Enclosure Table of Contents

Transcription

1 Item 9 Enclosure (2 of 2) Citizens Advisory Committee May 22, 2013 Traffic Calming Program Revision Materials Enclosure Table of Contents No. Item Page No. 1 SFMTA Traffic Calming Program Revision Final Report 1 2 Backlog of Traffic Calming Implementation Projects 47 3 Citywide Map of Traffic Calming Area-wide Projects 61 M:\CAC\Meetings\Memo to CAC\2013\05 May 22\Prop K Annual Call Enclosure\Enclosure 2 Traffic Calming\TOC TC Revision Materials CAC.xlsx

2 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

3 1 SFMTA Traffic Calming Program Revision Edwin M. Lee Mayor Tom Nolan Chairman Cheryl Brinkman Vice-Chairman Leona Bridges Director Malcolm Heinicke Director Jerry Lee Director Joél Ramos Director Cristina Rubke Director Edward D. Reiskin Director of Transportation CONTENTS Introduction... 2 Background... 4 Guiding Objectives... 5 Best Practices For Application Based Programs... 9 Evaluation of SFMTA s Application-Based Program Applications and Acceptance Rates Ranking Criteria Traffic Calming Process Timeline Device Types Balloting Implementation Resident Survey Revised Methodology For Application Based Program Outreach Year-Round Correspondence Application Requirements Evaluation & Ranking Planning Recommendation Community Outreach Balloting of Residents Funding Cycle and Program Costs Rebalanced Priorities Local Streets Track Schools Track Arterial and Commercial Streets Track Program Funding Next Steps One South Van Ness Ave. Seventh Floor San Francisco, CA Tele:

4 2 INTRODUCTION The Traffic Calming Program Revision was launched in spring of 2012 to implement changes to the way the SFMTA selects and delivers traffic calming projects in San Francisco. This project was conceived in part to address the City s increased desire to focus on pedestrian and bicycle safety, spurred by the Mayor s Executive Directive on Pedestrian Safety. In addition, feedback received from San Francisco residents and stakeholder groups, as well as city staff involved in the Traffic Calming Program, pointed to a need to consider changes to improve the delivery of residential traffic calming projects. Based on this direction and feedback, the following goals were established to guide the process of revising the program: Improve the efficiency of traffic calming project development and implementation in order to maximize limited resources and deliver projects in a reasonable time frame. Align project selection and prioritization criteria with the stated goals of traffic calming and other adopted City goals and policies. This document describes SFMTA staff s proposal for changes to the Traffic Calming Program, and in particular to projects funded through the dedicated Proposition K sales tax funds for traffic calming. The document details the following topics: Guiding Objectives for the Revision Process This section lays out the City and agency goals that relate to the traffic calming program, and identifies specific guiding objectives used during the process of the revision to develop the proposals included in this document. Best Practices for Application-Based Traffic Calming Programs SFMTA staff reviewed traffic calming programs in other US jurisdictions to inform revisions to San Francisco s process. Evaluation of the SFMTA s Application--Based Program SFMTA staff reviewed the processes and results over the past ten years of the application-based traffic calming program, seeking opportunities to increase efficiency and improve project results. 2

5 3 Revised Methodology for Application-Based Program This section describes SFMTA s plan to process applications from residents and implement basic traffic calming measures more efficiently and with greater transparency and predictability to applicants. Rebalanced Funding Priorities This section details the SFMTA s proposed program areas and relative funding priorities that form a more balanced three-track approach, better reflecting the original intent of the Traffic Calming Guidelines. Next Steps The revised application-based program will begin immediately, but the increased focus on corridors and schools will be transitioned over the next several years so that the existing backlog of residential traffic calming projects can be addressed. The proposed changes are consistent with the existing SFMTA Traffic Calming Guidelines, which were developed in 2000 in response to the SFCTA s Strategic Analysis Report on Traffic Calming. These funding and administrative changes reinforce, rather than shift, the programmatic priorities of the Traffic Calming Guidelines. 3

6 4 BACKGROUND The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Traffic Calming Program was first developed in 1999 to address traffic safety concerns associated with the growing number of cars in San Francisco, and to make our neighborhood streets friendlier for pedestrians, children, bicyclists, and motorists. At the time, traffic calming was still innovative and there were not as many traffic calming programs nationwide as today, nor was there dedicated funding for traffic calming. With voter approval of Prop K in 2003, the new Expenditure Plan provided a dedicated funding stream that has been the financial backbone of the agency s traffic calming program over the last decade. The Traffic Calming Program was set up with three different tracks or processes focused on i) local streets (including both site specific measures and area-wide plans), ii) arterial and commercial streets and iii) school areas. The original intent was to reduce the negative quality of life impacts of motor vehicles on San Franciscans, including the safety of vulnerable street users. During the past decade, public interest, practice and the cost of making large-scale changes to arterials have all led the SFMTA to dedicate the majority of Prop K traffic calming funds toward traffic calming planning and implementation on local streets both through site specific measures and through area-wide plans resulting in the evaluation of nearly 500 traffic calming applications, the development of nearly 30 area-wide traffic calming plans and the completed and pending installation of hundreds of traffic calming devices citywide. The combination of projects pending implementation and new demand for traffic calming has outpaced available funding, underscoring the need to direct existing resources toward the highest priorities. Meanwhile, ongoing efforts supporting the SFMTA Strategic Plan and the San Francisco Pedestrian Safety Executive Directive helped develop a more comprehensive and unified City set of priorities for pedestrian improvements, including safety improvements. In order to move these visions forward, it was critical that their priorities be reflected in the way the SFMTA selects and implements traffic calming projects. Data analyses through these efforts show that major traffic corridors tend to pose the highest safety risks for all users, but these streets have received little funding through the Traffic Calming program. The Traffic Calming Program Revision was initiated to consider how to realign the program s focus with the original program intent and with current priorities. 4

7 5 GUIDING OBJECTIVES San Francisco s Traffic Calming Guidelines, developed in 2000, lay out goals for traffic calming projects developed by the SFMTA. This revision process was not intended to supplant these goals, but rather to ensure that the SFMTA s program balances the various priorities identified in the Traffic Calming Guidelines in a way that is consistent with other City and agency priorities, and that makes the best use of limited resources. To this end, the following goals were established to guide the process of revising the program: Improve the efficiency of traffic calming project development and implementation in order to maximize limited resources and deliver projects in a reasonable time frame. Align project selection and prioritization criteria with the stated goals of traffic calming and other adopted City goals and policies. Key San Francisco and SFMTA Goals The decision to make adjustments to the SFMTA s traffic calming program came in part as a response to Mayor Gavin Newsom s Executive Directive on Pedestrian Safety, which focuses on reducing serious and fatal pedestrian injuries in San Francisco. This directive is one of several policy documents that relate to traffic calming, prioritizing bicycle and pedestrian safety, increasing bicycling and walking, and improving livability for San Francisco residents. Some of the key policy documents that guided this process are quoted below: Mayors Executive Directive on Pedestrian Safety: I am directing city agencies to coordinate through the Director s Working Group toward a citywide target of a 25% reduction in serious and fatal pedestrian injuries by 2016 and 50% reduction by Serious and fatal pedestrian injury reductions should also reduce existing inequities in serious injuries by neighborhood. These injury prevention goals should be linked with a complementary citywide goal of increasing walking as a share of trips in the city. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Strategic Plan: Goal 1. Create a safer transportation experience for everyone. o Objective 1.3: Improve the safety of the transportation system. Goal 2. Make transit, walking, bicycling, taxi, ridesharing, and carsharing the preferred means of travel. o Objective 2.3: Increase use of all non-private auto modes. 5

8 6 Goal 3. Improve the environment and quality of life in San Francisco. SFMTA Traffic Calming Guidelines Arterial - Improve safety, especially for pedestrians and bikes Local - Improve traffic safety for residential users, pedestrians and bicyclists Schools - Improve traffic safety at and near schools, especially for children (prek-12) In addition to these established goals, SFMTA staff heard from policy makers and stakeholder groups that it is important for San Francisco residents to have a program that is responsive to the concerns for safety on their neighborhood streets. Overall, these goals emphasize safety, particularly for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as promoting increased walking and biking and improved livability. Limitations of Application-Based Traffic Calming The program that has been in place for the past decade has focused increasingly on responding to applications on residential streets, and there continues to be a high level of interest from residents across the city to improve traffic safety in their neighborhoods. However, collision data collected over the years shows that the streets that are most likely to have high levels of injuries and fatalities are arterials and busy commercial corridors streets that are not eligible for the residential traffic calming program. A program that prioritizes safety above all else would look at collisions across the city, and would be unlikely to prioritize the locations that rise through the application-based program. Even within the realm of residential traffic calming, responding to requests favors locations where residents are engaged and active members of their communities, but may miss locations where there are equally severe speeding problems but residents do not know to apply. While the application-based program meets goals related to livability and public engagement, it is not the means through which the goals around reducing injuries and fatalities can be reached. By improving the efficiency of the application-based traffic calming program, the SFMTA hopes to improve the experience for residents wishing to apply, 6

9 7 while increasing the amount of funding available for traffic calming along busy arterial and commercial corridors and near schools. Guiding Objectives Process Efficiency Improving the process efficiency of traffic calming in San Francisco primarily relates to refining the application-based traffic calming program to maximize limited resources and deliver projects in a reasonable time frame. The steps taken to evaluate the efficiency of the program included: Reviewing other cities traffic calming programs and identifying key lessons and opportunities Evaluating each step of the application-based process including o Analyzing the process and results from ten years of the SFMTA s traffic calming program o Seeking feedback from participants and stakeholders Developing a proposal for the revised methodology Seeking feedback from stakeholders on the proposed methodology The resultant process is designed to achieve the following overarching process efficiency objectives: Reduce timeline from application to completed project Improve communication and transparency with residents Continue to implement approximately projects based on resident applications each year Guiding Objectives Rebalancing Priorities After 10 years of delivering traffic calming projects, the SFMTA wanted to revisit the priorities of the program to ensure that project selection and prioritization criteria are consistent with the goals stated in the SFMTA s Traffic Calming Guidelines and other adopted City goals and policies. Through the revision process, the steps taken to re-examine the program s priorities included: Reviewing existing agency and city goals Working with stakeholder groups and considering existing city plans to identify opportunities for traffic calming to have the greatest benefits Developing a proposal for the rebalanced traffic calming tracks Seeking feedback from stakeholders on the rebalanced traffic calming tracks 7

10 8 The resultant process is designed to achieve the following overarching rebalancing priorities objectives: Schools o Increase funding opportunities o Align projects to focus on speed reduction near schools Arterial and Commercial Streets o Increase funding opportunities o Align projects to focus on speed reduction where the highest number of collisions occur Local Streets o Maintain ability for residents to identify potential project locations and engage in the traffic calming process o Identify opportunities for traffic calming on streets that have the potential to increase walking and biking 8

