www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSFSAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITYSan FranciscoTransportation PlanOverview and Introdu...
Purpose of the San FranciscoTransportation Plan2What is it? San Francisco’s transportation investmentprogram for all mode...
Accomplishments of 2004 CountywideTransportation PlanNew Capital Projects – Constructed or Underway T-Third, Central Free...
New transportation goals and citydevelopment objectives2013 Regional Transportation Plan: new projects Blended High Speed...
The Challenge -101k households, 191k jobs in SanFrancisco in Plan Bay Area Preferred ScenarioSource: ABAG, Jobs-HousingCon...
Final Vision ScenarioFINAL ADOPTEDPLANSummer /Fall2013Draft Vision ScenarioRevenue StrategyDeveloping the SFTP6Goals, Need...
“What would it take” to achieve our goals?Create a morelivable cityEnsure a healthyenvironmentProvideworld-classinfrastruc...
SFTP needs assessmentframeworkHealthyEnvironment Vehicle milestraveled Greenhouse gasemissions Active Transportation(wa...
Our growth and transportation challengePlanned growth through 2040 101,000 new households 191,000 new workers 603,000 m...
> 5 Million trips to/from/within SF by 204033% more trips than today10Source: SF-CHAMP 4.32,025,000765,00072,000932,000603...
Pavley Law11Example: Healthy Environment Scenariocan only approach goal w/aggressive policy changeBundlePrevious TrendExpe...
Change in local auto trips:2012-40Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U ...
Change in regional auto trips:2012-40Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A...
Congestion impacts transit speeds Transit trip takes 2-3 times longer than automobile trip in same market Muni average t...
Muni crowdingMorning peak hour, 2012 and 204015Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A...
Crowding on regional transitsystems | Morning peak hour, 2012 and 204016Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U ...
Pedestrian Injuries: Total number of injuries17Sources:Tract Populations: American Community Survey, 2009Ped Collisions (2...
Deep and Broad Public Involvementwww.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 18...
Response to calls for projects:public input19300 submittals from both agencies andthe publicSupport for “Fix It First”Su...
Desire for more investment in walking,cycling, + Muni enhancements20Investment in ProgramsS A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N ...
Prioritizing discretionaryrevenue21S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T YHow sh...
Nearly 50 projects and programs were evaluated for costeffective contribution to plan goalsProject performance evaluationS...
Final Vision ScenarioFINAL ADOPTEDPLANSummer /Fall2013Draft Vision ScenarioRevenue StrategyDeveloping the SFTP23Goals, Nee...
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSFSAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITYThank you!For more information see:www.movesmartsf.o...
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSFSAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITYDraft San FranciscoTransportation PlanMay 30, 2013
Draft SFTP FinanciallyConstrained Investment ScenarioS A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T...
Transit SOGR$55.1876%Local Streets &Roads SOGR$7.7811%Programs andEnhancements$1.222%ExpansionProjects$8.2711%Transit Serv...
Knitting it all togetherInvestment Scenario ApproachComplementary choices among investment types (e.g.replacement vehicles...
Transit SOGR$0.289%Local Streets &Roads SOGR$0.4615%Programs andEnhancements$1.1135%Expansion Projects(excluding Baseline)...
Findings & RecommendationsTransit OperationsCrowding, unreliability, and service reductions continue without more investme...
Findings & RecommendationsTransit Operations7Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T...
Findings & RecommendationsTransit MaintenanceUnreliability and cost trends will continue to worsen unless we act decisivel...
Findings & RecommendationsLocal Streets and Roads MaintenanceWithout significant investment pavement degradation will impa...
Findings & RecommendationsProgrammatic EnhancementsThe city can deliver Complete Streets more efficiently and effectively ...
Findings & RecommendationsProgrammatic Enhancements – complete streetsThe city can deliver Complete Streets more efficient...
Findings & RecommendationsProgrammatic Enhancements - transitMuni and Regional transit enhancements – a focus on “customer...
Findings & RecommendationsProgrammatic Enhancements – Transportation Demand MgmtWe must broaden our Transportation Demand ...
Findings & RecommendationsEfficiency and expansion projectsWe must improve system performance (reliability, travel times) ...
Findings & RecommendationsEfficiency and expansion projectsWe must improve system performance (reliability, travel times) ...
Findings & RecommendationsEfficiency and expansion projectsWe must improve system performance (reliability, travel times) ...
Findings & RecommendationsEquity-focused InvestmentsThe draft Plan responds to recent findings of Authority’s equity analy...
Findings & RecommendationsEquity-focused InvestmentsThe draft Plan responds to recent findings of Authority’s equity analy...
Plan Performance19Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3 and DPW• Despite limited newresources, the Planachieves modestperformance in all go...
Differentiating Between Scenarios: Environmentwww.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/Mo...
Differentiating Between Scenarios: Livabilitywww.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/Mov...
Plan Investment vs. Need0.41 0.28 0.461.03 0.880.99 0.750.560.510.72 0.63241.5312.90123456 "Priority 2" Need"Priority 1" N...
Thank ou!For For meeting schedule through July,see:www.movesmartsf.orgwww.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSFSAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSP...
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA |www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSFSan Francisco Transportation PlanMakin...
What’s working? What’s not? Looking Back – past studies, Prop K and E data,public input Looking Around – reviewing how t...
Transportation in San Francisco is a complex machine:Myriad of forces (too many to show here!) shape our transportation sy...
Top concerns we hear from the publicwww.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA |www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF4W...
