san francisco transportation plan · $3.263 billion $2.299 billion $0.965 billion local streets and...

www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA |

www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF

San Francisco

Transportation Plan Update

CAC Meeting #10

November 28, 2012



San Francisco Transportation Plan

DRAFT State of Good Repair Expected

Needs and Revenues

Community Advisory Committee

November 28, 2012

Plan Bay Area RTP/SCS Approach to State of Good Repair

(SOGR) and Operations and Maintenance (O&M)

Maintain today’s roadway and bridge pavement/structural conditions

Fully fund transit vehicles and 70% of “critical” transit capital infrastructure

(overhead wires, rail track, etc.)

Fully fund transit operations at today’s transit service levels

Note: MTC was able to achieve these goals through the use of new discretionary

funding sources (regional gas tax, new bridge toll, “anticipated unspecified” funds)

www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 3

How much transportation revenue is expected

through 2040 in SF

$64 billion in revenue is expected for all uses including:

$35.5 billion for local and regional transit operations

$11.1 billion for local and regional transit capital

$5.1 billion for street maintenance (operations, routine maintenance, and

system preservation)

$9.43 billion for baseline projects1

$3.14 billion is expected flexible funds

1Baseline includes: Presidio Parkway, Transbay Transit Center, Phase 1 , Transbay Transit

Center, Phase 2/Downtown Extension of High Speed Rail/Caltrain, Central Subway,

HSR MOU projects, Van Ness BRT, Fully-funded developer projects, YBI Ramp Improvements


The cost to maintain streets and transit at today’s levels of repair and operation is $3.7 billion through 2040

This cost exceeds our expected discretionary revenues of $3.14 billion

Why does not forecast SF sufficient revenues to meet Plan Bay Area policy targets? – lack of clarity about the region’s

proposed allocation of discretionary revenue by operator and municipality

Transit – Capital only includes SFMTA and Caltrain (SF share) needs to achieve RTP/SCS goal of 70% of “critical” transit

capital infrastructure

Overview of SOGR and O&M need vs. revenue

Cost to Maintain Current

SOGR/O&M Level

Expected

Revenue

Shortfall

Local Streets and Roads - System

Preservation

$3.263 billion $2.299 billion $0.965 billion

Local Streets and Roads -

Operations/Routine Maintenance

$2.84 billion $2.84 billion

$0.00

Transit - Operations $35.6 billion $35.5 billion $0.12 billion

Transit – Capital $8.11 billion $5.47 billion $2.64 billion

Total $3.735 billion


Local Streets and Roads SOGR Needs v. Revenues

through 2040

Source: MTC/DPW

$6.1 billion TOTAL NEED

Local Streets & Roads (LS&R) System

Preservation (SP) and Operations/Routine

Maintenance (O/RM) need

Maintain current pavement conditions and routine

maintenance levels

$3.26 billion

System Preservation need:

Cost to maintain existing pavement conditions

$2.84 billion Operations/Routine Maintenance need:

Maintain existing levels of pothole repair, street

sweeping, etc.

$5.1 billion TOTAL REVENUES expected ($2.29 billion for SP and $2.84 billion for O/RM)

$965 million TOTAL SHORTFALL to maintain today’s pavement conditions

$2.48 billion Total LS&R SP and O/RM revenue shortfall to achieve an ideal PCI of 75

In the RTP/SCS MTC was able to meet the total need by allocating discretionary funds to pavement repair

However, this is not the only strategy to achieve the goal of maintaining pavement; for example, SF could also shift

resources from O/RM to SP based on our local priorities


Transit O&M Needs v. Revenues through 2040

Sources: MTC/SFMTA/regional transit operators

Cost (SF share) Operator Comment

$26.58 billion SFMTA Muni Shortfall: $0.12billion

$5.33 billion BART No shortfall

$0.748 billion Caltrain No shortfall

$1.34 billion GGBHTD GGT operating shortfall

does not have an SF share

$27.761

billion

TOTAL COST to

maintain existing

operating levels

through 2040

$26.46

billion

TOTAL REVEUE

expected

$1.18

billion

MINUS

assumption of 5%

cost savings

$0.12

billion

Muni O&M

revenue gap

Cost table shows the total cost to maintain today’s transit service levels.