11 9 BEST PRACTICES FOR APPLICATION BASED PROGRAMS This chapter provides an overview of traffic calming practices in five North American municipalities, with a focus on program elements that contrast with San Francisco s methods. The cities that were interviewed for this report are: Berkeley, California New York City, New York Portland, Oregon Sacramento, California Seattle, Washington These programs vary in size, criteria, process, and timeline. Some cities manage either a neighborhood traffic calming program, arterial traffic calming program, both, or none. Some cities programs are focused on a specific traffic calming device, such as speed humps or traffic circles, while other cities manage these treatment-specific programs in addition to a formal traffic calming program. Selection of Municipalities SFMTA staff reviewed the program websites of over 20 municipalities, looking for programs that seemed to face some of the same issues as San Francisco, but with approaches that differ from our current program. Eight cities were contacted for further information, and five of these were available for a telephone interview with SFMTA staff. Berkeley, California Berkeley has a community-driven traffic calming program for residential streets: Various traffic calming devices are considered Projects cover one or a few residential blocks 3-4 projects added each year Annual application cycle (detailed in graphic on next page) Individual residents request initial review; 50% plus 1 support to apply month timeline depending on treatment type and available funding Typically 2 community meetings $50,000 annual construction budget Current program model in place since

12 10 Initial Application/Request Residents may submit written requests by an annual deadline that express the location and nature of the perceived traffic problem. If the location meets certain basic criteria (based on speed surveys and collision history), city staff define the impact area and require a petition documenting support from over 50 percent of households in the project area. City staff then collect speed, volume, and collision data and determine fire and access routes to determine whether the request qualifies to enter the traffic calming program. Project Planning & Community Outreach For project locations that qualify, city staff perform a further study of the project area and identify possible solutions to present to neighborhood residents. Community meetings are held to build consensus around specific traffic calming devices, which may include traffic circles, bulb outs, speed feedback signs, striping changes, and more. Note: The City of Berkeley has had a moratorium on speed humps since 1995, when the many speed humps being installed at the time raised concerns from the fire department and from residents with special health problems. Funding Once all the years projects have been planned and traffic calming devices are identified, city staff prepare a budget for implementation. There is a small amount of funding allocated to basic traffic calming improvements, but improvements that are more intensive will require additional funding and a request for proposal. The annual budget is $50,000 for top priority projects. If the planned devices exceed the budget, the city will apply their ranking criteria to select the top priority projects for the following year, and include these in the CIP. Implementation At this point, the annual cycle of the traffic calming planning process is complete. In the next year, implementation begins. Basic treatments such as signage and striping are implemented first and more intensive treatments such as chicanes are phased in later in the year, or in the following year if not included in that year s budget. Most projects take between 12 months (for signing and/or striping projects) and 18 months (for projects including construction) for the entire cycle from first application to construction. However, projects that are lower priority may wait an additional year for the next round of funding. 10

13 11 Annual cycle of traffic calming including requests, studies, and planning Key Lessons for San Francisco Berkeley staff felt the clear annual project cycle was essential for setting expectations among residents. The annual cycle is oriented around their budget, with the decision on which projects will be completed in the next year coinciding with the annual CIP submittal. As in San Francisco, requests/applications are initially evaluated on basic criteria such as collision history and 85 th percentile speeds. In Berkeley, however, when a location meets these criteria the neighborhood has one month to complete a petition in which over 50% of households declare their support for some traffic calming measure. This occurs before any community meetings are held and before specific devices are proposed. This removes projects from consideration that do not have sufficient community support, and speeds up the process once preferred measures are identified. New York City, New York The New York Department of Transportation (NYDOT) has a communitydriven traffic calming program called Neighborhood Slow Zones. The 11

14 12 program is inspired by the 20 s Plenty for Us campaign in Britain, and includes reducing the speed limit to 20 mph, adding painted gateway treatments at all entrances to the slow zones, painting the speed limit on the streets, and adding speed humps on some streets. The program features: Annual application deadline 13 applications selected out of 100 received in 2011 Neighborhood groups or institutions may apply (not individual residents) Slow Zones range in size from one-tenth to one-third of a square mile Projects are presented for approval to Community Boards at their standing meetings no other community meetings or balloting takes place Each project costs on the order of $200,000 Current program model in place since 2011 Left: Slow Zone Gateway Treatment in the Bronx, New York City. Right: close up of a Slow Zone sign. Initial Application Applications must be submitted by Community Boards, local institutions, community groups, merchant associations, or elected officials; individuals may not apply. The application requires applicants to do the following: Propose strong project boundaries that are typically major streets, freeways or surface rail lines, or dead ends. Complete an inventory of the project area, noting the presence of schools, senior centers, parks, hospitals, truck or bus routes, subway stations. List all organizations/officials that support the proposed implementation of a slow zone, and provide letters of support. Project Selection During the review stage, staff assign points to applications that meet criteria related to collision history, presences of schools or parks, community support letters etc There is an emphasis on collision history, rather than 12

15 13 speeds, with points assigned for crashes per square mile. The presence of hospitals and fire stations count against the application. Neighborhood Slow Zones are applied to mostly residential areas with strong boundaries. Slow Zones can apply to both suburban settings and denser downtown locations, though city staff noted that most applications are from the lower density boroughs of Queens and Staten Island. Project Planning, Approval, and Implementation After staff review applications and select Slow Zones, they investigate speed hump locations and map out all gateways, and create a schematic of the project proposal. Staff note that these plans are fairly formulaic as they only include two types of treatments rather than customizing devices for the specific neighborhood. Staff present their recommendations to the local community board at regularly scheduled meetings. In New York City there are 59 community board districts, with up to 50 members appointed by the Borough President. The graphic below shows the proposed timeline of the application process, with applications due in February. City staff report following this timeline through the design of each Slow Zone, but outreach, approvals, and implementation has taken longer than anticipated. Depending on when Community Boards approve Slow Zones, treatments may be implemented in a staggered fashion. Some Slow Zones may receive signs and markings first while others may receive speed humps. Four of the thirteen accepted locations are expected to be completed in 2012, with the remainder slated for The city has not yet determined how this will affect the 2013 application schedule. 13

16 14 Funding Signs, markings, and labor costs combined are approximately $50,000 to $70,000 for each slow zone, and with an average of 14 speed humps at $10,000 each, a typical project budget is approximately $200,000. Because this year was the first year of accepting applications, more were selected than could be completed within the year. Although the process is scheduled to take place on an annual basis, the exact number that can be funded on an annual basis remains uncertain. All projects are supported by NYCDOT operating funds. Speed Hump Program Process New York City has a separate process for implementing individual speed humps. Approximately 1,500 requests are submitted per year by a simple online request form, and speed surveys are conducted at around 500 locations that meet basic criteria (primarily based on transit or past investigation at the same location). Roughly 200 locations meet thresholds for speed and/or collision history; these are recommended to the community boards and built if approved. Neighborhood balloting is only conducted when specifically required by the community board. Speed humps are currently supported by the NYCDOT operating budget and are a routine part of roadwork. Key Lessons for San Francisco Strong community support is required for initial consideration, and is focused on institutions and community groups rather than on individual resident preference Staff use a limited toolbox to quickly design each Slow Zone. Because applicants have clear expectations of what will be included in their project if accepted, staff do not engage in a back-and-forth dialogue to develop a customized design. Contrasting with the strong community support required for Slow Zones, speed humps are regarded as a standard treatment for a specific problem. If a location meets the criteria for a speed hump, it will be recommended for implementation. Because all funding comes from the department s operating budget, project timelines are less tied up by funding cycles. Portland, Oregon Portland has currently suspended its traffic calming program due to funding cuts. Prior to its suspension, the Portland Department of Transportation (PDOT) managed a Streamlined Speed Bump Purchase Program and a 14

17 15 Traffic Calming Program. This summary focuses on the Traffic Calming Program: Rolling application deadline Typical project defined as a local street segment from one collector to another collector street Individual residents request preliminary review; 33% support to apply; 67% support to approve project Typically one open house for projects on local service streets; two meetings for projects on neighborhood collector streets 200 projects on hold at time of suspension Program and funding focus has shifted from Traffic Calming Program to Neighborhood Greenways Program Set-Up Portland has a detailed street classification system that helped determine what type of traffic calming process would be required for a given application. Also, traffic calming program staff worked closely with the Portland Fire Department to identify a network of streets that are ineligible for certain types of traffic calming measures. Initial Application/Request Neighborhood residents may submit a written request for an evaluation of their street at any time. High volume local service streets and neighborhood collector streets are evaluated differently from low volume local service streets. If a request for a high volume local service street or neighborhood collector is received, then PDOT staff will define a preliminary project area within 30 days of the request. The project area is defined as all streets which can only be accessed via the proposed location, and parallel routes where there is a potential for diverted traffic. Project Planning & Community Outreach Once the applicant is informed of the preliminary project area, they circulate a neighborhood interest petition that must be signed by at least 33 percent of the project area properties. If the neighborhood meets the minimum support, then PDOT staff will work closely with residents to develop a draft project summary and hosts a public charrette to discuss the draft project; workshop attendees are presented with a budget and collaborate on proposed treatments. To move forward after the public meeting, a project support petition must be signed by at least 67 percent of the project area properties within 60 days from the date of the public meeting. Upon successful completion of all these steps, the project must be presented to all the neighborhood associations covering the project area and attain their endorsement in the form of a letter 15

18 16 within 60 days. The final approvals include city administrative approval and city council approval. If at any point in the process the proposed project does not meet the program requirements, the neighborhood may reinitiate the process after a 24 month waiting period. Unlike high volume local service streets and neighborhood collectors, low volume local streets typically only require one community meeting to discuss the goal of speed reduction. Local streets require 67 percent project approval from residents. During the review period of local service street applications, staff assign points to applications for traffic volume, traffic speed, presence of high speeders, presence of sidewalks, bikeway designation, and walkway designation. Funding & Implementation Construction begins as soon as full funding has been received. Funding sources include grants, Urban Renewal Areas, and voluntary financial contributions from residents. In recent years funding has been shifted towards neighborhood greenways and Safe Routes to School projects. Due to this funding reorganization, staff may consider addressing concerns brought by new requests from a neighborhood greenway framework. Key Lessons for San Francisco Portland staff reported initially working with the Portland Fire Bureau on a case by case basis, but at some point switched to a full analysis of critical response routes. This six month process resulted in a classification that was far simpler and more consistent, and resulted in greater support from the Fire Bureau. Portland requires 33 percent of residents support before investigating a location, but does not require the full 67 percent support until after a public meeting is held to explain the benefits to residents. Sacramento, California Sacramento has two separate programs: a residential speed hump program and their Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP). This summary focus on the NTMP program: Average size is 600 residences, ranges from 40 to 1,700 4 new applications in 2011, have been clearing a backlog in recent years Rolling application deadline with well-defined project stages 10 signatures needed to apply 16