What we found: We are working on the right projects (pedestrian,traffic calming) but they are taking too long, andtoo oft...
Strategic Initiatives:Complete Streets and Project Deliverywww.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.fa...
Complete Streets are wonderful, and in highdemand…7www.sfcta.org | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/SFCTA
But they pose policy, funding and institutionalchallenges8www.sfcta.org | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/SF...
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 9Toward more Complete Streets:Set realistic expectations, improve city pract...
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 10Looking AroundHow can we improve p...
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 11SF Project Delivery AssessmentPrel...
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 12SF Project Delivery AssessmentPrel...
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 13Looking Ahead - Proposed Early Act...
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 145-Year Prop K Prioritization Progr...
Questions?www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA |www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF
TheSanFrancisco TransportationPlanSFCTA Board WorkshopMay 30th, 2013Land Use, Growth & Implementation
ExpressBusCurrentBARTMuni MetroCaltrainMuni TEP RapidNetwork1 Dot = 100Central SubwayHigh Speed RailBus Rapid TransitHouse...
Households Change Jobs ChangeREGION 700,000 27% 1,120,000 33%SAN FRANCISCO 92,410 25% 190,740 34%Priority Development Area...
Potential Housing80,000UNITSPotential Employment145,000JOBSPriorityDevelopmentAreas
ExpressBus2040BARTMuni MetroCaltrainMuni TEP RapidNetwork1 Dot = 100Central SubwayHigh Speed RailBus Rapid TransitHousehol...
Photo by Josef WillemsImplementationTransportation Element UpdateCentral Corridor PlanSoMa Circulation PlanParking Supply ...
Transportation VisionInitial Policy Analysis05 | 30 | 2013SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIASFMTA | Municipal Transportation Agency...
SF Total Transportation Needs• A well-functioning transportation system isfoundational to the City’s health and economic v...
Two-tiered strategy for the transport systemTransportStrategyTravel ChoicesDemand PricingDemand ManagementPriority Transit...
4Link land usewithgrowingtravelmarkets
Virtuous Cycle of IntegratedInvestmentsIntegrationProject Investment Mode Shift EffectMore comfortable bicyclefacilities =...
48th Ave to Market/Third:35 min-45 minOcean Beachto Embarcadero:40-50 minThird St., Bayshoreto Embarcadero:40-50 minCaltra...
NetworkConditionsWest PortalMarket & Van NessEmbarcaderoFourth/KingChurch & DuboceBalboa ParkNetwork:• Rail• Rapid Network...
Long-termTransitVisionUpgrade thecore capacityLines48th Ave toMarket/Third:25 minOcean Beachto Embarcadero :25 minWharvest...
9Emerging Bicycle Core AreaBicycleStrategy
10Travel experience of networkBicycleStrategyDRAFT
Focus on45 miles11Primary bicycle corridors analysisBicycleStrategyDRAFT
12121212Corridor AnalysisBicycleStrategyDRAFT
Source: SFMTA , US Census Data, Land-use & gradient analysisStrategic Gap Closure High Stress Point in Network13Strategic ...
Funding Needs Investment Scenarios14• “Bicycle Plan Plus” Scenario:– $60 million through 2018• Strategic Plan Scenario :– ...
=+44 Miles of High Priority Segments (HPS) NeedComplete Street Type Treatments by 202115High Priority Streets for focused ...
• Core Projects and Programs $ 60 m• Best Practices Projects $303 mTotal Need $363 m1616Core Investment NeedsPedestrianStr...
Vehicle &Ride Sharing Increasing travel options
SF Private Auto Fleet Trends and Goals1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Goal4003753503253002752500%PrivateAutoFleet(000s)15- 25% fl...
Transportation System Needs Investment• Today’s system is under-resourced for current andfuture needs, despite ongoing eff...
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA |www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSFSan Francisco Transportation PlanVisio...
We need additional transportation revenues to bring oursystem to a SOGR and to meet the public’s demand forimprovements, ...
Potential New Funding SourcesKey policy considerationswww.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.faceboo...
Potential New Funding SourcesLocal Sources Being EvaluatedExamples include:Additional ½ cent sales tax (for a total of 1%...
“What If” scenarios let usimagine what our transportationsystem might look like if wehave additional transportationrevenu...
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA |www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSFThank You. Questions?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

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

1,433 views

Published on

Presentations made during an update on San Francisco Transportation Plan work for the Authority Board.

