interstate 280 exit ramp and the north-of market street network, SixthStreet also has high residential density and serves large numbers of pedestrians. The greatestchallenge on Sixth Street is a pedestrian injury collision rate between 2004 and 2008 of 97 permile, by far the highest among any of the segments analyzed. Sixth Street also has one of the 4
  • 7. highest rates of bicycle collisions in the study area, despite not being a designated bicycle route.In addition to a high collision rate, Sixth Street suffers from long crossing distances, multiple turnlanes at two intersections, narrow sidewalks, high forecast traffic volume, and numerousintersections with alleys where mid-block crossings are not provided. Because of these factors,Sixth Street is a candidate for near-term. However, because the primary issue with Sixth Street isa single factor (a high rate of pedestrian injury collisions) that is not directly related to larger ENTRIPS system goals, such as addressing growth and connecting EN TRIPS neighborhoods, SixthStreet may be more suitable for a very short term focus by SFMTA on operational issues toaddress pedestrian collisions.Seventh and Eighth Streets - Market Street to Brannan Street. Seventh and Eighth Streetsform a one-way couplet running north and south through the Western South of Market. Thenorthern segment of both of these streets emerged as high priority in the corridor screeninganalysis, based primarily on high pedestrian and bicycle needs, and relatively high projectedrates of growth. Seventh and Eighth have inadequate pedestrian facilities, including narrowsidewalks and restricted crossings, and high rates of pedestrian collisions comparable to othernorth-south SOMA arterials. Forecast traffic conditions would degrade conditions for cyclists inthe bicycle lanes on Seventh and Eighth, which together make up a key north-south link forcyclists between Potrero Hill and the Civic Center area. The Western SOMA Community Planproposed that Seventh and Eighth Streets be improved. Both Seventh and Eighth Streets north ofthe freeway are strong candidates for near-term improvement through the EN TRIPS project,particularly if the project wishes to provide a design template one-way SOMA arterials.16th Street – Guerrero Street to Terry Francois Boulevard. Sixteenth Street is the only east-west arterial that extends all the way from the Mission District to the eastern waterfront. As such,it is a vital vehicle and transit connection for three of the Eastern Neighborhoods, and will becomeeven more important as Mission Bay and the waterfront develop. From a transportationoperations perspective, 16th Street is made up of four distinct segments: Guerrero to South VanNess Avenue; South Van Ness Avenue to Potrero Avenue; Potrero Avenue to 7th Street; and 7thStreet to Terry Francois Boulevard. Under the TEP, the 22 Fillmore will run the length of 16thStreet, providing the only major east-west connection through the Mission, Showplace Square,and Potrero Hill. In 2035, demand for ridership on the 22-Fillmore is forecast to exceed capacitybetween Guerrero and Arkansas. Significant traffic delay is also projected, particularly at PotreroAvenue and Third Streets. Significant growth is forecast for the 16th Street corridor and theneighborhoods that it links together. Ensuring transit priority for the 16th Street corridor should bea priority for the EN TRIPS project.Third Street – South of King Street. Third Street in Mission Bay and the Central Waterfrontreceived high scores in the transit category, because of very high projected demand for the T-Third service. In 2035 forecasts, it is projected that demand for the T-Third will far exceed vehiclecapacity in this segment. Current pedestrian and bicycle collision rates are very low on ThirdStreet, due to low densities and low volumes of trips. However, the segment north of 16th Streethas very high projected growth, due to employment and population growth forecast for MissionBay. Third Street is expected to see a very large increase in vehicle volumes and significantvehicle delays. However, a major investment has only recently been made in transit service in thecorridor (the T-Third Street Muni Metro line), and this investment will be leveraged withcompletion of the Central Subway project in a few years. For this reason, it may not be practicalfor the EN TRIPS project to invest significant design effort in transit improvements along ThirdStreet in the near term.Division Street. Division Street marks the boundary between the South of Market arterialnetwork and the Mission District, and it runs mostly underneath the Central Freeway segment of 5
  • 8. EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING STUDYCorridor Screening Methodology and RecommendationsUS 101. Division Street is an important east-west bicycle route, and bicycle lanes are planned.While high traffic volumes are not projected on Division, two intersections are projected to sufferfrom substantial vehicle delay in 2035: Bryant and Townsend/Eighth. Participants in the ENTRIPS community workshop noted that Division Street is poorly lit and feels unsafe forpedestrians and bicyclists. Previous City plans and studies have considered removing part of theoverhead Central Freeway and rebuilding Division itself, possibly as a multiway boulevard. Whilethis idea was studied and not implemented in the past, the elevated freeway will requireexpensive investment if it is to be maintained over the coming years. The SFCTA will consider thefuture of the Central Freeway as part of the upcoming Countywide Transportation Plan. As such,Division Street is not strong candidate for a near-term design project through the EN TRIPSproject.Mission Street - Eleventh Street to 16th Street. The Mission District segment of Mission Streetemerges as a high priority corridor from the screening analysis primarily because of high transitneeds. As compared to South of Market arterials, existing pedestrian facilities on Mission arestrong. Though not a designated bicycle corridor, Mission Street does carry a substantial volumeof bicycle traffic, and the high number of bicycle collisions reflects this function. Demand for travelon Muni’s 49 Mission-Van Ness is forecast to far exceed available capacity by 2035. EN TRIPScommunity meeting participants noted the need for additional express bus service on MissionStreet. Because of high transit demand and high volumes of traffic forecast, Mission Street is astrong candidate for transit priority treatments. However, the SFMTA’s Transit EffectivenessProject has taken responsibility for designing and implementing transit priority treatments for thissegment of Mission Street.Step 6. Assess capacity constraints and opportunities in the vehiclecirculation network.Building on Steps 1 – 5, in Step 6 we assessed the vehicle circulation network in the South ofMarket. This assessment identified street segments with potential “excess vehicular capacity,”based on a comparison of 2035 forecast vehicle volumes and roadway capacity. The analysisconsiders the relationship between volume (the peak hour vehicle demand in a particulardirection), and capacity (the number of vehicles that can be accommodated by a particularapproach or roadway based on a number of factors). Roadway capacity depends upon thenumber of travel lanes, signal timing, tow-away lanes, and others. This relationship is expressedas volume over capacity, or ‘V/C’. A V/C of less than 1.0 represents an approach that is belowcapacity, a V/C of 1.0 represents “at-capacity” operations, and a V/C greater than 1.0 represents“breakdown”, i.e. stop-and-go operations.The study team calculated V/C ratios for the forecast year (2035) for the majority of intersectionapproaches in the study area bounded by 3rd Street, Mission Street, 10th Street, and BryantStreet. The team also performed ‘screenline’ analysis to determine where excess vehiclecapacity may exist in the SOMA vehicle network as a whole in 2035. A screenline is apredetermined boundary that can be used to group several segments together for the purposes ofdetermining aggregate volume/capacity for several streets at once. 6
  • 9. The analysis found that all of the study roadways in the vicinity of Third and Fourth Streets areforecast to be either at or above capacity during the PM peak in 2035. Howard Street, FolsomStreet, and Bryant Street appear to have excess capacity west of Fifth Street. Additionally,intersections that included freeway on- or off-ramps generally appear to have higher v/c ratiosthan other intersections in the study area.For the north-south SOMA arterials, the western SOMA street network appears to have someavailable capacity in the northbound direction at Harrison Street and at the Mission Streetscreenline. In the southbound travel direction, the western SOMA street network is forecast to beabove capacity at Mission Street, but just under capacity at Harrison Street. In the eastern SOMAarea, the network is well above capacity in the southbound direction, but has capacity available inthe northbound direction. This pattern reflects PM peak period commute travel, with driverstraveling towards the freeway.For the east-west SOMA arterials, the network appears to have available capacity in bothdirections for screenlines in the western SOMA area. At the Third Street screenline, however,vehicle volumes are forecast to be well above capacity in the westbound direction.These findings suggest that changes could be made to streets in several parts of the SOMAstreet network without major disruption to vehicle circulation. It is important to note that whileforecasts of traffic conditions are one important factor in choosing transportation systeminvestments, a forecast that vehicle volumes may exceed available capacity in a particularsegment does not necessarily exclude that segment from consideration for a corridorimprovement project.RecommendationsThe next step for EN TRIPS will be to work with community stakeholders to design three near-term corridor improvement projects. The project will also investigate ways to mitigate recurringtransportation challenges in the study area through existing SFMTA projects and programs. Thissection discusses recommendations for next steps for each of these areas of work.Near-term corridor improvement projects. The consultant team recommends the followingcorridor segments for near-term design projects through the EN TRIPS projects:  Folsom Street between Fifth and Eleventh Streets. Working together in a one-way couplet with Howard Street, Folsom Street travels through the center of the western and eastern South of Market neighborhoods, connecting them to the Transbay District and downtown. Folsom Street is also projected to see substantial growth in residential and employment density as a result of recently completed land use planning efforts. Pedestrian facility deficiencies on Folsom include narrow sidewalks, long crossing distances, and long distances between crossings. Along with Howard Street, Folsom is a vital east-west link in the South of Market bicycle network in a part of the city that is expected to see substantial growth in vehicle traffic. As an important street for bicycles, Folsom is projected to have relatively high vehicle traffic volumes. It has also suffered in the past from relatively high rates of bicycle collisions. Finally, Folsom Street was identified as a high-need corridor in the Eastern Neighborhoods area plans, and improving Folsom was specified as a priority project by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. The Western SOMA Community plan identifies Folsom as a center of that community and key pedestrian and transit travel corridor, focusing on the western segment of Folsom between Fourth and Eleventh Streets. Through design work on Folsom Street, the EN TRIPS project will also produce principals and operating concepts that the SFMTA will apply in future projects to improve other SOMA east-west arterials. 7
