enclosure e: early action program august 28, 2013 preliminary … · 2013. 8. 24. · enclosure e:...
TRANSCRIPT
-
Enclosure E: Early Action ProgramPreliminary Draft 2013 Prop K 5-Year Prioritization Programs
(Prioritization criteria and project lists as proposed by project sponsors)
PAGERequired Prop K Prioritization Criteria 1
Expenditure Plan Line Item Category
1 Bus Rapid Transit/Transit Preferential Streets/MUNI Metro Network 37 Caltrain Capital Improvement Program 78 BART Station Access, Safety and Capacity 99 Ferry 1710-16 Transit Enhancements 1917 New and Renovated Transit Vehicles 2320 Transit Facilities - Rehabs/Upgrades 2722 Transit Guideways - Rehabs/Upgrades 3126-30 New and Upgraded Streets 3531 New Signals and Signs 3932 Advanced Technology and Information Systems (SFgo) 4333 Signals and Signs Maintenance 4734, 35 Street Resurfacing, Rehabilitation, and Maintenance 5137 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility Maintenance 5738 Traffic Calming 6139 Bicycle Circulation/Safety 6740 Pedestrian Circulation/Safety 6941 Curb Ramps 7342 Tree Planting and Maintenance 7943 Transportation Demand Management/ Parking Management 8344 Transportation / Land use Coordination 87
Enclosed are the preliminary draft 5-year project lists (covering Fiscal Years 2014/15 to 2018/19) and prioritization criteria proposed by eligible project sponsors for the 22 Prop K sales tax programmatic categories. When finalized, these projects collectively will comprise the core of the Early Action Program, intended to jump start the San Francisco Transportation Plan by funding projects in its first five years. Per the voter approved Prop K Expenditure Plan, the Authority Board will approve the prioritization criteria and project lists when it approves the 2013 Prop K 5-Year Prioritization Programs, scheduled for November/December 2013.
M:\CAC\Meetings\Memo to CAC\2013\08 Aug 28\SFTP EAP Enclosures\_old\TOC ‐ EAP POPs_Criteria.xlsx
Item 8 Enclosure E Citizens Advisory Committee August 28, 2013
-
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-
P:\Prop K\SP-5YPP\2013 Update\5YPP etc\_Background\General Prioritization Criteria.docx Page 1 of 1
REQUIRED PROP K PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA
The Prop K Expenditure Plan requires that programs of projects, at a minimum, address the following factors:
1. Project readiness, including schedule for completion of environmental and design phases; well-documented preliminary cost estimates, and documented community support as appropriate;
2. Compatibility with existing and planned land uses, and with adopted standards for urban design and for the provision of pedestrian amenities; and supportiveness of planned growth in transit-friendly housing, employment and services.
3. A prioritization mechanism to rank projects within the program, addressing, for each proposed project:
a. Relative level of need or urgency b. Cost Effectiveness c. A fair geographic distribution that takes into account the various needs of San
Francisco’s neighborhoods. 4. Funding plan, including sources other than Prop K
E8E - 1
-
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
E8E - 2
-
DRAF
T
2014
/15
2015
/16
2016
/17
2017
/18
2018
/19
SFM
TA/S
FCTA
Van
Nes
s Bus
Rap
id T
rans
it PS
&E
Plan
ned
$1,5
94,2
80$1
,594
,280
SFM
TA/S
FCTA
Van
Nes
s Bus
Rap
id T
rans
it CO
NPl
anne
d$2
7,73
0,98
4$2
7,73
0,98
4SF
MTA
/SFC
TAG
eary
Bus
Rap
id T
rans
it PS
&E
Plan
ned
$3,8
00,0
00$3
,800
,000
SFM
TA/S
FCTA
Gea
ry B
us R
apid
Tra
nsit
CON
Plan
ned
$14,
950,
000
$14,
950,
000
SFM
TA/S
FCTA
Bus R
apid
Tra
nsit
Exp
ansio
n Fe
asib
ility
Stu
dyPL
AN
/CE
RPl
anne
d$5
00,0
00$5
00,0
00
SFM
TATE
P Ra
pid
Net
wor
k M
ulti-
Corr
idor
Des
ign
Phas
e II
(p
ossib
le lin
es J,
9, 1
4, 2
8, 3
0, 7
1)PS
&E
Plan
ned
$1,1
25,0
00$1
,125
,000
SFM
TATE
P Ra
pid
Net
wor
k M
ulti-
Corr
idor
Impl
emen
tatio
n Ph
ase
II (p
ossib
le lin
es J,
9, 1
4, 2
8, 3
0, 7
1)CO
NPl
anne
d$1
,254
,000
$1,2
54,0
00
SFM
TATr
ansit
Per
form
ance
Initi
ativ
e Pr
ogra
m L
ocal
Mat
chCO
NPl
anne
d$2
50,0
00$2
50,0
00$5
00,0
00SF
MTA
/DPW
Bette
r Mar
ket S
treet
- D
esig
nPS
&E
Plan
ned
$244
,419
$244
,419
SFM
TAN
eighb
orho
od T
rans
p. Im
prov
emen
t Pro
gram
/TPS
Spo
t Im
prov
emen
ts P
laceh
olde
rPl
anne
d$1
00,0
00$1
00,0
00$1
00,0
00$1
00,0
00$1
00,0
00$5
00,0
00 $0
$6,8
63,6
99
$29,
084,
984
$15,
300,
000
$100
,000
$8
50,0
00
$52,
198,
683
$23,
906,
691
$1,2
54,0
00
$1,3
10,4
30
$1,3
69,3
99
$1,4
31,0
22
$29,
271,
542
$17,
042,
992
($10
,787
,992
)($
24,7
77,5
62)
($23
,508
,163
)($
22,9
27,1
41)
($22
,927
,141
)C
um
ula
tive
Rem
ain
ing
Pro
gram
min
g C
apac
ity
* Se
e 20
13 S
trate
gic
Plan
Bas
eline
App
endi
x G
for t
otal
avail
able
fund
s, cu
rren
t pro
gram
min
g, a
nd fi
nanc
e co
sts f
or e
ach
Exp
endi
ture
Plan
line
item
. Th
e 20
13 S
trate
gic
Plan
Bas
eline
inclu
des $
17.7
mill
ion
in u
nallo
cate
d fu
nds c
arrie
d ov
er fr
om th
e 20
09 5
YPP
and
pro
gram
med
in F
iscal
Yea
r 201
4/15
. Th
at a
mou
nt in
clude
s the
follo
win
g as
sum
ed F
Y 2
013/
14 a
lloca
tions
: $23
3,00
0 fo
r the
Mar
ket a
nd H
aight
Tra
nsit
and
Pede
stria
n Im
prov
emen
t pro
ject,
$12.
3 m
illio
n fo
r the
Gea
ry B
RT C
ER
or e
arly
impl
emen
tatio
n, a
nd $
14 m
illio
n fo
r TE
P pl
anni
ng a
nd d
esig
n.
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
201
3 St
rate
gic
Pla
n B
asel
ine*
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
5Y
PP
Tran
sit R
apid
Net
wor
k - B
us R
apid
Tra
nsit
Age
ncy
Proj
ect N
ame
Phas
eSt
atus
Fisc
al Y
ear
Tota
l
Pro
gram
min
g an
d A
lloca
tion
s T
o-d
ate
Last
Upd
ate:
Aug
ust 8
, 201
3
2013
Pro
p K
5Y
PP
- P
rogr
am o
f P
roje
cts
Bu
s R
apid
Tra
nsi
t/T
ran
sit
Pre
fere
nti
al S
tree
ts/
MT
A-M
UN
I M
etro
Net
wor
k (E
P 1
)
Tran
sit R
apid
Net
wor
k - T
rans
it E
ffect
iven
ess a
nd P
erfo
rman
ce In
itiat
ives
P:\P
rop
K\SP
-5YP
P\20
13 U
pdat
e\5Y
PP e
tc\E
P 1\
draf
t\EP
1 P
OP_
Augu
st 2
013
Tab
: EP
1 20
13 U
PDAT
E 08
.08.
13Pa
ge 1
of 1
E8E - 3
-
DRAF
T
P:\Prop K\SP-5YPP\2013 Update\5YPP etc\EP 1\draft\EP 1 5YPP Text and Prioritization for CAC.docx Page 1 of 3
Bus Rapid Transit/Transit Preferential Streets/MUNI Metro Network (EP 1) DRAFT Prioritization and Program of Projects
The purpose of this document is to provide a DRAFT proposal for the prioritization and program of projects for the subject category from Fiscal Year 2014/15 through Fiscal Year 2018/19. It will include a description of sub-categories, prioritization criteria by sub-category, and programming options. See Attachment 1 for an unconstrained version of the Prop K programming for the proposed program of projects.