In the RTP/SCS MTC was able to maintain current O&M levels through

the use discretionary funds and assumption that operators implement

recommended cost saving strategies

Funding the SF share of Caltrain operations is the subject of ongoing

City discussions


Transit Capital Needs v. Revenues through 2040

Operator Cost of Transit

Vehicles

Cost of “critical”

transit capital (70%)

Expected Revenue –

Vehicles

Expected Revenue –

Capital

Shortfall

SFMTA $4.024 billion $3.54 billion $4.024 billion $1.030 billion $2.51 billion

BART $4.97 billion $5.59 billion - - N/A

GGBHTD $0.678 billion $0.10 billion - - N/A

Caltrain1 $0.266 billion $0.28 billion $0.266 billion $0.153 billion $0.13 billion

Total $2.64 billion

RTP/SCS Goal:

Fully fund revenue vehicles and 70% of “critical” transit capital infrastructure

Fully fund operating needs for existing transit service levels

We have a great deal of uncertainty here due to the use of discretionary revenues in the RTP/SCS process to

close funding shortfalls

For the purposes of this assessment we are not expecting SF to have a discretionary share of the BART and

GGBHTD capital need – BART and GGBHTD shortfalls will be addressed at a regional/partner level

1 SF share

Source: MTC


Next Steps

Our goal in the SFTP is to :

Recommended approaches to filling the shortfalls in existing street repair and

maintenance, and transit service levels

Further strengthen transit capital asset management

Investigate potential cost saving strategies (beyond the MTC Transit

Sustainability Project)

Examine new revenue options and their possible uses in a vision scenario


Thank you!

Suggestions, Feedback?

www.movesmartsf.com





Draft Performance Evaluation of

“Program” Investments

Updated Feb 21, 2013

Final Vision Scenario

FINAL ADOPTED

PLAN

Summer 2013

Draft Vision Scenario

New Revenues

Developing the SFTP


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


Expected transportation revenue for San Francisco

through 2040

$64.3 Billion Total

Financially constrained investment scenarios

How should we prioritize $3.14Billion in

uncommitted funds?

State of Good Repair / Operations &

Maintenance

O&M to relieve crowding, improve reliability

Pavement quality, structures

Transportation enhancements and programs

Pedestrian safety, traffic calming

Bicycle facilities

Expansion projects

Improve transit for existing and new travel

markets

Develop freeway management strategies

(US101, HWY280)



POTENTIAL PROJECTS

2004

Countywide Plan

Approved

Plans & Projects

Public Input &

Call for Projects

Project Performance Evaluation

Plan Goal Areas

(Benefit Score)

Project Cost

Additional

Considerations

Evaluating Project Performance Ranking according to cost effectiveness in Plan goal areas

Vision Scenarios

Input received during October outreach

Interest in the cost-effectiveness performance of “programs:”

How do alternative approaches to programmatic investment compare,

in terms of cost-effectiveness?

How do investments in programs compare to investments in projects, in

terms of cost effectiveness?


Approach to evaluating programs

Define representative, modelable “program” investment packages

based on responses to Calls for Projects

Pedestrian and traffic calming improvements

Bicycle network improvements

Travel Demand Management

Adapt evaluation methodology to address goals of programmatic

investments

Include programs along with projects in cost-effectiveness Tiers


Alternative representative investments in pedestrian

/ traffic calming improvements


Component Source Cost

($m)

Improved crosswalks (range of treatments),

curb extensions and refuge islands,

citywide pedestrian safety and circulation

improvements (expanded pedestrian

spaces, signals, signs)

2012 SFMTA CIP

$182

Neighborhood traffic calming 2012 SFMTA CIP $54

Pedestrian countdown signals citywide Draft Pedestrian Action

Strategy $10

44 miles of comprehensive street re-design

measures

Draft Pedestrian Action

Strategy $300

School area pedestrian improvements Draft Pedestrian Action

Strategy $25

Ped

Program

#1

Ped

Program

#2





($m)






2012 SFMTA CIP

$236

Neighborhood traffic calming 2012 SFMTA CIP


Strategy $10


measures


Strategy $300


Strategy $25

Ped

Program

#1





($m)






2012 SFMTA CIP

$236

Neighborhood traffic calming 2012 SFMTA CIP

$389


Strategy


measures


Strategy


Strategy

Ped

Program

#1

Ped

Program

#2

Representative pedestrian program


Notes

- Pedestrian improvements depicted are

representative only, based on SFMTA

Pedestrian Strategy (2012)

