Table Of Content.
San Francisco Congestion Management
Program Draft 1995. /o/i<>h$
:
and
Preliminary Negative Declaration and
Initial Study
REFERENCE
BOOK
Not to be taken fromthe Library
nf-MT^ dept.
OCT 16 1995
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
DRAFT
1995
San Francisco
///
Congestion Management Program
Prepared bv the
San Francisco County Transportation Authority
October 10, 1995
^
8
Table of Contents
^
Chapter 1 - Background and Program Overview
1. Background ¥U...M....^ 1
Purpose of the Document zXJ..../S....^.-^
Origins and Intent of the CMP Legislation 2
2. Congestion Management In San Francisco 3
Applicability of the Concept 3
The City's Congestion Management Track Record 4
Future Strategies 4
3. Program Overview 5
A. Mandated Program Components 5
B. Changes to Transportation Fund Programming 6
C. Relationship to Ongoing Planning and Programming Efforts 6
D. Coordination and Public Input 7
Chapter 2 - Congestion Management Agency
1. Legislative Requirements 9
2. Legislative Intent and Application to 9
San Francisco 9
3. The San Francisco County Transportation Authority 9
a. Designation and Composition 9
b. Roles and Responsibilities 9
c. Implications of the Board's Multiple Roles 10
d. Relationship to City Agencies 10
e.Relationship to Regional Planning/Programming Agencies 11
Chapter 3 - CMP-Designated Roadway Network
1. Legislative Requirements 13
2. Legislative Intent and Application to San Francisco 13
3. San Francisco CMP Roadways 13
a. Selection Criteria 13
b. Current Network 14
c. Proposed Changes - Rationale 17
MTS
d. Relationship to the 17
4. Work Program Items - Key Milestones 1
Chapter 4 - Roadway Level of Service Monitoring
1. Legislative Requirements 19
2. Legislative Intent and Application to San Francisco 19
3. Technical Approach 20
a. LOS Standard 20
b. Methodology 20
c. Network Segmentation Documentation of Method and Criteria 21
4. Monitoring Results 22
5. Future Monitoring Approach 28
3 1223 04180 1292
S.F. PUBLIC LIBRARY
6. Caltrans' Role .jfcl 28
7. Work Program Items - Key Milestones .<£/../&). 28
Chapter 5 - Multimodal Performance Measures /c
c^
1. Legislative Requirements SC..../.?. 31
2. Legislative Intent and Application to San Francisco y. 31
3. Multimodal Performance and Mobility 31
4. Uses of Multimodal Performance Measures 32
5. Methodology for Performance Evaluation 32
6. Work Program Items - Key Milestones 39
Chapter 6 - Trip Reduction Element
1. Legislative Requirements 41
2. Legislative Intent and Application to San Francisco 41
3. City Policy Framework 42
A. Objectives and Policies in the General Plan 42
B.Existing City Ordinances 43
4. Housing And Employment Balance 47
5. Relationship Of Travel Demand Management Activities To Air Quality
Improvement Efforts 48
A. Transportation Control Measures 48
B. Regulation 13, Rule 1 (BAAQMD) - 49
San Francisco's Demonstration of Compliance 49
6. Work Program Items - Key Milestones 50
Chapter 7 - Land Use Impacts Analysis Program
1. Legislative Requirements 51
2. Legislative Intent and Application to San Francisco 51
3. Existing Setting 52
4. Institutional Framework 52
5. Land Use and Transportation Analysis 53
a. Current Practice 53
b. Comparison of Local and CMP Impact Analysis Levels 54
c. CMP Land Use Impacts Analysis - Methodology Development 54
d. Timetable for Implementation and Interim Approach 55
6. Implications of CMP Requirements 55
7. Work Program Items - Key Milestones 56
Chapter 8 - Capital Improvement Program
1. Legislative Requirements 57
2. Legislative Intent and Application to San Francisco 57
3. Transportation Investment and System Performance 58
4. CIP Components 59
5. Relationship to Other Plans and Programming Documents 59
5.1. Relationship to the CountywideLong-Range Transportation Plan .59
5.2. Relationship to the Proposition B Strategic Plan 60
5.3. Relationship to the RTP .Jm}..^ 60
60
5.4. Relationship to the RTIP ^..JfJ...yt.
5.5. Relationship to the San Francisco Master Ptan.....tt.yw-<y^ 61
5.6. Relationship to City Department Activities M...^.....^. 61
5.7 Relationship to Short Range Transit Plans £ ./...— 61
6. The Authority's Capital Priorities Programming Process & 63
6.1. CIP Development - Schedule 63
7. CIP Review and Amendment Procedures 64
64
7.1. Applicability
7.2. Kinds of Amendments 65