The Expenditure Plan describes this program as follows:
Implement Bus Rapid Transit and Transit Preferential Streets programs to create an integrated citywide network of fast, reliable bus and surface light rail transit services connecting to services provided by MUNI rail and historic streetcar lines, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB or Caltrain).
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): Creation of fast, frequent, and reliable bus rapid transit service, with exclusive transit lanes and dedicated stations, on Geary Boulevard (designed and built to rail-ready standards), Van Ness Avenue and Potrero Avenue.
Transit Preferential Streets (TPS): Includes improvements to key transit corridors including Mission and Folsom streets, 19th Avenue, Geneva Avenue, Bayshore Blvd, 16th Street, San Bruno Ave., Stockton, and the MUNI rail lines. Includes additional BRT and TPS improvement subject to availability of funds. TPS improvements are intended to improve speed and reliability at cost lower than BRT. TPS improvements include sidewalk bulb-outs at bus stops, transit-priority lanes, traffic signal modifications, and relocation of bus stops.
BRT and TPS projects may include traffic signal modification to speed up service, and real-time passenger information systems improve transit reliability and reinforce the sense of permanence of the improved service, as well as associated landscaping, lighting and signage improvements. It is the intent that buses that operate along BRT corridors should be able to also operate along TPS corridors. Funds in this section may be used to create dedicated stations and exclusive transit lanes for the MUNI light rail and historic streetcar lines. Includes planning, project development, capital and incremental operating and maintenance costs.
Sponsoring Agencies: DPT, DPW, MUNI, Planning, SFCTA
Proposed Sub-Categories:
BRT Corridor Projects: This subcategory provides local match for the Van Ness and Geary BRT projects.
Proposed Prioritization Criteria:
Named projects in the Prop K Expenditure Plan
E8E - 4
-
DRAF
T
P:\Prop K\SP-5YPP\2013 Update\5YPP etc\EP 1\draft\EP 1 5YPP Text and Prioritization for CAC.docx Page 2 of 3
Other projects identified for BRT treatment through an adopted plan (e.g., Bi-County Study; TEP or successor effort). BRT projects not named in the Prop K Expenditure Plan would be prioritized for this subcategory based on:
o cost-effectiveness (ability to reduce travel times and improve reliability relative to cost)
o identification in the SFTP o Geographic and socioeconomic equity o Leveraging opportunities o Support for PDAs o Readiness
Programming Considerations: The programming for Van Ness should complete the funding plan for the project. The programming for Geary will be the local match portion of Small Starts grant. More funding sources will have to be identified to fill out the Geary funding plan.
Options/Issues for Discussion: We could include a small amount of funding towards that end of this 5YPP period to kick-off environmental for the next generation of BRT projects (e.g. Potrero or Geneva BRT.)
Transit Effectiveness Project - Rapid Network and Transit Performance Initiative Match: This subcategory provides support for the Transit Effectiveness Project - Rapid Network and Transit Performance Initiative Match. This will include local match for the implementation of both types of projects.
Proposed Prioritization Criteria: Funds will be prioritized for corridors that are leveraging other funds. Prioritization will also consider the corridors that provide the most cost-effective. We will also consider project readiness in terms of environmental clearance and public support for corridors or project elements.
Programming Considerations: Programming should be used as local match. Programming should be used to complete a full corridor or complete / usable segment.
Options/Issues for Discussion: What is the TEP delivery strategy (i.e. full corridors, corridor segments, treatments)?
Future Corridor Projects: This subcategory supports the early stages of the next major transit upgrade projects. Specific focus will be on funding the EIR/S phases or early design (i.e. through 30%/CER).
Proposed Prioritization Criteria: Funds will be prioritized corridors that are leveraging other funds. Prioritization will also consider the corridors that provide the largest travel-time benefit to the largest ridership population. We will also consider project readiness in terms of environmental clearance and public support for corridors or project elements. Priority should also be given to projects that support new developments and projects that support multimodal improvements.
E8E - 5
-
DRAF
T
P:\Prop K\SP-5YPP\2013 Update\5YPP etc\EP 1\draft\EP 1 5YPP Text and Prioritization for CAC.docx Page 3 of 3
Programming Considerations: Programming should be used as local match.
Options/Issues for Discussion: Are there more strategic interventions on the Muni Metro Network that could be considered for this category (e.g. tunnel improvements, signal system priority)
Follow the Paving/Strategic Investments: This subcategory supports small strategic investments that improve transit operations and reliability or provide enhanced customer experience. These projects could be done in coordination with paving projects or as stand-alone projects. Examples include bus bulbs, transit signal priority, colorized transit lanes, or real-time transit information.
Proposed Prioritization Criteria: These projects will then be prioritized by travel time savings, cost effectiveness, safety improvements, project feasibility, ridership, geographic distribution. Prioritization will also be for projects that provide multi-modal benefits (e.g. bus bulbs that shorten pedestrian crossing distances).
Programming Considerations: Programming amounts for this category should be relatively small.
Options/Issues for Discussion: Should these improvements be focused on neighborhood/local services or transit hubs between rapid and local service (or regional and local service)? This category could be moved to Other Transit Enhancements (EP 16) if capacity becomes and issue.
E8E - 6
-
DRAF
T
2014
/15
2015
/16
2016
/17
2017
/18
2018
/19
PCJP
BSy
stem
-wid
e St
atio
n St
ate
of G
ood
Repa
ir Pr
ogra
m
CON
Pl
anne
d$3
33,3
33$3
33,3
33
PCJP
BSy
stem
-wid
e St
atio
n St
ate
of G
ood
Repa
ir Pr
ogra
m
CON
Pl
anne
d$3
33,3
33$3
33,3
33
PCJP
BSy
stem
-wid
e St
atio
n St
ate
of G
ood
Repa
ir Pr
ogra
m
CON
Pl
anne
d$3
33,3
33$3
33,3
33
PCJP
BSy
stem
-wid
e St
atio
n St
ate
of G
ood
Repa
ir Pr
ogra
m
CON
Pl
anne
d$3
33,3
33$3
33,3
33
PCJP
BSy
stem
-wid
e St
atio
n St
ate
of G
ood
Repa
ir Pr
ogra
m
CON
Pl
anne
d$3
33,3
33$3
33,3
33
PCJP
BTV
M R
eplac
emen
tCO
N
Plan
ned
$783
,333
$783
,333
PCJP
BTV
M R
eplac
emen
tCO
N
Plan
ned
$783
,333
$783
,333
PCJP
BCa
pita
l Pro
gram
Man
agem
ent
PLA
N/C
ER
Plan
ned
$416
,667
$416
,667
PCJP
BCa
pita
l Pro
gram
Man
agem
ent
PLA
N/C
ER
Plan
ned
$416
,667
$416
,667
PCJP
BCa
pita
l Pro
gram
Man
agem
ent
PLA
N/C
ER
Plan
ned
$416
,667
$416
,667
PCJP
BCa
pita
l Pro
gram
Man
agem
ent
PLA
N/C
ER
Plan
ned
$416
,667
$416
,667
PCJP
BCa
pita
l Pro
gram
Man
agem
ent
PLA
N/C
ER
Plan
ned
$416
,667
$416
,667
$1,5
33,3
33
$1,5
33,3
33
$750
,000
$7
50,0
00
$750
,000
$5
,316
,667
$837
,114
$8
53,8
56
$870
,933
$8
88,3
52
$906
,119
$4
,356
,374
($
696,
219)
($1,
375,
697)
($1,
254,
764)
($1,
116,
412)
($96
0,29
3)($
960,
293)
Cu
mu
lati
ve R
emai
nin
g P
rogr
amm
ing
Cap
acit
yT
otal
Pro
gram
med
in A
men
ded
201
3 St
rate
gic
Pla
n *
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
5Y
PP
Proj
ect N
ame
Phas
eSt
atus
Fisc
al Y
ear
Tota
l
* Se
e 20
13 S
trate
gic
Plan
Bas
eline
App
endi
x G
for t
otal
avail
able
fund
s, cu
rren
t pro
gram
min
g, a
nd fi
nanc
e co
sts f
or e
ach
Exp
endi
ture
Plan
line
item
.