  • 10. EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING STUDYCorridor Screening Methodology and Recommendations  Sixteenth Street between Potrero Avenue and Seventh Street. Because the 22 Fillmore service planned for 16th Street will be a vital transit link between several growing neighborhoods in the EN TRIPS study area, 16th Street will require transit priority treatments on all four of its major segments. As an important first step towards these improvements, 16th Street between Potrero Avenue and Seventh Streets is recommended for a near-term corridor segment improvement project. This segment has been prioritized above other segments of 16th because of expected residential growth, forecast vehicle congestion, transit capacity constraints, and community priority as expressed through the EN TRIPS community workshop. While land use densities in this section are currently low, due to rezoning as part of the Eastern Neighborhoods land use plan, as many as 3,000 new housing units could be built along this segment of 16th by 2035, leading to a substantial growth in residential density, as well as increasing vehicle and pedestrian travel demand. Through design work on this segment, the EN TRIPS project will also produce principles and operating concepts that the SFMTA will apply in future projects to develop transit priority treatments for the remaining segments of 16th Street.  Seventh and Eighth Streets - Market Street to Brannan Street. Seventh and Eighth Streets from Market to Brannan, which work together to form a one-way couplet through the western South of Market area, are recommended for near-term improvement. Because the dimensions for these two streets are so similar, EN TRIPS project resources will allow the project team to design improvements to both streets as part of a single design effort. Seventh Street travels north and south between its intersection with 16th Street through the South of Market and across Market Street, where it connects to the north of Market street grid. With this alignment, Seventh Street has unique role as a connecting street between several of the Eastern Neighborhoods for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. Seventh and Eighth also cut through the portion of the western South of Market where substantial new development is forecast as the result of recent zoning changes. Seventh and Eighth have narrow sidewalks and high rates of pedestrian collisions. Forecast traffic conditions would degrade conditions for cyclists in the bicycle lanes on Seventh and Eighth Streets, which together make up a key north-south link for cyclists between Potrero Hill and the Civic Center area. Finally, the Western SOMA Community Plan proposed that Seventh and Eighth Streets be improved, and the project could help to support ongoing revitalization efforts for the mid-Market area. Through design work on these segments, the EN TRIPS project will also produce principals and operating concepts that the SFMTA will apply in future projects to improve other SOMA north-south arterials.Recurring Transportation Challenges. In addition to three near-term corridor improvementprojects recommended above, the study team will collaborate with SFMTA to preparerecommendations for solutions to transportation challenges that recur throughout the study area.These challenges, which were catalogued through the EN TRIPS existing conditions work, will beorganized by challenge type, mapped, and evaluated to provide guidance on how they can beaddressed through on-going SFMTA transportation improvement programs. This guidance willbe illustrated and included in the EN TRIPS Final Report. Many of these types of challenges willbe addressed through existing programs at SFMTA – for these challenges, EN TRIPS work willdesignate departments at SFMTA and other city agencies that will be responsible for addressingthese issues in the Eastern Neighborhoods, and will recommend next steps. Potentialimplementing parties may include SFMTA service planning and TEP implementation staff,SFMTA traffic calming programs, and others. 8
  • 11. Next Steps. Next steps for the EN TRIPS project will be as follows: 1. Select final project corridors. (May 2011) 2. Develop design and circulation concepts. (June 2011) 3. Model circulation impacts. (August 2011) 4. Refine design concepts. (September 2011) 5. Assess recurring transportation challenges. (October 2011) 6. Create Funding and Implementation Strategy. (November 2011) 7. Prepare EN TRIPS Report. (December 2011) 9
  • 12. IntroductionThe Eastern Neighborhoods Transportation Implementation Planning Study (EN TRIPS) isidentifying and developing transportation infrastructure improvements to serve the needs of SanFrancisco’s Eastern Neighborhoods, as envisioned by the Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plans.The study area of EN TRIPS includes not only the Eastern Neighborhoods themselves (theMission District, Eastern South of Market, Potrero Hill/Showplace Square, and the CentralWaterfront), but also surrounding planning districts (Mission Bay, the Transbay District, andWestern South of Market) that share key transportation corridors with the EasternNeighborhoods.The first work product for the EN TRIPS study, the Existing Conditions report, assembled data oncurrent travel patterns and known transportation system deficiencies in the study area. Thesecond work product, the Future Conditions report, examined projections of land use change,travel patterns, and transportation system capacity for a 2035 horizon year, including the growthin the area anticipated by the Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plans. There were a number ofconsistent themes in different parts of the study area:  As the result of land use regulation changes and overall regional growth, very large increases in population, employment, and total travel demand are projected for the Eastern Neighborhoods study area by 2035. The South of Market area will see the majority of population growth, but several areas of growth are projected in the rest of the study area, including Mission Bay, the Central Waterfront, and Showplace Square.  Both the physical constraints of the study area and the City’s Transit First Policy preclude major expansions of roadway capacity as a strategy for dealing with projected vehicle volumes and congestion.  As a result of the projected growth, there will be competing demands for space on South of Market streets. Areas with lower projected growth may also require pedestrian and public realm improvements.  In addition to strategies for managing or reducing vehicle congestion, maintaining and improving quality of life in the parts of the Eastern Neighborhoods that are poised for substantial growth will require the city to maintain and expand alternatives to travel by private vehicle. Investments could include: transit priority street treatments; new bicycle facilities; and further development of safe and comfortable pedestrian spaces.To ensure that EN TRIPS resources are focused on places that would benefit most, the currentphase of the study has screened and prioritized transportation needs in the large study area bystreet segment. Using this data and input from the public, the study team has chosen a smallnumber of transportation street segments to recommend for near-term improvement projects.The aim of these projects is that they will not only address a specific transportation issue, but willalso work to develop a solution for problems that occur widely throughout the study area. Inaddition, the project will investigate ways to mitigate recurring transportation challenges in thestudy area through existing SFMTA projects and programs.This report explains the method that the EN TRIPS team used to rank and prioritize streetsegments, and recommends projects that should be carried through for design andimplementation. These recommendations will be reviewed by the Eastern NeighborhoodsCitizens Advisory Committee before the SFMTA makes a final determination of priority corridorsegments for improvement. The method is summarized below. 10
  • 13. MethodologyTo determine which street segments in the study area should be the focus of near-term corridorimprovement projects, each eligible major transportation corridor in the study area was screenedbased on the following procedure: 1. Divide the major transportation corridors in the study area segments with consistent function and character. 2. Assess which corridor segments fall in high growth areas. 3. Score each segment based on need for bicycle, pedestrian, and transit improvements. 4. Assess outliers that may represent special challenges and opportunities. 5. Of the ‘high growth,’ ‘high need’, and ‘outlier’ corridor segments, identify opportunities for a near-term corridor improvement projects. 6. Assess capacity constraints and opportunities in the vehicle circulation network.These steps are outlined in more detail below.Step 1. Divide the major transportation corridors in the study area intofunctional segments.The study considered for near-term corridor improvement projects only those streets that are partof one of the city’s modal transportation networks as designated through existing City policy.These networks are as follows, and are illustrated in Figure 1:  Vehicular Network (San Francisco General Plan)  Truck Routes (SFMTA recommended Truck Routes)  Bicycle Network (San Francisco Bicycle Plan)  Transit Priority Streets (SFMTA Transit Effectiveness Project)For the initial assessment of corridor needs by mode, the streets that belong to one or more ofthese networks were then divided into segments that have a cohesive character and function. Todivide segments, the study team considered:  Modal priorities: for example, some segments of a particular street have transit service, while others do not.  Directionality: where street segments change directionality (for example, shift from one- way to two-way operations), the character of the street changes.  Consistency: We have tried to break street segments for adjacent and parallel streets at roughly the same point in order to maintain consistency across segments.The outcome of this balance of priorities is as follows: In the South of Market area, most of theeast-west streets (Mission through Brannan) have been divided into three parts: aTransbay/Financial District segment from the Embarcadero to either Second or Third street,where the streets have mostly two-way operations; a short mid-Market segment where the streetsshift to one-way operations (roughly between Third and Fifth streets); and a longer WesternSouth of Market segment, stretching roughly from Fifth Street to Division Street. King Street,which is much shorter, has been assessed as a single segment. Outside of the South of Marketarea, most of the North-South streets are divided at 16th Street. Most of the east-west streetshave been divided at Potrero Avenue. In Potrero Hill, the analysis considers the full length of any 11
  • 14. EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING STUDYCorridor Screening Methodology and Recommendationsstreet that has transit service. Based on these designations, the major circulation corridorsegments used in the initial needs analysis are listed in Figures 2 and 3.Once the initial needs and growth analyses were completed (Steps 2 and 3), the extents ofseveral corridors segments were further refined in Steps 4 and 5 to respond to specific needs andopportunities. The refined project extents, along with the reasons for refinement, are discussed inmore detail in the descriptions of Steps 4 and 5 below. 12
  • 15. Figure 1 Eastern Neighborhood Modal NetworksCombined Networks vs. Land Use Change e Eastern Neighborhoods Transit Network Pacific Av Broadway Rapid Network/Transit Priority Streets Drumm Projected Increase in Density (2005 - 2035) St Jackson rum St TEP n St Washingto Growth in Population per Acre > 40 Davis St Other Streets with Transit Service Front St Growth in Jobs per Acre > 40 2009 SFMTA Bicycle Route Network Clay St Battery St St St to St Growth in Population per Acre & Jobs per Acre > 40 tter te t Mon Montgom Sacramen Sa Sansome Bicycle Lane or Path ua Sp r rt Source: ABAG Projections 2009 ea Bicycle Route a St Californi S St ar Ma St Lark Larkin St Hyd Hyde St Be SF Bicycle Plan Near-Term Projects in n ea ery St Pine St St St Polk Polk St S St Franklin Fr l le y Gough St em Ke Kearny St St t BART Station Bush St on klin gh tS 1s Grant Av st St Caltrain Station Sutter St St S St Stockton ockt St Post St Ave Caltrain Tracks 2 2n Geary St d d Powell St S St EN TRIPS Study Area St wel n io iss Major Arterial M Mason St St Secondary Arterial Ofarrell M Ta Taylor St Ellis St Transit Conflict Street 4t 4 Leavenw 3r 3 hh d d St S St S Eddy St Jones St St St worth St on ne Turk St 5t 5 et is or h rk rr St Ma Ha St ant ate Ave ry 6 6t Golden G B St h h St an S St St d Mcallister ar an n w Br St Fu lton St Ho St nd m e lso ns Grove St Fo To w St 7 7t Hayes St g h h Laguna St n Ki S St St Fell St n io ss 8t Mi t Oak St h St St t Page St 9t h St St t ry 10 r th Be h S St 11 th h 12 S St th St St n g Duboce Ave Division St Ki St el 3rd St 3rd St n 14th St an Ch O Ow Utah St en n sS 15th St h St t t 16th St 16th St 17th St Ave 17th St Treat Mariposa St 18th St Hampshire St Bryant St Brya 18th St Alabama St Valencia Valencia St Guerrero St Illinois St Dolores St Indiana St Indi Texas St Minnesota St Tennessee St San Bruno Ave Vermon Vermont St Mississip Mississippi St Pennsylvania Ave Missou Missouri St pshire Connecticut St 3rd St 3rd St S Van Ness Ave S Van Folsom Ave nessee Shotwell St 19th St s St St St Ave 20th St t St Carolina St De Haro St Arkansas St Wisconsin St Kansas St Rho Rhode Island St Potrero Ave Potr York St Florida Florida St Harrison St olina 22nd St 21st St as St Bartlett St Fair Oaks St Mission St Treat Ave Treat Cap Capp St 22nd St 23rd St San Jose Ave t St s St 23rd St Texas St 24th St San Bru San Bruno Ave Utah St s St 24th St 25th St 25th St 26th St 26th St 26th St Cesar Chavez St 0 0.25 0.5 Miles 27th St Precita Ave Source: San Francisco City & County GIS 13
  • 16. EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING STUDYCorridor Screening Methodology and RecommendationsFigure 2 South of Market Area Corridor Segments Corridor Segment SOMA East-West Emb - Third Mission Third-Fifth Fifth - Eleventh Emb - Third Howard Third-Fifth Fifth - Division Emb - Second Folsom Second-Fifth Fifth - Eleventh Emb - Second Harrison Second-Seventh Seventh - Division Emb - Second Bryant Second-Seventh Seventh - Division Emb - Second Brannan Second-Fifth Fifth - Division Emb - Third Townsend Third-Fifth Fifth - Eighth King Emb - Fourth North-South Second N of Bryant S of Bryant Third N of Bryant S of Bryant Fourth N of Bryant S of Bryant Fifth N of Brann S of Brann Sixth N of Brann S of Brann Seventh N of Bryant S of Bryant Eighth N of Bryant S of Bryant Ninth All Tenth All Eleventh All 14