Published in: Business, Travel
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,433
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
11
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

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

  1. 1. www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSFSAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITYSan FranciscoTransportation PlanOverview and IntroductionMay 30, 2013
  2. 2. Purpose of the San FranciscoTransportation Plan2What is it? San Francisco’s transportation investmentprogram for all modes, operators to year 2040 Supporting policies and strategic initiatives Funding and implementation strategyHow will it be used? Informs local plans and investments(Transportation Element Update, SFMTA andCCSF capital plans) Guides SF’s input to regional planning efforts (BART Strategic Plan, 2017 RTP) Advocating together for San Francisco’s fair share Positions SF for future funding opportunities and policy discussions atstate, national levelS A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
  3. 3. Accomplishments of 2004 CountywideTransportation PlanNew Capital Projects – Constructed or Underway T-Third, Central Freeway/Octavia Blvd Doyle Drive (Presidio Parkway) Central Subway, Transbay Terminal Phase 1Development of a Network of Rapid Buses $45M FTA funds committed to Van Ness BRT EIRs for Geary BRT and SFMTA’s Transit EffectivenessProject underwayBicycle, Pedestrian, Traffic Calming, Streetscape Improvements Provided stable stream of funding for traffic calming Leland, Valencia and Broadway re-designsParking management and road pricing $20M USDOT grant for SFpark Mobility Access & Pricing Study, Treasure Island Program3Neighborhood Transportation Plans Outer Mission,Mission/Valencia Tenderloin/Little Saigon Bayview W. SOMA Balboa, Cesar Chavez East
  4. 4. New transportation goals and citydevelopment objectives2013 Regional Transportation Plan: new projects Blended High Speed Rail/CaltrainElectrification/Transbay/Downtown extension BART Metro, Transit Effectiveness Project, SF Pricing ProgramSB375, SF Climate Action Strategy SF goal: reduce GHGs to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Update includes a SustainableCommunities StrategyBicycle and Pedestrian Safety Directives BoS: 20% Bicycle Mode Share by 2020 Mayor’s Directive: 50% reduction in pedestrian injuries by 2020Demand Management to Support Approved Plans Bayview Waterfront, Treasure Island, Park Merced Plans SFMTA Parking and Shuttle Management policies4S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
  5. 5. The Challenge -101k households, 191k jobs in SanFrancisco in Plan Bay Area Preferred ScenarioSource: ABAG, Jobs-HousingConnection Scenario
  6. 6. Final Vision ScenarioFINAL ADOPTEDPLANSummer /Fall2013Draft Vision ScenarioRevenue StrategyDeveloping the SFTP6Goals, Needs, &AvailableFunding$64.3BState of GoodRepair Needs(O&M)DRAFTFinanciallyConstrained PlanSpring 2013ProjectsPublicFeedbackProgramsSector PoliciesS A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T YPublicFeedback6• 4 strategic initiatives• 3 special market analyses• 2 equity initiatives• New revenue / legislativeadvocacy platform
  7. 7. “What would it take” to achieve our goals?Create a morelivable cityEnsure a healthyenvironmentProvideworld-classinfrastructure& serviceStrengthen thecity’s regionalcompetitivenessNon-auto modeshare >50%No change incommute traveltime to SF~50% below1990 GHGemissionsState ofgood repair
  8. 8. SFTP needs assessmentframeworkHealthyEnvironment Vehicle milestraveled Greenhouse gasemissions Active Transportation(walking & biking)TripsLivability Travel safety Transfers/Transit trip Non-auto trip shares School trip needsState of Good Repair Crowded TransitLines Pavement ConditionIndex Transit Reliability Structural SufficiencyEconomicCompetitiveness Congested Streets,Commute times Peak: Off-peak DriveTravel Time Goods movementneeds and visitoraccessEquityPublic InputTransportation System Performance Total trip-making Mode share Avg Occupancy (PMT/VMT) Transit: Auto Travel Time RatioS A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y8
  9. 9. Our growth and transportation challengePlanned growth through 2040 101,000 new households 191,000 new workers 603,000 more daily car trips (more than the combined dailyvolume of Bay Bridge and Golden Gate Bridge crossings)New Jobsby PlanAreaNewHousing byPlan AreaS A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
  10. 10. > 5 Million trips to/from/within SF by 204033% more trips than today10Source: SF-CHAMP 4.32,025,000765,00072,000932,000603,000279,00040,000329,0000500,0001,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002,500,0003,000,000Auto Transit Bike PedTotal Trips To, From, and Within SF by Mode2012: Total 2040: Additional TripsS A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y• Projected growth in car trips is40% MORE than current dailyGolden Gate and Bay Bridgecrossings• Slightly over half of all dailytrips made by car• Current 3.5% bike mode share
  11. 11. Pavley Law11Example: Healthy Environment Scenariocan only approach goal w/aggressive policy changeBundlePrevious TrendExpected TrendGoalSan Francisco GHG Emissions Trend vs. Goal(on-road mobile, weekday)Source: SF CHAMP 4.1 Draft SCS, SFCTA, 2011234567891990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035MetricTons/Day(1000s)More aggressive!! $10B infrastructure Local road user pricing Up to 16% EV fleet $10B+ infrastructure Regional pricing at 2xtoday’s operating costs Up to 25% EV fleetS A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
  12. 12. Change in local auto trips:2012-40Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y12
  13. 13. Change in regional auto trips:2012-40Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y13
  14. 14. Congestion impacts transit speeds Transit trip takes 2-3 times longer than automobile trip in same market Muni average transit speed – 8 mph; Some Downtown streets between 5 and 10 mphTransit Speeds, Spring 2009** Auto LOS, Spring 2009*www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 14
  15. 15. Muni crowdingMorning peak hour, 2012 and 204015Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
  16. 16. Crowding on regional transitsystems | Morning peak hour, 2012 and 204016Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
  17. 17. Pedestrian Injuries: Total number of injuries17Sources:Tract Populations: American Community Survey, 2009Ped Collisions (2007-11): Statewide Integrated Traffic Reporting System (SWITRS)S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
  18. 18. Deep and Broad Public Involvementwww.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 18 4 Rounds of Outreach at variousstages (multi-lingual) Community and Technical AdvisoryCommittee - 13 meetings to date Website, Newsletters Social Media sites (facebook,twitter) Dozens of presentations to Boards,Commissions, neighborhood groups Tabling at community events andpresentations
  19. 19. Response to calls for projects:public input19300 submittals from both agencies andthe publicSupport for “Fix It First”Support for projects to improvetransit reliability and providededicated right-of-wayDemand for traffic calming,pedestrian safety andenhancement, and bicycleimprovementsDemand for more frequent transitservice (to alleviate crowding)S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
