San Francisco

Countywide Transportation

PLAN
S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U NT Y TR A N S P O RTATI O N A UTH O R IT Y JULY 2004
 Authority Board

Jake McGoldrick
CHAIRMAN

Michela Alioto-Pier
VICE CHAIRPERSON

Tom Ammiano

Chris Daly

Bevan Dufty

Sean Elsbernd

Fiona Ma

Sophie Maxwell

Ross Mirkarimi

Aaron Peskin

Gerardo Sandoval

José Luis Moscovich

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

       

      
      
    .
> SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
 I-280.

C O U N T Y W I D E T R A N S P O R TAT I O N P L A N >
 PREFACE /ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Preparing a 30-year transportation plan for a city like San Francisco is not a task for the faint of heart.
Apathy towards participation in the business of governing may reign in the rest of the country, but not in San Francisco. When it comes to
determining the future of this extraordinary and uniquely beautiful place we call home, we San Franciscans are very passionate. Not
surprisingly, this Plan is the result of dozens of neighborhood and citywide public meetings and hundreds of hours of often intense debate,
over the course of several years, about the relative merits of different projects, proposed policies and transportation investment decisions.

As if to dispel any doubts that San Francisco remains the center and soul of the region no matter how large the suburbs may get, Bay Area
residents outside the city eagerly volunteer advice about what we ought to do to make San Francisco a better place for all of us. If the
opposite of love is indeed indifference, San Francisco is well loved: what we do to our city matters passionately to many. Being at once
possessively admired and resented is a fate that San Francisco, the quintessential entrepreneurial American frontier town, paradoxically
shares with well-heeled capitals of economic or political empires throughout history: Venice, Madrid, London. Passions notwithstanding,
San Francisco is not a capital city, it is only queen of hearts, and it must rely on its own resources and on the economic tribute of willing
suburban shoppers yearning for freedom from the chains and seeking the refinement and variety of its unique specialty stores, restaurants
and cultural offerings. While the city is still in many ways expected to function as the center of the region, population-based formulas for the
distribution of state and federal funds have left it with a dwindling percentage of the resources of the region. The rising political clout of the
suburbs, coupled with unsustainable local land use policies, have resulted in decisions to build cost-ineffective rail transit extensions which
nevertheless compete for federal funding with San Francisco’s more cost-effective projects.

San Francisco is an amalgam of two different cities: the dense, 19th Century city of Downtown, Nob Hill, North Beach, the Tenderloin and
the Haight, and the more suburban residential outer ring: the Sunset, the Richmond, the Excelsior, the Mission and Bayview, resulting from
the expansion that lasted through the 1940’s. Transportation is not an end in itself, it results from economic activity: people need to get to
work, to school, go shopping. Transportation is strongly influenced by urban form. The transportation needs of the outer neighborhoods are
different from those of the inner neighborhoods and downtown. People in the outer neighborhoods have fewer transit options and are more
likely to drive for shopping and other purposes. Decisions about land development have tremendous power to change transportation needs,
and the debate about how San Francisco should look in the next few decades has been re-energized by the return of district elections, which
have refocused people at the level where they can more easily and meaningfully influence policy decisions: their own neighborhoods. This
debate has a distinct transportation flavor. For instance, many residents of the outer neighborhoods can more easily reach employment
points in the Peninsula than in Downtown. The Plan clears the way for neighborhood-based transportation plans but it provides a strong
strategic policy structure, to ensure that the city remains a cohesive whole.