  • 17. Figure 3 Mission, Potrero Hill/Showplace Square, and Central Waterfront Corridor Segments Corridor Segment Outside of SOMA East-West 16th West of Potrero East of Potrero 17th West of Potrero East of Potrero 24th All 26th All Cesar Chavez West of Potrero East of Potrero Division All 18th San Bruno to Third North-South Third King - 16th S of 16th Fourth King - 16th S of 16th Illinois N of Mariposa S of Marioposa Guerrero N of 16th S of 16th Valencia N of 16th S of 16th Mission N of 16th S of 16th S Van Ness N of 16th S of 16th Folsom N of 16th S of 16th Harrison N of 16th S of 16th Potrero N of 16th S of 16th Connecticut All Wisconsin All De Haro 16th to 23rd Rhode Island 16th to 25thStep 2. Assess which corridors are located in high growth areas.An important purpose of EN TRIPS is to make transportation investments that address the needsresulting from projected growth in the study area as permitted under the recently adopted landuse plans. To address this study goal, each corridor segment was ranked based on forecastgrowth in residential and employment density by 2035.2 For each corridor segment, the mean2 Employment and residential densities are given for the base year 2005 and for the future year 2035 in the SF CHAMPtravel demand model based on the ABAG 2009 projections. For this analysis, base year densities for each variable aresubtracted from the 2035 projected density in each Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ). Growth forecasts in the 16th thand 17 Street corridors were updated at San Francisco Planning Department direction to reflect know pipelinedevelopment projects. 15
  • 18. EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING STUDYCorridor Screening Methodology and Recommendationsincrease in employment (jobs per square acre) and population (persons per square acre) wascalculated for the areas adjacent to the corridor segment. The resulting values were then rankedand grouped by quartiles. The quartile scores for population and for employment growth werethen added together, to give an overall growth score between 2 and 8.Figure 7 shows those segments in the South of Market area that had a growth score of at leastsix out of eight. This ranking shows that forecast growth in employment and population iswidespread in the South of Market area. While the greatest increases in residential density willoccur in the Transbay Terminal area, there will also be substantial growth in the western South ofMarket and around the Caltrain Station. This widespread growth suggests the need for acomprehensive approach to upgrading the area.Figure 4 High Growth Corridor Segments – South of Market Area Growth in Growth in Residential Employme Growth Corridor Segment Density nt Density Sum SOMA East-West Emb – Third 3 4 7 Third-Fifth 3 4 7 Mission Fifth - Eleventh 4 4 8 Emb - Third 4 4 8 Third-Fifth 3 4 7 Howard Fifth - Division 3 3 6 Emb - Second 4 4 8 Folsom Second-Fifth 3 4 7 Harrison Emb - Second 4 3 7 Emb - Second 3 3 6 Bryant Second-Seventh 3 3 6 Brannan Second-Fifth 4 3 7 Emb - Third 3 3 6 Townsend Third-Fifth 4 3 7 King Emb - Fourth 4 2 6 North-South Second N of Bryant 4 4 8 Third N of Bryant 4 4 8 S of Bryant 2 4 6 Fourth N of Bryant 3 3 6 S of Bryant 4 3 7 Fifth S of Brann 4 2 6 Sixth N of Brann 3 3 6 S of Brann 4 2 6 Eighth N of Bryant 4 2 6 Eleventh All 3 3 6Figure 8 lists high-growth segments outside of the South of Market area. Third Street and FourthStreets make up a particularly high growth corridor, with significant population increases expectedin the Central Waterfront area, as well as substantial population and employment growthexpected through the redevelopment of Mission Bay. 16
  • 19. The 16th Street corridor east of Potrero Street will also see significant growth. Substantial newresidential density is expected at the Potrero Center site at the corner of 16th and Potrero, as wellas new residential density between 16th and 17th in Potrero Hill, as much of this corridor nowpermits residential buildings of 4-6 floors. Significant new employment density is also forecast inShowplace Square. Finally, the growth expected through redevelopment of Mission Bay hasmajor implications for 16th Street, as 16th is the only east-west arterial linking directly to MissionBay.Figure 5 High Growth Corridor Segments - Mission, Potrero Hill/Showplace Square, and Central Waterfront Growth in Growth in Residential Employment Growth Corridor Segment Density Density Sum Outside of SOMA East-West 16th East of Potrero 2 4 7 North-South Third King - 16th 4 4 8 Fourth King - 16th 4 4 8 S of 16th 2 4 6Growth scores for all segments are provided in Figures 9 and 10. 17
  • 20. EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING STUDYCorridor Screening Methodology and RecommendationsFigure 6 Growth Score by Eastern Neighborhoods Corridor Segment – South of Market Growth in Growth in Residential Employme Growth Corridor Segment Density nt Density Sum SOMA East-West Emb - Third 3 4 7 Third-Fifth 3 4 7 Mission Fifth - Eleventh 4 4 8 Emb - Third 4 4 8 Third-Fifth 3 4 7 Howard Fifth - Division 3 3 6 Emb - Second 4 4 8 Second-Fifth 3 4 7 Folsom Fifth - Eleventh 3 2 5 Emb - Second 4 3 7 Second-Seventh 3 2 5 Harrison Seventh - Division 4 1 5 Emb - Second 3 3 6 Second-Seventh 3 3 6 Bryant Seventh - Division 2 1 3 Emb - Second 1 3 4 Second-Fifth 4 3 7 Brannan Fifth - Division 3 2 5 Emb - Third 3 3 6 Third-Fifth 4 3 7 Townsend Fifth - Eighth 3 2 5 King Emb - Fourth 4 2 6 North-South Second N of Bryant 4 4 8 S of Bryant 2 3 5 Third N of Bryant 4 4 8 S of Bryant 2 4 6 Fourth N of Bryant 3 3 6 S of Bryant 4 3 7 Fifth N of Brann 2 3 5 S of Brann 4 2 6 Sixth N of Brann 3 3 6 S of Brann 4 2 6 Seventh N of Bryant 3 2 5 S of Bryant 3 1 4 Eighth N of Bryant 4 2 6 S of Bryant 2 2 4 Ninth All 1 2 3 Tenth All 3 2 5 Eleventh All 3 3 6 18
  • 21. Figure 7 Growth Score by Eastern Neighborhoods Corridor Segment – Mission, Potrero Hill/Showplace Square, and Central Waterfront Growth in Growth in Residential Employment Growth Corridor Segment Density Density Sum Outside of SOMA East-West 16th West of Potrero 2 2 4 East of Potrero 2 4 7 17th West of Potrero 1 2 3 East of Potrero 1 3 4 24th All 1 2 3 26th All 1 2 3 Cesar Chavez West of Potrero 1 1 2 East of Potrero 2 1 3 Division All 2 2 4 San Bruno to 18th Third 1 3 4 North-South Third King - 16th 4 4 8 S of 16th 1 4 5 Fourth King - 16th 4 4 8 S of 16th 2 4 6 Illinois N of Mariposa 1 4 5 S of Mariposa 1 4 5 Guerrero N of 16th 2 1 3 S of 16th 1 1 2 Valencia N of 16th 2 1 3 S of 16th 2 1 3 Mission N of 16th 2 1 3 S of 16th 2 1 3 S Van Ness N of 16th 2 1 3 S of 16th 2 1 3 Folsom N of 16th 1 1 2 S of 16th 1 1 2 Harrison N of 16th 1 1 2 S of 16th 1 1 2 Potrero N of 16th 1 1 2 S of 16th 1 1 2 Connecticut All 1 2 3 Wisconsin All 2 2 4 De Haro 16th to 23rd 2 2 4 Rhode Island 16th to 25th 2 2 4 19
  • 22. EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING STUDYCorridor Screening Methodology and RecommendationsStep 3. Rate each corridor segment based on need for bicycle,pedestrian, and transit improvements.To allow for consistent screening of segments, the project team developed a set of transportationperformance measures, which were used to rank the corridor segments and to identify highpriority segments. These measures were grouped by mode of transportation, and included criteriarelated to need for bicycle, pedestrian, and transit improvements. While vehicle circulation needwas not considered as a stand-alone category, several measures were included related tovehicles, including vehicle volume and vehicle delay.Most of the quantitative data for this evaluation was drawn from the city’s travel demand model,SF CHAMP 4.1 (ABAG projections 2009), which provided estimates of present vehicle and transitconditions, as well as forecasts for 2035. Detailed analysis of vehicle travel in the South of Marketarea and on 16th Street was performed by the EN TRIPS study team through the South of MarketCirculation Study.For each mode of transportation, four performance measures were chosen. Each measure wasgiven a normalized “score” of 1-4, where a score of 4 represents the greatest need forimprovement and 1 represents the lowest need, compared with the other segments in the studyarea. The four normalized scores for each mode were then added together and normalized againby mode, and then added together to reach an overall multimodal need score. This techniquemakes it possible to equitably assess transportation need using a range of variables that are eachmeasured differently. The performance criteria are:Transit Score  Transit Priority Category – Highest Priority. Highest Priority transit streets are those that have been designated as part of the TEP Rapid network. These segments were assigned a score of 4. – High Priority. High Priority Transit streets are those that are served by transit but not designated as part of the TEP rapid network. These segments were assigned a score of 2. – Moderate priority. These segments are not served by transit. They were assigned a score of 1.  Projected PM transit volume: In this category, segments are ranked based on their projected PM period transit volume in 2035 as forecast using the SF CHAMP model. Segments are given a score from 1-4 based on the quartile they fall into in this rating.  Projected transit capacity constraint: In this category, segments are ranked based on the maximum transit load during the PM period in 2035 as forecast by the SF CHAMP model. The maximum load is the share of transit vehicle capacity utilized on the busiest line. In some cases, the projected transit demand exceeds the available vehicle capacity. Segments are given a score from 1-4 based on the quartile they fall into in this rating.  Traffic delay: Traffic delay can also delay transit vehicles. In this category, segments are ranked based on forecast traffic delay in 2035, based on the average approach delay for all intersections in the segment.3 Traffic delay data is only available for those segments that were part of the South of Market circulation study – these segments were given a3 The SOMA circulation study was completed for this study by Fehr and Peers using SF CHAMP model outputsupdated using current traffic counts for designated intersections. More information on this analysis is available in theEN TRIPS Existing and Future Conditions Reports. 20
  • 23. score from 1-4 based on the quartile they fall into in this rating. Segments outside the study area were given a placeholder score of 1.Pedestrian Score  Pedestrian Priority Category – Highest Priority. Highest Priority pedestrian streets are those that have neighborhood commercial zoning, downtown commercial zoning, or are important paths to rail transit stations.4 These segments were assigned a score of 4. – High Priority. High Priority pedestrian streets are those that have residential zoning but do not meet the criteria listed above for highest priority. These segments were assigned a score of 2. – Moderate Priority. Segments that do not meet the criteria for Highest or High Priority are assigned a score of 1.  Pedestrian injury collisions 2004 – 2008. In this category, segments are ranked based on the number of pedestrian injury collisions that occurred at or near intersections along the segment between 2004 and 2008, divided by the length of the segment in miles, to arrive at a number of collisions per mile. The data source is the San Francisco Department of Public Health’s pedestrian collision data set. Segments are given a score from 1-4 based on the quartile they fall into in this rating.  Projected residential density of adjacent areas. Areas with high residential densities are likely to have high pedestrian volumes. In this category, segments are ranked according to the average of the 2035 residential densities of the adjacent transportation analysis zones. The data source is ABAG Projections 2009.  Existing pedestrian facilities below standard. This category represents a count of deficient pedestrian facilities in the segment. Segments that include none of these deficiencies were given a score of 1. The presence of any of these conditions anywhere on the segment raised the score by 1, with a maximum score of 4. Pedestrian facilities observed include the following: – Sidewalk width. The Better Streets Plan and the Downtown Plan designate a minimum sidewalk width for each of several types of streets. When the sidewalk width on a segment does not meet this standard, this is noted as a deficiency. – Closed crosswalks and multiple turn lanes. Crosswalks should be marked and useable by pedestrians in all legs of an intersection. When all legs of an intersection do not have open, marked crosswalks, this condition is noted as a deficiency. Multiple vehicle turn lanes can present a challenge to the safety and comfort of pedestrians. When multiple turn lanes are present in any intersection along the segment, this condition is noted as a deficiency. – Block length. The Better Streets Plan sets a standard of 500 feet between street crossings for pedestrians. Blocks longer than this that lack mid-block crossings can present a challenge to safe and comfortable pedestrian travel. If a segment has blocks longer than 500 feet without crossings, this condition is noted as a deficiency.4 Streets segments marked as important paths to rail transit include: Market Street; Third Street; Fourth Street inSOMA; Townsend Street; Eighth Street North of Folsom; Second Street North of Folsom; 16th, 24th, and MissionStreet in the Mission District, and 22nd Street. 21