7.3. Requirements for Submittal of CIP Amendment Requests 66
7.4. The Authority's Review Process 66
7.5. Adjustments to Prop. B Strategic Plan 68
7.6. Notification of Programming Agencies 68
8. CIP Project Lists 68
9. Program Overview 68
Chapter 9 - Deficiency Plans
1. Legislative Requirements 73
2. Legislative Intent and Application to San Francisco 73
2.1 Deficiency Plans: What They Are 74
2.2 Applicability to San Francisco and Relationship to Other Analyses 75
2.3 CMP Multimodal Network & Performance Monitoring 75
3.0 Overview 76
Exhibit 1 . Deficiency Detection and City Notification 76
Exhibit 2. Deficiency Analysis and Mitigation Plan Preparation 76
Exhibit 3. Deficiency Plan Evaluation and Approval 77
4.0 Deficiency Planning Process 81
4.1 Deficiency Detection & Designation of Lead Department 81
4.2 Deficiency Plan Preparation and Approval 82
4.3 Deficiency Plan Action List Preparation 84
4.4 Implementation Plan 86
5.0 Special Issues 88
5.1 Multi-County Deficiency Plans 88
5.2 Deficiency Plans Addressing Multiple Deficiencies 88
5.3 Future Deficiencies 89
Work Program Items - Key Milestones 91
Chapter 10 - Travel Analysis Database
1. Legislative Requirements 92
2. Legislative Intent and Application to San Francisco 92
3. Methodology and Guidelines 92
a. Methodology 92
b. Guidelines 94
4. Timetable for Implementation and Interim Approach 94
5. Work Program Items - Key Milestones 94
Draft San Francisco 1995 CMP • October 1995 » Page 1
CHAPTER 1 policy guidance in areas ofthe
Program that require
it.
BACKGROUND AND
iv. Establish and describe interim
PROGRAM OVERVIEW policies, procedures, or methods to
be used until final guidance is
Key Topics: available as described in iii) above.
Background v. Serve as the main description ofthe
•
1995 San Francisco CMP, to be used
• Congestion Management in as the basis for determining the
San Francisco appropriate level ofenvironmental
evaluation and developing the
Program Overview environmental document forthe
Program.
Document Organization and Approach
The document in organized in chapters
Background following MTC guidance of December 26, 1990
1.
and March 22, 1995, with a separate chapter
devoted to each ofthe elements required by
Purpose of the Document the CMP legislation. Forthe complete text of
MTC's guidance please refer to Appendix I.
The 1995 San Francisco Congestion The text ofthe 1993 San Francisco CMP was
Management Program document is designed to used as a general guide, and was retained
serve the following purposes: where still current.
Comply with state law requiring For each chapter where technical issues
i.
biennial adoption ofa Congestion require further development there is an
Management Program (CMP) and introductory section describing the issues yet
submittal to the Metropolitan to be resolved, followed by a section detailing
Transportation Commission for a interim procedures. A final section lists work
finding of conformance. A program items and describes the proposed
conformance finding ensures the approach for developing final methods or
City's continued eligibility for further guidance. Because the CMP is now a
additional state fuel tax revenues biennial document, final procedures developed
authorized by CMP legislation, as during fiscal years 1995-6 and 1996-7 will be
well as state and federal funding adopted by the Authority Board as
eligibility for key transportation amendments to expand or supersede the
projects. appropriate sections ofthe 1995 San
Francisco CMP, and will go into effect after
Serve as the main and most current Board adoption.
ii.
reference and guidance document
for San Francisco agencies involved Developmentofthis CMP document update
in activities related to congestion was primarily the responsibility of the
management. Authority. The information in Chapter 4: Level
of Service Monitoring is extracted from the
iii. Scoenrgveestaisonthmeabnaasigsemfoerntthework wrehpiocrhtcpornedpuacrteeddbtyheAbmornaimtsoriAnsgsoocfiathteesC,MP
program and schedule to be followed network. That report is available from the
during fiscal years 1995-6 and 1996- Authority as a separate publication. The
7 to develop specific technical or Department of City Planning contributed to the
Draft San Francisco 1995 CMP • October 1995 » Page 2
chapteron Trip Reduction and Travel Demand.