  20. 20. Desire for more investment in walking,cycling, + Muni enhancements20Investment in ProgramsS A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
  21. 21. Prioritizing discretionaryrevenue21S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T YHow should we prioritize $3.14 billion inuncommitted funds?State of Good Repair / Operations &Maintenance (O&M) Improve transit reliability Pavement quality, state and local structuresTransportation enhancements and programs Pedestrian safety, traffic calming Bicycle facilities, Rapid Transit networkExpansion projects Relieve crowding; long range strategic railinvestments Develop freeway management strategies(US101, HWY280)
  22. 22. Nearly 50 projects and programs were evaluated for costeffective contribution to plan goalsProject performance evaluationS A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y22
  23. 23. Final Vision ScenarioFINAL ADOPTEDPLANSummer /Fall2013Draft Vision ScenarioRevenue StrategyDeveloping the SFTP23Goals, Needs, &AvailableFunding$64.3BState of GoodRepair Needs(O&M)DRAFTFinanciallyConstrained PlanSpring 2013ProjectsPublicFeedbackProgramsSector PoliciesSAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITYPublicFeedback
  24. 24. www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSFSAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITYThank you!For more information see:www.movesmartsf.orgwww.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSFSAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
  25. 25. www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSFSAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITYDraft San FranciscoTransportation PlanMay 30, 2013
  26. 26. Draft SFTP FinanciallyConstrained Investment ScenarioS A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y2Total: $72.6BillionWhat we heard from thepublic:• More investment inoperations andmaintenance of theexisting systemCommitted projects(Baseline) - $9.43BWhat we heard from thepublic:• More investment inoperations andmaintenance of theexisting system• Better transitreliability, reducedtransit crowdingWhat we heard from thepublic:• More investment inoperations andmaintenance of theexisting system• Better transitreliability, reducedtransit crowding• Investment in safetyprojects, pedestrianinfrastructure, trafficcalmingWhat we heard from thepublic:• More investment inoperations andmaintenance of theexisting system• Better transitreliability, reducedtransit crowding• Investment in safetyprojects, pedestrianinfrastructure, trafficcalming• Support for cost-effective projects thatimprove systemefficiency
  27. 27. Transit SOGR$55.1876%Local Streets &Roads SOGR$7.7811%Programs andEnhancements$1.222%ExpansionProjects$8.2711%Transit ServiceExpansion$0.410%Draft SFTPTotal plan summary by typeS A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y3Total discretionaryrevenue: $3.14Billion$YOE BillionsTotal $72.6
  28. 28. Knitting it all togetherInvestment Scenario ApproachComplementary choices among investment types (e.g.replacement vehicles, rapid transit networkdevelopment can increase effective level of transitservice)But also: Tradeoffs between and within investment types (e.g.Operations, Maintenance, Programs, Expansion), modes,geographic areas andPlan development considered multiple factors: Need,Performance, Cost-Effectiveness, Public Input , Policy/Planstatus, EquityS A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y4
  29. 29. Transit SOGR$0.289%Local Streets &Roads SOGR$0.4615%Programs andEnhancements$1.1135%Expansion Projects(excluding Baseline)$0.8828%Transit ServiceExpansion$0.4113%Draft SFTPDiscretionary funds by typeS A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y5Total discretionaryrevenue: $3.14Billion
  30. 30. Findings & RecommendationsTransit OperationsCrowding, unreliability, and service reductions continue without more investment; moreover,current Muni service is financially unsustainable, need to study alternativesS A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y6Plan recommendations:Invest $410M (13% of discretionary revenues)toward continued/new transit services (mostlyMuni, plus potentially, a small amount for newcontracted regional bus service)Result: Slows the decline of service, cutswould still be inevitableOther policy recommendations:• Advocate for new, dedicated transitoperating revenue• Pursue Muni cost management strategies,in concert with regional effortsSource: MTC Transit Sustainability Project
  31. 31. Findings & RecommendationsTransit Operations7Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T YOther policy recommendations, continued:• Enable regional operator inbound pick ups• Study/pilot new models of service delivery
  32. 32. Findings & RecommendationsTransit MaintenanceUnreliability and cost trends will continue to worsen unless we act decisively to address SOGR.S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y8Plan rec’s:Increase transit SOGR investment by $10M/year (9% of discretionary revenue) towardcapital asset maintenance (vehicles, facilities,guideways) to fund 70% of most critical needsResult: Replace all vehicles and 70% of othermission critical assets on timeOther policy rec’s:• Finish Muni Asset Mgmt System, C3 andRadio Replacement projects• Implement Muni Facilities Plan• Develop pipeline of projects and fundingstrategy Source: SFMTA Transit Effectiveness Project
  33. 33. Findings & RecommendationsLocal Streets and Roads MaintenanceWithout significant investment pavement degradation will impair safe travel by all modes.S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y9Plan rec’s:Increase LS&R investment by $460M (over$16M/year, 15% of discretionary revs) for pavementresurfacing and reconstructionResult: Over time, worsens PCI about 15% to 50’s (vs.64 today)Other policy rec’s:• Do “Smart SOGR” – follow the paving/sewerproject for complete streets, reduced costs• Support full roll-out of Envista as a map-basedcoordination platform for street/sewerimprovement projects• Must advocate for additional resurfacing funding
  34. 34. Findings & RecommendationsProgrammatic EnhancementsThe city can deliver Complete Streets more efficiently and effectively than today.S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y10Plan rec’s: Invest $640M (20% ofdiscretionary revenue) into multi-modal(pedestrian, bicycling, traffic calming,signal) projects.Note: This investment level representsaspirational delivery rates, based on past andcurrent indications; it could be delivered in ½the Plan period with strong policy and politicalsupport.Result: Safer, more complete pedestrian,bicycle and transit networks; calmerstreets, smoother traffic flowsSource: SFMTA Pedestrian Strategy
  35. 35. Findings & RecommendationsProgrammatic Enhancements – complete streetsThe city can deliver Complete Streets more efficiently and effectively than today.S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y11Other policy rec’s:• Increase transparency and publicinvolvement through “Citizen’s Guide toTransportation Improvements in SF”• Clarify city’s Complete Streets designpolicies, processes and standards.• Support MTA’s revised Traffic Calmingprogram, Pedestrian Strategy, andcreation of signals investment strategy(e.g., for the “Sfgo” program).