With the leading edge of the baby boomer generation retirees already here, the demographic trend points to a growing mass of people
looking for the advantages that a real city can provide: easily accessible world class culture, neighborhood shopping within walking distance,
adult day care programs, cutting edge hospitals and reliable public transportation. The return to the city is a phenomenon that has been
underway for decades in Europe. As it takes hold here it begs some very big policy questions. How much of the newly urbanized aging
boomers should San Francisco be expected to absorb? What kind of housing will they seek? Where in the city should development take place?
Since San Francisco is largely built out, these questions trigger others. As we consider recycling some of the city’s land, issues come up about
preservation of historic character, neighborhood feel, architecture, open space and, of course, transportation. If we are to generate the needed
housing, the city will need to learn to accommodate and take advantage of higher residential densities. Handled properly, density could make
the city even more attractive as a place to live. The debate about residential density has definitely generated some passion. On the one hand,
lack of adequate public transportation and lack of parking are often cited as main impediments to higher residential densities in

> SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

 neighborhoods. On the other hand, lower residential densities make it very difficult to justify improvements to transit service and financially
impossible to build subways, which can travel faster than cars and lure people back into transit. The Plan sheds light on this debate by
defining what is possible and likely within the transportation funding constraints we face in the next 30 years. One important answer is the
development, over the next few years, of a bus rapid transit (BRT) network that can help transit regain some of the competitive edge.

Transportation is a key ingredient in the development of effective solutions to the challenges posed by the changing demographic tide. I believe
that San Francisco can simultaneously thrive, preserve much of its character and worthy architecture and still absorb significant population
growth. In order to do so, the city must take the business of planning, building and maintaining its transportation system very seriously. To win
Citizens Advisory
at the transportation funding game our transportation funding priorities must be defined now, even though the land use debate may go on for
Committee some time. If we don’t determine our funding priorities for ourselves, someone else will do it for us by default, and we probably won’t like the
answer. The Plan is a living document, designed to adapt to the evolving set of answers to those tough policy questions, and still help us to
effectively direct the development of the city’s transportation system and maximize the capture of state and federal funds.
Amy Chow
This Plan is the result of the collective effort of many individuals who have given generously of their time and talent to make the Plan a
CHAIR
truly meaningful document. Tilly Chang, the Authority’s Deputy Director for Planning, the principal author, managed the development of the
Eileen Boken Plan, contributing enormous talent and tireless devotion to a high quality product. She was very ably assisted by planner Rachel Hiatt who
contributed extensively to the writing and helped to supervise the final production of the whole document. Other present and former
Sarah Chan Authority staff members who contributed significantly to the Plan include Maria Lombardo, Chief Deputy Director, who authored the
Elizabeth Ann Dunlap seminal chapter on funding sources, Principal Transportation Planner and travel demand forecasting specialist Billy Charlton, as well as
Fred Ridel, Nancy Schneider, Lilia Scott, Ying Smith and Forest Atkinson. We are indebted to the members of the Countywide Plan
Brian Larkin Subcommittee of the Authority’s Citizens’ Advisory Committee, Val Menotti (Chair), Eileen Boken, Sarah Chan, Amy Chow, Elizabeth
Ann Dunlap, Fran Martin, Arthur Michel, Terry Micheau, Jackie Sachs, Matt Tuchow, and Ben Tom, for their input, guidance and
Fran Martin dedication throughout the process. We also wish to thank the Authority’s Technical Working Group, and in particular the following members:
Terry Micheau Peter Albert (BART); David Beaupre (Port of San Francisco); Rajiv Bhatia (Department of Public Health); Jose Campos (Redevelopment
Agency); Bob Bates and Doug Johnson (MTC); Anna LaForte (DPW); Maurice Palumbo (Golden Gate Transit); David Alumbaugh, Ken
Arthur Michel Rich and Charles Rivasplata (Planning); Jerry Robbins and Pete Tannen (DPT); Corrine Goodrich and Beth Thomas (SamTrans); and
Duncan Watry and Marguerite Fuller (MUNI) for their many contributions to the discussion of difficult technical and policy issues.
Jaqualine Sachs
Consultants contributing to the development of the plan included Joe Castiglione, George Oliver, John Seagrave, Shannon Cairns and
Benjamin Tom Todd Vogel. Finally, I’d like to acknowledge the Authority Board for its support and guidance, and in particular Chairman Jake McGoldrick,
for challenging us to produce a Plan that is grounded in the realities of present day San Francisco, rather than a theoretical essay.