- Traffic calming improvements depicted

are representative only, based on SFMTA

Traffic Calming program pipeline of

projects

Alternative representative bicycling improvements



($m)

Bicycle Plan long term improvements,

including cycle tracks

2012 SFMTA CIP

$400

Bicycle sharing 2012 SFMTA CIP $42

Secure bicycle parking 2012 SFMTA CIP $5

120 miles of cycle tracks similar to

Oak/Fell improvements (representative

network)

Representative / Oak Fell

project $120

Bike

Program

#1

Bike

Program

#2




($m)



2012 SFMTA CIP

$447

Bicycle sharing 2012 SFMTA CIP

Secure bicycle parking 2012 SFMTA CIP



network)


project $120

Bike

Program

#1




($m)



2012 SFMTA CIP

$447

Bicycle sharing 2012 SFMTA CIP

$167

Secure bicycle parking 2012 SFMTA CIP



network)


project

Bike

Program

#1

Bike

Program

#2

Representative bicycle program


Notes

- Cycletrack network is representative, for modeling purposes only

Benefit Score Components


Metric Market Score Problem Score Effect Score Total Score

Greenhouse

Gas (GHG) 1 to 3 1 to 3 -1 to 2 GHG Score

Motorized

Travel Time 1 to 3 1 to 3 -1 to 2 Travel Time Score

Non-Auto

Mode Share 1 to 3 1 to 3 -1 to 2 Mode Share Score

Transit

Crowding 1 to 3 1 to 3 -1 to 2 Crowding Score

Total Project Benefit

Score

Benefit Score Components


Metric Market Score Problem Score Effect Score Total Score

Greenhouse

Gas (GHG) 1 to 3 1 to 3 -1 to 2 GHG Score

Motorized

Travel Time 1 to 3 1 to 3 -1 to 2 Travel Time Score

Non-Auto

Mode Share 1 to 3 1 to 3 -1 to 2 Mode Share Score

Transit

Crowding 1 to 3 1 to 3 -1 to 2 Crowding Score

Total Project Benefit

Score

Safety Safety Score

Proxy benefit-cost scores for programs


Component Pedestrian

program #1

Pedestrian

program #2

Bicycle

program #1

Bicycle

program #2

Travel

Demand

Management

Benefit Score 18* 18* 24** 18* 36***

Annualized

Cost ($m) $9.5 $15.6 $18 $6.7 $2

Benefit-Cost

Index 1.9 1.15 1.34 2.69 18

Performance

Tier Middle-High Middle-Low Middle-Low High High

Notes

* Compares to Central Subway extension, TI Congestion Pricing, BART 30th Street station, SE Waterfront transit service, BART