  36. 36. Findings & RecommendationsProgrammatic Enhancements - transitMuni and Regional transit enhancements – a focus on “customer first” improvementsS A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y12Plan recommendations:Maintain existing levels at $330M or $11.8M/year (10.5% ofdiscretionary revs) toward transit enhancements, e.g. development ofregional and local transit hubs with real-time information and accessimprovements, including integration of bike/car sharing, taxi andpedestrian safety, e.g. at Balboa StationResult: More consistent and convenient user experienceOther policy rec’s:• Coordinate major capital projects e.g. Embarc./Montgomery BARTstations with Transbay Terminal, Better Market Street• Coordinate transit investment with land use development plans, M-Line, Bayview Waterfront Transit Center, Geneva BRT, Treasures Island• Increase regional partnerships & advocacy to develop project pipeline
  37. 37. Findings & RecommendationsProgrammatic Enhancements – Transportation Demand MgmtWe must broaden our Transportation Demand Management (TDM) efforts to reach our goals.S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y13Plan recommendations:Increase TDM investment to $60M ($2.1M/year, or 2% ofdiscretionary revs) for strategies to encourage time and modeshifts away from single-occupant automobile trips.Other policy rec’s:• Continue to develop pricing and other peak–spreadingstrategies (Treasure Island, Cordon Pricing, parking pricing,and Employer policies)• Develop MTA regulatory programs to allow safe integrationof 3rd party providers (Muni Partners, taxi/ride-sharing)• Encourage, grow community-based mobility solutions, e.g.vehicle sharing, volunteer driver program• Explore area-wide parking cap or employer trip reductionprograms for SoMA/MissionBay
  38. 38. Findings & RecommendationsEfficiency and expansion projectsWe must improve system performance (reliability, travel times) to meet existing and futuredemands.S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y14Plan recommendations:Investment $880M ($31M/year, or 28% of discretionary revs) in new projects and studies to raisethe operational efficiency of our system and meet the demands of growth.
  39. 39. Findings & RecommendationsEfficiency and expansion projectsWe must improve system performance (reliability, travel times) to meet existing and futuredemands.S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y15In addition to the Committed Projects,the Plan includes:• Continued rapid transit networkdevelopment for travel times andreliability (TEP, Geary, Geneva andPotrero/Bayshore BRT• Address rapid networkcapacity andperformancebottlenecks (TransitPerformanceInitiative, BARTMetro)
  40. 40. Findings & RecommendationsEfficiency and expansion projectsWe must improve system performance (reliability, travel times) to meet existing and futuredemands.S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y16In addition to the Committed Projects, the Plan includes:• Setting a vision for SF freeway management strategies• Study of our long range BART/Muni/Caltrain transitnetwork developmentOther Policy Rec’s:• Seek the delivery of Caltrain Electrification by 2019• Solidify the plan for delivering DTX• Expansion of P3s, value capture to replaceRedevelopment mechanism, and pursue other innovativeproject delivery approaches, with strong revenueadvocacy for our priorities.