  • 24. EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING STUDYCorridor Screening Methodology and RecommendationsBicycle Score  Bicycle Priority Category – Highest Priority. Highest Priority bicycle streets are those that have or will have bicycle lanes or paths as specified in the San Francisco Bicycle Plan. These segments were assigned a score of 4. – High Priority. High Priority bicycle streets are those that are designated as bicycle routes in the San Francisco Bicycle Plan. These segments were assigned a score of 2. – Moderate Priority. High Priority bicycle streets are those that are not specified as bicycle lanes or routes in the San Francisco Bicycle Plan. These segments were assigned a score of 1.  Bicycle collisions 2004 – 2008: In this category, segments are ranked based on the number of reported bicycle collisions that occurred along the segment between 2004 and 2008, divided by the length of the segment in miles, to arrive at a number of collisions per mile. The data source is the SFMTA’s bicycle collisions dataset. Segments are given a score from 1-4 based on the quartile they fall into in this rating.  Completeness of bicycle facilities. Some corridor segments have been designated for a bicycle path or route in the San Francisco Bicycle Plan, but the specified improvements have not yet been implemented. These corridors are high priority for improvement. If a segment is planned for a bike path that has not yet been completed, it is assigned a score of 4 in this category. If a segment is planned for a bike route that has not yet been marked, it is assigned a score of 2 in this category. All other segments are assigned a score of 1.  Projected PM vehicle volume: High vehicles volumes can present an obstacle for cyclists both in terms of the risk of collisions, and the perception of safety. In this category, segments are ranked based on the projected PM period vehicle volumes 2035. For segments in the South of Market circulation study area, the vehicle volumes are based upon current counts and analysis using Synchro software. For all other segments, values are based on the projected volume at the midpoint of the segment from the SF CHAMP travel demand model. Segments are given a score from 1-4 based on the quartile they fall into in this rating.High Priority SegmentsUsing the evaluation method described above, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle need scores wereassigned for each corridor segment. The scores are summarized in Figure 4. For this analysis,segments with scores multimodal scores in the top quartile were considered “high need.”This ranking of multimodal needs was assessed alongside other important considerationsdiscussed elsewhere in this analysis, such as expected growth in residential and employmentdensity, and opportunities related to other ongoing plans and projects. 22
  • 25. Figure 8 Modal Need Score for Eastern Neighborhoods ‘High Multimodal Need’ Segments Bike, Ped Transit Transit Corridor Segment Ped Sum Bike Sum Sum Sum SOMA East-West Mission Third-Fifth 12 8 15 35 Second-Fifth 14 11 8 33 Folsom Fifth - Eleventh 15 11 6 32 Third-Fifth 13 11 10 34 Townsend Fifth - Eighth 9 12 11 32 North-South Second N of Bryant 13 14 6 33 Third N of Bryant 14 9 13 36 Fourth N of Bryant 15 8 10 33 Fifth N of Brann 13 16 7 36 Sixth N of Brann 15 10 7 32 Seventh N of Bryant 14 10 12 36 Eighth N of Bryant 12 12 8 32 Outside of SOMA East-West 16th West of Potrero 12 10 13 35 Division All 6 15 11 32 North-South Mission N of 16th 13 10 13 36 S of 16th 13 6 13 32There are widespread needs in the South of Market area. Among the east-west arterials, themiddle segment of Mission Street stands out with high needs for pedestrians and transit riders.The full length of Folsom Street has high needs both for pedestrians and cyclists. Townsend,which is currently an unaccepted street, lacks adequate facilities and has high needs forpedestrians, cyclists, and transit. Nearly all of the north-south SOMA arterials have significantmultimodal needs north of the freeway. Most of these streets have narrow sidewalks and limitedamenities for pedestrians, as well as high volumes of fast-moving traffic. Second and FifthStreets are designated bicycle routes, but lanes have not yet been striped. Transit needs standout on Seventh and Third Streets.The range of needs on a large number of South of Market arterials, combined with widespreadgrowth in population and employment density in this area, suggest the need for a comprehensiveapproach to upgrading multimodal facilities in this area. EN TRIPS will respond by recommendingimprovements to a representative east-west corridor and a representative north-south corridor inSOMA as a first step toward comprehensive upgrades for the SOMA as a whole.Outside of the South of Market, Division Street stands out with high needs for cyclists andpedestrians. Mission Street in the Mission District has high needs for both for transit andpedestrians. Finally, Sixteenth Street has significant needs across all modes. While the segmentof 16th Street west of Potrero Avenue segment scores highly in this analysis due to existing highvolumes of pedestrian activity, the entire corridor has needs for vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycletravel. More detail on the specific modal needs of each ‘high need’ segment is provided in theStep 4 section of this memo. The scores for all segments are summarized in Figures 5 and 6below. 23
  • 26. Figure 9 Modal Need Score by Eastern Neighborhoods Corridor Segment – South of Market PM Peak Ped Ped Transit Injury 2035 facilities Proposed Transit Capacity Ped Collision Residential below Ped Bike Bike Facility Vehicle Priority Transit Constrained Traffic Transit Bike, Ped Transit Overall Ped-Bike- Corridor Segment Priority s Density standard Sum Priority Collisions Incomplete volume Bike Sum Category Volume (2035) Delay Sum Sum Transit Quartile SOMA East-West Emb - Third 4 3 2 1 10 1 3 4 2 10 4 3 2 1 10 30 3 Third-Fifth 4 4 1 3 12 1 3 1 3 8 4 4 3 4 15 35 4 Mission Fifth - Eleventh 4 1 4 2 11 1 2 1 3 7 4 4 2 2 12 30 3 Emb - Third 4 4 4 2 14 4 1 1 2 8 1 1 1 1 4 26 2 Third-Fifth 4 4 2 3 13 4 4 1 4 13 1 1 1 1 4 30 3 Howard Fifth - Division 1 1 4 3 9 4 3 1 3 11 1 1 1 1 4 24 2 Emb - Second 4 4 4 1 13 4 2 1 2 9 2 1 1 1 5 27 3 Second-Fifth 4 3 4 3 14 4 2 1 4 11 2 1 1 4 8 33 4 Folsom Fifth - Eleventh 4 4 3 4 15 4 3 1 3 11 2 2 1 1 6 32 4 Emb - Second 1 3 4 2 10 1 1 1 3 6 1 1 1 1 4 20 1 Second-Seventh 1 3 3 4 11 1 3 1 3 8 1 3 1 1 6 25 2 Harrison Seventh - Division 1 3 3 4 11 1 1 1 3 6 1 1 1 1 4 21 1 Emb - Second 2 2 3 1 8 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 17 1 Second-Seventh 1 3 2 4 10 1 1 1 3 6 2 2 1 4 9 25 2 Bryant Seventh - Division 1 2 1 4 8 1 2 1 3 7 1 1 1 2 5 20 1 Emb - Second 2 2 3 2 9 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 18 1 Second-Fifth 1 3 3 3 10 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 4 19 1 Brannan Fifth - Division 1 1 1 4 7 1 3 1 2 7 1 1 1 1 4 18 1 Emb - Third 4 2 2 3 11 4 2 4 2 12 2 3 2 1 8 31 3 Third-Fifth 4 2 4 3 13 4 1 4 2 11 4 3 2 1 10 34 4 Townsend Fifth - Eighth 4 1 1 3 9 4 3 4 1 12 4 3 3 1 11 32 4 King Emb - Fourth 4 1 3 2 10 4 2 1 4 11 2 1 1 1 5 26 2 North-South 0 Second N of Bryant 4 4 3 2 13 4 4 4 2 14 2 2 1 1 6 33 4 S of Bryant 1 3 2 2 8 4 2 4 2 12 2 2 2 1 7 27 3 Third N of Bryant 4 4 3 3 14 1 3 1 4 9 4 3 3 3 13 36 4 S of Bryant 4 3 2 4 13 1 3 1 4 9 4 2 2 1 9 31 3 Fourth N of Bryant 4 4 3 4 15 1 3 1 3 8 4 3 1 2 10 33 4 S of Bryant 4 2 4 4 14 1 3 1 3 8 4 2 1 1 8 30 3 Fifth N of Brann 4 4 2 3 13 4 4 4 4 16 4 1 1 1 7 36 4 S of Brann 1 3 4 3 11 4 2 4 2 12 1 1 1 1 4 27 3 Sixth N of Brann 4 4 3 4 15 1 4 1 4 10 4 1 1 1 7 32 4 S of Brann 1 2 2 4 9 1 3 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 4 19 1 Seventh N of Bryant 2 4 4 4 14 4 2 1 3 10 4 2 3 3 12 36 4 S of Bryant 1 3 2 3 9 4 4 1 3 12 2 2 2 1 7 28 3 Eighth N of Bryant 1 3 4 4 12 4 4 1 3 12 4 2 1 1 8 32 4 S of Bryant 1 1 1 3 6 4 4 1 2 11 1 2 1 1 5 22 2 Ninth All 1 4 1 4 10 1 2 1 4 8 1 1 1 3 6 24 2 Tenth All 1 2 2 4 9 4 3 1 4 12 1 1 1 1 4 25 2 Eleventh All 1 2 2 3 8 4 4 1 2 11 4 4 3 1 12 31 3 25
  • 27. EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING STUDYCorridor Screening Methodology and RecommendationsFigure 10 Modal Need Score by Eastern Neighborhoods Corridor Segment – Mission, Potrero Hill/Showplace Square, and Central Waterfront PM Peak Ped Transit 2035 facilities 5 Year Proposed Transit Transit Capacity Ped Ped Injury Residentia below Bike Bike Facility Vehicle Priority Volume Constrained Traffic Transit Overall Ped-Bike- Corridor Segment Priority Collisions l Density standard Ped Sum Priority Collisions Incomplete volume Bike Sum Category Ratio (2035) Delay Sum Total Transit QuartileOutside of SOMAEast-West16th West of Potrero 4 4 2 2 12 4 4 1 1 10 4 4 4 1 13 35 4 East of Potrero 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 4 1 7 4 3 4 3 14 26 217th West of Potrero 4 4 2 2 12 1 3 4 1 9 1 1 3 1 6 27 3 East of Potrero 1 1 1 2 5 4 1 1 4 10 2 1 1 1 5 20 124th All 4 3 3 1 11 1 3 1 3 8 2 3 4 1 10 29 326th All 2 2 3 1 8 1 1 4 4 10 1 1 1 1 4 22 2Cesar Chavez West of Potrero 2 3 3 2 10 4 2 4 1 11 1 1 1 1 4 25 2 East of Potrero 1 1 1 2 5 4 1 4 4 13 1 1 1 1 4 22 2Division All 1 2 1 2 6 4 3 4 4 15 4 3 3 1 11 32 418th San Bruno to Third 2 1 1 1 5 1 1 4 1 7 2 1 1 1 5 17 1North-SouthThird King - 16th 4 1 2 2 9 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 16 29 3 S of 16th 4 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 3 4 15 26 2Fourth King - 16th 4 1 2 1 8 4 1 4 1 10 1 1 1 1 4 22 2 S of 16th 4 1 1 2 8 1 1 1 4 7 1 1 1 1 4 19 1Illinois N of Mariposa 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 4 2 11 1 1 1 1 4 19 1 S of Mariposa 4 1 1 2 8 4 1 4 1 10 1 1 1 1 4 22 2Guerrero N of 16th 2 3 4 2 11 1 4 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 4 22 2 S of 16th 2 2 3 3 10 1 2 1 2 6 1 1 1 1 4 20 1Valencia N of 16th 4 3 4 1 12 4 4 1 2 11 2 1 2 1 6 29 3 S of 16th 4 2 3 1 10 4 4 1 4 13 1 1 1 1 4 27 3Mission N of 16th 4 4 4 1 13 1 4 1 4 10 4 4 4 1 13 36 4 S of 16th 4 4 4 1 13 1 3 1 1 6 4 4 4 1 13 32 4S Van Ness N of 16th 1 4 2 1 8 1 4 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 4 19 1 S of 16th 2 3 4 1 10 1 2 1 2 6 1 1 1 1 4 20 1Folsom N of 16th 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 7 2 1 1 1 5 16 1 S of 16th 2 2 3 1 8 1 1 1 4 7 2 1 1 1 5 20 1Harrison N of 16th 1 2 1 1 5 4 4 1 3 12 1 1 1 1 4 21 1 S of 16th 2 1 3 1 7 4 2 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 4 19 1Potrero N of 16th 1 2 1 1 5 1 4 1 1 7 4 4 4 1 13 25 2 S of 16th 2 2 2 1 7 1 2 1 1 5 4 4 4 1 13 25 2Connecticut All 2 1 1 2 6 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 2 1 6 16 1Wisconsin All 2 1 1 2 6 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 5 15 1De Haro 16th to 23rd 2 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 2 1 6 15 1Rhode Island 16th to 25th 2 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 5 14 1 26
  • 28. Step 4. Assess outliersSteps 1-3 prioritized streets that have significant needs across multiple modes. In Step 4, wegave special attention to those street segments that stand out because they have a particularlyurgent need in just one performance measure.Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions: Figures 11 and 12 illustrate pedestrian and bicyclecollisions on South of Market street segments. These figures show that, with their high volumes offast-moving traffic, wide rights-of-way, long blocks, and numerous intersections with alleyways,the north-south numbered streets in the South of Market stand out for high collision rates. Thenorth-of-the-freeway segments of these streets, with much higher pedestrian volumes, have farmore collisions than the southern segments. Of this group, however, Sixth Street stands out withby far the highest number of pedestrian collisions (97 pedestrian collisions per mile). The nexthighest street segment is Ninth Street, with 56 collisions per mile. In addition to the challengesfaced on all north-south SOMA streets, Sixth Street may have a high rate of collisions because ofthe high speeds of traffic traveling to and from the Interstate 280 ramp, and because of the highvolumes of pedestrians traveling to and from the single room occupancy hotels that line thenorthern part of the corridor. This condition suggests that Sixth Street is a particularly strongcandidate for very near term pedestrian safety improvements through the ongoing activities ofSFMTA’s Liveable Streets program.Transit Service and CapacityIn the multimodal need scores outlined above, transit capacity utilization is scored by quartile.However, as discussed in the EN TRIPS future conditions report, several Muni routes in the studyarea are projected to have ridership demands that far exceed the available vehicle capacityduring the PM peak period.As illustrated in Figure 14, the routes with PM peak period loads projected to be in excess of 1.25(125% of capacity) are: the T-Third (both on this surface in Mission Bay and in the CentralSubway); the 47 Van Ness Mission (on the northern Mission District segment of Mission Street);the 9 San Bruno (in the northern segment of Potrero Avenue); and the 22 Fillmore (in the MissionDistrict segment of 16th Street).Of these streets with transit capacity constraints, 16th Street and Mission Street are also identifiedas ‘high need’ corridors in the multimodal screening. Sixteenth street transit capacity constraintsare particularly notable from the perspective of EN TRIPS because of the vital role that the 22Fillmore plays providing transit service to link high growth areas in the Mission, Potrero Hill,Showplace Square, and Mission Bay. 27