Metro

** Compares to BART second transbay tube, Potrero/Bayshore BRT

*** Compares to Geary rail, Transit Effectiveness Project, Transit Performance Initiative

Pedestrian / traffic calming program benefits

• Not a significant improvement to GHG emissions, non-auto mode

share, or transit crowding, compared to other projects

• Significant improvement to safety

Bicycle program benefits

• Not a significant improvement to GHG emissions

• Modest improvements to safety, non-auto mode share, and transit

crowding

TDM program benefits

• Significant improvement to GHG emissions, non-auto mode share

• Modest improvement to non-auto travel times

• Not a significant improvement to transit crowding

Benefit-Cost Proxy Index – Top Tier Listed alphabetically


Projects with Highest Benefit-Cost Proxy Scores Public/Agency Total Cost

Better Market Street A/P $258

Bicycle Program A/P $252

Congestion Pricing – Cordon and Treasure Island A/P $119

Historic Streetcar Expansion – E Turnaround A/P $149

HOV Lane, Central Freeway A $15

New Caltrain Station at Oakdale Avenue A/P $62

Potrero / Bayshore BRT A/P $128

Transit Effectiveness Project A/P $178

Transit Performance Initiative A $400+

Travel Demand Management Program A/P $73M

Total Cost of Top Tier of Projects $1,561

Top Tier Projects


Notes

- Cycletrack network is representative, for modeling purposes only

Benefit-Cost Index – Middle-High Tier Listed alphabetically


Projects with Middle-High Benefit-Cost Proxy Scores Public / Agency Total Cost

BART Metro Turnback A $500

BART 30th Street Infill Station A/P $813

Carpool / bus lanes on I-280 (to 6th) and 101 (to Cesar Chavez) A $148

Evans Avenue transit priority A $71

Express bus service, Hunters Point and Candlestick Point A $147

Geary Boulevard BRT A $229

Geneva Avenue Extension A $148

Geneva TPS / BRT A/P $92

M-line 19th Avenue west side alignment A $271

Pedestrian and Traffic Calming Programs A/P $357

Stockton St. Transit Priority and Partial BRT P $35

T-line extension to Southern Intermodal Terminal A/P $152

Total Cost of Middle-High Tier Projects $2,963

Middle-High Tier Projects


Notes

- Pedestrian improvements depicted are

representative only, based on SFMTA

Pedestrian Strategy (2012)

- Traffic calming improvements depicted

are representative only, based on SFMTA

Traffic Calming program pipeline of

projects

Benefit-Cost Index – Low-Middle Tier Listed alphabetically


Projects with Low-Middle Benefit-Cost Proxy Scores Agency/Public Total Cost

Bridge over Yosemite Slough A $69

Central Freeway Removal / Octavia Boulevard Extension P $226

Central Subway Extension to North Beach / Fisherman’s Wharf A $1,686

Contraflow carpool lane on Bay Bridge A $335

Extend M-line to Daly City A $377

Geary subway-to-surface rail P $1,430

Geneva Avenue light rail line P $440

Harney Way rebuild and BRT A $445

Historic Streetcar Expansion – Fort Mason Extension A/P $93

Increased SF BART service A $702

J-Church Limited Bus P $45

Mission Bay ferry terminal A $75

Muni service expansion to address crowding and growth A/P $2,000

N-Judah rail service to Mission Bay (along 16th Street) P $619

Southeast Waterfront transit priority and increased service A $876

Total Cost of Low-Middle Tier Projects $9,418

Low-Middle Tier Projects


Conclusions / next steps

Pedestrian / traffic calming and bicycle programs

Results provide support for increasing investment beyond historical levels

Scope and cost of these programs needs refinement, especially for bicycle

program

Travel Demand Management Program

Results provide support for historic levels of investment

Scope and cost of increased investment to be determined through the TDM

Partnership Program


Final Vision Scenario

FINAL ADOPTED

PLAN

Summer 2013

Draft Vision Scenario

New Revenues

Developing the SFTP


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



Interim Outreach Results

November 28, 2012


Recap on goals/objectives

1. Hear stakeholder input on how to prioritize future transportation revenue

Maintenance and operations vs. programs vs. major capital projects

2. Reach a broad cross-section of San Francisco stakeholders

Geographic, ethnic, racial, income diversity

Users of all modes of transportation

Residents, employees, business owners

Key notification techniques

Email notification

500+ SFTP email list, 3,500+ Authority-wide list

Fact sheets

~1000 distributed at 14 locations

Advertisements on buses/shelters + in newspapers

1100 on buses, 450 in shelters, 10 newspaper ads with

total distribution of ~200,000

Community events

~2000 postcards distributed at 11 events citywide

Social Media (facebook/twitter)

Press release leading to 5 articles published

SF Business Times, SF Examiner, Bay Citizen, SF Streetsblog


Key input techniques

Be the City’s Budget Czar

for a Day web-based tool

700+ responses

received so far

Feedback received during

presentations to

community groups and

Boards/ Commissions

17 presentations given

(since 9/2012)


Budget Czar interim summary results (as of

11/1/2012), 458 respondents


SF Zip Code: 233 | Non-SF Zip Code: 42 | Did not report: 183

All age, racial, ethnic and

income groups reached,

but overrepresentation

of:

Ages 25-40

White

Higher-Income

Central Supervisorial

districts (5, 8, 9)

Stronger desire for moderate and aggressive increase

in transit O+M (80%) than street maintenance (44%)


Investment In Maintenance and Operations

Walking, cycling, + Muni enhancements most popular

categories for moderate or aggressive increase in investment


Investment in Programs

Transit efficiency projects lead the pack in popularity: TEP, Transit

Performance Initiative, Better Market Street, Geary BRT


Investment in Projects (top 10 projects)

Oakdale Caltrain, and HOV/Carpool on Central Freeway not as popular

despite high-performing status


Investment in Project s (middle 10 projects)

Generally, middle and bottom tier projects least popular


Investment in Projects (bottom 13 projects)

Most respondents (77%) chose to add additional

revenue…


…although expressing desire to

weigh in on types of revenue

measures…

e.g. “FUN! But I wish there had been a more detailed breakdown for revenue options. I'd like to see rider fees come down, but fees/taxes for car drivers go up.”

