The San Francisco Transportation Plan is a comprehensive framework aimed at guiding the city's transportation investments and policies until 2040, addressing needs for all transportation modes. It anticipates significant growth in households and jobs, leading to increased daily trips, while aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists. The plan emphasizes public involvement and prioritizes funding for transit reliability, maintenance, and enhancements to address congestion and improve transportation infrastructure.

1. www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
San Francisco
Transportation Plan
Overview and Introduction
May 30, 2013

2. Purpose of the San Francisco
Transportation Plan
2
What is it?
 San Francisco’s transportation investment
program for all modes, operators to year 2040
 Supporting policies and strategic initiatives
 Funding and implementation strategy
How will it be used?
 Informs local plans and investments
(Transportation Element Update, SFMTA and
CCSF capital plans)
 Guides SF’s input to regional planning efforts (BART Strategic Plan, 2017 RTP)
 Advocating together for San Francisco’s fair share
 Positions SF for future funding opportunities and policy discussions at
state, national level
S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y

3. Accomplishments of 2004 Countywide
Transportation Plan
New Capital Projects – Constructed or Underway
 T-Third, Central Freeway/Octavia Blvd
 Doyle Drive (Presidio Parkway)
 Central Subway, Transbay Terminal Phase 1
Development of a Network of Rapid Buses
 $45M FTA funds committed to Van Ness BRT
 EIRs for Geary BRT and SFMTA’s Transit Effectiveness
Project underway
Bicycle, Pedestrian, Traffic Calming, Streetscape Improvements
 Provided stable stream of funding for traffic calming
 Leland, Valencia and Broadway re-designs
Parking management and road pricing
 $20M USDOT grant for SFpark
 Mobility Access & Pricing Study, Treasure Island Program
3
Neighborhood Transportation Plans
 Outer Mission,
Mission/Valencia
 Tenderloin/Little Saigon
 Bayview
 W. SOMA
 Balboa, Cesar Chavez East

4. New transportation goals and city
development objectives
2013 Regional Transportation Plan: new projects
 Blended High Speed Rail/Caltrain
Electrification/Transbay/Downtown extension
 BART Metro, Transit Effectiveness Project, SF Pricing Program
SB375, SF Climate Action Strategy
 SF goal: reduce GHGs to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050
 Regional Transportation Plan Update includes a Sustainable
Communities Strategy
Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Directives
 BoS: 20% Bicycle Mode Share by 2020
 Mayor’s Directive: 50% reduction in pedestrian injuries by 2020
Demand Management to Support Approved Plans
 Bayview Waterfront, Treasure Island, Park Merced Plans
 SFMTA Parking and Shuttle Management policies
4
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

5. The Challenge -101k households, 191k jobs in San
Francisco in Plan Bay Area Preferred Scenario
Source: ABAG, Jobs-Housing
Connection Scenario

6. Final Vision Scenario
FINAL ADOPTED
PLAN
Summer /Fall
2013
Draft Vision Scenario
Revenue Strategy
Developing the SFTP
6
Goals, Needs, &
Available
Funding
$64.3B
State of Good
Repair Needs
(O&M)
DRAFT
Financially
Constrained Plan
Spring 2013
Projects
Public
Feedback
Programs
Sector Policies
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
Public
Feedback
6
• 4 strategic initiatives
• 3 special market analyses
• 2 equity initiatives
• New revenue / legislative
advocacy platform

7. “What would it take” to achieve our goals?
Create a more
livable city
Ensure a healthy
environment
Provide
world-class
infrastructure
& service
Strengthen the
city’s regional
competitiveness
Non-auto mode
share >50%
No change in
commute travel
time to SF
~50% below
1990 GHG
emissions
State of
good repair

8. SFTP needs assessment
framework
Healthy
Environment
 Vehicle miles
traveled
 Greenhouse gas
emissions
 Active Transportation
(walking & biking)
Trips
Livability
 Travel safety
 Transfers/Transit trip
 Non-auto trip shares
 School trip needs
State of Good Repair
 Crowded Transit
Lines
 Pavement Condition
Index
 Transit Reliability
 Structural Sufficiency
Economic
Competitiveness
 Congested Streets,
Commute times
 Peak: Off-peak Drive
Travel Time
 Goods movement
needs and visitor
access
Equity
Public Input
Transportation System Performance
 Total trip-making
 Mode share
 Avg Occupancy (PMT/VMT)
 Transit: Auto Travel Time Ratio
S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
8