  • 29. EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING STUDYCorridor Screening Methodology and RecommendationsFigure 11 Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions on South of Market North-South Streets (2004 – 2008) N‐S Streets: Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions 2004 ‐ 2008   140 120 40 100 80 18 Bicycle Collisions 60 23 Ped Injury Collisions 39 42 28 22 97 40 40 25 12 11 35 25 11 25 42 56 45 19 20 35 37 33 35 32 32 29 25 28 22 21 14 17 8 0 N S N S N S N S N S N S N S All All All 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11thFigure 12 Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions on South of Market North-South Streets (2004 – 2008) E‐W Streets: Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions 2004 ‐ 2008   140 120 100 80 60 24 32 Bicycle Collisions Ped Collisions 13 40 24 8 8 20 16 22 8 4 12 7 47 20 41 17 38 34 32 13 9 19 6 25 27 25 27 23 24 25 19 21 17 21 23 13 10 13 12 4 7 0 0 0 2 3rd‐5th 3rd‐5th 3rd‐5th 2nd‐5th 2nd‐5th 2nd‐7th 2nd‐5th 5th ‐ 8th Emb ‐ 4th 7th ‐ Division  Emb ‐ 3rd Emb ‐ 3rd Emb ‐ 3rd 5th ‐ Division Emb ‐ 2nd Emb ‐ 2nd 5th ‐ Division Emb ‐ 2nd Emb ‐ 2nd 5th ‐ Division 5th ‐ 11th 5th ‐ 11th Mission Howard Folsom  Harrison Bryant Brannan Townsend King 28
  • 30. Figure 13 PM Period Max Transit Load (Projected 2035)SFMTA Transit PM Period Projected Load Factors by Segment, 2035 e Pacific Av PM Period Load (2035 Projected) dway D Drumm Broa St Busiest Route in Segment Projected Increase in Density (2005 - 2035) Jackson Less than .5 n St Washingto Davis St Growth in Population per Acre > 40 avis 0.5 to 0.74 St St Fron Front St Clay St Ba Battery St Growth in Jobs per Acre > 40 .75 to .99 S St to St M Montgom Sacramen Sa Sansome eu Growth in Population per Acre & Jobs per Acre > 40 1.0 to 1.25 a ar Sp t tS a St Leavenw e ea Source: ABAG Projections 2009 Californi Greater than 1.25 t r rS Ma Jones St Larkin St t Hyde St Be i in ne er er Pine St St St Polk St a al St Franklin F Fr t w e e y y St Gough St e em ankl Ke Kearny St St or orth St St Bush St on St nt BART Station gh 1s Grant Av St Sutter St tS t St Stockton t t Caltrain Station Ave kt St 2 2n Post St Caltrain Tracks d Powell St St St EN TRIPS Study Area Geary St n ell io Ofarrell St Mason St as M iss Tayl Taylor St Ellis St 4t 4 3r rd h h Eddy St St S St Turk St t St n tS 5t iso h ke ar r ate Ave St Golden G M ar H tS t y an r St Br 6t Mcalliste St h St n St d a ar a nn w Br St Fulton St Ho St d en ls om ns Grove St Fo To w St 7 7t Hayes St g h h Laguna St n Ki St St Fell St n io ss 8t Oak St Mi h St St Page St 9t h St S St y 10 rr th Be St 1 11 th 12 St t th St St n g Duboce Ave Division St Ki St el 3rd St n 14th St an Ch Ow Utah St e en sS sS 15th St h St t 16th St 16th St 17th St Ave 17th St Treat Mariposa St 18th St Hampshire St Bryant St 18th St Alab Alabama St Valencia St Guerrero St Illinois St Dolores St Indiana St Texas St Min Minnesota St Tennessee St San Bruno Ave Vermon Vermont St Mississippi St ant St Pennsylvania Ave Missouri St Connecticut St 3rd St S Van Ness Ave as St Folsom Ave Shotwe Shotwell St 19th St ire St necticu s St o St om Ave St vania St 20th St Ave Carolin Carolina St De Haro St Arkansas Arkansas St Wisconsin St Kansas St Rhode Island St Potrero Ave Potrero York St Florida St Harrison St Harrison 22nd St 21st St St St Bartlet Bartlett St Fair Oaks St Mission St Treat Ave Capp St 22nd St 23rd St Oaks St San Jose Ave 23rd St Texa Texas St 24th St San Bru San Bruno Ave Utah St 24th St 25th St 25th St 26th St 26th St 26th St Cesar Chavez St 0 0.25 0.5 Miles 27th St Precita Ave Source: San Francisco City & County GIS 29
  • 31. Figure 14 Areas with ¼ Mile of TEP Rapid RouteTEP-proposed Primary Transit Network e Projected Increase in Density (2005 - 2035) Pacific Av Eastern Neighborhoods Transit Network Broadway Drumm son St rum St Growth in Population per Acre > 40 Jack TEP Rapid Network/Transit Priority Streets n St Growth in Jobs 49 Acre > 40 Washingto Davis St Other Streets with Transit Service per 30 Front St Clay St Battery St Growth in Population per Acre & Jobs per Acre > 40 St BART Station St to St tter t Montgom Sacramen Sans Sansome eu Source: ABAG Projections 2009 on ar Sp rt ornia St Leavenw Caltrain Station ea Calif S St ar Ma Jone Jones St St ai Larkin St Hyde St Be en orth n n e ery St Caltrain Tracks Pine St St Polk St al S St Franklin Fr le y St e Gough St in em Kear Kearny St St EN TRIPS Study Area Bush St on St tS 1s Grant Av St St Sutter St tS Areas within 1/4 Mile of TEP Rapid Network St St St St Stockton 14 Ave kton St 2n Post St d d Powell St S St Geary St St n ell io St ss Mas Mason St Ofarrell Mi 9 N Tayl Taylor St Ellis St 4t 4 3r 3 h h dd Eddy St St St S Turk St t 9 T St n tS 5t iso ke h ar r ate Ave ar St t t Golden G M H tS 49 45 y an ster St Br 6t Mcalli St h St n St d na ar ra n 47 w B St Fulton St Ho St 30 d 14 m en lso ns Grove St Fo To w St 7 7t Hayes St g h h Lagu Laguna St n Ki St St Fell St n io ss 8t Mi t Oak St h St Page St 9t t h St St 9 y 10 rr 0 th Be h St 11 1 th h 12 St th St 47 St n g T Duboce Ave 49 Division St Ki S t el n 3rd St 3rd St 14th St an Ch O Ow 14 Utah St en n sS 15th St 22 t t St 16th St 22 16th St 17th St Ave 17th St 9 Treat Mariposa St 18th St Hampshire St Bryant St Bryant 18th St Alabama St Valencia St Guerrero St Gue Illinois St Dolores St Indiana St Indi Texas St Minnesota St Tennessee Tennessee St San Bruno Ave Vermon Vermont St Mississip Mississippi St Pennsylvania Ave Missou Missouri St Connecticut St 3rd St 3rd S Van Ness Ave Folsom Ave Fols Shotwell St 19th St ire St St St Ness St 20th St t St Carolina St De Haro St Arkansas St Wis Wisconsin St Kansas St Rhode Rhode Island St Potrero Ave York St Florida St Harrison St Harriso olina St 22nd St ero Ave ida St 21st St St Bartlett St Fair Oaks St Mission St Mission Treat Ave Capp St 22nd St t Ave 23rd St San Jose Ave p St 23rd St Texas St 24th St San Bruno Ave Utah St St 24th St Bruno 25th St 25th St 9 26th St 26th St 14 26th St Cesar Chavez St 0 0.25 0.5 Miles 27th St Precita Ave Source: San Francisco City & County GIS 30
  • 32. Step 5. Identify opportunities for a near-term corridor improvementprojects.Through Steps 1-4, a group of street segments was identified as falling in high growth areas,having high needs for more than one mode of transportation, or have especially high needs in atleast one mode. Of these identified segments, some may present better opportunities than othersfor near-term corridor improvement projects through EN TRIPS. This section further narrowscandidate corridors by identifying segments that are either being studied elsewhere, haveimmediate needs that can be addressed outside of this study process or have major unknownsthat make studying them further not practical.Mission Street - Third Street to Fifth StreetThe middle segment of Mission Street has a very important overall circulation function, andimportant localized needs (particularly for pedestrians). Mission Street is a vital east-west transitcorridor through the South of Market, used by both the 14 Mission and 14 Mission Limited lines,which are part of Muni’s Rapid Network. Mission is a busy pedestrian corridor with relatively longdistances between crossings (blocks east of Eighth are more than 800 feet long), multiple turnlanes at the intersection of Fourth Street, and high rates of pedestrian injury collisions between2004 and 2008: 47 per mile east of Fifth. Both transit and private vehicles are projected to have asubstandard PM peak hour level of service (LOS) of “E” at the intersection of Mission and Fourthby 2035. However, overall vehicle volumes on Mission Street are projected to be somewhat lowerthan on other east-west SOMA arterials, in part because of planned diversion of traffic off ofMission at Second as part of the Transbay District Plan.Potential improvement projects could include investment in pedestrian facilities, as well as transitpriority treatments. The Better Market Street plan will consider the function of Mission Street inthe South of Market circulation system, and its relationship to Market Street. Because of thisplanned analysis, a near-term design project on Mission Street is not advisable for the EN TRIPSproject despite the identified needs and opportunities.Folsom Street - Third Street to Eleventh StreetTwo segments of Folsom Street have been identified as ‘high need’ in this analysis: Folsombetween Second and Fifth, and between Fifth and Eleventh.Both segments have substandard pedestrian facilities, such as long distances between crossings(blocks east of Eighth are more than 800 feet long), and long crossings (62.5 feet). The FourthStreet intersection has multiple turn lanes. Folsom also has relatively high pedestrian injurycollision rates of 25 and 32 per mile east and west of Fifth over the period between 2004 and2008. Sidewalks are 10 feet wide. While east of Fifth, this satisfies the Better Streets Planminimum recommended width for Downtown Commercial streets, to the west of Fifth it does notconform to the BSP standard of 12 feet for Mixed Use streets. Forecast growth suggests thatoverall pedestrian volumes could be expected to rise along the full length of Folsom Street. TheFolsom and Howard Street couplet form the major east-west bicycle corridor through the South ofMarket, and the forecast increase in vehicle volumes may challenge cyclists in this corridor.Folsom Street was also identified as a high-need corridor in the Eastern Neighborhoods AreaPlans and the Western SOMA Community Plan. Folsom Street is a strong candidate for near-term improvements, with potential for upgraded pedestrian facilities, improved bicycle facilities,traffic calming and/or a road diet, and potential vehicle circulation changes such as conversion totwo-way operations. 31
  • 33. EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING STUDYCorridor Screening Methodology and RecommendationsTownsend Street - Third Street to Fifth StreetCurrently, Townsend Street has inadequate pedestrian infrastructure. The north side of the streetdoes not have sidewalks, while the sidewalks on the south side of the street are very narrow andimpeded by parked vehicles, especially the motorcycle parking area adjacent to the Caltrainstation. Furthermore, the lack of pedestrian amenities on these blocks, such as lighting orlandscaped buffers between pedestrian, Caltrain facilities, and parked vehicles makes pedestriantravel challenging. Because this corridor represents a major access route for pedestrians wishingto get to and from the Fourth and King Caltrain Station, its enhancement is vital to not onlyimproving conditions for the high numbers of existing pedestrians, but also for increasing non-motorized access to regional transit services. The Third to Fifth Street segment of Townsend isprojected to have substantial growth in residential density associated with the redevelopment ofthe rail yards site around the Caltrain station.Townsend also provides important bicycle access to the Caltrain station. The San Franciscobicycle plan specifies that there should be bike lanes on this corridor. The lanes have recentlybeen striped west of Fourth, and bicycle lanes and a travel-lane reduction benefitting pedestriansare planned to the east. Townsend is a high priority transit corridor for Munis Route 47. Theintersection of Townsend with Division and Eighth Street, currently a traffic circle, is projected tohave high levels of congestions (LOS F) in the future condition.While all of these factors indicate that improvements to Townsend street are necessary, thecorridor is receiving additional attention as part of planning processes related to the high-speedrail and Caltrain station planned for the site of the current Caltrain station on the south side ofTownsend west of Fourth. The design of any additional improvements to Townsend will becontingent on final design of the high-speed rail station, which is not likely to be completed in thenear term. Furthermore, improvements to Townsend could be made as part of stationconstruction. For these reasons, a design project for Townsend Street may be premature as partof the EN TRIPS project.Second Street - Market Street to Bryant StreetWhile pedestrian conditions along Second Street are not as challenging as along some otherSOMA streets, it is zoned commercial and suffered from a relatively high pedestrian injurycollision rate of 35 per mile between 2004 and 2008. Second Street is also the primary bicycleroute between the Financial District, Rincon Hill and South Beach. Bicycle lanes have beenplanned here, but deferred out of deference to community concerns. Second Street also hasextremely high forecast growth. The rate of bicycle collisions in the north-of-Bryant segmentbetween 2004 and 2008 was 28 per mile. While Second Street is not a designated rapid corridorfor transit, Muni’s routes 11, 12, and 108 will operate along this corridor in the future condition.While high growth makes Second Street a high priority for investment, this corridor has numerousimprovements planned as part of the Transbay Transit Center District plan, developed by the SanFrancisco Planning Department’s City Design group. Given the attention already invested,Second Street is probably not a strong candidate for further near-term investment through the ENTRIPS project.Third and Fourth Streets - Market Street to Bryant StreetThird and Fourth Streets, which form a one-way couplet in the eastern South of Market area,have inadequate pedestrian facilities, high rates of growth, and important roles for three modes oftransportation (transit, pedestrians, and vehicles). Both streets are important pedestrian pathwaysbetween Market Street and the Caltrain station at Fourth and King Streets, and both have high 32