2013
Pro
p K
5Y
PP
- P
rogr
am o
f P
roje
cts
Cal
trai
n C
apit
al I
mp
rove
men
t P
rogr
am (
EP
7)
Pro
gram
min
g an
d A
lloca
tion
s T
o-d
ate
Last
Upd
ate:
July
31,
201
3
Age
ncy
P:\P
rop
K\SP
-5YP
P\20
13 U
pdat
e\5Y
PP e
tc\_
PCJP
B\D
raft
\PO
Ps\E
P 7_
JPB
CIP
NEW
Ta
b: N
EWPa
ge 1
of 1E8E - 7
-
DRAF
T
EP 7 Caltrain Capital Improvement Program
[Prioritization Criteria – Pending Sponsor Submittal]
E8E - 8
-
DRAF
T
2014
/15
2015
/16
2016
/17
2017
/18
2018
/19
BART
Balb
oa P
ark
Stat
ion
Impr
ovem
ents
PS
&E
Pl
anne
d$2
00,0
00$2
10,0
00$4
10,0
00
BART
24th
and
Miss
ion
Nor
thea
st P
laza
Rede
sign
PS&
E
Plan
ned
$220
,500
$106
,525
$327
,025
BART
Civi
c Ce
nter
Sta
tion
PS&
E
Plan
ned
$243
,101
$243
,101
$200
,000
$2
10,0
00
$220
,500
$1
06,5
25
$243
,101
$9
80,1
26
$200
,000
$2
10,0
00
$220
,500
$2
31,5
25
$243
,101
$1
,105
,126
$0
$0
$0
$1
25,0
00
$125
,000
$1
25,0
00
* Se
e 20
13 S
trate
gic
Plan
Bas
eline
App
endi
x G
for t
otal
avail
able
fund
s, cu
rren
t pro
gram
min
g, a
nd fi
nanc
e co
sts f
or e
ach
Exp
endi
ture
Plan
line
item
.
Cu
mu
lati
ve R
emai
nin
g P
rogr
amm
ing
Cap
acit
yT
otal
Pro
gram
med
in 2
013
Stra
tegi
c P
lan
Bas
elin
e*
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
5Y
PP
Age
ncy
Proj
ect N
ame
Phas
eSt
atus
Fisc
al Y
ear
Tota
l
Pro
gram
min
g an
d A
lloca
tion
s T
o-d
ate
Last
Upd
ate:
July
17, 2
013
2013
Pro
p K
5Y
PP
- P
rogr
am o
f P
roje
cts
BA
RT
Sta
tion
Acc
ess,
Saf
ety
and
Cap
acit
y (E
P 8
)
P:\P
rop
K\SP
-5YP
P\20
13 U
pdat
e\5Y
PP e
tc\E
P 8\
Dra
ft\E
P 8_
Upd
ate
Tab
: NEW
Page
1 o
f 1
E8E - 9
-
DRAF
T
B A R T S T A T I O N A C C E S S , S A F E T Y & C A P A C I T Y
P a g e . 8 o f 2 6 P R O P K 5 - Y E A R P R I O R I T I Z A T I O N P R O G R A M
4 Prioritization Criteria & Methodology The Prop K Expenditure Plan requires that the 5YPPs include a prioritization mechanism to rank projects within the program. The intent of this requirement is to provide the Authority Board, the public, and Prop K project sponsors with a clear understanding of how projects are prioritized for funding within a particular programmatic category. Having a transparent and well-documented prioritization methodology in place allows for an open, inclusive and predictable project development process, that will hopefully result in a steady stream of projects that are ready to compete for Prop K and other discretionary (i.e., competitive) fund sources for implementation. It also offers an opportunity to take advantage of coordination opportunities with other transportation projects funded by Prop K and other funding sources that should result in efficiencies and minimize disruption caused by construction activities.
BART selected the following criteria and methodology to help prioritize and phase the eligible projects in this category
Level of Need / Agency Priority (legal mandate, CIP program, funding incentive, etc.)
Full funding for phase or useful segment (program and funding plan defined, matching funds secured)
Completion of prior phases Level of Community Support (adopted program/project, identified in community
plan) Leveraging Non Prop K Funds, Operational Improvements, Plan status, Construction coordination with others, Geographic distribution, and Transportation system performance benefits.
For each project, score sheets were created to measure how well each project fared when reviewed in light of these criteria (see Appendix 3).
E8E - 10
-
DRAF
T
B A R T S T A T I O N A C C E S S , S A F E T Y & C A P A C I T Y
P a g e . 2 4 o f 2 6 P R O P K 5 - Y E A R P R I O R I T I Z A T I O N P R O G R A M
Appendix 3 - Prioritization Score Sheets
ProjectProject Criteria
1 Level of Urgency--Internal Agency Priority High Med Low Scorea. Internal agency priority X 10b. Supports existing system X 10
2 Readiness Y Na. Funds for phase all allocated/programmed? Y 10b. All prior project phases complete? Y 10
3 Cost Effectiveness-- Cost/mile or cost/vehicle in line with industry standard ? Y N Y 10
4 Geographic Equity - Choose 1 Y Na. Does project benefit SF systemwide transportation network? Y 10b. Location specific: Is distribution of projects in agency's program equitable?
5 Level of Community Support: Has project been part of public review process? Y N Y 106 Leveraging Non Prop. K Funds: Are funds matching federal/state funds? Y N
Y 10
7 Linkages to Other Projects: Is project coordinated with other projects? High Med Lowa. Is project coordinated with other projects? Y 10b. Does project enhance connectivity between services/modes? Y 10
8 Land Use Y N N / Aa. Compatibility with adopted urban design Xb. Support TOD X
100 Total score
BART TRANSIT CONNECTIVITY AT REGIONAL HUBS (EMBARCADERO BART STATION)
E8E - 11
-
DRAF
T
B A R T S T A T I O N A C C E S S , S A F E T Y & C A P A C I T Y
P a g e . 2 5 o f 2 6 P R O P K 5 - Y E A R P R I O R I T I Z A T I O N P R O G R A M
Project
Project Criteria1 Level of Urgency--Internal Agency Priority High Med Low Score
a. Internal agency priority X 10b. Supports existing system X 10
2 Readiness Y Na. Funds for phase all allocated/programmed? Y 10b. All prior project phases complete? Y 10
3 Cost Effectiveness-- Cost/mile or cost/vehicle in line with industry standard ? Y N Y 10
4 Geographic Equity - Choose 1 Y Na. Does project benefit SF systemwide transportation network? Y 10b. Location specific: Is distribution of projects in agency's program equitable?
5 Level of Community Support: Has project been part of public review process? Y N N6 Leveraging Non Prop. K Funds: Are funds matching federal/state funds? Y N
Y 10
7 Linkages to Other Projects: Is project coordinated with other projects? High Med Lowa. Is project coordinated with other projects? Y 10b. Does project enhance connectivity between services/modes? Y 10
8 Land Use Y N N / Aa. Compatibility with adopted urban design Xb. Support TOD X
Total Score 90
Station Security – Civic Center Station (Cameras)
E8E - 12
-
DRAF
T
B A R T S T A T I O N A C C E S S , S A F E T Y & C A P A C I T Y
P a g e . 2 6 o f 2 6 P R O P K 5 - Y E A R P R I O R I T I Z A T I O N P R O G R A M
Project
Project Criteria High 151 Level of Urgency--Internal Agency Priority High Med Low Med 10
a. Internal agency priority 15 Low 5b. Supports existing system 15
2 Readiness Y N Y 10a. Funds for phase all allocated/programmed? 0 N 0b. Prior project phases complete? 0
3 Cost Effectiveness--Choose 1 Y Na. Regular replacement of existing asset at end of useful life? 10b. Expansion: Cost/mile or cost/vehicle in line with industry standard ?
4 Geographic Equity - Choose 1 Y Na. Does project benefit SF systemwide transportation network? 10 b. Location specific: Is distribution of projects in agency's program equitable?