19 17 Projects are prioritized within each of 8 city districts 2 year minimum timeline, historically up to 4-5 years 2 community meetings and 6 working group meetings Each project is $46,000 to $60,000 including $6,000 for preimplementation costs (evaluation, outreach materials) Current program model in place since 1999 Initial Application Residents apply to the NTMP program by collecting ten signatures, describing their concerns, and proposing a project area. Nearly all projects are accepted and prioritized on a first-come first-served basis within each of the city s eight districts. City staff will adjust the boundaries to only include residential streets and to exclude streets that have recently received speed lumps through the separate speed lump program. Sacramento has implemented traffic calming measures on a substantial portion of the city since the program was initiated in 1999, so an area will occasionally be rejected if city staff ascertain that there is little left to address. Project Planning and Community Outreach City staff conduct a field review and prepare a map of the project area as well as a mailing list with all residences in that area. Residents and neighborhood groups are invited to an initial kick-off meeting where city staff present the NTMP process and request volunteers for a Traffic Calming Committee (TCC). The TCC meets six times over the next few months: these TCC meetings have standardized agendas including a traffic calming class, a review of survey results, a goal-setting exercise, and more. By the end of the six meetings the TCC has produced a plan that could include a variety of traffic calming devices including speed lumps, chokers, traffic circles and more but the plan must fit within the stated city budget of $46,000 (though sometimes the city will make allowances to exceed this). During the months when the TCC meetings are being held, all residents receive several mailed newsletters describing the progress of the TCC meetings as well as fliers and postcards announcing general meetings. The newsletters are fairly standardized to coincide with the standard TCC meeting topics, but other timely articles are included as well as general articles related to traffic calming and street safety. A final community meeting is held with all interested residents, where the final project is presented. A ballot is then sent to all residences in the project area, and residents must vote on the entire project (rather than measures for their streets only). The plan will pass if 25% of residences submit a ballot and 51% are in favor of the plan. 17

20 18 Project Implementation and Next Steps After the project is approved, it may be six months for the city to go through its CEQA process and then installation takes three months to a year depending on the type of devices and the weather conditions. The TCC will meet one more time after the devices have been installed to see whether they feel the neighborhood issues have been addressed; if not, additional measures may be considered. Speed Hump Program The City of Sacramento also has streamlined Speed Hump Program though they typically install split speed lumps instead of humps due to fire department preference. For this process, residents apply for a specific block rather than an area. Ten neighbors must sign the initial application by signing the petition residents also agree to have the speed hump in placed front of their house, if deemed the most appropriate location. If a street was included in a NTMP area but the plan did not include a speed hump or lump for that street, the street will not be considered through the speed hump program. Locations that meet basic thresholds are then ranked based on traffic speeds and volumes, parks, schools, etc., with especially high priority placed on school locations. Geographic distribution is included in the ranking, with the top locations from each district chosen to move forward, though after equal distribution among districts additional funding will go to highest overall ranked streets. Funded locations will be implemented and unfunded locations will be added to the waiting list for future years. Key Lessons for San Francisco Sacramento staff note that though each project seems to have a complex and lengthy process, there is little customization in the process for each area plan and they are able to run the program with three staff people. City staff describe their program as being down home and say that the neighbors appreciate the mailed newsletters, fliers, brochures, and other ongoing communication throughout the process. This, too, does not require much customization on the part of city staff except to input data from collected surveys. Each project has materials and mailing costs built in. Sacramento has an accelerated speed hump program but has policies to remove redundancy between this and the NTMP program. 18

21 19 Seattle, Washington The Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) operates a Traffic Calming Program, Arterial Traffic Calming Program, and a Traffic Circle Program. Traffic Calming Program Multi-phase application process with rolling requests for education and enforcement and annual deadline to be considered for physical measures (speed humps, traffic circles, chicanes) Projects cover one to a few blocks All applicants required to attend an informational meeting on the traffic calming process Residents can reserve speed guns and conduct initial speed monitoring All complete applications may receive enforcement and education Annual funding for five to ten projects to receive physical measures Initial Application/Request Seattle s general Traffic Calming Program is conducted in two phases. Starting in Phase I, residents may submit a request at any time and SDOT staff will perform a preliminary assessment. If the location qualifies, then the applicant will be asked to enlist the support of at least four more neighbors, submit an enrollment form, and attend a neighborhood traffic calming meeting. This is a regularly scheduled informational meeting that occurs in different parts of the city throughout the year. During the meeting, SDOT staff provide an overview of different traffic calming options and the city s application process, and residents learn how to use a radar speed gun. After attending a meeting, applicants who chose to move forward can check out a radar speed gun and use it to conduct neighborhood speed monitoring. Everyone who goes through this speed survey process qualifies for Phase I, and locations with 85 th percentile speeds above 30 mph can be evaluated for Phase II. Of 200 people who submit initial requests for traffic calming, around 100 will attend one of the informational meetings, 50 of these will check out a radar gun at some point during the year, and 5-10 of these will ultimately qualify for Phase II. Phase I: Enforcement and Education Seattle provides education and targeted enforcement for any neighborhood that still has concerns after conducting a speed survey. These are fairly minor measures that are phased in and out, and basically serve as reminders to neighbors that there are speeding concerns. This could include distributing brochures and lawn signs, posting temporary speed 19

22 20 watch signs or speed watch trailers, adding periodic police enforcement, and sending letters to speeders using license plate numbers collected during radar surveys. Phase II: Physical Measures If speed surveys conducted by residents indicate excessive speeding, SDOT will conduct their own 24 hour surveys and volume counts to verify that there is speeding. SDOT staff will propose suitable physical traffic calming devices, usually speed humps but occasionally traffic circles or chicanes. These will then be included in an annual prioritization that selects the projects for the following year based on available funding. SDOT is generally able to fund the five to ten projects each year that have proceeded to Phase II. Some projects are eligible for funding through the Safe Routes to School program. Once the project is selected to be implemented in the following year, residents circulate a petition to gain support of 60% of neighbors on the affected blocks. Traffic Circle Program Process Separately from the Traffic Calming Program, Seattle has a streamlined Traffic Circle Program. Approximately 100 to 150 requests are submitted by an annual deadline every year. Seattle Department of Transportation staff will perform a preliminary traffic safety analysis of proposed intersections by looking at the three-year collision history. Proposed locations on an emergency response route are rejected during this preliminary traffic safety analysis. If two or more collisions were at the location, then the applicant will be given materials to petition for a traffic circle. Resident landscape maintenance agreements are set out with the petition materials; a minimum of 4 agreements must be returned to receive a landscaped traffic circle. Unlike in the Traffic Calming Program, for traffic circles the petition must be circulated prior to prioritization. If the petition meets the minimum approval of 60% of households and businesses on the blocks extending from the proposed location, then the location moves onto the prioritization process. Although there is dedicated funding, the amount varies. Previously, 10 to 15 traffic circles have been constructed per year, but funding has only allowed for 5 to 8 traffic circles in the latest round of applications. Petitions are valid for 3 years if a project is not selected the first year an application was submitted. Key Lessons for San Francisco A multi-stage application process means that of 200 initial requests for traffic calming only 5-10 submit an application for physical measures. By requiring applicants to do their own surveys, Seattle reduces the locations where they conduct their own evaluation, and residents get 20

23 21 a firsthand understanding of what speeds are actually like on their streets. Regardless of actual speeding, Seattle makes several inexpensive options available to neighborhoods that still want them after measuring speeds For their traffic circle program, Seattle requires a strong commitment from the entire neighborhood before prioritizing a location Traffic circle applications are only valid for 3 years so that low-ranked locations do not languish on a waiting list. 21

24 22 EVALUATION OF SFMTA S APPLICATION-BASED PROGRAM SFMTA Livable Streets staff reviewed past methodologies for screening traffic calming applications, for prioritizing accepted applications and for public involvement in the development of projects. Staff analyzed the results of past projects and reviewed the time and cost needed to select, plan, design and implement projects. Additionally, a survey was conducted of residents who had previously participated in the Traffic Calming Program. This section details the results of this evaluation and identifies opportunities for improvements. Some key observations from the analysis include: An average of 26 traffic calming devices are installed each year More new residential traffic calming measures are planned each year than can be implemented 20 percent of projects are rejected in the neighborhood ballot Residents feel the process is too long and confusing Each section below includes recommendations for improving the process of delivering traffic calming in San Francisco. Applications and Acceptance Rates Applications from residents identify locations for traffic calming and establish community support for projects. The application that was previously used in San Francisco required residents to note the details of traffic concerns on their streets as well as to obtain ten signatures from neighbors. Application Requirements In considering what information and degree of support should be required for the application, SFMTA staff reviewed other cities with traffic calming programs and asked residents about their experience with applying for traffic calming. Some key observations from this review include: Of survey respondents who had submitted a traffic calming application, 61 percent agreed with the statement It was easy to apply to the traffic calming program and 32 percent were neutral, while only 7 percent disagreed with the statement. Many cities require a higher level of community support than San Francisco does before a traffic calming device is planned. (See Best Practices chapter for more information) These findings indicate that the existing traffic calming application process is not onerous, and that the SFMTA could consider requiring a greater show of commitment from residents up front to reduce the likelihood of a measure being rejected during the balloting process. 22

25 23 Acceptance Rate For each application that is received and confirmed to be on an eligible street, speed surveys and collision analysis are conducted. In general, the SFMTA considers there to be a speeding problem if 85 th percentile speeds are shown to be 5 miles per hour or more above the speed limit for that street. In the past, a resident was informed that their application was accepted if they met this threshold, indicating that the SFMTA recognized that there was a speeding issue that could likely be improved through physical measures. Acceptance was granted independently from whether or when a project could be completed based on available resources. In some cases, where application locations were within the boundaries of a future area-wide planning process, applications could be accepted without a full evaluation since further analysis would be conducted as part of the areawide planning process. The following table illustrates the number of applications received each year, and the number of those that were accepted. Applications marked as Combined with Area-wide were accepted, but some were not evaluated independently. Number of Applications Applications Received and Accepted per Year Other Rejected Combined with Areawide Accepted 10 0 Fiscal Year 23

