ebook img

Draft 1995 San Francisco congestion management program PDF

268 Pages·1995·15.1 MB·English
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview Draft 1995 San Francisco congestion management program

. 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

See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.