5 Level of Community Support: Has project been part of public review process? Y N 106 Leveraging Non Prop. K Funds: Are funds matching federal/state funds? Y N
107 Linkages to Other Projects: Is project coordinated with other projects? Y N
10 8 Land Use Y N
a. Compatibility with adopted urban design 0 b. Support TOD 0
Total Score 80
Stations Modernization Program
E8E - 13
-
DRAF
T
B A R T S T A T I O N A C C E S S , S A F E T Y & C A P A C I T Y
P a g e . 2 7 o f 2 6 P R O P K 5 - Y E A R P R I O R I T I Z A T I O N P R O G R A M
Project
Project Criteria High 151 Level of Urgency--Internal Agency Priority High Med Low Med 10
a. Internal agency priority 15b. Supports existing system 15
Low 52 Readiness Y N Y 10
a. Funds for phase all allocated/programmed? 0 N 0b. Prior project phases complete? 10
3 Cost Effectiveness--Choose 1 Y Na. Regular replacement of existing asset at end of useful life? n/ab. Expansion: Cost/mile or cost/vehicle in line with industry standard ? n/a
4 Geographic Equity - Choose 1 Y Na. Does project benefit SF systemwide transportation network?b. Location specific: Is distribution of projects in agency's program equitable? 10
5 Level of Community Support: Has project been part of public review process? Y N x6 Leveraging Non Prop. K Funds: Are funds matching federal/state funds? Y N
107 Linkages to Other Projects: Is project coordinated with other projects? Y N
10 8 Land Use Y N
a. Compatibility with adopted urban design 10 b. Support TOD 0
Total Score 80
Joint Use Stations Capital (Balbo Park Station Eastside Walkway)
E8E - 14
-
DRAF
T
B A R T S T A T I O N A C C E S S , S A F E T Y & C A P A C I T Y
P a g e . 2 8 o f 2 6 P R O P K 5 - Y E A R P R I O R I T I Z A T I O N P R O G R A M
ProjectProject Criteria High 15Level of Urgency--Internal Agency Priority High Med Low Med 10a. Internal agency priority 15b. Supports existing system 15
Low 5Readiness Y N Y 10a. Funds for phase all allocated/programmed? 0 N 0b. Prior project phases complete? 0
Cost Effectiveness--Choose 1 Y Na. Regular replacement of existing asset at end of useful life?b. Expansion: Cost/mile or cost/vehicle in line with industry standard ? 10
Geographic Equity - Choose 1 Y Na. Does project benefit SF systemwide transportation network? 10b. Location specific: Is distribution of projects in agency's program equitable?
Level of Community Support: Has project been part of public review process? Y N 10
Leveraging Non Prop. K Funds: Are funds matching federal/state funds? Y N 0
Linkages to Other Projects: Is project coordinated with other projects? Y N0
Land Use Y N a. Compatibility with adopted urban design 10 b. Support TOD 0
Total Score 70
MTA Wayfinding for Blind and Low Vision Patrons
E8E - 15
-
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
E8E - 16
-
DRAF
T20
14/1
520
15/1
620
16/1
720
17/1
820
18/1
9
Port
Dow
ntow
n Fe
rry
Term
inal
Phas
e II
- N
orth
Bas
in a
nd
Sout
h Ba
sinPS
&E
Pl
anne
d$1
,100
,000
$1,1
00,0
00
GG
BHTD
GG
BHTD
Gan
gway
s and
Pier
s Pr
ojec
tCO
N
Plan
ned
$1,1
00,0
00$1
,100
,000
$1,1
00,0
00
$0
$1,1
00,0
00
$0
$0
$2,2
00,0
00
$1,0
00,0
00
$
-
$
- $
-
$
-
$1
,000
,000
($
100,
000)
$0
$0
($87
0,00
0)$0
($
1,20
0,00
0)
Last
upd
ate:
July
17, 2
013
2013
Pro
p K
5Y
PP
- P
rogr
am o
f P
roje
cts
Fer
ry (
EP
9)
Phas
e
Pro
gram
min
g an
d A
lloca
tion
s T
o-d
ate
Stat
usFi
scal
Yea
rTo
tal
Age
ncy
Proj
ect N
ame
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
5Y
PP
Cu
mu
lati
ve R
emai
nin
g P
rogr
amm
ing
Cap
acit
yT
otal
Pro
gram
med
in 2
013
Stra
tegi
c P
lan
Bas
elin
e*
* Se
e 20
13 S
trate
gic
Plan
Bas
eline
App
endi
x G
for t
otal
avail
able
fund
s, cu
rren
t pro
gram
min
g, a
nd fi
nanc
e co
sts f
or e
ach
Exp
endi
ture
Plan
line
item
.
P:\P
rop
K\SP
-5YP
P\20
13 U
pdat
e\5Y
PP e
tc\E
P 9\
Dra
ft\E
P 9_
Upd
ate
Tab
: NEW
Page
1 o
f 1E8E - 17
-
DRAF
T
FERRY
Page 8 of 26 PROP K 5-YEAR PRIORITIZATION PROGRAM
4 Prioritization Criteria & Methodology The Prop K Expenditure Plan requires that the 5YPPs include a prioritization mechanism to rank projects within the program. The intent of this requirement is to provide the Authority Board, the public, and Prop K project sponsors with a clear understanding of how projects are prioritized for funding within a particular programmatic category. Having a transparent and well-documented prioritization methodology in place allows for an open, inclusive and predictable project development process, intended to result in a steady stream of projects that are ready to compete for Prop K and other discretionary (i.e., competitive) fund sources for implementation. It also allows project sponsors to better take advantage of coordination opportunities with other transportation projects funded by Prop K and other funding sources that should result in efficiencies and minimize disruption caused by construction activities.
The Downtown San Francisco Ferry Terminal, inclusive of the GGBHTD facilities as well as facilities operated by WETA, is the only ferry project included in the Prop K program and it is the hub of water transit for the San Francisco Bay Area. Prop K funds and other funds leveraged from Prop K funding will allow the Downtown Ferry Terminal to handle the projected tripling of ferry ridership within the next 15-years both on the water-side and through the Terminal’s landside intermodal connections.
E8E - 18
-
DRAF
T
2014
/15
2015
/16
2016
/17
2017
/18
2018
/19
SFM
TARo
ute
Elec
trific
atio
n - 2
2 Fi
llmor
e or
ot
her e
ligib
le tro
lley
coac
h ro
ute
PLA
N/C
ER
Plan
ned
$221
,725
$221
,725
SFM
TARo
ute
Elec
trific
atio
n - 2
2 Fi
llmor
e or
ot
her e
ligib
le tro
lley
coac
h ro
ute
PS&
E
Plan
ned
$857
,338
$857
,338
$0
$221
,725
$8
57,3
38
$0
$0
$1,0
79,0
63
$200
,000
$2
03,1
62
$213
,896
$2
25,1
27
$236
,878
$1
,079
,063
$2
00,0
00
$181
,437
($
462,
005)
($23
6,87
8)$0
$1
,079
,063
SFM
TAF-
Line
Ext
ensio
nPL
AN
/CE
R Pl
anne
d$2
05,6
11$2
05,6
11
$205
,611
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2
05,6
11
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
($20
5,61
1)($
205,