9. Our growth and transportation challenge
Planned growth through 2040
 101,000 new households
 191,000 new workers
 603,000 more daily car trips (more than the combined daily
volume of Bay Bridge and Golden Gate Bridge crossings)
New Jobs
by Plan
Area
New
Housing by
Plan Area
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

10. > 5 Million trips to/from/within SF by 2040
33% more trips than today
10
Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3
2,025,000
765,000
72,000
932,000
603,000
279,000
40,000
329,000
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
Auto Transit Bike Ped
Total Trips To, From, and Within SF by Mode
2012: Total 2040: Additional Trips
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
• Projected growth in car trips is
40% MORE than current daily
Golden Gate and Bay Bridge
crossings
• Slightly over half of all daily
trips made by car
• Current 3.5% bike mode share

11. Pavley Law
11
Example: Healthy Environment Scenario
can only approach goal w/aggressive policy change
Bundle
Previous Trend
Expected Trend
Goal
San Francisco GHG Emissions Trend vs. Goal
(on-road mobile, weekday)
Source: SF CHAMP 4.1 Draft SCS, SFCTA, 2011
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
MetricTons/Day(1000s)
More aggressive!!
 $10B infrastructure
 Local road user pricing
 Up to 16% EV fleet
 $10B+ infrastructure
 Regional pricing at 2x
today’s operating costs
 Up to 25% EV fleet
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

12. Change in local auto trips:
2012-40
Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3
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
12

13. Change in regional auto trips:
2012-40
Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3
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
13

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 mph
Transit Speeds, Spring 2009** Auto LOS, Spring 2009*
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 14

15. Muni crowding
Morning peak hour, 2012 and 2040
15
Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3
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

16. Crowding on regional transit
systems | Morning peak hour, 2012 and 2040
16
Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3
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

17. Pedestrian Injuries: Total number of injuries
17
Sources:
Tract Populations: American Community Survey, 2009
Ped 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. Deep and Broad Public Involvement
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 18
 4 Rounds of Outreach at various
stages (multi-lingual)
 Community and Technical Advisory
Committee - 13 meetings to date
 Website, Newsletters
 Social Media sites (facebook,
twitter)
 Dozens of presentations to Boards,
Commissions, neighborhood groups
 Tabling at community events and
presentations

19. Response to calls for projects:
public input
19
300 submittals from both agencies and
the public
Support for “Fix It First”
Support for projects to improve
transit reliability and provide
dedicated right-of-way
Demand for traffic calming,
pedestrian safety and
enhancement, and bicycle
improvements
Demand for more frequent transit
service (to alleviate crowding)
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. Desire for more investment in walking,
cycling, + Muni enhancements
20
Investment in Programs
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

21. Prioritizing discretionary
revenue
21
S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
How should we prioritize $3.14 billion in
uncommitted funds?
State of Good Repair / Operations &
Maintenance (O&M)
 Improve transit reliability
 Pavement quality, state and local structures
Transportation enhancements and programs
 Pedestrian safety, traffic calming
 Bicycle facilities, Rapid Transit network
Expansion projects
 Relieve crowding; long range strategic rail
investments
 Develop freeway management strategies
(US101, HWY280)

22. Nearly 50 projects and programs were evaluated for cost
effective contribution to plan goals
Project performance evaluation
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
22

23. Final Vision Scenario
FINAL ADOPTED
PLAN
Summer /Fall
2013
Draft Vision Scenario
Revenue Strategy
Developing the SFTP
23
Goals, Needs, &
Available
Funding
$64.3B
State of Good
Repair Needs
(O&M)
DRAFT
Financially
Constrained Plan
Spring 2013
Projects
Public
Feedback
Programs
Sector Policies
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
Public
Feedback

24. www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
Thank you!
For more information see:
www.movesmartsf.org
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

25. www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
Draft San Francisco
Transportation Plan
May 30, 2013