Some key themes

1. Appreciation of tool as a useful and educational tool for

public engagement.

“Thanks for the chance to deep-dive into these issues, I feel like I'll be a better informed citizen and voter. “Great simulation, it's insightful to see the trade-offs that need to be made. “I was unaware that ‘Over 75% of San Francisco’s transportation funds are used to operate and maintain our existing transit system and street network.’ “ “I love being czar.”


Some key themes

2. Strong desire to get back to the basics: prioritize

maintenance and operations of the existing Muni system,

improve its reliability, and address crowding

“As a daily Muni rider, reliability and maintenance is my top priority. All too often, I encounter broken-down buses and trains, failed signals, stalled escalators, jammed doors, and the inevitable "heavy traffic in the subway" announcements” “…My morning ride on the 21 has passed from uncomfortable to downright dangerous - people being crushed, unable to get off the bus due to the amount of passengers, and it is like this EVERY MORNING.” www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 49

Some key themes

3. Conviction that San Francisco deserves a world-class public

transportation system, with faster more frequent service

“As a European, I would rate San Francisco's mass transit system somewhere between mediocre and unacceptable.It can hardly be understood that the centre of such a rich area as the Bay Area has such a poor transportation system.” “…you could probably get the N downtown in half the time with some relatively simple improvements: First, only stop every four blocks, instead of every two (Second, remove stop signs along Judah Street that do not correspond to aforementioned streetcar stops...”


Some key themes

4. Strong desire to improve cycling and walking conditions.

“How did you come up with the $150 million estimate for a citywide bicycle network? That amount seems low …” “I'd like to see increased investment for bikes. Riding a bike in this city is currently a dangerous activity” “Another very high priority is pedestrian safety and traffic calming. Our streets are so straight that it makes drivers treat them like highways. SOMA is very congested and generally unpleasant to walk around during evening rush hour.”


Some key themes

5. High priority for a focus on core capacity improvements

“Double the carrying-capacity of the Market Street subway “...seriously consider the idea of adding a second tunnel to accommodate more BART trains to the East Bay…” “ I would like to see muni run 4-6 car trains through the underground section of the tunnels, especially during peak times. Why do the platforms have so much space if it is never used and the trains are so crowded?”


Some key themes

6. Quite a bit of support, but some skepticism about congestion

pricing; interest in parking-based alternatives.

“Regardless of the method, projects like BRT and efficiency upgrades can only be successful with increased demand-pricing and congestion charges that deter driving.” “I don’t support the congestion charge. I think the same or similar benefits could be achieved through parking management decisions or by tactical tolling such as at freeway-on ramps, especially those near the Bay Bridge.” www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 53

Some key themes

7. Desire for institutional reform: cost savings, faster project

delivery…

“…employ enough standby drivers and enough spare vehicles to support rail line breakdowns quickly.” “Maybe you should also have an 'audit SF' button on here as well to ensure that we're getting what we pay for here.” “It shakes my whole organism to see that what has been planned decades ago, multiple times, has not been realized even though there is a significant need on these corridors”


Some key themes

8. Support for more revenue or at least more discussion about

new revenue

“I support higher revenue increases, like taxes and increased parking meter tolls, but NOT increasing direct fees for transit riders (fare and passes). “Raise taxes if that’s what it takes. We need better MUNI.” “Parking, parcel tax and local gas tax should be avoided by the agency.” “I believe we need to make MUNI free and raise additional revenue to pay for this, esp. downtown business district tax”


How Will We Use This Input?

Full summary, with additional respondents input included, will be

prepared after close of budget czar tool (Nov 30, 2012)

Share input with Authority Board members

Develop scenarios that respond to key themes, (subject of next meeting)


Additional Questions?

Thank you!

Next Meeting:

January 30, 6 pm



san francisco transportation plan · $3.263 billion $2.299 billion $0.965 billion local streets and...

Documents