611)
($20
5,61
1)($
205,
611)
($20
5,61
1)$0
SFM
TARe
habi
litat
ion
of H
istor
ic St
reet
cars
PLA
N/C
ER
Plan
ned
$267
,929
$267
,929
$267
,929
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2
67,9
29
$50,
019
$51,
598
$53,
460
$55,
407
$57,
445
$267
,929
($
217,
910)
($16
6,31
2)($
112,
852)
($57
,445
)($
0)$2
67,9
29
BART
/SFM
TABa
lboa
Par
k St
atio
n A
rea
and
Plaz
a Im
prov
emen
tsPS
&E
Pl
anne
d$1
50,0
00
$150
,000
BART
/SFM
TABa
lboa
Par
k St
atio
n A
rea
and
Plaz
a Im
prov
emen
tsCO
N
Plan
ned
$400
,000
$4
00,0
00
$150
,000
$4
00,0
00
$0
$0
$0
$550
,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$285
,204
$2
85,2
04
($15
0,00
0)($
150,
000)
($15
0,00
0)($
150,
000)
$135
,204
$2
85,2
04
Tota
l
Cu
mu
lati
ve R
emai
nin
g P
rog
ram
min
g C
apac
ity
Pro
gram
min
g an
d A
lloca
tion
s T
o-d
ate
2013
Pro
p K
5Y
PP
- P
rogr
am o
f P
roje
cts
Tra
nsi
t E
nh
ance
men
ts (
EP
10-
16)
Last
Upd
ate:
Aug
ust 5
, 201
3
Age
ncy
Proj
ect N
ame
Phas
eSt
atus
Fisc
al Y
ear
Cu
mu
lati
ve R
emai
nin
g P
rog
ram
min
g C
apac
ity
Ext
ensi
on o
f Tro
lleyb
us
Lin
es/
Mot
or C
oach
Con
vers
ion
(E
P 1
0)
F-L
ine
Ext
ensi
on t
o F
ort
Mas
on (
EP
11)
Pu
rch
ase/
Reh
abili
tati
on H
isto
ric
Stre
et C
ars
(EP
12)
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
5Y
PP
Tot
al P
rog
ram
med
in 2
013
Stra
teg
ic P
lan
Bas
elin
e *
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
5Y
PP
Tot
al P
rog
ram
med
in 2
013
Stra
teg
ic P
lan
Bas
elin
e *
Cu
mu
lati
ve R
emai
nin
g P
rog
ram
min
g C
apac
ity
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
5Y
PP
Tot
al P
rog
ram
med
in 2
013
Stra
teg
ic P
lan
Bas
elin
e *
Cu
mu
lati
ve R
emai
nin
g P
rog
ram
min
g C
apac
ity
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
5Y
PP
Tot
al P
rog
ram
med
in 2
013
Stra
teg
ic P
lan
Bas
elin
e *
Bal
boa
Par
k B
AR
T/
MT
A-M
TA
Sta
tion
Acc
ess
(EP
13)
P:\P
rop
K\SP
-5YP
P\20
13 U
pdat
e\5Y
PP e
tc\E
P 10
-16
- Tra
nsit
Enha
ncem
ents
\Dra
ft\E
P 10
-16
5YPP
Upd
ated
Aug
ust 2
013
Tab
: NEW
Page
1 o
f 2E8E - 19
-
DRAF
T
2014
/15
2015
/16
2016
/17
2017
/18
2018
/19
Tota
lA
genc
yPr
ojec
t Nam
ePh
ase
Stat
usFi
scal
Yea
r
SFCT
A/
PCJP
B/D
PWQ
uint
/Jer
rold
Con
nect
or R
oad
CON
Pl
anne
d$1
18,0
00$1
18,0
00
$118
,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1
18,0
00
$0
$1,4
97,2
50
$0
$0
$0
$1,4
97,2
50
($11
8,00
0)$1
,497
,250
$0
$0
$0
$1
,379
,250
SFM
TAPu
rcha
se A
dditi
onal
LRV
sPR
OC
Plan
ned
$3,0
92,4
90$3
,092
,490
$3,0
92,4
90
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,0
92,4
90
$2,6
50,0
00
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,6
50,0
00
($44
2,49
0)($
442,
490)
($44
2,49
0)($
442,
490)
($44
2,49
0)$2
,650
,000
SFM
TAG
len P
ark
Tran
spor
tatio
n Im
prov
emen
ts
CON
Pl
anne
d$2
36,0
00$2
36,0
00
SFM
TAM
UN
I Cus
tom
er F
irst P
rojec
ts (p
ossib
le lin
es 5
, 9, 2
8, 3
0, 3
8, 7
1)PL
AN
/CE
R Pl
anne
d$1
,307
,612
$1,3
07,6
12
SFM
TAM
UN
I Cus
tom
er F
irst P
rojec
ts (p
ossib
le lin
es 5
, 9, 2
8, 3
0, 3
8, 7
1)CO
N
Plan
ned
$5,2
30,4
48$5
,230
,448
SFM
TAE
mba
rcad
ero
Wat
erfr
ont T
rans
porta
tion
Impr
ovem
ents
PA&
ED
Pl
anne
d$0
$1,5
43,6
12
$5,2
30,4
48
$0
$0
$0
$6,7
74,0
60
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
($5,
230,
448)
($5,
230,
448)
($5,
230,
448)
($5,
230,
448)
$0
$5,3
77,6
42
$5,8
52,1
73
$857
,338
$0
$0
$1
2,08
7,15
3
$2,9
00,0
19
$1,7
52,0
10
$267
,356
$2
80,5
34
$579
,527
$5
,779
,446
($
2,47
7,62
3)($
6,57
7,78
6)($
7,16
7,76
8)($
6,88
7,23
4)($
6,30
7,70
7)($
6,30
7,70
7)
Oth
er T
ran
sit
En
han
cem
ents
(E
P 1
6)
Cu
mu
lati
ve R
emai
nin
g P
rog
ram
min
g C
apac
ity
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
5Y
PP
Tot
al P
rog
ram
med
in 2
013
Stra
teg
ic P
lan
Bas
elin
e *
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
5Y
PP
Rel
ocat
ion
of P
aul S
tree
t C
altr
ain
Sta
tion
to
Oak
dal
e A
ven
ue
(EP
14)
Pu
rch
ase
Ad
dit
ion
al L
igh
t R
ail V
ehic
les
(EP
15)
* Se
e 20
13 S
trate
gic
Plan
Bas
eline
App
endi
x G
for t
otal
avail
able
fund
s, cu
rren
t pro
gram
min
g, a
nd fi
nanc
e co
sts f
or e
ach
Exp
endi
ture
Plan
line
item
.
Cu
mu
lati
ve R
emai
nin
g P
rog
ram
min
g C
apac
ity
Cu
mu
lati
ve R
emai
nin
g P
rog
ram
min
g C
apac
ity
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
5Y
PP
Tot
al P
rog
ram
med
in 2
013
Stra
teg
ic P
lan
Bas
elin
e *
Tot
al P
rog
ram
med
in 2
013
Stra
teg
ic P
lan
Bas
elin
e *
Tot
al P
rog
ram
med
in 2
013
Stra
teg
ic P
lan
Bas
elin
e *
Cu
mu
lati
ve R
emai
nin
g P
rog
ram
min
g C
apac
ity
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
5Y
PP
s
P:\P
rop
K\SP
-5YP
P\20
13 U
pdat
e\5Y
PP e
tc\E
P 10
-16
- Tra
nsit
Enha
ncem
ents
\Dra
ft\E
P 10
-16
5YPP
Upd
ated
Aug
ust 2
013
Tab
: NEW
Page
2 o
f 2E8E - 20
-
DRAF
T
EP 16 Other Transit Enhancements
[Prioritization Criteria – Pending Sponsor Submittal]
E8E - 21
-
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
E8E - 22
-
DRAF
T
2014
/15
2015
/16
2016
/17
2017
/18
2018
/19
SFM
TAH
istor
ic V
ehic
le R
ehab
ilita
tion/
Repl
acem
ent
PRO
CPl
anne
d$4
,000
,000
$4,0
00,0
00
SFM
TAH
istor
ic V
ehic
le R
ehab
ilita
tion/
Repl
acem
ent
War
rant
yPl
anne
d$2
2,80
0$2
2,80
0
SFM
TA60
-foot
Mot
or c
oach
Rep
lacem
ent/
Re-P
ower
ing
PRO
CPl
anne
d$1
1,39
7,62
4$1
1,39
7,62
4$2
2,79
5,24
8
SFM
TAM
otor
Coa
ch R
eplac
emen
t 40'
Plan
ned
$0
SFM
TATr
olle
y Co
ach
Repl
acem
ent
Plan
ned
$13,
090,
994
$14,
906,
812
$15,
682,
124
$43,
679,
930
$11,
397,
624
$15,
397,
624
$13,
090,
994
$14,
929,
612
$15,
682,
124
$70,
497,
978
$12,
928,
108
$29,
822,
786
$86,
704
$14,
929,
612
$15,
682,
124
$73,
449,
334
$1,5
30,4
84
$15,
955,
646
$2,9
51,3
57
$2,9
51,3
57
$2,9
51,3
57
$2,9
51,3
57
Last
Upd
ate:
Aug
ust 5
, 201
3
Cu
mu
lati
ve R
emai
nin
g P
rogr
amm
ing
Cap
acit
yT
otal
Pro
gram
med
in A
men
ded
200
9 St
rate
gic
Pla
n *
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
5Y
PP
Stat
usFi
scal
Yea
rTo
tal
* Se
e 20
13 S
trate
gic
Plan
Bas
elin
e A
ppen
dix
G fo
r tot
al av
ailab
le fu
nds,
curr
ent p
rogr
amm
ing,
and
fina
nce
cost
s for
eac
h E
xpen
ditu
re P
lan li
ne it
em.