26. Draft SFTP Financially
Constrained Investment Scenario
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
2
Total: $72.6Billion
What we heard from the
public:
• More investment in
operations and
maintenance of the
existing system
Committed projects
(Baseline) - $9.43B
What we heard from the
public:
• More investment in
operations and
maintenance of the
existing system
• Better transit
reliability, reduced
transit crowding
What we heard from the
public:
• More investment in
operations and
maintenance of the
existing system
• Better transit
reliability, reduced
transit crowding
• Investment in safety
projects, pedestrian
infrastructure, traffic
calming
What we heard from the
public:
• More investment in
operations and
maintenance of the
existing system
• Better transit
reliability, reduced
transit crowding
• Investment in safety
projects, pedestrian
infrastructure, traffic
calming
• Support for cost-
effective projects that
improve system
efficiency

27. Transit SOGR
$55.18
76%
Local Streets &
Roads SOGR
$7.78
11%
Programs and
Enhancements
$1.22
2%
Expansion
Projects
$8.27
11%
Transit Service
Expansion
$0.41
0%
Draft SFTP
Total plan summary by type
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
3
Total discretionary
revenue: $3.14Billion
$YOE Billions
Total $72.6

28. Knitting it all together
Investment Scenario Approach
Complementary choices among investment types (e.g.
replacement vehicles, rapid transit network
development can increase effective level of transit
service)
But also:
 Tradeoffs between and within investment types (e.g.
Operations, Maintenance, Programs, Expansion), modes,
geographic areas and
Plan development considered multiple factors: Need,
Performance, Cost-Effectiveness, Public Input , Policy/Plan
status, Equity
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
4

29. Transit SOGR
$0.28
9%
Local Streets &
Roads SOGR
$0.46
15%
Programs and
Enhancements
$1.11
35%
Expansion Projects
(excluding Baseline)
$0.88
28%
Transit Service
Expansion
$0.41
13%
Draft SFTP
Discretionary funds by type
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
5
Total discretionary
revenue: $3.14Billion

30. Findings & Recommendations
Transit Operations
Crowding, unreliability, and service reductions continue without more investment; moreover,
current Muni service is financially unsustainable, need to study alternatives
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
6
Plan recommendations:
Invest $410M (13% of discretionary revenues)
toward continued/new transit services (mostly
Muni, plus potentially, a small amount for new
contracted regional bus service)
Result: Slows the decline of service, cuts
would still be inevitable
Other policy recommendations:
• Advocate for new, dedicated transit
operating revenue
• Pursue Muni cost management strategies,
in concert with regional efforts
Source: MTC Transit Sustainability Project

31. Findings & Recommendations
Transit Operations
7
Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3
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
Other policy recommendations, continued:
• Enable regional operator inbound pick ups
• Study/pilot new models of service delivery

32. Findings & Recommendations
Transit Maintenance
Unreliability 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 Y
8
Plan rec’s:
Increase transit SOGR investment by $10M/
year (9% of discretionary revenue) toward
capital asset maintenance (vehicles, facilities,
guideways) to fund 70% of most critical needs
Result: Replace all vehicles and 70% of other
mission critical assets on time
Other policy rec’s:
• Finish Muni Asset Mgmt System, C3 and
Radio Replacement projects
• Implement Muni Facilities Plan
• Develop pipeline of projects and funding
strategy Source: SFMTA Transit Effectiveness Project

33. Findings & Recommendations
Local Streets and Roads Maintenance
Without 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 Y
9
Plan rec’s:
Increase LS&R investment by $460M (over
$16M/year, 15% of discretionary revs) for pavement
resurfacing and reconstruction
Result: Over time, worsens PCI about 15% to 50’s (vs.
64 today)
Other policy rec’s:
• Do “Smart SOGR” – follow the paving/sewer
project for complete streets, reduced costs
• Support full roll-out of Envista as a map-based
coordination platform for street/sewer
improvement projects
• Must advocate for additional resurfacing funding

34. Findings & Recommendations
Programmatic Enhancements
The 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 Y
10
Plan rec’s: Invest $640M (20% of
discretionary revenue) into multi-modal
(pedestrian, bicycling, traffic calming,
signal) projects.
Note: This investment level represents
aspirational delivery rates, based on past and
current indications; it could be delivered in ½
the Plan period with strong policy and political
support.
Result: Safer, more complete pedestrian,
bicycle and transit networks; calmer
streets, smoother traffic flows
Source: SFMTA Pedestrian Strategy

35. Findings & Recommendations
Programmatic Enhancements – complete streets
The 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 Y
11
Other policy rec’s:
• Increase transparency and public
involvement through “Citizen’s Guide to
Transportation Improvements in SF”
• Clarify city’s Complete Streets design
policies, processes and standards.
• Support MTA’s revised Traffic Calming
program, Pedestrian Strategy, and
creation of signals investment strategy
(e.g., for the “Sfgo” program).