This Plan is more than just the documentation of a broad consensus, it set out to articulate a vision for a transportation system designed to
enable San Francisco to become an even better place, for all of us. Whether you agree with every aspect of that vision or not, if the
document inspires you to think critically about the future of San Francisco and its transportation system we will have accomplished our goal.

José Luis Moscovich EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

C O U N T Y W I D E T R A N S P O R TAT I O N P L A N >
> SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
CONTENTS

Table of Figures..................................................................................9

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Part A. Purpose........................................................................................12
A.1 What is the Countywide Transportation Plan?.............................14
A.2 What are the Goals of the Countywide Transportation Plan?.......16
Part B. Development.................................................................................17
B.1 How was the Countywide Transportation Plan Developed?.........17
B.2 Ongoing Plan Development.......................................................18
Part C. Role................................................................................................18
C.1 A Key Link in Local and Regional Transportation Planning...........18
C.2 A Guide for Neighborhood Planning...........................................22
Part D. How to Use this Plan....................................................................22

CHAPTER 2
Mobility in San Francisco Today
Part D. Transportation Demand...............................................................39
Part A. San Francisco’s Urban Landscape......................................25 D.1 Travel Demand by Mode............................................................39
A.1 Geography and Topography.......................................................26 D.2 Commute Trips..........................................................................40
A.2 Grid Street System....................................................................26 D.3 Visitor Trips...............................................................................41
A.3 Distinctive Neighborhoods.........................................................29
A.4 Interface with Neighboring Counties and Region........................29
Part B. Population and Demographics...................................................30 CHAPTER 3
B.1 Residential Population...............................................................30 Transportation System Needs & Opportunities
B.2 Income......................................................................................30
B.3 Disadvantaged Populations........................................................30 Part A. Projected Conditions...............................................................47
B.4 Car Ownership and Access to Autos.........................................31 A.1 Land Use and Demographics.....................................................47
B.5 Employment..............................................................................32 A.2 Travel Patterns and Trends: A Tale of Two Cities.........................50
Part C. Transportation Networks and Services......................................32 Part B. System Performance....................................................................54
C.1 Streets and Roads.....................................................................32 B.1 Public Views on Transportation Needs and Opportunities...........54
C.2 Pedestrian Facilities..................................................................34 B.2 System Efficiency and Mobility...................................................54
C.3 Transit.......................................................................................34 B.3 Corridor Analysis.......................................................................55
C.4 Paratransit, Shuttles, and Taxi Services......................................35 Part C. Connectivity, Safety and Amenity...............................................57
C.5 Bicycle Facilities.......................................................................37 C.1 Multimodal Network Development & Connectivity.......................57
C.6 Parking.....................................................................................38 C.2 Safety.......................................................................................59
C.7 Freight Facilities and Goods Movement....................................38 C.3 Amenity/Environment................................................................60

C O U N T Y W I D E T R A N S P O R TAT I O N P L A N >
 CONTENTS

CHAPTER 5
Strategic Policy Initiatives
Part A. Transportation and Land Use Coordination......................78
A.1 Key Concepts and Background.................................................78
A.2 Future Growth Challenges and Opportunities.............................79
Part B. Prioritize Investments that Serve Key Land Use Goals...........80
Part C. Streets as Vital Public Spaces....................................................82
Part D. Travel Demand and Parking Management.................................83
D.1 Travel Demand Management......................................................83
D.2 Parking Management.................................................................84

CHAPTER 6
Next Steps
Part A. Unmet Needs and New Sources of Revenue....................92
A.1 Transit Impact Fees and Revenue Sources.................................92
A.2 User Fees..................................................................................95
A.3 Financing Mechanisms..............................................................96
Part B. Project Coordination, Delivery, and Evaluation........................98
B.1 5-Year Prioritized Plans..............................................................98
B.2 Coordination of Planning Methods and Tools..............................99
B.3 Coordination for Project Development........................................99
CHAPTER 4 B.4 Performance Measurement......................................................100
Transportation Improvements Part C. Future Updates...........................................................................100