Pro
gram
min
g an
d A
lloca
tion
s T
o-d
ate
2013
Pro
p K
5Y
PP
- P
rogr
am o
f P
roje
cts
New
an
d R
enov
ated
Veh
icle
s -
MT
A (
EP
17M
)
Age
ncy
Proj
ect N
ame
Phas
e
P:\P
rop
K\SP
-5YP
P\20
13 U
pdat
e\5Y
PP e
tc\E
P 17
\EP
17M
- Ve
hicl
es\D
raft
\201
3 5Y
PP U
pdat
e D
raft
PO
P (E
P 17
Veh
icle
s) 8
.5.1
3 T
ab: N
EWPa
ge 1
of 1E8E - 23
-
DRAF
T20
14/1
520
15/1
620
16/1
720
17/1
820
18/1
9
PCJP
BRe
venu
e V
ehicl
e Re
hab
CON
Pl
anne
d$1
,533
,333
$1,5
33,3
33
PCJP
BRe
venu
e V
ehicl
e Re
hab
CON
Pl
anne
d$1
,533
,333
$1,5
33,3
33
PCJP
BRe
venu
e V
ehicl
e Re
hab
CON
Pl
anne
d$2
,106
,000
$2,1
06,0
00
PCJP
BRe
venu
e V
ehicl
e Re
hab
CON
Pl
anne
d$6
66,6
67$6
66,6
67
PCJP
BRe
venu
e V
ehicl
e Re
hab
CON
Pl
anne
d$3
20,0
00$3
20,0
00
$1,5
33,3
33
$1,5
33,3
33
$2,1
06,0
00
$666
,667
$3
20,0
00
$6,1
59,3
33
$745
,281
$7
78,8
18
$813
,865
$8
50,4
89
$888
,761
$4
,077
,215
($
788,
052)
($1,
542,
567)
($2,
834,
702)
($2,
650,
879)
($2,
082,
118)
($2,
082,
118)
* Se
e 20
13 S
trate
gic
Plan
Bas
elin
e A
ppen
dix
G fo
r tot
al av
ailab
le fu
nds,
curr
ent p
rogr
amm
ing,
and
fina
nce
cost
s for
eac
h E
xpen
ditu
re P
lan li
ne it
em.
Cu
mu
lati
ve R
emai
nin
g P
rogr
amm
ing
Cap
acit
yT
otal
Pro
gram
med
in 2
013
Stra
tegi
c P
lan
Bas
elin
e *
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
5Y
PP
Age
ncy
Proj
ect N
ame
Phas
eSt
atus
Fisc
al Y
ear
Tota
l
Pro
gram
min
g an
d A
lloca
tion
s T
o-d
ate
Last
Upd
ate:
July
17, 2
013
2013
Pro
p K
5Y
PP
- P
rogr
am o
f P
roje
cts
New
an
d R
enov
ated
Veh
icle
s -
PC
JPB
(E
P 1
7P)
P:\P
rop
K\SP
-5YP
P\20
13 U
pdat
e\5Y
PP e
tc\_
PCJP
B\D
raft
\PO
Ps\E
P 17
P_Ve
hicl
es_A
pril
CIP
Tab
: NEW
Page
1 o
f 1
E8E - 24
-
DRAF
T
SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
SFMTA | CAPITAL FINANCIAL PLANNING AND ANALYSIS FINANCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
ONE SOUTH VAN NESS 8th FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103-5417 FAX: (415) 701-2447
2013 Proposition K 5-Year Prioritization Programs EP: 17: Vehicles
New Transit Vehicles
Prioritization Criteria: Table 4.1. Prioritization Matrix
Project Criteria - Facilities
1 Level of Urgency--Internal Agency Priority High 15 High Med Lowa. Internal agency priority Med 10b. Supports existing system Low 5
Y 102 Readiness N 0 Y N
a. Funds for phase all allocated/programmed?b. Prior project phases complete?
3 Cost Effectiveness--Choose 1 Y Na. Regular replacement of existing asset at end of useful life?b. Expansion: Cost/mile or cost/vehicle in line with industry standard ?
4 Geographic Equity - Choose 1 Y Na. Does project benefit SF systemwide transportation network?b. Location specific: Is distribution of projects in agency's program equitable?
5 Level of Community Support: Has project been part of public review process? Y N
6 Leveraging Non Prop. K Funds: Are funds matching federal/state funds? Y N
7 Linkages to Other Projects: Is project coordinated with other projects? Y N
8 Land Use Y Na. Compatibility with adopted urban designb. Support TOD
E8E - 25
-
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
E8E - 26
-
DRAF
T20
14/1
520
15/1
620
16/1
720
17/1
820
18/1
9
BART
Daly
City
BA
RT S
tatio
n Bu
s &
Shut
tle C
ircul
atio
n Im
prov
emen
tsPL
AN
/CE
R Pl
anne
d$5
50,0
00$5
50,0
00
BART
Glen
Par
k St
atio
n Pl
aza
Impr
ovem
ents
PS&
E
Plan
ned
$75,
249
$75,
249
$625
,249
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6
25,2
49
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
($62
5,24
9)($
625,
249)
($62
5,24
9)($
625,
249)
($62
5,24
9)($
625,
249)
2013
Pro
p K
5Y
PP
- P
rogr
am o
f P
roje
cts
Reh
ab/
Up
grad
e E
xist
ing
Fac
iliti
es -
BA
RT
(E
P 2
0B)
Pro
gram
min
g an
d A
lloca
tion
s T
o-d
ate
Last
Upd
ate:
July
17, 2
013
Age
ncy
Proj
ect N
ame
Phas
eSt
atus
Fisc
al Y
ear
Tota
l
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
5Y
PP
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
201
3 St
rate
gic
Pla
n B
asel
ine
*C
um
ula
tive
Rem
ain
ing
Pro
gram
min
g C
apac
ity
* Se
e 20
13 S
trate
gic
Plan
Bas
eline
App
endi
x G
for t
otal
avail
able
fund
s, cu
rren
t pro
gram
min
g, a
nd fi
nanc
e co
sts f
or e
ach
Exp
endi
ture
Plan
line
item
.
P:\P
rop
K\SP
-5YP
P\20
13 U
pdat
e\5Y
PP e
tc\E
P 20
\EP
20 B
\Dra
ft\E
P 20
B_U
pdat
e Re
vise
d ba
sed
on B
ARTs
com
men
t T
ab: N
EWPa
ge 1
of 1E8E - 27
-
DRAF
T
2013
5YPP up
date of P
rop K programming
Rank
ing Crite
riaTransportatio
nlow ‐ 5
Level of
Full fund
ing
Completion
Leveraging
of
Level of
Fair
System
Constrn.
Med
‐ 10
Need or
Project
for p
hase or
of prio
rCo
stno
n‐Prop
KCo
mmun
ityGeo
graphic
Performance
Plan
Coordn
.Ope
ratio
nal
Fulfills
Ranking
High
‐ 15
Urgen
cyRe
adiness
useful se
gmt
phases
Effectiven
ess
fund
sSupp
ort
distrib
ution
Bene
fits
Status
w/others
Improvmts
Mandate
Score
Balboa
phase 3
1010
5
15
10
10
15
10
10
15
15
10
10
145
Glen Park
510
5
5
10
10
15
5
10
15
5
10
5
110
24th NE Plaza
1010
5
10
5
10
10
15
5
15
10
5
5
115
Bike path from
Glen Park to
Balbo
a5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
70Gen
eva Plaza
1010
5
15
10
10
15
10
10
15
15
10
5
140
Daly City
Statio
n im
provem
ents
1515
10
5
15
10
15
10
15
15
15
15
10
165
Bike stations at G
len Park, 16th, & 24th
1010
10
5
5
10
10
10
5
5
5
5
5
95Ha
llidie Plaza Elevator
1515
15
10
15
5
10
15
10
5
5
10
15
145E8E - 28
-
DRAF
T20
14/1
520
15/1
620
16/1
720
17/1
820
18/1
9
SFM
TA
Mun
i Met
ro E
ast (
MM
E) F
acili
ty B
us
and
Rail
Pain
t Boo
th o
r oth
er S
FMTA
Fa
ciliti
es V
ision
Pro
ject
PA&
ED
Pl
anne
d$5
,127
,000
$5,1
27,0
00
SFM
TAPl
aceh
olde
r for
impl
emen
tatio
n of
SF
MTA
facil
ities
visi
onPL
AN
/CE
R Pl
anne
d$1
,000
,000
$1,0
00,0
00
SFM
TAPl
aceh
olde
r for
impl
emen
tatio
n of
SF
MTA
facil
ities
visi
onCO
N
Plan
ned
$9,0
00,0
00$9
,000
,000
$1,0
00,0
00
$0
$5,1
27,0
00
$0
$9,0
00,0
00
$15,
127,
000
$0
$0
$5,1
27,0
00
$0
$0
$5,1
27,0
00
($1,
000,
000)
($1,
000,
000)
($1,
000,
000)
($1,
000,
000)
($10
,000
,000
)($
10,0
00,0
00)
* Se
e 20
13 S
trate
gic
Plan
Bas
eline
App
endi
x G
for t
otal
avail
able
fund
s, cu
rren
t pro
gram
min
g, a
nd fi
nanc
e co
sts f
or e
ach
Exp
endi
ture
Plan
line
item
.