36. Findings & Recommendations
Programmatic Enhancements - transit
Muni and Regional transit enhancements – a focus on “customer first” improvements
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
12
Plan recommendations:
Maintain existing levels at $330M or $11.8M/year (10.5% of
discretionary revs) toward transit enhancements, e.g. development of
regional and local transit hubs with real-time information and access
improvements, including integration of bike/car sharing, taxi and
pedestrian safety, e.g. at Balboa Station
Result: More consistent and convenient user experience
Other policy rec’s:
• Coordinate major capital projects e.g. Embarc./Montgomery BART
stations with Transbay Terminal, Better Market Street
• Coordinate transit investment with land use development plans, M-
Line, Bayview Waterfront Transit Center, Geneva BRT, Treasures Island
• Increase regional partnerships & advocacy to develop project pipeline

37. Findings & Recommendations
Programmatic Enhancements – Transportation Demand Mgmt
We 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 Y
13
Plan recommendations:
Increase TDM investment to $60M ($2.1M/year, or 2% of
discretionary revs) for strategies to encourage time and mode
shifts away from single-occupant automobile trips.
Other policy rec’s:
• Continue to develop pricing and other peak–spreading
strategies (Treasure Island, Cordon Pricing, parking pricing,
and Employer policies)
• Develop MTA regulatory programs to allow safe integration
of 3rd party providers (Muni Partners, taxi/ride-sharing)
• Encourage, grow community-based mobility solutions, e.g.
vehicle sharing, volunteer driver program
• Explore area-wide parking cap or employer trip reduction
programs for SoMA/MissionBay

38. Findings & Recommendations
Efficiency and expansion projects
We must improve system performance (reliability, travel times) to meet existing and future
demands.
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
14
Plan recommendations:
Investment $880M ($31M/year, or 28% of discretionary revs) in new projects and studies to raise
the operational efficiency of our system and meet the demands of growth.

39. Findings & Recommendations
Efficiency and expansion projects
We must improve system performance (reliability, travel times) to meet existing and future
demands.
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
15
In addition to the Committed Projects,
the Plan includes:
• Continued rapid transit network
development for travel times and
reliability (TEP, Geary, Geneva and
Potrero/Bayshore BRT
• Address rapid network
capacity and
performance
bottlenecks (Transit
Performance
Initiative, BART
Metro)

40. Findings & Recommendations
Efficiency and expansion projects
We must improve system performance (reliability, travel times) to meet existing and future
demands.
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
16
In addition to the Committed Projects, the Plan includes:
• Setting a vision for SF freeway management strategies
• Study of our long range BART/Muni/Caltrain transit
network development
Other Policy Rec’s:
• Seek the delivery of Caltrain Electrification by 2019
• Solidify the plan for delivering DTX
• Expansion of P3s, value capture to replace
Redevelopment mechanism, and pursue other innovative
project delivery approaches, with strong revenue
advocacy for our priorities.

41. Findings & Recommendations
Equity-focused Investments
The draft Plan responds to recent findings of Authority’s equity analysis identifying some
geographic and socio-economic disparities
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
17
Geographic equity support:
• Enhance regional transit system
access – new regional transit access
pilot, e.g. West side to Caltrain,
BART
• Improve reliability, especially in
outer parts of the city – SOGR,
transit enhancement (real time
information displays) and transit
priority network development
• Implement neighborhood
transportation improvements in
every district, e.g. through upcoming
5-year Prop K programs

42. Findings & Recommendations
Equity-focused Investments
The draft Plan responds to recent findings of Authority’s equity analysis identifying some
geographic and socio-economic disparities
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
Socio-Economic equity support:
• Pedestrian Safety funding, including SR2S, SR2T, traffic
calming , education, outreach, and enforcement funds
• Bicycle network development and implementation
• Mobility management support for CBOs (e.g. Bayview shuttle-
sharing)
• Bikeshare/carshare initiatives (address affordability)
• Increased planning funds to build neighborhood capacity and
a strong pipeline of projects