Part A. Strategies for Transportation Development.....................64

Part B. Revenue Estimate.........................................................................64 APPENDICES
Part C. Investment Alternatives...............................................................66 Appendix A: Glossary..........................................................................102
Part D. Transportation Investment Plan..................................................67 Appendix B: Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC) Members..103
Part E. New Expenditure Plan Performance Measurement.................68 Appendix C: Countywide Plan Outreach Events...................................104
E.1 Travel Demand............................................................................71 Appendix D: Principles of San Francisco's Transit First Policy...............105
E.2 Mobility......................................................................................71 Appendix E: Major Transportation Corridor Definitions.........................106
E.3 Corridor Analysis.......................................................................71 Appendix F: Countywide Plan Networks Assumptions.........................109
E.4 Accessibility................................................................................73 Appendix G: New Expenditure Plan Description....................................113
E.5 Safety........................................................................................74 Appendix H: Parking Analysis..............................................................120
E.6 Environmental Quality.................................................................74 Appendix I: Countywide Plan Policy Framework Table........................121
E.7 Equity........................................................................................75 Appendix J: Potential New Transportation Revenue Sources................125

> SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

TABLE OF FIGURES
9

Figure 1-1: Countywide Plan Purpose .............................................................14

Figure 1-2: Continuous Planning Process........................................................17
Figure 1-3: Relationship of Countywide Plan to Other Plans.............................18
Figure 1-4: “Upward” Consistency Requirements............................................19
Figure 1-5: Congestion Management in the General Plan.................................21

Figure 2-1: San Francisco Regional Geography...............................................26

Figure 2-2: Topography....................................................................................27
Figure 2-3: SF Grid System.............................................................................28
Figure 2-4: Distinctive Neighborhoods.............................................................29
Figure 2-5: Population Density.........................................................................30
Figure 2-6: Median Income..............................................................................30
Figure 2-7: Special Populations.......................................................................31
Figure 2-8: Zero-Vehicle Households...............................................................31
Figure 2-9: Employment Density.......................................................................32
Figure 2-10: Key Events....................................................................................33
Figure 2-11: Major Transportation Corridors......................................................34
Figure 2-12: Intersection Density........................................................................34
Figure 2-13: Transit Supply: PM Peak................................................................35
Figure 2-14: Bicycle Network............................................................................37
Figure 2-15: Container Marine Cargo at Port of San Francisco..........................38
Figure 2-16: Bulk Cargo at Part of San Francisco..............................................38
Figure 2-18: Mode Share All Trips......................................................................39
Figure 2-19: Mode Share Internal Trips..............................................................39 Figure 3-9: Growth in All Trips, 2000 – 2025....................................................50
Figure 2-20: Transit Use Citywide......................................................................39 Figure 3-10: Mode Share Changes—All Trips....................................................50
Figure 2-21: Auto Use Citywide.........................................................................40 Figure 3-11: Transit Shares of All Trips to Downtown SF.....................................50
Figure 2-22: Commute Mode of San Francisco Residents, 1990-2000..............40 Figure 3-12: Growth in Internal Trips, 2000 – 2025............................................51
Figure 2-23: Commute Profile, 2003 for San Francisco County..........................41 Figure 3-13: Mode Share Changes – Internal Trips............................................51
Figure 2-24: Estimated Commuting of San Francisco Residents,1990-2000......41 Figure 3-14: Changes in Auto Mode Shares......................................................53
Figure 2-25: Visitor Origins................................................................................43 Figure 3-15: Frequently Mentioned Needs Identified through Public Outreach....54
Figure 3-16: Average Travel Times by Mode.......................................................55
Figure 3-1: Citywide Action Plan......................................................................46 Figure 3-17: Average Speeds by Mode..............................................................55
Figure 3-2: The San Francisco Model..............................................................47 Figure 3-18: Transit Levels of Service in 2025....................................................55
Figure 3-3: Population Changes......................................................................47 Figure 3-19: Transit Levels of Service in 2025....................................................56
Figure 3-4: Change in Employed Residents.....................................................48 Figure 3-20: Moving People Across the Bay Bridge...........................................57
Figure 3-5: Change in Jobs..............................................................................48 Figure 3-21: Traffic Management Challenges.....................................................58
Figure 3-6: Trips to/from the North Bay.............................................................49 Figure 3-22: Transit Network Benefits of Doyle Drive..........................................59
Figure 3-7: Trips to/from the South Bay............................................................49 Figure 3-24: Top 7 Intersections for Injury Collisions..........................................59
Figure 3-8: Trips to/from the East Bay..............................................................50 Figure 3-25: Traffic Collisions (2002).................................................................60