  • 34. pedestrian injury collision rates. Pedestrian facilities are inadequate, with narrow sidewalks, longcrossings, and restricted crossings at several intersections. Third and Fourth Streets also worktogether as a crucial transit corridor, with significant challenges. A major investment in transitservice is already underway in this corridor, in the form of the Muni Central Subway under FourthStreet. However, even with this investment, the T-Third light rail service is forecast to be over-capacity by 2035. Currently, the speed and reliability of 30 and 45 are poor, and forecast trafficcongestion at on Third and Fourth Streets could further degrade performance. Because of thesechallenges, both streets are strong candidates for near term improvement. Fourth Street will verylikely be the subject of a street design effort by the San Francisco Planning Department in thenear future, as part of a planned rezoning associated with the construction of the Central Subway.Third Street, however, remains a strong option for improvement through the EN TRIPS project.Fifth Street - Market Street to Brannan StreetFifth Street is a two-way arterial that serves multiple roles in the South of Market street network. Itis an important corridor for cyclists, connecting the Union Square area to Caltrain and MissionBay. Bike lanes are planned on Fifth Street, but have not yet been built. Between 2004 and 2008,the bicycle collision rate here was 39 per mile, among the highest in the evaluation. Fifth Streetalso has high pedestrian needs, with long crossing distances; multiple turn lanes at Bryant, arestricted crosswalk at Harrison; and narrow sidewalks. Fifth Street north of Brannan is also animportant transit street, with Muni’s route 27 planned to operate in this segment. Fifth Street is astrong candidate for near-term improvement through the EN TRIPS project, particularly if theproject wishes to provide a design template for a two-way SOMA arterial.Sixth Street - Market Street to Brannan StreetSixth Street is another two-way arterial with a high need for improvements. While it carries largevolumes of fast-moving traffic, particularly traffic traveling between the Interstate 280 exit rampand the north of Market street network, Sixth Street also has high residential density and serveslarge numbers of pedestrians. The greatest challenge on Sixth Street is a pedestrian injurycollision rate between 2004 and 2008 of 97 per mile, by far the highest among any of thesegments analyzed. Sixth Street also has one of the highest rates of bicycle collisions in thestudy area, despite not being a designated bicycle route. The collision rate on Sixth Street isdiscussed in more detail in the “outliers” section of this report.In addition to a high collision rate, Sixth Street has long crossing distances; multiple turn lanes attwo intersections (Howard and Harrison); 10-foot sidewalks, below the BSP standard of 12 feetfor Neighborhood Commercial/Mixed Use streets; high year 2035 projected traffic volume(approximately 3,000 vehicles in the PM peak hour); and numerous intersections with alleyswhere mid-block crossings are not provided.Because of these factors, Sixth Street is a strong candidate for very near-term improvement.However, because the primary issue with Sixth Street is a single factor (a high rate of pedestrianinjury collisions) that is not directly related to larger EN TRIPS system goals, such as addressinggrowth and connecting EN TRIPS neighborhoods, Sixth Street may be more suitable for a veryshort term focus by SFMTA on operational issues to address pedestrian collisions. This effortshould occur on a faster timeline that that envisioned for EN TRIPS project implementation.Seventh and Eighth Streets - Market Street to Brannan StreetSeventh and Eighth Streets form a one-way couplet running north and south through the WesternSouth of Market. The northern segment of both of these streets emerged as high priority in thecorridor screening analysis, based primarily on high pedestrian and bicycle needs, and relativelyhigh projected rates of growth. 33
  • 35. EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING STUDYCorridor Screening Methodology and RecommendationsSeventh and Eighth have inadequate pedestrian facilities and high rates of pedestrian collisionscomparable to other north-south SOMA arterials. Sidewalks are 10 feet, below the BSP standardof 12 feet for Mixed Use streets; and significant growth is projected (a 145 percent increase by2035 over 2005 in residential density on Eighth). Multiple turn lanes and restricted crossingsoccur at Seventh and Harrison. Pedestrian injury collision rates of 35 and 29 per mile,respectively, occurred between 2004 and 2008. Participants in the EN TRIPS communityworkshop noted concerns about the pedestrian environment on Seventh and Eighth Streets,noting conflicts between autos, trucks, and pedestrians.2035 traffic volumes are projected to be relatively high, roughly 2,000 vehicles in the PM peakhour on each street. Along with high volumes of traffic, peak LOS at the intersection of Seventhand Harrison is projected to be “E” in the year 2035. Forecast traffic conditions would alsodegrade conditions for cyclists in the bicycle lanes on Seventh and Eighth, which together makeup a key north-south link for cyclists between Potrero Hill and the Civic Center area. The WesternSOMA Community Plan proposed that Seventh and Eighth Streets be improved. Both Seventhand Eighth Streets are strong candidates for near-term improvement through the EN TRIPSproject, particularly if the project wishes to provide a design template for one-way SOMA arterials.16th Street – Guerrero Street to Terry Francois BoulevardSixteenth Street is the only east-west arterial that extends all the way from the Mission District tothe eastern waterfront. As such, it is a vital vehicle and transit connection for three of the EasternNeighborhoods, and will become even more important as Mission Bay and the waterfrontdevelop. Sixteenth Street is also named as a bicycle route in the San Francisco Bicycle Plan, withbicycle lanes planned from Potrero Avenue to the waterfront. From a transportation operationsperspective, 16th Street is made up of four distinct segments:  Guerrero to South Van Ness Avenue. In this segment, 16th Street is a busy neighborhood commercial corridor, and an important path to the 16th and Mission BART station. There is a very high level of pedestrian activity, which causes delays for both transit and other vehicles. Pedestrian facilities along 16th are generally less deficient than South of Market arterials, however, it suffers from very high rates of pedestrian injury collisions. In this segment, there are three travel lanes in the westbound direction and one travel lane in the eastbound direction.  South Van Ness Avenue to Potrero Avenue. In this segment, Sixteenth Street shifts to four narrow travel lanes. Land uses in this segment are less dense, and pedestrian activity is lower. A majority of intersections in this segment are unsignalized. The intersection of 16th and Potrero is forecast to have substantial traffic delays by 2035 (LOS F), which could also lead to significant transit delay.  Potrero Avenue to 7th Street. Between the US 101 and I-280, 16th Street shifts back to three lanes, and bike lanes are added on both sides. Land use densities in this section are currently low. However, due to rezoning as part of the Eastern Neighborhoods land use plan, as many as 3,000 new housing units could be built along this segment of 16th by 2035, leading to a substantial growth in residential density, as well as increasing vehicle and pedestrian travel demand. Most intersections in this segment are unsignalized, which can cause crossing difficulty for some pedestrians.  Potrero Avenue to Terry Francois Boulevard. At 7th Street, 16th Street passes under I-280 and over the Caltrain tracks. At that point the street enters the Mission Bay redevelopment area, and the right-of-way becomes substantially wider. While there are currently few 34
  • 36. people in this area, Mission Bay redevelopment will transform this area with major investments in the street grid, and large increases in residential and employment density.While it currently turns off of 16th street at Kansas, at under the TEP, the 22 Fillmore will run thelength of 16th Street, providing the only major east-west connection through the Mission,Showplace Square, and Potrero Hill. In 2035, demand for ridership on the 22-Fillmore is forecastto exceed capacity between Guerrero and Arkansas. Significant delay is also projected, includingpeak vehicular LOS of “F” at 16th and Potrero and at 16th and 3rd Streets. Some potentialalignments of Caltrain and California High Speed rail could preclude the extension of the 22-Fillmore service across the Caltrain right-of-way on the surface as planned in the TransitEffectiveness Project. City agencies, Caltrain, and the High Speed Rail authority are currentlyworking together to develop alignment alternatives. Significant growth is also forecast for the 16thStreet corridor and the neighborhoods that it links together, including the Potrero Center area, the16th and 17th Street corridors between the freeways, Showplace Square, and Mission Bay.Ensuring transit priority for the 16th Street corridor should be a priority for the EN TRIPS project.The project should select one of the four operational segments of this corridor, and design transitpriority improvements as a first step toward upgrades to the length of the street.Third Street - South of King StreetThird Street in Mission Bay and the Central Waterfront received high scores in the transitcategory, because of very high projected demand for the T-Third service. In 2035 forecasts, it isprojected that demand for the T-Third will far exceed vehicle capacity in this segment. Currentpedestrian and bicycle collision rates are very low on Third Street, due to low densities and lowvolumes of trips. However, the segment north of 16th Street has very high projected growth, dueto employment and population growth forecast for Mission Bay. Third Street is expected to see avery large increase in vehicle volumes and significant vehicle delays: For example, theintersection of Third and 16th Streets (included as part of the South of Market Circulation study) isprojected to operate at Level of Service ‘F’.A major investment has only recently been made in transit service in the corridor (the T-ThirdStreet Muni Metro line), and this investment will be leveraged with completion of the CentralSubway project in a few years. For this reason, it may not be practical for the EN TRIPS project toinvest significant design effort in transit improvements along Third Street in the near term.Division StreetDivision Street marks the boundary between the South of Market arterial network and the MissionDistrict, and it runs mostly underneath the Central Freeway segment of US 101. Division Street isan important east-west bicycle route, and bicycle lanes are planned. While high traffic volumesare not projected on Division, two intersections are projected to suffer from substantial vehicledelay in 2035: Bryant and Townsend/Eighth. Participants in the EN TRIPS community workshopnoted that Division Street is poorly lit and feels unsafe for pedestrians and bicyclists.Previous City plans and studies have considered removing part of the overhead Central Freewayand rebuilding Division itself, possibly as a multiway boulevard. While this idea was studied andnot implemented in the past, the elevated freeway will require expensive investment if it is to bemaintained over the coming years. The SFCTA will consider the future of the Central Freeway aspart of the upcoming Countywide Transportation Plan. As such, Division Street is not a strongcandidate for a near-term design project through the EN TRIPS project. 35
  • 37. EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING STUDYCorridor Screening Methodology and RecommendationsMission Street - Eleventh Street to 16th StreetThe Mission District segment of Mission Street emerges as a high priority corridor from thescreening analysis primarily because of high transit needs. As compared to South of Marketarterials, existing pedestrian facilities on Mission are strong. Though not a designated bicyclecorridor, Mission Street does carry a substantial volume of bicycle traffic, and the high number ofbicycle collisions reflects this function.Munis 14, 14L, 49, and 49L will continue to operate on this segment of Mission Street in thefuture condition. Demand for travel on Muni’s 49 Mission-Van Ness is forecast to far exceedavailable capacity by 2035. EN TRIPS community meeting participants noted the need foradditional express bus service on Mission Street.Because of high transit demand and high volumes of traffic forecast, Mission Street requirestransit priority treatments. However, the SFMTA’s Transit Effectiveness Project has takenresponsibility for designing and implementing transit priority treatments for this segment ofMission Street, so Mission Street may not be a strong candidate for a near-term design projectthrough the EN TRIPS project. 36