43. Plan Performance
19
Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3 and DPW
• Despite limited new
resources, the Plan
achieves modest
performance in all goal
areas
• However, underfunding
road and transit
maintenance
counteracts SOGR gains
from reduced crowding
• Specific corridors see
more dramatic
performance gains
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

44. Differentiating Between Scenarios: Environment
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 20
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
1990 2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
MetricTonsofGHGEmitted
Healthy Environment: Greenhouse Gas Emissions*
2040 Goal:
2,400
Plan With
Congestion Pricing:
3,915 to 4,100
Plan Without
Congestion Pricing:
4,215 to 4,400
Expected Trend:
4,440 to 4,500
*Average weekday on-road mobile emissions

45. Differentiating Between Scenarios: Livability
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 21
45%
47%
49%
51%
53%
55%
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
ShareofAllTripsbyAutomobile
Livability: Percent of Weekday T rips Made by Auto
Plan With
Congestion Pricing:
47-50%
Plan Without
Congestion Pricing:
48% to 51%
2040 Goal: Below 50%
Expected Trend:
51% to 52%

46. Plan Investment vs. Need
0.41 0.28 0.46
1.03 0.88
0.99 0.75
0.56
0.51
0.72 0.63
2
4
1.53
1
2.9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6 "Priority 2" Need
"Priority 1" Need
Discretionary Revenue
(Financially Constrained
Investment Strategy)
22
S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
Billions

47. Thank ou!For For meeting schedule through July,
see:
www.movesmartsf.org
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

48. www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA |
www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF
San Francisco Transportation Plan
Making It Happen:
An Implementation Strategy for the SFTP

49. What’s working? What’s not?
 Looking Back – past studies, Prop K and E data,
public input
 Looking Around – reviewing how transportation is
done in other places, what can we learn?
 Looking Ahead – continue what works, address
areas that need improvement, pilot new
approaches
SFTP Implementation Strategies
2SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

50. Transportation in San Francisco is a complex machine:
Myriad of forces (too many to show here!) shape our transportation system
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA |
www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF
3
Public Agencies
(i.e. SFMTA,
DPW, PUC,
SFCTA, BART,
MTC, Caltrans,
FTA, FHWA)
Funding
External
Forces
Transportation
network
Federal
StateRegional
Local
Public
CEQA/NEPA
Land use
Economy
Daily
challenges
Collisions
Legal issues
Shifting
political
priorities
Weather

51. Top concerns we hear from the public
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA |
www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF
4
We should be
able to deliver
projects faster
We deserve a
better
transportation
system
We need better
coordination
between
agencies and
with the public
We need to get
the biggest
bang for our
transportation
buck

52. What we found:
 We are working on the right projects (pedestrian,
traffic calming) but they are taking too long, and
too often are uncoordinated.
 Pilots are effective– high demand for more pilots
and near-term improvements, but agencies can’t
keep up, e.g. traffic calming.
 Initial “complete streets” are popular, but
expensive e.g. Valencia. The public wants more,
but we lack strong policies and processes to
prioritize, design and build them cost-effectively.
Looking Back
5SAN 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 or
inadequate public involvement, with problematic outcomes.

53. Strategic Initiatives:
Complete Streets and Project Delivery
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 6
 Complete Streets: Provide more benefit
with each transportation investment by
creating a cost-effective complete
streets approach from planning to
implementation
 Project Delivery: Increase transparency,
shorten the timeline for project delivery
and increase “bang for the buck”

54. Complete Streets are wonderful, and in high
demand…
7www.sfcta.org | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/SFCTA

55. But they pose policy, funding and institutional
challenges
8www.sfcta.org | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/SFCTA
graphic: SFMTA
 Dispersed responsibility for streets is a common feature among cities
 Street management
and improvement
decisions require
strong policy
direction,
coordination
 Including multiple
features rapidly
increases a project’s
cost, with varying
implications for cost-
effectiveness

56. SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 9
Toward more Complete Streets:
Set realistic expectations, improve city practices
We recommend program designed to clarify complete streets expectations
by creating a culture and consistent practice of multi-modal design:
 Recognize trade-offs, prioritize our efforts: How many
multi-featured projects can/should we deliver per year?
 Design Standards – e.g. define standard bulb-out
designs and cost-estimates
 Design rules - establish “must,” “should,” “may”
practices) for incorporating complete street elements
 Design processes -mainstreaming practice of multi-
modal design, value engineering, alternatives analysis
 Funding practices - Set up “joint opportunities” funding
pots to facilitate and incentivize add-ons to a project