26 24 Over ten years of the traffic calming program, an average of 50 applications were received each year, of which an average of 19 were ultimately accepted. (Applications from Fiscal Year 11/12 are not shown because during that year the SFMTA stopped accepting applications for the duration of the Traffic Calming Revision project.) Application Timeline & Ranking In the former traffic calming program, applications were received throughout the year and evaluated on a rolling basis. Once an application was accepted based on speeding thresholds, it would be assigned a score based on the severity of the issue (see section on Ranking Criteria, below) and added to a continually updated list of accepted projects. This ensured that the most severe locations received a higher priority for planning and implementation, but also meant that an accepted project that had a low score could be continually outranked by more recent applications. Some of these applications remained on the waiting list for years, causing confusion and frustration for the original applicant who had been told that they were accepted. Recommendations Consider an annual call for applications to gain efficiencies by processing many applications at once, and to be able to rank locations before issuing acceptances, reducing the circumstance that an accepted location languishes on the waiting list. Ranking Criteria The ranking criteria impact the order in which project locations are addressed, and attempt to prioritize locations that are in the greatest need of traffic calming. The SFMTA uses a calculator to determine a score for each location based on the following criteria: Speeds Volume/Cut-Through traffic Collisions Local Conditions (including schools, parks, bicycle routes) Coordination with other projects Exhibition driving SFMTA staff analyzed how the points assigned for different criteria affected overall ranking as well as the appropriateness of existing ranking criteria and weights. 24

27 25 Prioritizing Speeds versus Prioritizing Collisions One topic for evaluation that was identified before the Traffic Calming Program Revision began was that locations were prioritized and evaluated based on speeds, rather than collisions, though collision rates would seem to be the more accurate indication of safety. Unlike speeding data, which is only collected upon request, the SFMTA has access to collision data for the entire city, allowing for a true prioritization of locations by collisions. In fact, citywide collisions have been analyzed in this manner through the Walk First initiative and the Pedestrian Safety Strategy. The analysis showed that the top collision locations are on arterial streets and busy commercial corridors, while the types of residential streets that are evaluated through the Local Track traffic calming program have relatively low levels of collisions. The Rebalancing Priorities section of this report addresses this disparity by presenting recommendations for increasing the focus of the broader Traffic Calming Program to address these high injury corridors. Within the residential areas that are the primary candidates for the application-based program, the low frequency of collisions makes it a difficult metric to use to distinguish between potential projects. Because vehicle speeds correlate to injury severity and are easily quantifiable, speed reduction is a primary goal. Goals around improving livability and increasing walking and biking can also be achieved through speed reduction, which impacts the experience of these streets on a daily basis. Impact of Ranking Points The chart below shows what happened to the top 20 ranked locations when points for each criteria were removed from the total score. Top 20 Locations when Points for One Criterion are Excluded The inclusion of vehicle speed in the rankings had the greatest impact on whether or not a location stayed in the top 20, while the top 20 locations did not change at all when points that had been assigned for exhibition driving, 25

28 26 schools, or parks were excluded. If these criteria are intended to improve a location s priority, the weighting of these criteria are too low. Also notable was the difference in impact between cut through points and volume points: points assigned for these two criteria both had to do with the amount of traffic, but they were differentiated as follows: Volumes: assigned points were proportional to the total vehicle volumes measured on that street. Cut Through Traffic: points were assigned based on the degree to which traffic levels were appropriate for that street, based on a multitude of local conditions. A quarter of the projects in the chart above were prioritized because of cut through traffic: without cut through points, five of these locations would not have been in the top 20. Points for vehicle volumes had a much smaller impact, and the following chart gives a more detailed picture of how these two criteria were weighted, using 60 sample locations: Combined Volume and Cut Through Points Grouped by Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Giving weight to cut through traffic was a reasonable metric when the Traffic Calming program began, and a primary consideration was how to re-direct traffic to arterial streets or otherwise reduce volumes on a street. However, if the goals of the traffic calming program are realigned to be more focused on reducing speeding, the SFMTA should consider removing cut through points from the ranking system. Given that speeding is defined by the percentage of vehicles driving above the speed limit, higher vehicle volumes translate to more speeding vehicles, and to greater risk. Total volumes should be included as an important criteria even if volumes are not targeted through traffic diversion. Finally, considering that the primary goal of the traffic calming measures is to reduce speeding, SFMTA staff reviewed the relationship between 26

29 27 speeding and total ranking score. The chart below shows the total points for 60 locations; the height of each bar is the total score for each location, and the points for speeding are shown in yellow. Total Points, Sorted by Speed Points In the ranking system that the SFMTA has used over the past ten years, many other factors besides speeding had a strong influence on project ranking. If the SFMTA hopes to primarily address speeding, the ranking points should be adjusted accordingly. Recommendations SFMTA staff recommend making the following changes to the ranking criteria: Increase the weighting given to speeding and to schools Remove cut-through traffic as a ranking criterion, and instead focus on total traffic volumes Traffic Calming Process Timeline The long timeline of traffic calming implementation was high on the list of concerns for SFMTA staff and stakeholders alike. In the resident survey, over seventy percent of respondents agreed with the statement The overall process took longer than I felt was reasonable, and the statement The timeline of planning and implementation should be shortened was rated as the most important of a number of statements about the traffic calming process. At the root of the long timeline for implementing traffic calming devices is the fact that the SFMTA, working with San Francisco residents, identified and 27

30 28 committed to traffic calming projects at a faster rate than the projects could be delivered given staffing and funding constraints. The practice of approaching traffic calming from an area-wide perspective has been particularly responsible for what has become a multi-million dollar backlog of project commitments. The area-wide process was developed as a way to look at multiple locations in the same neighborhood together, to address the possibility that building a traffic calming device on one street the street that submitted an application could result in traffic being diverted to a neighboring street which might have similar characteristics but did not apply. The boundaries of area-wide projects were drawn to incorporate all residential streets between arterials, major collectors, or commercial streets that were seen as the appropriate locations for diverted traffic. Once defined, area-wide projects were ranked based on the highest scoring application within that area. The table below shows the timeline of a typical area-wide traffic calming process. The dates are provided for the Silver Terrace Area-wide project, to illustrate the process. Area-wide Process Silver Terrace Timeline FY 02/03 FY 08/09 Accept Applications 4 Accepted Applications FY 06/07 Define Area-wide & Rank Location Ranked 20 th FY 09/10 FY 10/11 Community Process Public Workshops and Working Group meetings, 20 devices proposed Legislation, Environmental Review FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FY 16/17 Implementation First 4 humps installed in 2012; implementation is ongoing In the case of Silver Terrace, four applications were combined into the Silver Terrace Area-wide in 2006, but the project ranked 20 th at the time, and the community process did not begin for several years. For most area-wide projects, multiple public workshops were held and a community working group was established to develop the details of the plan with the SFMTA. During this open-ended process, 28

31 29 All residents living in a defined area-wide were welcome to participate, and many residential streets were considered for traffic calming devices, whether or not an application had been submitted for that street. Many more devices were proposed through this process than were requested through the original applications. The community process included education about many different types of traffic calming devices, and residents chose from speed humps, islands, chicanes, curb extensions and restriping devices that range greatly in cost. This open-ended approach led to the development of thoughtful, comprehensive traffic plans for each area-wide location, but with a long list of desired devices that often included costly measures. For Silver Terrace, the plan for the project included a total of 20 devices at a cost of $500,000. With several area-wide plans approved in a given year, implementation timelines for each plan were broken into phases and implementation scheduled over several years, so that each year each neighborhood could see a piece of their plan realized but it could take many years before all of the early phase projects were implemented, and often a wish list of less critical projects remains with no strategy for implementation in the near term. For the Silver Terrace project, it was ten years between when the first application was accepted and when the first speed humps were installed. The backlog to implement these large area-wide plans causes frustration for residents who have participated in the community process and identified their desired projects. Additionally, the SFMTA staff time required to address the backlog leads to further delays in starting the planning processes for newly received applications or applications with low rankings that have been on the waiting list for years. Though the goal of addressing traffic calming issues on a neighborhood scale is commendable, the results are unsustainable for the SFMTA. For many of the devices that are implemented, particularly speed humps, the planning process is overly lengthy and costly. Meanwhile, for those proactive residents who recognize a problem on their streets and submit an application, the timeline from application to installation is perceived as unreasonably long. Recommendations Consider focusing traffic calming on spot improvements to address resident concerns in a more timely manner, rather than an area-wide approach to traffic calming 29

32 30 Consider other approaches to address residential locations that do not apply for traffic calming Device Types As noted above, the community process for area wide traffic calming included an opportunity for residents to identify their preferred devices, based on a broad range of available options. Typical device costs vary greatly, from around $7,000 for a speed hump to $20,000 for a median island to $70,000 or more for a curb extension. (These costs include detailed design, construction labor and construction materials; speed hump costs are fairly standardized while horizontal deflection devices and curb extensions vary greatly depending upon the location.) The greater expense of some devices does not translate to increased effectiveness for reducing speeds. Speed humps, which are the least costly device in SFMTA s traffic calming toolbox, have been consistently successful at bringing speeds to within 5 mph of the speed limit on streets where they have been installed. Other measures have had mixed results due in part to the greater variation in the designs that have been implemented. Furthermore, some designs, like curb extensions, are intended to improve visibility and yielding to pedestrians at intersections, rather than to address speeding than takes place midblock. In order to achieve the goal of speed reduction and to benefit the most people, speed humps should be considered where appropriate based on local conditions. Recommendations SFMTA staff should recommend an appropriate traffic calming device based on engineering judgment, and should evaluate each location for the appropriateness of speed humps before considering more costly options. Balloting It is SFMTA policy to ballot residents on streets where traffic calming measures will be installed to ensure that each measure has sufficient public support and to allow an opportunity for further public comment. Twenty percent of ballots must be returned, and over 50 percent must be in favor of the device. Although neighbors have approved the devices a majority of the time, it was not uncommon for the ballot to fail. Furthermore, sometimes a measure passed ballot, but was objected to by residents whose property would front the device sometimes the measure was approved by the block as a whole but no location could be found to install it. 30

33 31 SFMTA staff reviewed the frequency that traffic calming measures did not make it through the balloting process. The table below shows the success rate for 59 devices that were balloted between 2010 and 2012, with an overall success rate of 80 percent: Traffic Calming Measure Total Balloted Failed at Ballot Speed Humps % Bulbouts % Islands % Other (eg striping changes) 9* 33.3 % Overall % * Two of the failed measures were rejected at the public hearing, before reaching the ballot. By the time projects reach the ballot box, significant SFMTA staff time has already been spent evaluating locations, spearheading the community process, and planning and designing devices. Because the traffic calming program is set up to implement devices requested by residents (rather than identified by staff), each device that fails at the ballot box represents time that staff could have been dedicating to other requests on the traffic calming waiting list. The primary purpose of requiring a petition as part of the application is to ensure that there is community support before the SFMTA dedicates staff time to a project. Though detailed information was not available on why some measures did not pass their neighborhood ballot, a few factors can be identified that may help explain the discrepancy between these results and the community support established through the application: The long lead time between the original petition and balloting may mean that neighborhood residents or priorities had changed. The minimum ten signatures from residents represented a fairly small proportion of some blocks, and perhaps the petitioners did not accurately reflect the views of their neighbors. If a location was identified through the area-wide process rather than through a resident application, there may have been a champion for the location at a community meeting or in the community working groups, while other neighbors may have been less involved. A ballot was also counted as having failed if not enough responses were received; in some locations, neighbors may not have been opposed to a measure but did not care enough to send in their ballot. 31