C O U N T Y W I D E T R A N S P O R TAT I O N P L A N >
 TABLE OF FIGURES
10

Figure 3-26: Top Ten MUNI Collision Intersections.............................................60

Figure 3-27: Welfare to Work Study Leads to Expanded Transit Access for
Treasure Island Residents..............................................................61

Figure 4-1a: CWTP Goals................................................................................64

Figure 4-1: CWTP Strategies Respond to Needs............................................65
Figure 4-2: CWTP Revenue Sources (graphic)................................................65
Figure 4-3: CWTP Revenue Sources (text)......................................................65
Figure 4-4a: Transit Priority Network..................................................................67
Figure 4-4: New Expenditure Plan Summary....................................................68
Figure 4-5a: Growth in All Trips – Future Base and Plan.....................................70
Figure 4-5b: Mode Share Changes – Future Base and Plan...............................70
Figure 4-6a: Growth in Internal Trips – Future Base and Plan.............................70
Figure 4-6b: Mode Share Changes – Future Base and Plan...............................70
Figure 4-6c: Mode Share Changes – with Plan..................................................70
Figure 4-7: Mobility Measures..........................................................................71
Figure 4-8: Transit LOS – with Plan..................................................................71
Figure 4-9: Auto LOS – with Plan....................................................................72
Figure 4-10: Change in Employment Accessibility—Auto...................................72
Figure 4-11: Change in Employment Accessibility—Transit................................73
Figure 4-12: Equity Results: Time Savings for Target Populations.......................73
Figure 4-13: Equity Results: Accessibility Impacts on Target Populations............74
Figure 5-1: Proposal for Curran House in the Tenderloin..................................78
Figure 5-2: Planning for Housing.....................................................................78
Figure 5-3: Transit Oriented Development Advances CWTP Goals..................79
Figure 5-4: Opportunity Sites on Geary............................................................79
Figure 5-5: Glen Park Considers Conversion of Parking to Housing.................81
Figure 5-6: 8 Elements of a Great San Francisco Neighborhood......................82
Figure 5-7: SF Among Top 12 U.S. Cities for Walking......................................83
Figure 5-8: SF Parking Supply.........................................................................84
Figure 5-9: Parking Requirements for New Development.................................85
Figure 5-10: Parking Assessment Districts in Pasadena.....................................87
Figure 5-11: CarShare, Parking and Affordable Housing....................................89

Figure 6-1: CWTP Unmet Needs.....................................................................92

Figure 6-2: Regional Measure 2.......................................................................94
Figure 6-3: User Fees for All Modes................................................................95
Figure 6-4: Benefit Assessment Districts in the LA MTA...................................97

DESIGN : Saroyan Humphrey PHOTOGRAPHY: Duncan Sharp ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHY: Ben Miller

> SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

The Countywide Transportation Plan is the blueprint to San Francisco’s
transportation system development and investment over the next 30 years.

C O U N T Y W I D E T R A N S P O R TAT I O N P L A N >