57. www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 10
Looking Around
How can we improve project delivery in the city?
source: LA Metro
 Larger Project Delivery
► Review of SF experience
► Case Studies of Southern CA
experience
 Small Projects Delivery
► Review of past local studies,
reports, Prop K data
► Interviews with local elected and
civic, community leaders

58. www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 11
SF Project Delivery Assessment
Preliminary Findings
 Project identification, prioritization
processes and status are not always
transparent
 Publish multi-agency “Citizen Guide to
Transportation Project Development”
 Expand monitoring and accountability tools
and websites (like MyStreetSF.com)
 Political champions and agency leadership
needs to be focused on/aid project delivery
 Support strong project designs, necessary
trade-offs
 Set clear expectations for project schedules,
organizational culture shifts
Source: SANDAG

59. www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 12
SF Project Delivery Assessment
Preliminary Findings
 Coordination across and within agencies is a
challenge
 Multi-departmental leadership is required to
make existing organizations more effective;
Common tools, e.g. Envista GIS map, can help
 Alternatively, re-organizing to focus roles and
accountability is an option
 Project managers are not empowered, resourced to deliver projects efficiently
 Strong PMs, with integrated, co-located project teams are needed
 Agencies should be encouraged to use alternative delivery methods, streamlined
procurement processes

60. www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 13
Looking Ahead - Proposed Early Action
Neighborhood Transportation Improvement Program
 This Early Delivery demonstration
program is designed to:
► Respond to SFTP equity analysis
findings
► Demonstrate new complete streets and
project delivery approaches
► Result in on-the-ground improvements
within 5 years
 If desired by Authority Board, could be
approved through Prop K 5-year
Program updates this fall.
 Would seek to leverage Prop K with
other funds
Sample NTI Program
District Project
1 Geary: near term Ped/Signal improvements
1 Anza Ped/Bike improvements
2 Lombard Street Pedestrian and Streetcape
2 Ped Safety Mini Program: Marina Boulevard, SR2S
3 Columbus Ave Phase 1 (coordinate with paving, TEP)
3 Broadway Neighborhood Transportation Plan, traffic calming
4 Ocean Beach Plan Phase 1 - Sloat (Bike, Ped, Traffic Calming)
4,7 19th Ave Bulbouts Phase 1 (coordinate with TEP)
5 Fillmore Fill - planning study and design
5 Ped Safety Mini Program: Octavia/Oak, re-open x-walks
6 Ped Safety Mini Program: 6th St (coordinate with BMS)+SR2S
6 Ellis/Eddy Traffic calming/pedestrian improvements
7 Ped Safety Mini Program: Traffic calming, bulbouts etc.
8 Glen Park Plan plaza/access improvements
8,9,11 SJ/Guerrero Re-design and multi-modal (Bike/Ped) improvements
9 Ped Safety Mini Program: SR2S/Ped or Mission Streetscape
10 Palou Streetscape and Paving
10
Ped Safety Mini Program: New sidewalks, SR2T (22nd
Street Station) SR2S
11 Mission Terrace planning and project

61. www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 14
5-Year Prop K Prioritization Programs
How do you want to spend Prop K sales tax dollars?
 Check out MyStreetSF.com – anything
missing? If so, propose it this summer
 5-Year Program Updates: 21 categories of
transportation investment in Prop K Sales
Tax Program
► All modes, types of projects
► Local and regional agency sponsors
► Public outreach and involvement planned
for Summer to Fall 2013
 Stay tuned for updates at SFCTA website:
sfcta.org or movesmartsf.com
Prop
K

62. Questions?
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA |
www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF

63. TheSanFrancisco TransportationPlan
SFCTA Board Workshop
May 30th, 2013
Land Use, Growth & Implementation

64. Express
Bus
Current
BART
Muni Metro
Caltrain
Muni TEP Rapid
Network
1 Dot = 100
Central Subway
High Speed Rail
Bus Rapid Transit
Households
Jobs
Express
Bus
Current
BART
Muni Metro
Caltrain
Muni TEP Rapid
Network
1 Dot = 100
Central Subway
High Speed Rail
Bus Rapid Transit
Households
Jobs
Land Use Today