  41. 41. Findings & RecommendationsEquity-focused InvestmentsThe draft Plan responds to recent findings of Authority’s equity analysis identifying somegeographic and socio-economic disparitiesS A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y17Geographic equity support:• Enhance regional transit systemaccess – new regional transit accesspilot, e.g. West side to Caltrain,BART• Improve reliability, especially inouter parts of the city – SOGR,transit enhancement (real timeinformation displays) and transitpriority network development• Implement neighborhoodtransportation improvements inevery district, e.g. through upcoming5-year Prop K programs
  42. 42. Findings & RecommendationsEquity-focused InvestmentsThe draft Plan responds to recent findings of Authority’s equity analysis identifying somegeographic and socio-economic disparitiesS A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y18Socio-Economic equity support:• Pedestrian Safety funding, including SR2S, SR2T, trafficcalming , education, outreach, and enforcement funds• Bicycle network development and implementation• Mobility management support for CBOs (e.g. Bayview shuttle-sharing)• Bikeshare/carshare initiatives (address affordability)• Increased planning funds to build neighborhood capacity anda strong pipeline of projects
  43. 43. Plan Performance19Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3 and DPW• Despite limited newresources, the Planachieves modestperformance in all goalareas• However, underfundingroad and transitmaintenancecounteracts SOGR gainsfrom reduced crowding• Specific corridors seemore dramaticperformance gainsS A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
  44. 44. Differentiating Between Scenarios: Environmentwww.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 20200025003000350040004500500055006000650070001990 2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040MetricTonsofGHGEmittedHealthy Environment: Greenhouse Gas Emissions*2040 Goal:2,400Plan WithCongestion Pricing:3,915 to 4,100Plan WithoutCongestion Pricing:4,215 to 4,400Expected Trend:4,440 to 4,500*Average weekday on-road mobile emissions
  45. 45. Differentiating Between Scenarios: Livabilitywww.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 2145%47%49%51%53%55%2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040ShareofAllTripsbyAutomobileLivability: Percent of Weekday T rips Made by AutoPlan WithCongestion Pricing:47-50%Plan WithoutCongestion Pricing:48% to 51%2040 Goal: Below 50%Expected Trend:51% to 52%
  46. 46. Plan Investment vs. Need0.41 0.28 0.461.03 0.880.99 0.750.560.510.72 0.63241.5312.90123456 "Priority 2" Need"Priority 1" NeedDiscretionary Revenue(Financially ConstrainedInvestment Strategy)22S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T YBillions
  47. 47. Thank ou!For For meeting schedule through July,see:www.movesmartsf.orgwww.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSFSAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
  48. 48. www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA |www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSFSan Francisco Transportation PlanMaking It Happen:An Implementation Strategy for the SFTP
  49. 49. What’s working? What’s not? Looking Back – past studies, Prop K and E data,public input Looking Around – reviewing how transportation isdone in other places, what can we learn? Looking Ahead – continue what works, addressareas that need improvement, pilot newapproachesSFTP Implementation Strategies2SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
  50. 50. Transportation in San Francisco is a complex machine:Myriad of forces (too many to show here!) shape our transportation systemwww.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA |www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF3Public Agencies(i.e. SFMTA,DPW, PUC,SFCTA, BART,MTC, Caltrans,FTA, FHWA)FundingExternalForcesTransportationnetworkFederalStateRegionalLocalPublicCEQA/NEPALand useEconomyDailychallengesCollisionsLegal issuesShiftingpoliticalprioritiesWeather
  51. 51. Top concerns we hear from the publicwww.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA |www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF4We should beable to deliverprojects fasterWe deserve abettertransportationsystemWe need bettercoordinationbetweenagencies andwith the publicWe need to getthe biggestbang for ourtransportationbuck
  52. 52. What we found: We are working on the right projects (pedestrian,traffic calming) but they are taking too long, andtoo often are uncoordinated. Pilots are effective– high demand for more pilotsand near-term improvements, but agencies can’tkeep up, e.g. traffic calming. Initial “complete streets” are popular, butexpensive e.g. Valencia. The public wants more,but we lack strong policies and processes toprioritize, design and build them cost-effectively.Looking Back5SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY It’s not clear how transportation planning and funding processes work,and outreach is inconsistent, leading to shifting priorities and uneven orinadequate public involvement, with problematic outcomes.
  53. 53. Strategic Initiatives:Complete Streets and Project Deliverywww.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 6 Complete Streets: Provide more benefitwith each transportation investment bycreating a cost-effective completestreets approach from planning toimplementation Project Delivery: Increase transparency,shorten the timeline for project deliveryand increase “bang for the buck”
  54. 54. Complete Streets are wonderful, and in highdemand…7www.sfcta.org | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/SFCTA
  55. 55. But they pose policy, funding and institutionalchallenges8www.sfcta.org | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/SFCTAgraphic: SFMTA Dispersed responsibility for streets is a common feature among cities Street managementand improvementdecisions requirestrong policydirection,coordination Including multiplefeatures rapidlyincreases a project’scost, with varyingimplications for cost-effectiveness