34 32 Recommendations Consider requiring greater commitment from residents at time of application, to reduce likelihood of going through a planning process but having a device rejected at the ballot box. Consider having application signatures count towards the ballot to reduce the chances that a measure will fail due to lack of response Require that by signing the petition signatures or voting yes on a ballot, residents also agree to have the device installed in front of their house, if considered the most appropriate location. Reduce the timeline between application and implementation to maintain support and momentum for traffic calming on a given street Implementation The implementation process includes ushering planned projects through the final steps of balloting, legislation, environmental review, design, and construction. In recent years, the limiting factor has been available staff resources to plan and implement traffic calming. The backlog of projects that the SFMTA has committed to installing is made up of planned projects that can be implemented as soon as funding and staff time are available. The chart below shows the number of traffic calming devices that have been implemented each year through the traffic calming program (some other devices, particularly curb extensions and median islands, are frequently installed through other SFMTA efforts). Note: The variation in device type from year to year has to do with the timeline of available funding; when a new grant is received, staff will generally prioritize speed humps, which are fastest to implement, as work progresses on other projects. Number of Traffic Calming Devices Implemented Each Year 32

35 33 Since 2005, the SFMTA has implemented between around 20 and 35 traffic calming devices each year, and an average of 26 per year. Recommendations Consider hiring additional staff to keep up with available funding for traffic calming implementation Consider focusing resources on implementing the residential traffic calming backlog rather than developing new area-wide traffic calming plans Consider only accepting residential traffic calming applications at a rate that can be implemented in a short timeframe based on funding and staff resources. Resident Survey The SFMTA conducted a survey of residents who had been involved in the traffic calming process, including those who had applied to the program themselves, had attended a community meeting, or had been a member of a community working group. The survey was also available publicly on the SFMTA website. Responses from these surveys reinforced feedback that SFMTA staff have received anecdotally over the years from residents and stakeholders. Some key elements of the feedback from residents include: Overall process takes too long Want more transparency and follow-up Value community meetings Want more devices installed Find the process confusing Felt it was easy to apply to the program Unfortunately, priorities identified by respondents through the survey were sometimes in conflict, such as a desire for thorough community process as well as for a faster implementation timeline. Not all of the interests of residents are possible given the SFMTA s limited resources, but should be balanced with other SFMTA and city priorities for the Traffic Calming program. Recommendations Develop improved procedures for communicating with residents about the process for getting traffic calming and the status of specific applications. Reducing the implementation timeline is a broader goal of the program which should also help address the communication issues. 33

36 34 REVISED METHODOLOGY FOR APPLICATION BASED PROGRAM The SFMTA has revised how it processes requests for traffic calming from San Francisco residents. The process takes cues from best practices in other cities, and is intended to address some of the primary issues identified through the evaluation of the past application process. The new methodology also incorporates feedback from stakeholder groups and policy makers who were consulted as part of the revision process. This section details the process for handling traffic calming applications from first contact with residents to project closeout. Some of the key changes and the issues they are meant to address are summarized below: Annual program cycle o More transparent, predictable and easier to understand o Shorter waiting time between acceptance and construction o More efficient use of staff resources More community support required for application o Reduces likelihood of project being rejected at ballot box Prioritize speed reduction and school locations Only accept applications that can be built the following year Most appropriate and cost effective device is recommended Outreach SFMTA will update and print brochures and applications, and update the Traffic Calming Program website to reflect the changes to the applicationbased program. SFMTA staff will also reach out to neighborhood organizations, policy makers, and stakeholder groups to inform them of the traffic calming application, planning and implementation process. The website will include: An overview of the residential traffic calming program Information about ranking and criteria for inclusion Detailed instructions for applying Links to resources that residents can pursue independently Traffic calming brochure Traffic calming application Brochure and application materials will be made available in English, Spanish and Chinese. 34

37 35 Year-Round Correspondence Although applications will be evaluated once a year, residents may have questions throughout the year about the traffic calming process and about whether their neighborhood might be an appropriate candidate. SFMTA staff will be available to respond to these requests. In addition, if residents submit applications in advance of the annual deadline, SFMTA staff will review the applications for completeness within 30 days of receipt, and request missing information if applicable. Application Requirements The purpose of having residents submit applications for traffic calming is to identify areas of concern and to establish community support for street changes before the SFMTA dedicates resources to a project. Location Characteristics Completed by Applicant One resident will be the primary contact person for each application, and will be responsible for providing the following pieces of information: Personal contact information Block to be considered (street name and cross streets) Primary traffic concerns Presence of schools, senior centers, parks etc Staff will be available year-round to assist residents with any questions they may have about the application process. Community Support Petition of Neighbors A petition must be circulated to establish community support for traffic calming on each block where it is requested. A completed application will have signatures from at least 20 residential or business units, or 50 percent of addresses on the street if it has fewer than 40 units. Multiple signatures from the same unit will not be counted. By signing the petition, neighbors agree to the following statements: I agree to have a speed hump installed in front of my residence/ business if deemed the most appropriate solution; and My signature here counts as a yes vote unless I later submit a no vote in the upcoming neighborhood ballot. Applications can be sent to the SFMTA by mail, or sent as a PDF to an address set up specifically for receiving traffic calming applications and questions about the application process. An annual deadline will be identified for each year s evaluation cycle; applications received after the deadline will be considered the following year. 35

38 36 When an application is received, SFMTA staff will acknowledge receipt of the application by informing the applicant of when they can expect to receive a determination of acceptance. Staff will also review any descriptions of traffic concerns in the applications, and will refer any immediate concerns to the SFMTA Traffic Operations division. Evaluation & Ranking After the application deadline, SFMTA staff will begin the process of evaluating each location. The SFMTA will contract with an outside firm to conduct speed surveys for each eligible location. Staff will review application information for accuracy and will compile additional data needed for the ranking process. Once all data is collected, project locations will be ranked based on the following criteria: Evidence of speeding Presence of a school, playground, senior center etc Traffic volumes Collision history Evidence of exhibition driving Opportunities for increasing walking and biking Evidence of speeding will be the weighted highest, with other criteria weighted roughly equally, subject to professional judgment by SFMTA staff. The SFMTA will rank all eligible locations from the year s batch of applications. The number of accepted projects will depend on the available funding and what devices are recommended, as described in the next section. Planning Recommendation Once the locations with greatest need for traffic calming are identified, SFMTA staff will begin the process of reviewing locations for the most appropriate engineering solution, beginning with the top 25 ranked locations. Blocks will first be evaluated for whether a speed hump would be appropriate for the location and possible given street geometry. If a speed hump is not an appropriate solution, staff would consider other traffic calming devices such as chicanes, traffic islands, medians and traffic circles. The budget estimate prepared as part of the Traffic Calming Revision was based on approximately 25 devices constructed per year, of which 65% are speed humps. If the top 25 locations result in a significantly higher or lower proportion of speed humps, the total number of devices could change for that year. 36

39 37 After the list of projects is identified, SFMTA staff will inform applicants of the results. These responses could take one of these forms: Accepted locations recommended for devices in the current cycle Rejected locations that do not rank for the current cycle. Applicants wishing to be considered in future years must re-apply. Community Outreach For locations where the recommended device would require parking removal or displacement, or is considered a potentially controversial choice for the location, SFMTA staff will offer to meet with interested residents. SFMTA staff would work with the primary applicant to find a meeting location, and would send the meeting announcement to all residents on the affected block. The purpose of these meeting would be for SFMTA staff to present the pros and cons of one or two devices that would be appropriate for the location, and take feedback from neighbors to advise the projects final design. For locations requiring this additional community outreach, the implementation cycle may be delayed a month or two compared to locations receiving standard speed humps. Balloting of Residents Once the device for each location is determined, either through the planning recommendation process or after a meeting with neighbors, information about the device will be sent out along with ballots. The ballot process is largely unchanged from the current guidelines, as follows: The residents on the block where the device will be located (including corner lots and residents who have to use the affected street to access their homes) will be balloted to get a final vote. Each known address will receive one ballot card for one vote. The SFMTA will make a good faith effort to make sure every valid address gets a vote. A few key elements of the ballot process will be different from the past process: A Yes vote means the respondent agrees to have the device placed in front of their property, if deemed the most appropriate location A resident who signs the original petition but doesn t return a ballot would be counted as voting Yes. A notification to this effect would be included in the ballot. 37

40 38 Public Hearing Once the votes are counted and the simple majority of the residents who voted (50%+1) approve, the project is scheduled for an SFMTA Public Hearing where members of the public will have an opportunity for further comment. If the project is approved, the plans are sent to the appropriate City departments for installation. Detailed Design and Construction Detailed Design and Construction would be conducted by SFMTA and DPW staff according to current standards for traffic calming in San Francisco. Project Closeout Residents of streets receiving traffic calming will be informed when the device is complete. Funding Cycle and Program Costs One of the many benefits of having a standardized annual cycle is that it simplifies and streamlines the process of securing funding. By applying for several phases of the project together, the SFMTA will be able to begin project development and design work as soon as project locations are identified. The SFMTA recommends applying to the SFCTA once a year for all funds for the Application-Based Residential Traffic Calming program, with design and construction funds contingent upon the submission of the project list for the that cycle. SFTMA staff estimate the project described in this section would cost approximately $600,000 each year to implement at current costs, as shown: Program Outreach and Correspondence $30,000 Project Selection and Development (including evaluation, $300,000 ranking, planning recommendation, outreach and conceptual engineering) Design Engineering (including SFMTA detailed design) $25,000 Construction (including DPW design, labor and materials) $235,000 Total $590,000 38