Further review and comment was provided by a. The currently prevalent low-density
other City departments, the Authority's suburban growth pattern throughout
Citizens' Advisory Committee, the Metropolitan the state's metropolitan areas does not
Transportation Commission, transitoperators, lend itself easily to cost-effective
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, transit service and is therefore highly
and Caltrans. dependent on the automobile and on
the freeway system; (in short: transit
Origins and Intent of the CMP Legislation! does not work well in the suburbs.)
b. Because ofthe political volatility of
The requirements for a Congestion pricing strategies (e.g., tolls, paid
Management Program were established in parking at work sites) and the limited
1989 as part of a bi-partisan state legislative
success of ridesharing strategies (i.e.,
package, known as the Katz-Kopp-Baker-
carpooling and vanpooling) in
Campbell Transportation Blueprintforthe sprawled suburbs, most automobites
Twrweheqenuntiyrv-eoFmtieernrststsaCfpeopnrrtCouMvreyPds(APbrBeop4c7oa1sm)i.teioeTnfhfee1c1ta1icvtoeunal soatfnilyltrcinpaerprwuyrrjpuoosastdeownoareytpfieamcreislooitnfi,edsaryte,hgaastrodaltrehesats
Jcilnuatnrrieofyd5u,vca1er9di9ob0uy.sACaBshpa1en9cg6te3ssionafnSCdeCMpmMtPoePdimlfbaiwecrawte1ir9o9nes4.to wfburhialecttniaorfneu,lolfboytfhdceeafnrinsuimttibhoeen,yriconaferfprfeyicoiopenlnltey:taheevyen
For the complete text ofthe legislation, could accommodate; (in short:
see Appendix
II. freeways full ofsolo drivers
shortchange the carrying capacity of
The state legislation not only provides for the investment.)
increases in transportation funding, but also
makes significant changes in the requirements c. These high-cost facilities, which are
for planning and programming of
designed forthe automobile but do not
transportation projects to be funded from
maximize the number ofpeople
these sources of revenue. The goal ofthe
carried, result in a high cost per
legislation is to tie transportation funding
person transported; (in short: building
decisions to measurable traffic congestion
freeways to address transportation
relief, local land use decisions and their impact demand is not cost-effective
on the transportation system, and )
implementation of transportation control
measures to meet air quality goals. d. Because of the scarcity of land for
transportation facilities, rising
The CMP requirements are the legislature's construction costs, and environmental
and air quality constraints, ever
response to the growing traffic congestion
aprheeansoimneCnaolinfoerxnipae.riIetnicsewdidbeylyallpeurrcbeainviezdedthat Tgahrrieosw,niecnegodmlebedivneilensdoorwfdicteahrpiattoadlbeutiielnrdvioerrsoattamidenwngatys.
traffic congestion is outpacing the traditional economy and continuing erosion of
transportation planning process in its ability to
provide adequate solutions. In San transportation funding, results in fewer
and fewer new miles of roadway
Francisco, with its high-intensity land uses
and extensive transit network, this traffic facilities being built every year to
congestion phenomenon manifests itself address a growing demand for
differently, posing challenges to the transportation; (in short: it's hard to
interpretation ofthe CMP mandate in the city, keep up with transportation demand by
building freeways, and we can'tafford
but for the majority of the state's highly
suburbanized metropolitan areas it is a reality, them either)
and it has its roots in the following four facts:
.
Draft San Francisco 1995 CMP • October 1995 • Page 3
For most of suburbanized California the redevelopment opportunities exist, San
inability to keep up with transportation demand Francisco is essentially a built out city, with an
lends credibility to the prospect of land extensive transit network and long standing
development coming to a halt because of policies and programs to encourage a balance
increasing traffic congestion and deteriorating and truly multimodal transportation system. It
CMP
accessibility. Consequently, the is therefore necessary to, within the
legislation aims at extracting more productivity constraints of State law, reinterpret
out of the existing transportation infrastructure congestion management goals and
while encouraging more efficient use of requirements so that they work for San
scarce new dollars for transportation Francisco. The City's "transit first" policy, for
CMP
investment, with the intended result offending instance, presents a challenge to
off congestion, improving air quality, and implementation: in San Francisco we tolerate a
ultimately allowing continued land development certain level of traffic congestion in order to
where feasible. In order to achieve this, the encourage transit ridership. The San
CMP law mandates a coordinated strategy Francisco Master Plan specifically
based on five main concepts: discourages roadway capacity increases,
stating that:
a. Require more coordination between
federal, state, regional and local "The existing vehicular capacity ofthe
agencies involved in the planning, bridges, highways and freeways
programming, and delivery of entering the city should not be increased
transportation projects, programs, and and should be reduced where possible."