  56. 56. SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 9Toward more Complete Streets:Set realistic expectations, improve city practicesWe recommend program designed to clarify complete streets expectationsby creating a culture and consistent practice of multi-modal design: Recognize trade-offs, prioritize our efforts: How manymulti-featured projects can/should we deliver per year? Design Standards – e.g. define standard bulb-outdesigns and cost-estimates Design rules - establish “must,” “should,” “may”practices) for incorporating complete street elements Design processes -mainstreaming practice of multi-modal design, value engineering, alternatives analysis Funding practices - Set up “joint opportunities” fundingpots to facilitate and incentivize add-ons to a project
  57. 57. www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 10Looking AroundHow can we improve project delivery in the city?source: LA Metro Larger Project Delivery► Review of SF experience► Case Studies of Southern CAexperience Small Projects Delivery► Review of past local studies,reports, Prop K data► Interviews with local elected andcivic, community leaders
  58. 58. www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 11SF Project Delivery AssessmentPreliminary Findings Project identification, prioritizationprocesses and status are not alwaystransparent Publish multi-agency “Citizen Guide toTransportation Project Development” Expand monitoring and accountability toolsand websites (like MyStreetSF.com) Political champions and agency leadershipneeds to be focused on/aid project delivery Support strong project designs, necessarytrade-offs Set clear expectations for project schedules,organizational culture shiftsSource: SANDAG
  59. 59. www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 12SF Project Delivery AssessmentPreliminary Findings Coordination across and within agencies is achallenge Multi-departmental leadership is required tomake existing organizations more effective;Common tools, e.g. Envista GIS map, can help Alternatively, re-organizing to focus roles andaccountability is an option Project managers are not empowered, resourced to deliver projects efficiently Strong PMs, with integrated, co-located project teams are needed Agencies should be encouraged to use alternative delivery methods, streamlinedprocurement processes
  60. 60. www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 13Looking Ahead - Proposed Early ActionNeighborhood Transportation Improvement Program This Early Delivery demonstrationprogram is designed to:► Respond to SFTP equity analysisfindings► Demonstrate new complete streets andproject delivery approaches► Result in on-the-ground improvementswithin 5 years If desired by Authority Board, could beapproved through Prop K 5-yearProgram updates this fall. Would seek to leverage Prop K withother fundsSample NTI ProgramDistrict Project1 Geary: near term Ped/Signal improvements1 Anza Ped/Bike improvements2 Lombard Street Pedestrian and Streetcape2 Ped Safety Mini Program: Marina Boulevard, SR2S3 Columbus Ave Phase 1 (coordinate with paving, TEP)3 Broadway Neighborhood Transportation Plan, traffic calming4 Ocean Beach Plan Phase 1 - Sloat (Bike, Ped, Traffic Calming)4,7 19th Ave Bulbouts Phase 1 (coordinate with TEP)5 Fillmore Fill - planning study and design5 Ped Safety Mini Program: Octavia/Oak, re-open x-walks6 Ped Safety Mini Program: 6th St (coordinate with BMS)+SR2S6 Ellis/Eddy Traffic calming/pedestrian improvements7 Ped Safety Mini Program: Traffic calming, bulbouts etc.8 Glen Park Plan plaza/access improvements8,9,11 SJ/Guerrero Re-design and multi-modal (Bike/Ped) improvements9 Ped Safety Mini Program: SR2S/Ped or Mission Streetscape10 Palou Streetscape and Paving10Ped Safety Mini Program: New sidewalks, SR2T (22ndStreet Station) SR2S11 Mission Terrace planning and project
  61. 61. www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 145-Year Prop K Prioritization ProgramsHow do you want to spend Prop K sales tax dollars? Check out MyStreetSF.com – anythingmissing? If so, propose it this summer 5-Year Program Updates: 21 categories oftransportation investment in Prop K SalesTax Program► All modes, types of projects► Local and regional agency sponsors► Public outreach and involvement plannedfor Summer to Fall 2013 Stay tuned for updates at SFCTA website:sfcta.org or movesmartsf.comPropK
  62. 62. Questions?www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA |www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF
  63. 63. TheSanFrancisco TransportationPlanSFCTA Board WorkshopMay 30th, 2013Land Use, Growth & Implementation
  64. 64. ExpressBusCurrentBARTMuni MetroCaltrainMuni TEP RapidNetwork1 Dot = 100Central SubwayHigh Speed RailBus Rapid TransitHouseholdsJobsExpressBusCurrentBARTMuni MetroCaltrainMuni TEP RapidNetwork1 Dot = 100Central SubwayHigh Speed RailBus Rapid TransitHouseholdsJobsLand Use Today
  65. 65. Households Change Jobs ChangeREGION 700,000 27% 1,120,000 33%SAN FRANCISCO 92,410 25% 190,740 34%Priority Development Areas 80,000 48% 145,000 30%Rest of City 12,410 6% 45,740 18%GROWTH2010 - 2040• Region will growsubstantially; San Francisco willtake large share.• PDA’s today canaccommodate 80%of San Francisco’sgrowth.• New developmentguided to build new,vibrant, mixed use
  66. 66. Potential Housing80,000UNITSPotential Employment145,000JOBSPriorityDevelopmentAreas
  67. 67. ExpressBus2040BARTMuni MetroCaltrainMuni TEP RapidNetwork1 Dot = 100Central SubwayHigh Speed RailBus Rapid TransitHouseholdsJobsExpressBus2040BARTMuni MetroCaltrainMuni TEP RapidNetwork1 Dot = 100Central SubwayHigh Speed RailBus Rapid TransitHouseholdsJobsProjected Growth to 2040
  68. 68. Photo by Josef WillemsImplementationTransportation Element UpdateCentral Corridor PlanSoMa Circulation PlanParking Supply Management StrategiesBiCounty: T-Third to Bayshore Station19th Avenue Transit StudyBetter Market StreetInvest In NeighborhoodsProjects UnderwayLinkingTransportation& Land Use
  69. 69. Transportation VisionInitial Policy Analysis05 | 30 | 2013SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIASFMTA | Municipal Transportation Agency Image: Market and Geary Streets, circa 1920s, Muni Centennial logo
  70. 70. SF Total Transportation Needs• A well-functioning transportation system isfoundational to the City’s health and economic vitality• >$4 billion already spent each year on transportation– Over $1 billion public funds spent annually on transportation– Approx. $3 billion private funds spent annually operating andmaintaining private transportation• Almost $900 million a year needed to meet goals– Operating, Maintenance, Repair and Expansion2
  71. 71. Two-tiered strategy for the transport systemTransportStrategyTravel ChoicesDemand PricingDemand ManagementPriority Transit Complete Streets Vehicle SharingInfrastructure SupportSmart Land-Use