  • 38. Step 6. Assess capacity constraints and opportunities in the vehiclecirculation network.Building on Steps 1 – 5, in Step 6 we assessed the vehicle circulation network in the South ofMarket. This assessment identifies street segments with potential “excess vehicular capacity,”based on a comparison of 2035 forecast vehicle volumes and roadway capacity.Volume over Capacity (V/C)The analysis considered the relationship between vehicle volume (the peak hour vehicle demandin a particular direction), and capacity (the number of vehicles that can be accommodated by aparticular approach or roadway based on a number of factors). Roadway capacity depends uponthe number of travel lanes, signal timing, tow-away lanes, and other factors. A V/C of less than1.0 represents an approach that is below capacity, a V/C of 1.0 represents “at-capacity”operations, and a V/C greater than 1.0 represents “breakdown”, i.e. stop-and-go operations.The study team calculated V/C ratios for the forecast year (2035) for the majority of intersectionapproaches in the study area bounded by 3rd Street, Mission Street, 10th Street, and BryantStreet. The results are summarized in the tables below for north-south and east-west corridors.Figure 15 Forecast Volume/Capacity for North-South Corridors (2035) V/C for 10th 9th 8th 7th 6th 4th 3rd North-South (one-way) (one-way) (one-way) (one-way) (two-way) (one-way) (one-way) Corridors SB NB SB NB NB SB SB NB Mission 0.96 1.09 1.09 0.86 0.93 1.04 0.81 0.94 Howard 0.88 1.21 1.33 0.87 0.72 0.82 0.95 1.19 Folsom 0.91 1.19 0.83 1.22 0.74 -- 0.93 1.65 Harrison 0.72 0.95 1.32 1.27 0.72 1.06 1.11 0.98 Bryant 0.69 1.39 0.65 1.27 0.7 1.15 1.07 1.45 AverageAs shown in the Figure 13, Tenth Street and northbound Sixth Street appear, on aggregate, tohave the most roadway capacity available based on a comparison of V/C rations. On aggregate,Third Street appears to be the most oversubscribed north-south roadway in the study area.Figure 14 Forecast Volume/Capacity for North-South Corridors (2035) V/C for East- Mission St Howard Folsom Harrison Bryant West (two-way) (one-way) (one-way) (one-way) (one-way) Corridors EB WB WB EB WB EB 10th 0.72 1.14 0.66 0.72 0.86 0.76 9th 0.99 0.98 0.51 0.82 0.77 0.78 8th 0.87 1.04 0.62 0.82 1.3 0.59 7th 1.23 0.85 0.79 0.7 0.69 0.8 6th 1.12 0.88 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.64 4th 1.05 1.65 0.97 1.24 -- -- 3rd 1.47 1.03 1.15 1.41 1.31 0.55 37
  • 39. EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING STUDYCorridor Screening Methodology and RecommendationsAs shown in the Figure 14, all of the study roadways in the vicinity of Third and Fourth Streets areforecast to be either at or above capacity. Howard Street, Folsom Street, and Bryant Streetappear to have excess capacity. Additionally, intersections that included freeway on- or off-rampsgenerally appear to have higher V/C ratios.Screenline ComparisonsThe study team also performed ‘screenline’ analysis to determine where excess vehicle capacitymay exist in the South of Market vehicle network as a whole in the forecast year. A screenline is apredetermined boundary that can be used to group several segments together for the purposes ofdetermining aggregate volume/capacity for several streets at once.Screenline locations were selected to capture vehicle demand entering, exiting, and midwaythrough the study area. For the north-south corridors, screenlines on Mission Street and HarrisonStreet, both from Tenth Street to Sixth Street, respectively and Harrison Street from Third Streetto Fourth Street were selected. For the east-west Corridors, Third Street, Sixth Street, and NinthStreet, all between Mission Street and Bryant Street, respectively were selected. Tablessummarizing the development of the screenline v/c aggregation are shown below for both theNorth-South and East- West corridors and further summarized graphically in Figures 16 and 17.It is important to note that, although screenline analysis is useful for assessing a generalaggregate V/C ratio for a certain segment, there can be considerable variation in the independentV/C approaches that comprise the aggregate. For example the eastbound Mission Streetscreenline is 0.98, but its component v/c ratios from Mission Street, Folsom Street, and BryantStreet are 1.47, 1.41, and 0.55, respectively.Further, it is important to note that this analysis represents a dynamic, rather than static condition.Drivers make decisions about which route to take through the street network based on trafficconditions, among other factors. If street configuration and/or traffic conditions change on anyone street, drivers may respond to this change with changes to their choice of route.Summary of Capacity Analysis FindingsThis analysis finds that all the study roadways in the vicinity of Third and Fourth Streets areforecast to be either at or above capacity during the PM peak in 2035. Howard Street, FolsomStreet, and Bryant Street appear to have excess capacity west of Fifth Street.For the north-south SOMA arterials, the western SOMA street network appears to have someavailable capacity in the northbound direction at Harrison Street and at Mission Streetscreenlines. In the southbound travel direction, this portion of the street network is forecast to beabove capacity at Mission Street, but just under capacity at Harrison Street. In the eastern SOMAarea, the network is well above capacity in the southbound direction, but has capacity available inthe northbound direction. This reflects the PM peak period commute pattern, with drivers travelingtowards the freeway.For the east-west SOMA arterials, the network appears to have available capacity in bothdirections for screenlines in the western SOMA area. At the Third Street screenline, however,vehicle volumes are forecast to be well above capacity in the westbound direction.These findings suggest that changes could be made to streets in several parts of the SOMAstreet network without major disruption to vehicle circulation. It is important to note that whileforecasts of traffic conditions are one important factor in choosing corridor improvement projects, 38
  • 40. a forecast that vehicle volumes may exceed available capacity does not necessarily rule out acorridor improvement project for that street segment.Figure 16 Forecast Volume/Capacity for South of Market Screenlines Segment Aggregate Segment Aggregate Screenline Cross-Street V/C V/C V/C V/C SOMA East-West EB WB Mission 1.47 1.03 Howard -- 1.15 3rd Folsom 1.41 0.98 -- 1.19 Harrison -- 1.31 Bryant 0.55 -- Mission 1.12 0.88 Howard -- 0.99 6th Folsom 0.95 0.84 -- 0.94 Harrison -- 0.92 Bryant 0.64 -- Mission 0.99 0.98 Howard -- 0.51 9th Folsom 0.82 0.82 -- 0.69 Harrison -- 0.77 Bryant 0.78 -- North-South NB SB 6th 0.93 1.04 7th 0.86 -- Mission 8th -- 0.98 1.09 1.02 9th 1.09 -- 10th -- 0.96 3rd 0.98 -- Harrison 0.98 1.11 4th -- 1.11 6th 0.72 1.06 7th 1.27 -- Harrison 8th -- 0.98 1.32 0.93 9th 0.95 -- 10th -- 0.72 39
  • 41. Figure 16 Forecast Volume/Capacity for South of Market Screenlines (north-south corridors) 1.11 1.02 0.98 0.98 0.93 0.98 Legend Direction of travel 0.XX V/C Ratio 40
  • 42. Figure 17 Forecast Volume/Capacity for South of Market Screenlines (east-west corridors) 1.19 0.98 0.94 0.69 0.84 0.82 Legend Direction of travel 0.XX V/C Ratio 41
  • 43. EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING STUDYCorridor Screening Methodology and RecommendationsRecommendationsThe next step for EN TRIPS will be to work with community stakeholders to design three near-term corridor improvement projects. The project will also investigate as ongoing assessment andmitigation of recurring transportation challenges in the study area through existing SFMTAprojects and programs. This section discusses recommendations for next steps for each of theseareas of work.Priority corridor improvement project recommendationsThis section describes corridor segments recommended for near-term improvement projectsthrough the EN TRIPS project. The recommended segments not only have major segment-leveltransportation challenges, but they play a critical role in overall Eastern Neighborhoods circulationsystem such that improvements in these corridors could help to meet explicit goals of the EasternNeighborhoods Planning process. They make up important segments of the corridors that knitthese diverse neighborhoods together; they will bear the burden of a significant share of thegrowth forecast to occur as a result of the Eastern Neighborhoods; and they are the focus ofcommunity interest as expressed through the Eastern Neighborhoods Community PlanningProcess, the EN TRIPS outreach workshop, and related planning processes. These projects willrequire significant capital investment, and may be implemented over a period of several years asforecast development in the Eastern Neighborhoods occurs.The consultant team recommends the following corridor segments for near-term design projectsthrough the EN TRIPS projects:Folsom Street between Fifth and Eleventh StreetsBecause of sub-standard pedestrian facilities, high rates of growth, and important roles forbicycles and pedestrians, and centrality for the South of Market community, Folsom Street isrecommended for near term improvement. Major issues include:  Neighborhood Connectivity. Working together in a one-way couple with Howard Street, Folsom Street travels through the center of the western and eastern South of Market neighborhoods, connecting them to the Transbay District and downtown. Unlike the arterials to its south, Folsom Street has no freeway ramps, so it may offer more flexibility in for adjustments to its design.  Forecast growth. Folsom Street is also projected to see substantial growth in residential and employment density as a result of recently completed land use planning efforts. Residential density is projected to rise 155 percent west of Fifth Street between 2005 and 2035. This forecast growth suggests that overall pedestrian volumes could be expected to rise along the full length of Folsom Street.  Substandard pedestrian facilities. Pedestrian facility deficiencies include narrow sidewalks, long crossing distances, and long distances between crossings. While east of Fifth sidewalk widths satisfy the Better Streets Plan minimum recommended width for Downtown Commercial streets, to the west of Fifth the 10 foot sidewalks do not conform to the BSP standard of 12 feet for Mixed Use streets. Folsom also has relatively high pedestrian injury collision rates of 25 and 32 per mile east and west of Fifth over the period between 2004 and 2008.  Bicycle priority: Along with Howard Street, Folsom is a vital east-west link in the South of Market bicycle network in a part of the City that is expected to see substantial growth in vehicle traffic. As an important street for bicycles, Folsom is projected to have relatively 42
  • 44. high vehicle traffic volumes. It has also suffered in the past from relatively high rates of bicycle collisions.  Community Priority. Folsom Street was also identified as a high-need corridor in the Eastern Neighborhoods area plans, and improving Folsom was specified as a priority project by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. The Western SOMA Community plan identifies SOMA as a center of that community and key pedestrian and transit travel corridor, focusing on the western segment of Folsom between Fourth and Eleventh Streets. While both the eastern and western segments of Folsom Street emerged from this analysis as ‘high-need’ corridors, the western segments should be prioritized for design and implementation on the basis of strong community support for improvements, including the recommendation of the Western SOMA community Task force, as well as participants in the first Eastern Neighborhood Community workshop.Potential design alternatives may include wider sidewalks, improved bicycle facilities, trafficcalming and/or a road diet, and potential vehicle circulation changes such as a two-wayalternatives. Should the study team propose an alternative that includes major circulationchanges, such as a two-way alignments, we will also analyze in detail the impacts on surroundingstreets in the network, including Howard Street. Through design work on these segments, the ENTRIPS project will also produce principles and operating concepts that the SFMTA will apply infuture projects to improve other SOMA east-west arterials.Sixteenth Street between Potrero Ave and Seventh StreetBecause the 22 Fillmore service planned for 16th Street will be a vital transit link between severalgrowing neighborhoods in the EN TRIPS study area, 16th Street will require transit prioritytreatments on all four of its major segments. As an important first step toward theseimprovements, 16th Street between Potrero Avenue and Seventh Streets is recommended for anear-term corridor segment improvement project. This segment has been prioritized above othersegments of 16th because of expected residential growth, forecast vehicle congestion, transitcapacity constraints, and community priority as expressed through the EN TRIPS communityworkshop. Detailed on needs for the Sixteenth between Potrero and Seventh Streets are asfollows:  Neighborhood Connectivity. Sixteenth Street is the only east-west arterial that extends all the way from the Mission District to the eastern waterfront. As such, it is a vital vehicle and transit connection for three of the Eastern Neighborhoods, and will become even more important as Mission Bay and the waterfront develop.  Forecast growth. Land use densities in this section are currently low. However, due to rezoning as part of the Eastern Neighborhoods land use plan, as many as 3,000 new housing units could be built along this segment of 16th by 2035, leading to a substantial growth in residential density, as well as increasing vehicle and pedestrian travel demand. Additional development is expected in the northern part of the Potrero Hill neighborhood, in Showplace Square, and in Mission Bay, neighborhoods that are linked by the 16th Street corridor.  Transit priority: In 2035, demand for ridership on the 22-Fillmore is forecast to exceed available capacity between Guerrero and Arkansas. While it currently turns off of 16th street at Kansas Street, as routed in the TEP, the 22 Fillmore will run the length of 16th Street, completing the transit connection through the Mission, Showplace Square, and Potrero Hill neighborhoods. The 22 currently suffers from delay and poor reliability, and forecast traffic congestion on 16th (particularly at Potrero Avenue), could further delay this route in its future alignment. At 7th Street, 16th Street passes under I-280 and over the Caltrain tracks. A major concern for 16th Street transit service is the implementation of 43