Cu
mu
lati
ve R
emai
nin
g P
rogr
amm
ing
Cap
acit
y
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
Am
end
ed 2
009
Stra
tegi
c P
lan
*
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
5Y
PP
Age
ncy
Proj
ect N
ame
Phas
eSt
atus
Fisc
al Y
ear
Tota
l
Pro
gram
min
g an
d A
lloca
tion
s T
o-d
ate
Last
Upd
ate:
July
30, 2
013
2013
Pro
p K
5Y
PP
- P
rogr
am o
f P
roje
cts
Reh
ab/
Up
grad
e E
xist
ing
Fac
iliti
es -
SF
MT
A (
EP
20M
)
P:\P
rop
K\SP
-5YP
P\20
13 U
pdat
e\5Y
PP e
tc\E
P 20
\EP2
0 M
\Dra
ft\2
013
5YPP
PO
P (E
P 20
Fac
iliti
es) D
RAFT
.xls
x T
ab: N
EWPa
ge 1
of 1
E8E - 29
-
DRAF
T
EP 20 Facilities Prioritization Matrix Project Criteria - Facilities
1 Level of Urgency--Internal Agency Priority High 15 High Med Lowa. Internal agency priority Med 10b. Supports existing system Low 5
Y 102 Readiness N 0 Y N
a. Funds for phase all allocated/programmed?b. Prior project phases complete?
3 Cost Effectiveness--Choose 1 Y Na. Regular replacement of existing asset at end of useful life?b. Expansion: Cost/mile or cost/vehicle in line with industry standard ?
4 Geographic Equity - Choose 1 Y Na. Does project benefit SF systemwide transportation network?b. Location specific: Is distribution of projects in agency's program equitable?
5 Level of Community Support: Has project been part of public review process? Y N
6 Leveraging Non Prop. K Funds: Are funds matching federal/state funds? Y N
7 Linkages to Other Projects: Is project coordinated with other projects? Y N
8 Land Use Y Na. Compatibility with adopted urban designb. Support TOD
E8E - 30
-
DRAF
T
2014
/15
2015
/16
2016
/17
2017
/18
2018
/19
SFM
TAM
uni L
RV a
nd T
rolle
y O
verh
ead
Syst
em R
eplac
emen
tCO
N
Plan
ned
1,20
0,00
0$
1,20
0,00
0$
1,20
0,00
0$
$3,6
00,0
00
SFM
TAM
uni M
etro
and
Hist
oric
Veh
icle
Rail
Re
plac
emen
t Pro
gram
CON
Pl
anne
d1,
000,
000
$
1,
000,
000
$
1,
000,
000
$
$3
,000
,000
SFM
TAM
uni M
etro
Tw
in P
eaks
Tra
ck
Repl
acem
ent
CON
Pl
anne
d8,
200,
000
$
$8
,200
,000
SFM
TA33
Sta
nyon
Ove
rhea
d Re
plac
emen
t Pr
ojec
tCO
N
Plan
ned
2,24
0,00
0$
$2,2
40,0
00
$11,
440,
000
$2,2
00,0
00
$2,2
00,0
00
$1,2
00,0
00
$0
$17,
040,
000
$1,0
00,0
00
$1,0
45,0
00
$1,0
92,0
25
$1,1
41,1
66
$1,1
92,5
19
$5,4
70,7
10
($10
,440
,000
)($
11,5
95,0
00)
($12
,702
,975
)($
12,7
61,8
09)
($11
,569
,290
)($
11,5
69,2
90)
2013
Pro
p K
5Y
PP
- P
rogr
am o
f P
roje
cts
Gu
idew
ays
- SF
MT
A (
EP
22M
)
Pro
gram
min
g an
d A
lloca
tion
s T
o-d
ate
and
Pro
pos
ed A
men
dm
ent
Last
Upd
ate:
July
30,
201
3
Age
ncy
Proj
ect N
ame
Phas
eSt
atus
Fisc
al Y
ear
Tota
l
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
5Y
PP
Cu
mu
lati
ve R
emai
nin
g P
rogr
amm
ing
Cap
acit
yT
otal
Pro
gram
med
in 2
013
Stra
tegi
c P
lan
Bas
elin
e *
* Se
e dr
aft 2
013
Stra
tegi
c Pl
an B
aseli
ne A
ppen
dix
G fo
r tot
al av
ailab
le fu
nds,
curr
ent p
rogr
amm
ing,
and
fina
nce
cost
s for
eac
h E
xpen
ditu
re P
lan li
ne it
em.
P:\P
rop
K\SP
-5YP
P\20
13 U
pdat
e\5Y
PP e
tc\E
P 22
\EP2
2 M
\Dra
ft\2
013
5YPP
Upd
ate
(EP
22 G
uide
way
s)v1
.0
Tab:
NEW
Page
1 o
f 1E8E - 31
-
DRAF
T20
14/1
520
15/1
620
16/1
720
17/1
820
18/1
9
PCJP
BSy
stem
wid
e Tr
ack
Reha
bCO
N
Plan
ned
$500
,000
$500
,000
PCJP
BSy
stem
wid
e Tr
ack
Reha
bCO
N
Plan
ned
$500
,000
$500
,000
PCJP
BSy
stem
wid
e Tr
ack
Reha
bCO
N
Plan
ned
$500
,000
$500
,000
PCJP
BSy
stem
wid
e Tr
ack
Reha
bCO
N
Plan
ned
$500
,000
$500
,000
PCJP
BSy
stem
wid
e Tr
ack
Reha
bCO
N
Plan
ned
$500
,000
$500
,000
PCJP
BSi
gnal
Syst
em a
nd C
omm
unica
tion
Syst
ems R
ehab
CON
Pl
anne
d$3
60,0
00$3
60,0
00
PCJP
BSi
gnal
Syst
em a
nd C
omm
unica
tion
Syst
ems R
ehab
CON
Pl
anne
d$3
60,0
00$3
60,0
00
PCJP
BSi
gnal
Syst
em a
nd C
omm
unica
tion
Syst
ems R
ehab
CON
Pl
anne
d$3
60,0
00$3
60,0
00
PCJP
BSi
gnal
Syst
em a
nd C
omm
unica
tion
Syst
ems R
ehab
CON
Pl
anne
d$3
60,0
00$3
60,0
00
PCJP
BSi
gnal
Syst
em a
nd C
omm
unica
tion
Syst
ems R
ehab
CON
Pl
anne
d$3
60,0
00$3
60,0
00
PCJP
BBr
idge
Reh
ab P
rogr
am
PS&
E
Plan
ned
$210
,610
$210
,610
PCJP
BBr
idge
Reh
ab P
rogr
am
PS&
E
Plan
ned
$156
,440
$156
,440
PCJP
BBr
idge
Reh
ab P
rogr
am
PS&
E
Plan
ned
$70,
580
$70,
580
PCJP
BBr
idge
Reh
ab P
rogr
am
CON
Pl
anne
d$1
,193
,457
$1,1
93,4
57
PCJP
BBr
idge
Reh
ab P
rogr
am
CON
Pl
anne
d$8
86,4
93$8
86,4
93
PCJP
BBr
idge
Reh
ab P
rogr
am
CON
Pl
anne
d$3
99,9
53$3
99,9
53
PCJP
BSo
uth
Term
inal
Phas
e 2&
3CO
N
Plan
ned
$1,3
89,0
00$1
,389
,000
PCJP
BSo
uth
Term
inal
Phas
e 2&
3CO
N
Plan
ned
$9,1
66,6
67$9
,166
,667
PCJP
BSo
uth
Term
inal
Phas
e 2&
3CO
N
Plan
ned
$6,1
11,0
00$6
,111
,000
$3,6
53,0
67
$11,
069,
600
$7,4
41,5
33
$860
,000
$8
60,0
00
$23,
884,
200
$800
,000
$8
36,0
00
$873
,620
$9
12,9
33
$954
,015
$4
,376
,568
($
2,85
3,06
7)($
13,0
86,6
67)
($19
,654
,580
)($
19,6
01,6
47)
($19
,507
,632
)($
19,5
07,6
32)
* Se
e 20
13 S
trate
gic
Plan
Bas
eline
App
endi
x G
for t
otal
avail
able
fund
s, cu
rren
t pro
gram
min
g, a
nd fi
nanc
e co
sts f
or e
ach
Exp
endi
ture
Plan
line
item
.