41 39 REBALANCED PRIORITIES The Proposition K Expenditure Plan item 38 provides approximately $2.5 million each year towards traffic calming projects, divided into the three tracks identified in the SFMTA s Traffic Calming Guidelines: Arterial and Commercial Streets, Local Streets and Schools. Over the years, in an effort to be responsive to requests from residents, the SFMTA has dedicated the majority of its annual Traffic Calming funds towards the local track. However, the proposed methodology outlined above for the new Application-Based Traffic Calming Program streamlines the SFMTA s response to resident requests, allowing more of the available funding to be considered for other uses. The next pages detail the SFMTA s proposed program areas that form a more balanced three-track approach, better reflecting the original intent of the Traffic Calming Guidelines. Local Streets Track In the past, funding for the Local Streets Track, which considers localaccess residential streets has primarily gone towards area-wide traffic calming plans. These planning efforts looked at entire neighborhoods identified based on one or several applications from residents. This program was intended to be responsive to applications, but ultimately included a decision from SFMTA staff as to what streets made most sense to include in an area-wide approach. As a result of this approach, each area-wide plan included many more proposed devices, as well as more expensive devices, than would have been recommended if each application was addressed individually. This greater expense led to longer lead times from when applications were received to when planning began. This led to the SFMTA to mainly focus on responding to resident requests rather than proactively planning and implementing traffic calming in areas that could lead to the greatest benefits. The proposal for the revised Local Streets Track is to de-couple the application-based process from the proactive efforts of the SFMTA. This will bring greater transparency to both components, and will allow improved response time for residents who apply, while dedicating specific funding to locations in the city where traffic calming can provide benefits in terms of safety and promoting alternative transportation options. Application-Based Residential Traffic Calming Program The SFMTA will continue to implement traffic calming measures per year based on community requests. The key features of the Application- Based program are as follows: 39

42 40 Community members must apply for a specific block SFMTA staff will evaluate applications once a year and will prioritize applications based on the following criteria, listed in order of weight: o Evidence of Speeding o Presence of a school, playground, senior center etc o Traffic Volumes o Collision History o Evidence of Exhibition Driving o Opportunities for increasing walking and biking SFMTA staff will recommend a traffic calming measure for the top locations, and residents will vote on the measure. Measures could include: o Speed humps o Traffic islands o Chicanes o Traffic circles Construction will take place within a year and a half of evaluation The SFMTA estimates that the total annual funding for this program will be approximately $600,000. Proactive Residential Area Improvements Funding for Proactive Residential Area Improvements, will be used by the SFMTA to plan and implement traffic calming measures in residential locations that have not submitted applications but where there is potential for benefits in terms of safety, livability, and mode shift. The criteria for selecting projects for this category are as follows: Projects that increase geographic equity The Application-Based program is limited by the fact that it relies on engaged and active residents to take the first step towards identifying problem locations. The SFMTA will consider locations where speeding issues are reported but where community members might be less engaged and not submit official applications. Projects with the potential to increase walking and biking A speed hump or traffic island alone may not be able to increase walking and biking significantly, but could have a greater impact when combined with measures like landscaping, bicycle facilities, or wayfinding efforts. The SFMTA will consider implementing traffic calming measures in coordination with projects aimed at increasing walking and biking. 40

43 41 Home Zones and Small Area-Wides In some circumstances, a site-specific traffic calming measure may not be sufficient to address a pattern of speeding or cut-through traffic in a neighborhood. If applications are frequently received from the same neighborhood despite site-specific solutions, or if professional judgment dictates, the SFMTA could consider taking a home-zone or area-wide approach. The proposed funding for Proactive Residential Area Improvements is $500,000 per year. This would cover about one project if directed towards something like a neighborhood greenway or a home zone type project. The SFMTA will consider and propose projects as part of the recurring CIP process as well as the SFCTA s 5YPP process. Schools Track In the past, funding for schools in the Traffic Calming program has been used as a local match for Safe Routes to School grants, which focus on pedestrian safety around San Francisco s schools. Moving forward, the local match will be provided through other funding sources, freeing up funding within the Traffic Calming program to be directed towards reducing speeds near schools. This is an opportunity to implement similar devices to what are used in residential areas, but without requiring initiation from area residents as in the application based program. The SFMTA will work with the Safe Routes to School Coalition to identify potential locations through existing school-area assessments. In addition to considering new school locations, the SFMTA proposes adjusting the ranking criteria for the Application-Based Residential Traffic Calming Program to elevate the priority of locations where schools are present. The proposed funding for the Schools track is $150,000 each year. Arterial and Commercial Streets Track Half of all severe and fatal traffic collisions occur on just 7% of San Francisco s street miles; these high-injury corridors are primarily arterials or busy commercial streets where there are high volumes of vehicles and pedestrians. Because vehicle speeds are a significant factor in determining the severity of the injuries, traffic calming is an important piece of the puzzle for reducing these injuries and increasing traffic safety in San Francisco. The Traffic Calming Arterial and Commercial Streets Track seeks opportunities to reduce speeds on corridors either in coordination with other projects or as independent projects prioritized based on need. 41

44 42 Prioritized Corridor Speed Reduction Funding for Prioritized Corridor Speed Reduction will be used to make lowcost improvements on corridors with high collision rates and evidence of speeding, but where there are no current plans for more intensive streetscape improvements. Potential treatments include speed humps, lane narrowing, road diets, and traffic signal changes. The concurrent Corridor Speed Reduction Pilot project and continued development of San Francisco s Pedestrian Strategy will result in more detailed recommendations for identification of streets and treatments, but the project selection criteria are likely to include: High levels of injury collisions Evidence of speeding Potential for increased use by people walking and biking Eligible streets include arterials defined in the San Francisco General Plan as well as commercial streets, multi-lane streets, collectors, and signalized corridors. The SFMTA Pedestrian Strategy identifies San Francisco s high-injury corridors using similar prioritization metrics, and will be used in the selection of these corridors. Project Coordination The SFMTA will also seek opportunities to coordinate with planned streetscape projects that reduce speeding and increase safety. This could include projects making significant investment in bicycle facilities, intersection safety, transit improvements, or landscaping, which would not be appropriate to be fully funded through traffic calming, but where matching funds could help with project implementation. Project Coordination funds could also be used to capitalize on smaller coordination opportunities such as regularly scheduled repaving. SFMTA could use these funds for the planning phase for striping changes that could be incorporated into a repaving project on a street that has a history of speeding or collisions but which isn t at the top of the list for the Prioritized Corridor Speed Reduction program. The proposed budget for the combined Arterial and Commercial Streets Track would be $1,250,000 per year, with a flexible breakdown between Prioritized Corridor Speed Reduction and Project Coordination. 42

45 43 Program Funding The chart below shows the proposed breakdown of Traffic Calming funding under this revised scenario, with the most notable shift being the increase in funding for arterial traffic calming projects. This is line with city and agency priorities to improve pedestrian safety, which is of greatest concern on San Francisco s busy arterial and commercial streets. Current vs Proposed Breakdown of Prop. K Traffic Calming Funds 43

46 44 NEXT STEPS These recommendations for a revised traffic calming program will be implemented gradually as the SFMTA clears out a backlog of planned residential traffic calming projects, and incorporates the new recommendations into the SFMTA s Capital Improvement Plan and the SFCTA s Five Year Prioritization Program. The revised application-based program will begin immediately, but the increased focus on high-injury corridors and schools will be transitioned over the next several years so that the existing backlog of residential traffic calming projects can be addressed. Roll-out of Application-Based Residential Traffic Calming Traffic calming applications were not accepted for a year during the revision process. In March 2013, the SFMTA reopened the program to residents, with a roll-out that included: a revised website with information about the new process a new application form announcement to residents who have expressed interest in traffic calming over the past year announcement Supervisors and their aides The new process for evaluating these applications and planning new measures will start in August 2013 according to the proposed timeline. Completion of Planned Residential Traffic Calming There are approximately $6 million worth of traffic calming measures in the project development pipeline that have yet to be funded. In locations where area-wide processes were already scheduled, planning has gone on as before and several new area-wide plans are under development, though the resultant plans may be more constrained than in the past. In addition to area-wide plans, many site-specific locations are slated for planning and implementation, including locations that were originally intended to be incorporated into future area-wides. These locations will be reprioritized using the revised criteria and locations that no longer meet SFMTA criteria could be dropped. The SFMTA is devoting staff resources and funding to ensure that its existing traffic calming commitments are fulfilled even while the program is transitioned to place more focus on high-injury corridors, schools, and an annual residential program. This includes hiring more staff in the Livable Streets subdivision, streamlining internal project development and review processes, and working with the Department of Public Works to improve coordination and shorten construction timelines. The SFMTA expects to complete the planned traffic calming measures over the next 6 years. 44

47 45 Incorporation of Revised Program into CIP The SFMTA s existing Capital Improvement Program (CIP) incorporates the new Application-Based Program at the proposed funding level of $600,000 per year, and includes the required funding for implementing the backlog of outstanding area-wide and site-specific traffic calming measures within five years. In the first 3 years of the CIP, these combined projects are anticipated to use the majority of available traffic calming funding from Prop K; new projects near schools and along corridors are expected to begin once the backlog is largely complete. SFMTA staff will incorporate the new arterial and local track recommendations into the next draft of the CIP. Incorporation of Revised Program into Prop K 5YPP As noted previously, the Proposition K EP 38 category provides around $2.5 million each year towards traffic calming projects, divided into the three tracks identified in the SFMTA s Traffic Calming Guidelines: Arterial and Commercial Streets, Local Streets, and Schools. The existing Five Year Prioritization Program for Traffic Calming includes these categories, but with around 90 percent of the funding allocated for the Local Track. As the SFMTA completes its 5YPP update for , the proposed programmatic distribution will be recommended as the eventual funding levels for the different tracks, transitioning gradually as the backlog of projects is cleared out in upcoming years. An amendment will be made to the current 5YPP for the FY year allowing the SFMTA to seek funds for the first year of the new Application-Based Program. 45