65. Households Change Jobs Change
REGION 700,000 27% 1,120,000 33%
SAN FRANCISCO 92,410 25% 190,740 34%
Priority Development Areas 80,000 48% 145,000 30%
Rest of City 12,410 6% 45,740 18%
GROWTH
2010 - 2040
• Region will grow
substantially;
San Francisco will
take large share.
• PDA’s today can
accommodate 80%
of San Francisco’s
growth.
• New development
guided to build new,
vibrant, mixed use

66. Potential Housing
80,000
UNITS
Potential Employment
145,000
JOBS
Priority
Development
Areas

67. Express
Bus
2040
BART
Muni Metro
Caltrain
Muni TEP Rapid
Network
1 Dot = 100
Central Subway
High Speed Rail
Bus Rapid Transit
Households
Jobs
Express
Bus
2040
BART
Muni Metro
Caltrain
Muni TEP Rapid
Network
1 Dot = 100
Central Subway
High Speed Rail
Bus Rapid Transit
Households
Jobs
Projected Growth to 2040

68. Photo by Josef Willems
Implementation
Transportation Element Update
Central Corridor Plan
SoMa Circulation Plan
Parking Supply Management Strategies
BiCounty: T-Third to Bayshore Station
19th Avenue Transit Study
Better Market Street
Invest In Neighborhoods
Projects Underway
Linking
Transportation
& Land Use

69. Transportation Vision
Initial Policy Analysis
05 | 30 | 2013
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
SFMTA | Municipal Transportation Agency Image: Market and Geary Streets, circa 1920s, Muni Centennial logo

70. SF Total Transportation Needs
• A well-functioning transportation system is
foundational to the City’s health and economic vitality
• >$4 billion already spent each year on transportation
– Over $1 billion public funds spent annually on transportation
– Approx. $3 billion private funds spent annually operating and
maintaining private transportation
• Almost $900 million a year needed to meet goals
– Operating, Maintenance, Repair and Expansion
2

71. Two-tiered strategy for the transport system
Transport
Strategy
Travel ChoicesDemand Pricing
Demand Management
Priority Transit Complete Streets Vehicle Sharing
Infrastructure Support
Smart Land-Use

72. 4
Link land use
with
growing
travel
markets

73. Virtuous Cycle of Integrated
InvestmentsIntegration
Project Investment Mode Shift Effect
More comfortable bicycle
facilities = more transit
capacity
Car/bike/scooter
sharing, taxi demand
grows
investments in bicycling
infrastructure, facilities &
programs
More transit and bicycle
trips = more walking and
more economic
development
investments in walking
infrastructure, facilities &
programs
investments in transit
reliability and frequency
programs
investments in demand
management and vehicle
sharing programs

74. 48th Ave to Market/Third:
35 min-45 min
Ocean Beach
to Embarcadero:
40-50 min
Third St., Bayshore
to Embarcadero:
40-50 min
Caltrain,
Bayshore
to Fourth/King:
15 min (+9 to
Embarcadero)
BART, Daly City
to Embarcadero:
17 min
19th/Holloway
to Embarcadero:
30-45 min
Network:
• Rail
• Rapid Transitways
• Local Service
• Historic Network
Transit
Network
Travel Time
Variability
Assessment

75. Network
Conditions
West Portal
Market & Van Ness
Embarcadero
Fourth/King
Church & Duboce
Balboa Park
Network:
• Rail
• Rapid Network
• Local Service
• Historic Network
Increasing growth &
congestion can lead to:
• Reliability & travel
time variability
• Slower operating
speeds
• Vehicle capacity/
crowding
• Network
vulnerability
• Hotspots &
bottlenecks
Core Capacity Needs &
Rail Pinch-Points
Transit
Strategy

76. Long-term
Transit
Vision
Upgrade the
core capacity
Lines
48th Ave to
Market/Third:
25 min
Ocean Beach
to Embarcadero :
25 min
Wharves
to Moscone:
10 min
Daly City
to Embarcadero:
25 min
Bayshore &
Hunters Point
to Market St.:
25 min
DRAFT