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
201
3 St
rate
gic
Pla
n B
asel
ine
*C
um
ula
tive
Rem
ain
ing
Pro
gram
min
g C
apac
ity
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
5Y
PP
Age
ncy
Proj
ect N
ame
Phas
eSt
atus
Fisc
al Y
ear
Tota
l
Pro
gram
min
g an
d A
lloca
tion
s T
o-d
ate
Last
upd
ate:
July
17, 2
013
2013
Pro
p K
5Y
PP
- P
rogr
am o
f P
roje
cts
Gu
idew
ays
- P
CJP
B (
EP
22P
)
P:\P
rop
K\SP
-5YP
P\20
13 U
pdat
e\5Y
PP e
tc\_
PCJP
B\D
raft
\PO
Ps\E
P 22
P_G
uide
way
s_Ap
ril C
IP
Tab:
NEW
Page
1 o
f 1
E8E - 32
-
DRAF
T
SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
SFMTA | CAPITAL FINANCIAL PLANNING AND ANALYSIS FINANCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
ONE SOUTH VAN NESS 8th FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103-5417 FAX: (415) 701-2447
2013 Proposition K 5-Year Prioritization Programs
EP 22: Guideways
Prioritization Criteria: Table 4.1. Prioritization Matrix
Project Criteria - Facilities
1 Level of Urgency--Internal Agency Priority High 15 High Med Lowa. Internal agency priority Med 10b. Supports existing system Low 5
Y 102 Readiness N 0 Y N
a. Funds for phase all allocated/programmed?b. Prior project phases complete?
3 Cost Effectiveness--Choose 1 Y Na. Regular replacement of existing asset at end of useful life?b. Expansion: Cost/mile or cost/vehicle in line with industry standard ?
4 Geographic Equity - Choose 1 Y Na. Does project benefit SF systemwide transportation network?b. Location specific: Is distribution of projects in agency's program equitable?
5 Level of Community Support: Has project been part of public review process? Y N
6 Leveraging Non Prop. K Funds: Are funds matching federal/state funds? Y N
7 Linkages to Other Projects: Is project coordinated with other projects? Y N
8 Land Use Y Na. Compatibility with adopted urban designb. Support TOD
E8E - 33
-
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
E8E - 34
-
DRAF
T20
14/1
520
15/1
620
16/1
720
17/1
820
18/1
9
DPW
Sout
h of
Slo
at R
ealig
nmen
tPl
anne
d$1
,100
,000
$1,1
00,0
00
$1,1
00,0
00
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,1
00,0
00
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
($1,
100,
000)
($1,
100,
000)
($1,
100,
000)
($1,
100,
000)
($1,
100,
000)
$0
TBD
Bi-C
ount
y: G
enev
a BR
T E
IR/S
Plan
ned
$3,0
00,0
00$3
,000
,000
TBD
Bi-C
ount
y - S
chlag
e Lo
ck B
icyc
le-P
edes
trian
Co
nnec
tion
Plan
ned
$1,0
00,0
00$1
,000
,000
TBD
Bi-C
ount
y - I
nter
im S
olut
ions
Plac
ehol
der (
Gen
eva
Ave
Ext
ensio
n, G
enev
a BR
T, B
icyc
le-P
edes
trian
Co
nnec
tion)
Pl
anne
d$1
,000
,000
$1,0
00,0
00$2
,000
,000
TBD
Bi-C
ount
y - P
rojec
t Dev
elopm
ent P
laceh
olde
r (U
S 10
1 Ca
ndles
tick
Inte
rcha
nge
Re-C
onfig
urat
ion,
G
enev
a A
ve E
xten
sion,
Har
ney-
Gen
eva
BRT,
T-
Third
Lig
ht R
ail E
xten
sion,
Bay
shor
e St
atio
n Re
-Co
nfig
urat
ion,
Bic
ycle
-Ped
estri
an C
onne
ctio
n, A
rea-
Wid
e Tr
affic
Calm
ing
Prog
ram
)Pl
anne
d$1
,000
,000
$1,0
00,0
00$2
,000
,000
$1,0
00,0
00
$4,0
00,0
00
$1,0
00,0
00
$1,0
00,0
00
$1,0
00,0
00
$8,0
00,0
00
$4,4
70,2
50
$491
,411
$5
13,5
25
$536
,633
$5
60,7
82
$6,5
72,6
01
$0
$0
$3,4
70,2
50
($38
,339
)($
524,
814)
($98
8,18
1)($
1,42
7,39
9)($
1,42
7,39
9)
Pro
gram
min
g an
d A
lloca
tion
s T
o-d
ate
Last
upd
ate:
Aug
ust 2
1, 2
013
2013
Pro
p K
5Y
PP
- P
rogr
am o
f P
roje
cts
New
an
d U
pgr
aded
Str
eets
(E
P 2
6-30
)
Age
ncy
Proj
ect N
ame
Phas
eSt
atus
Fisc
al Y
ear
Tota
l
Gre
at H
ighw
ay E
rosio
n Re
pair
(EP
26)
Deo
blig
ated
fro
m P
rior
5Y
PP
Cyc
les
**C
um
ula
tive
Rem
ain
ing
Pro
gram
min
g C
apac
ity
Visi
taci
on V
alley
Wat
ersh
ed (E
P 27
)
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
5Y
PP
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
201
3 St
rate
gic
Pla
n B
asel
ine*
Deo
blig
ated
fro
m P
rior
5Y
PP
Cyc
les
**C
um
ula
tive
Rem
ain
ing
Pro
gram
min
g C
apac
ity
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
5Y
PP
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
201
3 St
rate
gic
Pla
n B
asel
ine*
P:\P
rop
K\SP
-5YP
P\20
13 U
pdat
e\5Y
PP e
tc\E
P 26
-30\
draf
t\EP
26-
30_P
OP_
Augu
st 2
013
Tab
: EP
26-3
0 20
13 U
pdat
e 08
.21.
13Pa
ge 1
of 2
E8E - 35
-
DRAF
T20
14/1
520
15/1
620
16/1
720
17/1
820
18/1
9
Pro
gram
min
g an
d A
lloca
tion
s T
o-d
ate
Last
upd
ate:
Aug
ust 2
1, 2
013
2013
Pro
p K
5Y
PP
- P
rogr
am o
f P
roje
cts
New
an
d U
pgr
aded
Str
eets
(E
P 2
6-30
)
Age
ncy
Proj
ect N
ame
Phas
eSt
atus
Fisc
al Y
ear
Tota
l
Plan
ned
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,
700
$10,
963
$11,
067
$11,
180
$11,
303
$55,
213
$10,
700
$21,
663
$32,
730
$43,
910
$55,
213
$55,
213
SFM
TA/S
FCTA
19th
Ave
nue
Bulb
-out
s (TE
P: 2
8 - 1
9th
Ave
) -
Des
ign
Plan
ned
$250
,000
$250
,000
SFM
TA/S
FCTA
19th
Ave
nue
Bulb
-out
s (TE
P: 2
8 - 1
9th
Ave
) -
Cons
truct
ion
Plan
ned
$1,0
00,0
00$1
,000
,000
$0
$250
,000
$1
,000
,000
$0
$0
$1
,250
,000
$1
,084
,644
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1
,084
,644
$0
$0
$1
,084
,644
$8
34,6
44
($16
5,35
6)($
165,
356)
($16
5,35
6)($
165,
356)
Gol
den
Gat
e Pa
rk/S
R1 T
raffi
c St
udy
(EP
29)
Cu
mu
lati
ve R
emai
nin
g P
rogr
amm
ing
Cap
acit
yO
ther
Upg
rade
s to
Majo
r Arte
rials
(EP
30)
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
5Y
PP
Tot
al P
rogr
amm
ed in
201
3 St
rate
gic
Pla
n B
asel
ine
Deo
blig
ated
fro
m P
rior
5Y
PP
Cyc
les
**C
um
ula
tive
Rem
ain
ing
Pro
gram
min
g C
apac
ity
* Se
e 20
13 S
trate
gic
Plan
Bas
elin
e A
ppen
dix
G fo
r tot
al av
ailab
le fu
nds,
curr
ent p
rogr
amm
ing,
and
fina
nce
cost
s for
eac
h E
xpen
ditu
re P
lan li
ne it
em.
The
2013
Stra
tegi
c Pl
an
Base
line
for E
P 26
incl
udes
$0
in fu
nds c
arrie
d ov
er fr
om th
e 20
09 5
YPP
and
pro
gram
med
in F
iscal
Yea
r 201
4/15
. Th
e 20
13 S
trate
gic
Plan
Bas
eline
for E
P 27
inclu
des $
4 m
illio
n in
una
lloca
ted
fund
s car
ried
over
from
the
2009
5Y
PP a
nd p
rogr
amm
ed in
Fisc
al Y
ear 2
014/
15.
That
am
ount
incl
udes
the
follo
win
g as
sum
ed F
Y 2
013/
14 a
lloca
tions
: $74
5,00
0 fo
r Bi-C
oun