48 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

49 46 Backlog of Traffic Calming Implementation Projects Cost Breakdown of Completed Areawide Projects Project Sup District 2011 Estimated Total Core Implementation Cost* Remaining Funding Needs for Core Project Implementation ** Project Status (As of May 2013) Will be complete when work associated with 18th Ave (19th-Lincoln Bypass) 5,7 $588,800 $0 SR2S grant is completed. Bayview 10 $754,200 $72,000 Phase 2 of 4 is underway Buena Vista/17th/Roosevelt Way 8 $415,600 $128,000 Phase 2 of 3 underway Cedro/Cerritos & Holloway/Garfield 7, 11 $487,600 $48,000 Phase 2 of 3 is underway Central Richmond 1 $1,846,852 $808,000 Phase 2 of 4 is underway Circular Avenue 7,8 $339,950 $0 Phase 3 of 3 is underway Clayton 5, 8 $85,600 $32,000 Phase 1a is underway Crestlake 4 $247,500 $0 Completed Excelsior 11 $1,044,350 $32,000 Phase 3 of 3 is underway Fillmore 5 $45,000 $0 Completed Inner Sunset 5,7 $1,626,950 $370,000 Phase 4 of 5 underway Jordan Park/Laurel Heights 2 $448,500 $437,400 Phase 1a is underway Minna/Natoma 6 $839,700 $590,850 Phase 1 of 2 underway North Bernal Heights 9 $3,526,500 $422,500 Phase 6 of 6 underway O'Shaughnessy 7,8 $133,750 $0 Completed Potrero Hill 10 $721,200 $384,000 Phase 2 of 5 underway Randolph/Broad 11 $559,000 $0 Phase 2 of 2 is underway Saint Francis Wood 7 $266,850 $24,000 Phase 2 of 3 underway Silver Terrace 10 $677,050 $436,000 Phase 1 of 2 underway South Bernal Heights 9 $2,123,300 $488,000 Phase 2 of 4 underway Sunnyside 7,8 $261,700 $120,000 Phase 2 of 3 underway Teresita Boulevard 7 $703,800 $192,000 Phase 2 of 3 underway West Portal 7 $155,000 $155,000 Phase 3 of 3 underway Totals $17,898,752 $4,739,750 * Shows the "Total Cost" used in 2011 minus the "Wish List" projects - however, these total costs are not updated with 2013 cost estimates ** Two Areawide Plans have been completed since 2011: Jordan Park/Laurel Heights and Clayton. These are included and costs of measures updated. Estimated Cost Breakdown of Areawides in Planning Phase & Site-specific Measures Project Sup District Number of Locations Estimated Funding Needs for Project Implementation*** Project Status (As of May 2013) Dewey Areawide 7 - $450,000 In Planning Visitacion Valley 10 - $450,000 In Planning Existing Site-Specific Various 20 $300,000 Ranked List, devices not identified Future Site-Specific Various 31 $300,000 Will be evaluated and re-ranked in 2013 Totals $1,500,000 *** These estimates are based on past experience with areawide and site-specific implementation. P:\Prop K\SP-5YPP\2013 Update\5YPP etc\ep 38\TC ImplementationRemainingCostEstimates.xlsx Page 1 of 1

50 47 Plan Phase Location Status 18th Ave (19th-Lincoln Bypass) 18th Ave (19th-Lincoln Bypass) 1 Collect Speed Data on Judah (16th to 17th) Complete 18th Ave (19th-Lincoln Bypass) 1 Evaluate STOP sign controls in area Complete 18th Ave (19th-Lincoln Bypass) 1 17th Ave Speed Hump (bet Irving and Judah) Complete 18th Ave (19th-Lincoln Bypass) 1 18th Ave Speed Hump (bet Irving and Judah) Complete 18th Ave (19th-Lincoln Bypass) 1 Have School Safety Program review school circulation and loading patterns Complete 18th Ave (19th-Lincoln Bypass) 1 18th Ave Choker (bet Lincoln and Irving) Complete 18th Ave (19th-Lincoln Bypass) 2 18th Ave Choker (L-I) Complete 18th Ave (19th-Lincoln Bypass) 2 17th Ave Choker (L-I) Rejected 18th Ave (19th-Lincoln Bypass) 2 18th Ave Choker (I-J) Rejected 18th Ave (19th-Lincoln Bypass) 2 Lincoln Way Median Extensions Rejected 18th Ave (19th-Lincoln Bypass) 3 18th Ave/Lincoln Bulbout Rejected 18th Ave (19th-Lincoln Bypass) 3 Judah St Bulbouts (@17th) Underway 18th Ave (19th-Lincoln Bypass) FF 18th/Irving Street Bulbouts Underway Bayview Bayview 1 Hudson (bet Ingalls and Cashmere) Complete Bayview 1 Shafter, bet Lane and Keith Complete Bayview 1 Thomas, bet Lane and Keith Complete Bayview 1 McKinnon Speed Hump (Lane to Keith) Complete Bayview 1 Underwood, bet Lane and Keith Complete Bayview 1 Oakdale (bet Ingalls and Griffith) Complete Bayview 1 Fitzgerald (bet Ingalls and Hawes) Complete Bayview 1 Quesada, bet Lane and Keith Complete Bayview 1 Revere, bet Lane and Keith Complete Bayview 1 Evaluate STOP sign controls in area Complete Bayview 1 Hudson (bet Newhall and Mendell) Planned Bayview 1 Palou Ave Speed Cushions (bet Keith and Griffith) Planned Bayview 1 Palou (SC), bet Lane and Keith Rejected Bayview 1 Van Dyke, bet Lane and Keith Complete Bayview 1 Oakdale (bet Lane and Keith) Rejected Bayview 2 Underwood, bet Keith and Jennings Complete Bayview 2 Shafter, bet Keith and Jennings Underway Bayview 2 Thomas, bet Keith and Jennings Underway Bayview 2 Palou (SC), bet Keith and Jennings Underway Bayview 2 Van Dyke, bet Keith and Jennings Underway Bayview 2 Quesada, bet Keith and Jennings Underway Bayview 2 Revere, bet Keith and Jennings Underway Bayview 2 Hudson (West of Keith) Rejected P:\Prop K\SP-5YPP\2013 Update\5YPP etc\ep 38\TC ImplementationRemainingCostEstimates.xlsx Page 1 of 13

51 48 Plan Phase Location Status Bayview 3 Kirkwood at Dormitory Complete Bayview 3 Kirkwood at Dormitory II Complete Bayview 4 Quesada, Revere and Shafter (bet Ingalls and Hawes) Planned Bayview FF Palou Avenue Bike Lanes Future Funding Bayview FF Gateway Treatments (Quesada bet 3rd and Lane) Future Funding Bayview FF Gateway Treatments (Hawes at Quesada, Revere and Shafter; Ingalls and Thomas, Jenning Future Funding Bayview FF Gateway Treatments (Hawes at Quesada, Revere and Shafter; Ingalls and Thomas, Jenning Future Funding Buena Vista/17th Street/Roosevelt Way Buena Vista/17th Street/Roosevelt Way 1 17th Street from Temple to Ord Sts - EB - Speed-Radar Sign Complete Buena Vista/17th Street/Roosevelt Way 1 Roosevelt from Museum Way to Park Hill Ter/15th St - Chicane Complete Buena Vista/17th Street/Roosevelt Way 1 Roosevelt at Park Hill/15th St - Two Islands Complete Buena Vista/17th Street/Roosevelt Way 1 Buena Vista Ave at Upper Ter - Bulb-out Complete Buena Vista/17th Street/Roosevelt Way 2 Roosevelt from 17th St to Lower Ter - Upper Roosevelt option (radar sign or island) Underway Buena Vista/17th Street/Roosevelt Way 2 Roosevelt from 17th St to Lower Ter - Edge Lines Underway Buena Vista/17th Street/Roosevelt Way 2 17th Street at Temple St - Bulb-out Underway Buena Vista/17th Street/Roosevelt Way 2 Buena Vista Ave at Frederick St - Pedestrian Island Underway Buena Vista/17th Street/Roosevelt Way 2 Roosevelt at Buena Vista Ter - Median Island Underway Buena Vista/17th Street/Roosevelt Way 2 Buena Vista Ave from Frederick St to Buena Vista Ter - Edge Lines Underway Buena Vista/17th Street/Roosevelt Way 2 Roosevelt at Clifford Ter - Pedestrian Island Underway Buena Vista/17th Street/Roosevelt Way 3 Roosevelt at 17th St - Pedestrian Island Planned Buena Vista/17th Street/Roosevelt Way 3 Roosevelt at 15th St - Bulb-out - SW corner Planned Buena Vista/17th Street/Roosevelt Way 3 Buena Vista Ter at Buena Vista Ave East - Pedestrian Island Planned Buena Vista/17th Street/Roosevelt Way FF 17th Street at Corbin Pl Steps - Chokers Future Funding Buena Vista/17th Street/Roosevelt Way FF Roosevelt at Museum Way - Bulb-out Future Funding Cedro/Cerritos & Holloway/Garfield Cedro/Cerritos & Holloway/Garfield 1 Holloway at Junipero Serra - bulb outs Complete Cedro/Cerritos & Holloway/Garfield 1 Holloway between Beverly and Head - chicanes/edgelines (painted trial) Complete Cedro/Cerritos & Holloway/Garfield 1 Cerritos between Ocean and Moncada - speed hump Complete Cedro/Cerritos & Holloway/Garfield 1 Cerritos between Moncada and Mercedes - replace bump with hump Complete Cedro/Cerritos & Holloway/Garfield 1 General operational improvements - red zones, signage, lane striping Complete Cedro/Cerritos & Holloway/Garfield 1 Cedro between Ocean and Moncada - replace bump with hump Complete Cedro/Cerritos & Holloway/Garfield 1 Paloma between Ocean and Moncada - replace bumps with hump Complete Cedro/Cerritos & Holloway/Garfield 2 Holloway between Beverly and Head - chicanes (islands if trial is successful) Complete Cedro/Cerritos & Holloway/Garfield 2 Holloway between Beverly and Head - humps and striping (if trial was unsuccessful) Underway Cedro/Cerritos & Holloway/Garfield 2 Holloway between Beverly and Head - humps and striping (if trial was unsuccessful) Underway P:\Prop K\SP-5YPP\2013 Update\5YPP etc\ep 38\TC ImplementationRemainingCostEstimates.xlsx Page 2 of 13

52 49 Plan Phase Location Status Cedro/Cerritos & Holloway/Garfield 2 Garfield at Beverly - island Underway Cedro/Cerritos & Holloway/Garfield 2 Garfield between Beverly and Monticello - speed cushions Underway Cedro/Cerritos & Holloway/Garfield 2 Garfield between Byxbee and Ralston - speed cushions Underway Cedro/Cerritos & Holloway/Garfield 2 Garfield between Arch and Ramsell - speed cushions Underway Cedro/Cerritos & Holloway/Garfield 2 Beverly between Holloway and Garfield - speed cushion/hump Underway Cedro/Cerritos & Holloway/Garfield 2 Cerritos-Mercedes-Lunado channelization island Underway Cedro/Cerritos & Holloway/Garfield 2 Mercedes at Junipero Serra - gateway island Underway Cedro/Cerritos & Holloway/Garfield 3 Holloway at Junipero Serra - gateway island Planned Cedro/Cerritos & Holloway/Garfield 3 Garfield at Junipero Serra - gateway island Planned Cedro/Cerritos & Holloway/Garfield FF Garfield at Byxbee - bulb outs Future Funding Central Richmond Central Richmond 1 17th Ave btwn Balboa & Cabrillo Sts Complete Central Richmond 1 18th Ave btwn Balboa & Cabrillo Sts Rejected Central Richmond 1 Evaluate STOP sign controls at intersections Complete Central Richmond 1 23rd Ave/Anza St - traffic circle Complete Central Richmond 1 Cabrillo St/Funston Ave Complete Central Richmond 1 14th Ave/Lake St Complete Central Richmond 1 14th Ave/Cabrillo St Complete Central Richmond 1 17th Ave btwn Anza & Balboa Rejected Central Richmond 1 17th Ave btwn Anza & Geary Complete Central Richmond 2 22nd Ave btwn California & Clement Sts Underway Central Richmond 2 17th Ave/Lake St - traffic circle Underway Central Richmond 2 Fulton St/Funston Ave Underway Central Richmond 2 Anza St/Funston Ave Underway Central Richmond 2 Clement St/Funston Ave Underway Central Richmond 2 California St/Funston Ave Underway Central Richmond 2 14th Ave/California St Underway Central Richmond 2 14th Ave/Clement St Underway Central Richmond 2 14th Ave/Anza St Underway Central Richmond 2 14th Ave/Balboa St Underway Central Richmond 2 Fulton at 16th Ave - ped islands on Fulton Underway Central Richmond 2 California near Alamo School Underway Central Richmond 2 California near Alamo School Underway Central Richmond 3 21st Ave/Lake St - traffic circle Planned Central Richmond 3 24th Ave/Lake St - traffic circle Planned Central Richmond 3 Funston Ave btwn Fulton & Cabrillo Sts - speed hump with island Planned Central Richmond 3 Funston Ave btwn Fulton & Cabrillo Sts - speed hump with island Planned Central Richmond 3 Funston Ave btwn Cabrillo & Balboa Sts - speed hump with island Planned Central Richmond 3 Funston Ave btwn Cabrillo & Balboa Sts - speed hump with island Planned P:\Prop K\SP-5YPP\2013 Update\5YPP etc\ep 38\TC ImplementationRemainingCostEstimates.xlsx Page 3 of 13