  • 45. EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING STUDYCorridor Screening Methodology and Recommendations California High Speed rail in the Caltrain corridor. As discussed in detail in the EN TRIPS future conditions document, some potential alignments of Caltrain and California High Speed rail following full implementation could preclude the extension of the 22-Fillmore service across the Caltrain right-of-way on the surface. City agencies, Caltrain, and the High Speed Rail Authority are currently working together to develop alignment alternatives. Because of this ongoing uncertainty, the eastern extent of the corridor design project will be just to the west of Seventh Street, and the EN TRIPS project will not create designs for the 7th Street intersection or the Caltrain crossing at this time.  Bicycle priority: Bicycle lanes currently exist on 16th between Kansas and Third Streets, and the San Francisco proposes extending bicycle lanes to Terry Francois Boulevard on the east and Potrero Avenue on the west. West of Potrero, bicycle lanes will continue on 17th Street. In the future condition, other modes will compete for this space.  Pedestrian facilities. Through much of this segment, sidewalks are narrow, and the pedestrian environment has few street trees or other amenities. As population densities increase, the pedestrian environment will have to be upgraded. Most intersections in this segment are unsignalized, leading to difficult crossings for some pedestrians.  Community Priority. Sixteenth Street was identified as a high-need corridor in the Eastern Neighborhoods area plans, and improving 16th was specified as a priority project by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. The segment of Sixteenth Street between the freeways was identified as an area of need by several participants in the EN TRIPS community workshop. EN TRIPS community workshop participants stressed the importance of 16th Street as a transit corridor. In addition, many participants stressed the necessity to improve transit service in the Potrero Hill neighborhood as a whole.Potential improvements to this segment of Sixteenth may include transit priority treatments suchas bulb-outs, transit signal priority, queue jump lanes, and/or dedicated lanes for transit vehicles.Pedestrian upgrades may include wider sidewalks, signalized crossings, and public realmelements such as pedestrian-scale lighting and landscaping.Through design work on this segment, the EN TRIPS project will also produce principles andoperating concepts that the SFMTA will apply in future projects to develop transit prioritytreatments for the remaining segments of 16th Street.Seventh and Eighth Streets between Market and Brannan StreetsSeventh and Eighth Streets from Market to Brannan, which work together to form a one-waycouplet through the western South of Market area, are recommended for near-term improvement.Because the dimensions for these two streets are so similar, EN TRIPS project resources willallow the project team to design improvements to both streets as part of a single design effort.Major issues include:  Neighborhood Connectivity. Seventh Street travels north and south between its intersection with 16th Street through the South of Market and across Market Street, where it connects to the north of Market street grid. With this alignment, Seventh Street has unique role as a connecting street between several of the Eastern Neighborhoods for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists.  Forecast growth. Seventh and Eighth Street cut through the portion of the western South of Market where substantial new development is forecast as the result of recent zoning changes. They also intersect with Market Street in the Mid-Market area, which the City has prioritized for economic development in the coming decades.  Substandard pedestrian facilities. Sidewalks are 10 feet, below the BSP standard of 12 feet for Mixed Use streets. Multiple turn lanes and restricted crossings occur at Seventh 44
  • 46. and Harrison. Seventh and Eighth Streets have a high pedestrian injury collision rate of 35 over the period between 2004 and 2008.  Bicycle priority. Forecast traffic conditions would degrade conditions for cyclists in the bicycle lanes on Seventh and Eighth Streets, which together make up a key north-south link for cyclists between Potrero Hill and the Civic Center area.  Unused vehicle capacity. Screen line analysis of the 2035 vehicle forecasts conducted as part of the South of Market circulation study analysis found that unused vehicle capacity may be available in this segment.  Community Priority. The Western SOMA Community Plan proposed that Seventh and Eighth Streets be improved, and the project could help to support ongoing revitalization efforts for the mid-market area.Potential improvements in these segments may include a road diet, wider sidewalks, public realmelements such as pedestrian-scale lighting and landscaping, as well as adjusting signal timing tomoderate vehicle speeds while maintaining vehicle throughput.Through design work on these segments, the EN TRIPS project will also produce principals andoperating concepts that the SFMTA will apply in future projects to improve other SOMA north-south arterials.Recurring Transportation ChallengesIn addition to three near-term corridor improvement projects, the study team should collaboratewith SFMTA to prepare recommendations for solutions to transportation challenges that recurthroughout the study area. These challenges, which were catalogued through the EN TRIPSexisting conditions work, will be organized by challenge type, mapped, and evaluated to provideguidance on how they can be addressed through on-going SFMTA transportation improvementprograms. This guidance will be illustrated and included in the EN TRIPS Final Report.Recurring transportation challenges addressed may include:  Inadequate pedestrian facilities such as missing sidewalks  Areas that require pedestrian-scale street lighting and improved landscaping  Areas that require traffic calming or design treatments and freeway interchanges  Transit delay and transit service coverage limitations  Shuttle and private transportation services challenges  Parking issues, including on-street parking challenges and loading issuesMany of these types of challenges are or will be addressed through existing programs at SFMTA.The project will designate responsible departments and persons and SFMTA and other cityagencies. Potential implementing parties may include SFMTA service planning and TEPimplementation staff, SFMTA traffic calming programs, and others. 45
  • 47. EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING STUDYCorridor Screening Methodology and RecommendationsNext StepsThis report has presented EN TRIPS consultant team recommendations for near-term corridorimprovement projects, as well as a strategy for addressing recurring transportation challenges inthe study area. Next steps for the EN TRIPS project will be as follows: 1. Select final project corridors. – Recommendations will be presented to the Eastern Neighborhoods CAC for feedback and endorsement to move forward. 2. Develop design and circulation concepts. – The EN TRIPS consultant team will develop initial design concept alternatives for the selected corridor segments. The concepts will be communicated as sketch-level drawings that convey key concepts. – The EN TRIPS study team, including the consultant team, SFMTA, the San Francisco Planning Department, and the SFCTA will conduct a workshop to define the circulation alternatives within the three corridors, and refine modeling tasks. 3. Model circulation impacts. – The EN TRIPS consultant team, working with SFCTA and SFMTA staff, will use modeling tools to assess the impact of the project alternatives on the circulation system in the study area. – Based on this assessment, the project team will refine the final selection of corridor alternatives for urban design. Some corridors may have more than one circulation alternative that will be developed through conceptual urban design. – Findings of the analysis will be presented to the Eastern Neighborhoods CAC for feedback and endorsement to move forward. 4. Refine design concepts. – Following completion of the circulation impacts analysis, the EN TRIPS consultant team will create more fully developed urban design concept alternatives for the three corridor segments. These designs will specify the allocation of right-of-way and dimensions dedicated to auto/mixed-flow, buses, bicycles, pedestrians, and parking. – The alternatives will be presented to the Eastern Neighborhoods CAC for feedback and endorsement to move forward. One circulation per corridor will be selected for more detailed design. – After the project team has determined which single alternative for each of the three projects to move forward in the design process, the SMTA and the consultant team will then work together further refine this alternative. 5. Assess recurring transportation challenges – Led by SFMTA, the project team will evaluate recurring transportation challenges throughout the study area. SFMTA will create maps representing the locations of identified challenges by type. – SFMTA will evaluate the transportation challenges to understand how they may be addressed by current SFMTA Sustainable Streets programs. The consultant team will collaborate to develop general guidance on solutions to each recurring transportation challenge. 46
  • 48. 6. Create Funding and Implementation Strategy. – The SFMTA will create a funding and implementation strategy for the selected projects7. Prepare EN TRIPS Report. – The project team will compile a complete EN TRIPS study report. It will include the plans developed for the selected corridors, as well as the analysis and findings from the rest of the study. 47
  • 49. Appendix A. EN TRIPS Preliminary Corridor Screening - Indicators of Need by Mode Mode/Category Indicator Unit Data Source Pedestrian priority category Category Based on Zoning San Francisco zoning code Pedestrian injury collisions (2004 - 2008) Quartile DPH datasetPedestrian 2035 Projected residential density (adjacent TAZs) Quartile ABAG Projections 2009 Existing pedestrian facilities below standard (sidewalk width below BSP plan standard; closed crosswalks or multiple turn lanes; blocks >500 ft with no crossing. Count of conditions present Observation Bicycle priority Category based on SF Bicycle Plan SF Bicycle Plan Bicycle collisions (2004 - 2008) Quartile SFMTA datasetBicycle Proposed bicycle facility incomplete Category based on SF Bicycle Plan SF Bicycle plan Projected PM vehicle volume (2035) Quartile SF CHAMP 4.1 and Fehr and Peers model Transit priority category Category based on SF TEP SF TEP Projected PM transit volume Quartile SF CHAMP 4.1Transit Transit capacity constraint Quartile SF CHAMP 4.1 Traffic delay Quartile SF CHAMP 4.1 and Fehr and Peers model 48
  • 50. Appendix B. EN TRIPS Preliminary Corridor Screening - Indicators of Need by ModeMost of the corridors in the study area play important circulation roles for multiple modes oftransportation. In order to properly consider the demands on each street segment, we haveassigned to each a priority level for each mode.In addition to motor vehicle, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle through travel, many of these streetsalso play important roles as living environments and public gathering places for residents,workers, and visitors the Eastern Neighborhoods.Modal priority classifications are as follows: Mode Highest Priority High Priority Moderate Priority Motor Vehicle  General Plan Major Arterial  General Plan Secondary  All other streets Arterial Transit  TEP Rapid Network  Served by transit  All other streets Freight  General Plan Major or  Light Industrial Zoning (All  All other streets Secondary Arterial PDR, SLR, SLI)  SFMTA Designated Freight Traffic Route  Industrial Zoning (M1 or M2) Bicycles  Bicycle lane or path in the  Bicycle Route in the SF  All other streets SF Bicycle Plan Bicycle Plan Pedestrian  Neighborhood Commercial  Residential Zoning (RH,  All Other Streets Zoning (All NC) RM, RC, RTO, RED)  Paths to Transit: Market  South of Market Alleys Street; Third Street; Fourth  Mission Bay Street in SOMA; Townsend Street; Eighth Street North of Folsom; Second Street North of Folsom; 16th, 2Fourth, and Mission Streets near Mission District BART stations, 2Second Street 49