services; (SF Master Plan, Transportation Element,
Objective 5, Policy 3).
b. Favor transportation investments that
provide measurable and quick Congestion management concepts may be at
congestion relief; odds with this policy approach if we interpret
congestion management as requiring
c. Create a definite link between local improvements to the throughput of cars in the
land use decisions and their effect on roadway network. However, if we rethink
the transportation system congestion management as maximizing people
throughput, that is, ifwe re-interpret
d. Favor transportation solutions that are congestion management requirements as an
less dependent on the single-occupant opportunity to improve overall mobility in the
automobile, and improve airquality; city, then we have opportunities to capitalize
on the city's significant supply of transit
e. Place emphasis on local coordination services, and on its relatively pedestrian-
and responsibility by requiring the friendly environment. San Francisco can
designation of a Congestion show good performance in achieving
ManagementAgency in each urban congestion management goals ifthe measures
county in the state. used in determining performance are relevant
to the city's transportation and land use
2. Congestion Management In San V realities. Congestion Management Program
Francisco activities for the next two fiscal years will
include the identification of issues such as this
one, which can be pursued as part of the
Applicability of the Concept Authority's agenda for legislative change.
The main impetus forthe CMP legislation
derives from worsening suburban D REF 388.4097 Sa527d
transportation conditions, caused by land use 1995
patterns that perpetuate over-reliance on the San Francisco County
private automobile. Although land Transportation
Draft 1995 San Francisco
congestion management
•
1995
residents. The opening of BART in 1973
The City's Congestion Management constituted a major expansion to transit
Track Record capacity with two key features: a)
excellent regional access to stations
San Francisco has had considerable success within walking distance of most
in managing travel demand, especiallywith downtown employment locations, and b)
respect to control of automobile access to the no financial burden to the city for
downtown area during peak commute times. providing adequate transit coverage at
Many ofthe transportation demand the residential (suburban) end ofthe
management and land use regulation BART trip; and
measures described in Chapters 6 and 7 of
this document have been in place over the last the City's investment in its street system
twenty years and have allowed major growth - It is seldom recognized that San
in downtown trip-making without significant Francisco's dense grid of streets and
deterioration in operating conditions (or traffic arterials is a major transportation asset,
levels of service) for downtown streets. providing multiple travel route options,
keeping local trips from clogging the
It is clear that this success is the result of the freeway system (as is so often the case
combined application of several major in the suburbs) and enhancing the
policies, in particular: system's ability to recover quickly when
congestion problems occur.
parking pricing and supply policies which
discourage driving into downtown; The City's winning strategy was a truly multi-
modal transportation strategy, which allowed
transit service investment policies to each travel market to be served by the
provide and maintain local travel options transportation modes best suited for it.
that are truly competitive with the private
automobile; and
Future Strategies
land development policies that gave
transportation system investments a The above discussion ofthe City's track
chance to keep pace with the growth in record highlights the importance of maintaining
trip-making. travel options as an essential strategy notjust
to prevent a worsening of congestion but also
In addition to these policies, there were other to improve mobility.
factors that were essential to the City's ability
to absorb the extraordinary levels of No less significant in charting future action is a
employment growth experienced between sound understanding ofdemographic trends.
1970 and 1985. Such factors include: Reflecting changes in the economic structure
of the region, as well as national trends, the
the City's historic record ofinvestment development boom that characterized the
in local public transit - The existence of growth of the City's downtown area in the
high levels of transit service and 1970's and 1980's has been replaced by
coverage within the city provided a modest employment growth. San Francisco
credible option to driving, and made residents are out-commuting in increasing
politically viable the application of parking numbers to take advantage ofwork
pricing policies, and development impact opportunities in other Bay Area counties:
mitigation fees; today the number of San Francisco residents
traveling daily to work in Santa Clara County is
the BARTsystem and the demographics larger than the number of Santa Clara County
ofdowntown employment- A large residents employed in San Francisco.
portion of employment growth in this Commute times by transit for San Francisco
period was absorbed by suburban residents are increasing, and so is automobile