  72. 72. 4Link land usewithgrowingtravelmarkets
  73. 73. Virtuous Cycle of IntegratedInvestmentsIntegrationProject Investment Mode Shift EffectMore comfortable bicyclefacilities = more transitcapacityCar/bike/scootersharing, taxi demandgrowsinvestments in bicyclinginfrastructure, facilities &programsMore transit and bicycletrips = more walking andmore economicdevelopmentinvestments in walkinginfrastructure, facilities &programsinvestments in transitreliability and frequencyprogramsinvestments in demandmanagement and vehiclesharing programs
  74. 74. 48th Ave to Market/Third:35 min-45 minOcean Beachto Embarcadero:40-50 minThird St., Bayshoreto Embarcadero:40-50 minCaltrain,Bayshoreto Fourth/King:15 min (+9 toEmbarcadero)BART, Daly Cityto Embarcadero:17 min19th/Hollowayto Embarcadero:30-45 minNetwork:• Rail• Rapid Transitways• Local Service• Historic NetworkTransitNetworkTravel TimeVariabilityAssessment
  75. 75. NetworkConditionsWest PortalMarket & Van NessEmbarcaderoFourth/KingChurch & DuboceBalboa ParkNetwork:• Rail• Rapid Network• Local Service• Historic NetworkIncreasing growth &congestion can lead to:• Reliability & traveltime variability• Slower operatingspeeds• Vehicle capacity/crowding• Networkvulnerability• Hotspots &bottlenecksCore Capacity Needs &Rail Pinch-PointsTransitStrategy
  76. 76. Long-termTransitVisionUpgrade thecore capacityLines48th Ave toMarket/Third:25 minOcean Beachto Embarcadero :25 minWharvesto Moscone:10 minDaly Cityto Embarcadero:25 minBayshore &Hunters Pointto Market St.:25 minDRAFT
  77. 77. 9Emerging Bicycle Core AreaBicycleStrategy
  78. 78. 10Travel experience of networkBicycleStrategyDRAFT
  79. 79. Focus on45 miles11Primary bicycle corridors analysisBicycleStrategyDRAFT
  80. 80. 12121212Corridor AnalysisBicycleStrategyDRAFT
  81. 81. Source: SFMTA , US Census Data, Land-use & gradient analysisStrategic Gap Closure High Stress Point in Network13Strategic Network Gap ClosuresBicycleStrategyDRAFT
  82. 82. Funding Needs Investment Scenarios14• “Bicycle Plan Plus” Scenario:– $60 million through 2018• Strategic Plan Scenario :– $200 million through 2018• System Build-out Scenario:– $600 million
  83. 83. =+44 Miles of High Priority Segments (HPS) NeedComplete Street Type Treatments by 202115High Priority Streets for focused investmentPedestrianStrategy
  84. 84. • Core Projects and Programs $ 60 m• Best Practices Projects $303 mTotal Need $363 m1616Core Investment NeedsPedestrianStrategy
  85. 85. Vehicle &Ride Sharing Increasing travel options
  86. 86. SF Private Auto Fleet Trends and Goals1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Goal4003753503253002752500%PrivateAutoFleet(000s)15- 25% fleet reduction potential withsignificant vehicle sharing growthTrendPotentialVehicleSharingOpportunityVehicle &Ride Sharing Vehicle sharing potential
  87. 87. Transportation System Needs Investment• Today’s system is under-resourced for current andfuture needs, despite ongoing efficiency improvements• Tradeoffs have to be made in rights of way priority anddemand management tools to meet goals• The key is to help reduce everyone’s transportationbudget, improve overall transportation efficiency andincrease our economic competitiveness.
  88. 88. www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA |www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSFSan Francisco Transportation PlanVision and Revenue StrategyMay 30, 2013
  89. 89. We need additional transportation revenues to bring oursystem to a SOGR and to meet the public’s demand forimprovements, but must use existing revenues more efficientlyto build voter confidence New/improved approaches to project delivery Investing in projects that reduce ongoingoperations and maintenance costs (e.g. TransitEffectiveness Project, staggered fleet replacementsto reduce average age of fleet) Findings ways to control cost escalationSFTP Revenue StrategiesUse Existing Revenues More Efficiently2SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
  90. 90. Potential New Funding SourcesKey policy considerationswww.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 3The size of SF’s unfunded need is so large, that it demands a multi-prongedapproach: Use what we have more efficientlyMaximize capture of discretionary revenues and leverage private sectorIdentify new sources of revenuesContinued uncertainty at the federal and state levels present opportunities (e.g.Public-Private Partnerships), but also mean new revenues might need to be localsolutions in the near-termStill, SF should proactively develop strong regional (e.g. future bridge toll), state(e.g. cap and trade) and federal (next transportation act) advocacy platforms
  91. 91. Potential New Funding SourcesLocal Sources Being EvaluatedExamples include:Additional ½ cent sales tax (for a total of 1% ofSF local sales tax capacity dedicated totransportation)Parcel tax (flat rate or progressive)Citywide community facilities district (Mello-Roos)Local & regional gas taxesVehicle license feeExpress lanes on US 101/I-280General obligation bondsRegional VMT feewww.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 4Each revenue source involves tradeoffsSome sources present challenges from an equity standpoint – eachneeds to be comprehensively evaluatedOther public priorities (education, health care, parks, etc.) are alsocompeting for public fundingOngoing coordination with Mayor’s Transportation 2030 Task Force
  92. 92. “What If” scenarios let usimagine what our transportationsystem might look like if wehave additional transportationrevenues.And, it helps to shape revenueadvocacy strategy by: Increase efficient use ofexisting funds Demonstrating ability toleverage other sources offunding (public and private) Building consensus on ourfederal, state, regional “Asks”What if….we had more revenues?Revenue Levels for Vision Scenarios5SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY$6+ billion more might require a mixtureof big, medium and smaller sourcessuch as:• $4.0 B - another half-cent sales tax• $1.0 B - general obligation bonds• $0.8 B - additional Federal funds• $0.5 B - community benefits district$10 billion more might require all of theabove, plus something like:• $2.7 B - 1.35% SF vehicle license fee• $1.0 B - even more Federal funds• $0.2 B - 0.5% MUNI op’g cost savings
  93. 93. www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA |www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSFThank You. Questions?

×