77. 9
Emerging Bicycle Core AreaBicycle
Strategy

78. 10
Travel experience of networkBicycle
Strategy
DRAFT

79. Focus on
45 miles
11
Primary bicycle corridors analysisBicycle
Strategy
DRAFT

80. 12
12
12
12
Corridor AnalysisBicycle
Strategy
DRAFT

81. Source: SFMTA , US Census Data, Land-use & gradient analysis
Strategic Gap Closure High Stress Point in Network
13
Strategic Network Gap ClosuresBicycle
Strategy
DRAFT

82. Funding Needs Investment Scenarios
14
• “Bicycle Plan Plus” Scenario:
– $60 million through 2018
• Strategic Plan Scenario :
– $200 million through 2018
• System Build-out Scenario:
– $600 million

83. =
+
44 Miles of High Priority Segments (HPS) Need
Complete Street Type Treatments by 2021
15
High Priority Streets for focused investmentPedestrian
Strategy

84. • Core Projects and Programs $ 60 m
• Best Practices Projects $303 m
Total Need $363 m
1616
Core Investment NeedsPedestrian
Strategy

85. Vehicle &
Ride Sharing Increasing travel options

86. SF Private Auto Fleet Trends and Goals
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Goal
400
375
350
325
300
275
250
0%
PrivateAutoFleet(000s)
15- 25% fleet reduction potential with
significant vehicle sharing growth
Trend
Potential
Vehicle
Sharing
Opportunity
Vehicle &
Ride Sharing Vehicle sharing potential

87. Transportation System Needs Investment
• Today’s system is under-resourced for current and
future needs, despite ongoing efficiency improvements
• Tradeoffs have to be made in rights of way priority and
demand management tools to meet goals
• The key is to help reduce everyone’s transportation
budget, improve overall transportation efficiency and
increase our economic competitiveness.

88. www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA |
www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF
San Francisco Transportation Plan
Vision and Revenue Strategy
May 30, 2013

89. We need additional transportation revenues to bring our
system to a SOGR and to meet the public’s demand for
improvements, but must use existing revenues more efficiently
to build voter confidence
 New/improved approaches to project delivery
 Investing in projects that reduce ongoing
operations and maintenance costs (e.g. Transit
Effectiveness Project, staggered fleet replacements
to reduce average age of fleet)
 Findings ways to control cost escalation
SFTP Revenue Strategies
Use Existing Revenues More Efficiently
2SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

90. Potential New Funding Sources
Key policy considerations
www.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-pronged
approach:
 Use what we have more efficiently
Maximize capture of discretionary revenues and leverage private sector
Identify new sources of revenues
Continued uncertainty at the federal and state levels present opportunities (e.g.
Public-Private Partnerships), but also mean new revenues might need to be local
solutions in the near-term
Still, SF should proactively develop strong regional (e.g. future bridge toll), state
(e.g. cap and trade) and federal (next transportation act) advocacy platforms

91. Potential New Funding Sources
Local Sources Being Evaluated
Examples include:
Additional ½ cent sales tax (for a total of 1% of
SF local sales tax capacity dedicated to
transportation)
Parcel tax (flat rate or progressive)
Citywide community facilities district (Mello-
Roos)
Local & regional gas taxes
Vehicle license fee
Express lanes on US 101/I-280
General obligation bonds
Regional VMT fee
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 4
Each revenue source involves tradeoffs
Some sources present challenges from an equity standpoint – each
needs to be comprehensively evaluated
Other public priorities (education, health care, parks, etc.) are also
competing for public funding
Ongoing coordination with Mayor’s Transportation 2030 Task Force

92. “What If” scenarios let us
imagine what our transportation
system might look like if we
have additional transportation
revenues.
And, it helps to shape revenue
advocacy strategy by:
 Increase efficient use of
existing funds
 Demonstrating ability to
leverage other sources of
funding (public and private)
 Building consensus on our
federal, state, regional “Asks”
What if….we had more revenues?
Revenue Levels for Vision Scenarios
5SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
$6+ billion more might require a mixture
of big, medium and smaller sources
such as:
• $4.0 B - another half-cent sales tax
• $1.0 B - general obligation bonds
• $0.8 B - additional Federal funds
• $0.5 B - community benefits district
$10 billion more might require all of the
above, plus something like:
• $2.7 B - 1.35% SF vehicle license fee
• $1.0 B - even more Federal funds
• $0.2 B - 0.5% MUNI op’g cost savings

93. www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA |
www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF
Thank You. Questions?