53 50 Plan Phase Location Status Central Richmond 3 Funston Ave btwn Balboa & Anza Sts - speed hump with island Planned Central Richmond 3 Funston Ave btwn Balboa & Anza Sts - speed hump with island Planned Central Richmond 3 Funston Ave btwn Clement & California Sts - island Planned Central Richmond 3 14th Ave btwn Cabrillo & Fulton Sts - speed hump with island Planned Central Richmond 3 14th Ave btwn Cabrillo & Fulton Sts - speed hump with island Planned Central Richmond 4 Funston Ave btwn Anza & Geary Sts - speed hump with island Planned Central Richmond 4 Funston Ave btwn Anza & Geary Sts - speed hump with island Planned Central Richmond 4 Funston Ave btwn Geary & Clement Sts - island Planned Central Richmond 4 Funston Ave btwn California & Lake Sts - island Planned Central Richmond 4 14th Ave btwn Lake & California Sts - island Planned Central Richmond 4 14th Ave btwn California & Clement Sts - speed hump with island Planned Central Richmond 4 14th Ave btwn California & Clement Sts - speed hump with island Planned Central Richmond 4 14th Ave btwn Clement & Geary Sts Planned Central Richmond 4 14th Ave btwn Geary & Anza Sts - speed hump with island Planned Central Richmond 4 14th Ave btwn Geary & Anza Sts - speed hump with island Planned Central Richmond 4 14th Ave btwn Anza & Balboa Sts Planned Central Richmond 4 14th Ave btwn Balboa & Cabrillo Sts - speed hump with island Planned Central Richmond 4 14th Ave btwn Balboa & Cabrillo Sts - speed hump with island Planned Central Richmond 4 15th Ave/California St Planned Central Richmond 4 15th Ave btwn Balboa & Cabrillo Planned Central Richmond 4 22nd Ave btwn Clement & Geary Planned Central Richmond 4 24th Ave/Anza St - ped refuge islands Planned Central Richmond 4 25th Ave/Anza St - gateway island Planned Central Richmond FF 14th Ave btwn Fulton and Cabrillo - island or other measure (if needed) Future Funding Central Richmond FF 15th Ave btwn Fulton and Cabrillo - island or other measure (if needed) Future Funding Central Richmond FF 16th Ave btwn Fulton and Cabrillo - island or other measure (if needed) Future Funding Central Richmond FF 17th Ave btwn Fulton and Cabrillo - island or other measure (if needed) Future Funding Central Richmond FF 18th Ave btwn Fulton and Cabrillo - island or other measure (if needed) Future Funding Central Richmond FF 19th Ave btwn Fulton and Cabrillo - island or other measure (if needed) Future Funding Central Richmond FF 20th Ave btwn Fulton and Cabrillo - island or other measure (if needed) Future Funding Central Richmond FF 21st Ave btwn Fulton and Cabrillo - island or other measure (if needed) Future Funding Central Richmond FF 22nd Ave btwn Fulton and Cabrillo - island or other measure (if needed) Future Funding Central Richmond FF 23rd Ave btwn Fulton and Cabrillo - island or other measure (if needed) Future Funding Central Richmond FF 14th Ave/Lake St Future Funding Central Richmond FF Other Measures to Address Unanticipated Impacts Future Funding Central Richmond FF Bulb-outs where coordination possible Future Funding Central Richmond FF Geary Gateways - to be built by BRT Future Funding Central Richmond FF Balboa Road Diet Future Funding Central Richmond FF Fulton at 20th Ave (location may change due to TEP bus stop changes) - ped islands on Fulton Future Funding P:\Prop K\SP-5YPP\2013 Update\5YPP etc\ep 38\TC ImplementationRemainingCostEstimates.xlsx Page 4 of 13

54 51 Plan Phase Location Status Central Richmond FF 14th and Fulton - gateway island Future Funding Central Richmond FF 15th and Fulton - gateway island Future Funding Central Richmond FF 16th and Fulton - gateway island Future Funding Central Richmond FF 17th and Fulton - gateway island Future Funding Central Richmond FF 18th and Fulton - gateway island Future Funding Central Richmond FF 19th and Fulton - gateway island Future Funding Central Richmond FF 20th and Fulton - gateway island Future Funding Central Richmond FF 21st and Fulton - gateway island Future Funding Central Richmond FF 22nd and Fulton - gateway island Future Funding Central Richmond FF 24th and Fulton - gateway island Future Funding Circular Avenue Circular Avenue 1 Circular Ave Speed Humps (Congo - Judson) Complete Circular Avenue 1 Circular Ave Speed Cushion (Monterey - Hearst) Complete Circular Avenue 1 Pedestrian Island at Circular/Hearst Complete Circular Avenue 2 Pedestrian Island at Circular/Flood Complete Circular Avenue 2 Pedestrian Island at Circular/Staples Complete Circular Avenue 3 Reconfigure Judson/Circular/Paulding Underway Circular Avenue 3 Reconfigure Judson/Circular/Paulding Underway Circular Avenue FF Chicanes Future Funding Clayton Clayton 1a Clayton Street painted chicane Complete Clayton 1a Clayton Street edge lines Underway Clayton 1a Clayton and Carl Street median island Underway Clayton 1a Ashbury and Downey Street restriping Underway Clayton 1 Clayton Street speed hump Planned Clayton 1 Ashbury Street speed cushions (3) Planned Clayton FF Clayton and Ashbury bulb-outs Future Funding Crestlake Crestlake 1 Evaluate STOP sign controls at intersections Complete Crestlake 1 36th Ave btwn Yorba St and Sunset Blvd Complete Crestlake 1 37th Ave btwn Yorba St and Sunset Blvd Complete Crestlake 1 34th Ave btwn Yorba St and Wawona St Complete Crestlake 1 35th Ave btwn Yorba St and Wawona St Rejected Crestlake 1 36th Ave btwn Yorba St and Wawona Sts Complete Crestlake 1 Crestlake Dr btwn Yorba St and Wawona St Complete Crestlake 1 34th Ave btwn Wawona St and Vicente Rejected Crestlake 1 35th Ave btwn Wawona St and Vicente Complete P:\Prop K\SP-5YPP\2013 Update\5YPP etc\ep 38\TC ImplementationRemainingCostEstimates.xlsx Page 5 of 13

55 52 Plan Phase Location Status Crestlake 1 36th Ave btwn Wawona St and Vicente Complete Crestlake 1 Crestlake Dr btwn Constanso Wy and El Mirasol Pl Complete Crestlake 1 Escolta Way btwn 33rd Ave and 31st Ave Complete Crestlake 1 Wawona St btwn 33rd Ave and 30th Ave Complete Crestlake 1 Crestlake Dr at Wawona St - island Complete Crestlake 1 34th Ave at Yorba St - bulb outs Complete Excelsior Excelsior 1 Collect Traffic Data on Addtl Streets Complete Excelsior 1 Athens Speed Humps Complete Excelsior 1 Lisbon Speed Hump (Avalon/Peru) Complete Excelsior 1 Madrid Speed Humps Complete Excelsior 1 Moscow Speed Cushions Complete Excelsior 1 Madrid Median Island Rejected Excelsior 2 Moscow Excelsior Complete Excelsior 2 Lisbon between Italy and France Complete Excelsior 2 Lisbon Gateway treatment Complete Excelsior 2 Madrid gateway treatment Complete Excelsior 2 Speed Humps on Addtl Streets Planned Excelsior 2 Naples/Silver Rejected Excelsior 3 Persia Bulbouts (@Paris) Complete Excelsior 3 Persia Bulbouts (@Vienna) Complete Excelsior 3 Excelsior Bulbouts Complete Excelsior 3 Persia Bulbouts (@Munich) Underway Excelsior 3 Persia/Dublin gateway treatment Underway Excelsior FF Madrid/Russia Bulbouts NE Corner Only (Playground) Future Funding Excelsior FF Madrid/Russia Bulbouts All Other Corners(Playground) Future Funding Fillmore Fillmore 1 Webster at Ellis - Ped Visibility Improvements Complete Fillmore 2 Webster at Ellis - Median Extension/Thumbnail Island Complete Fillmore FF Fillmore at Ellis - Bulb-outs Future Funding Fillmore FF Webster at Ellis - Bulb-outs Future Funding Fillmore FF Fillmore at O'Farrell - Bulb-outs Future Funding Fillmore FF Fillmore at Turk - Bulb-outs Future Funding Fillmore FF Fillmore at Golden Gate - Bulb-outs Future Funding Fillmore FF Fillmore at O'Farrell - Raised Crosswalk Future Funding Inner Sunset Inner Sunset 1 6th Avenue Speed Humps Complete P:\Prop K\SP-5YPP\2013 Update\5YPP etc\ep 38\TC ImplementationRemainingCostEstimates.xlsx Page 6 of 13

56 53 Plan Phase Location Status Inner Sunset 1 Locksley Island Complete Inner Sunset 1 7th/Irving Countdown Signals Complete Inner Sunset 1 Evaluate STOP sign controls at intersections Complete Inner Sunset 1 Warren/Lawton Islands Complete Inner Sunset 2 7th/Moraga Restriping Complete Inner Sunset 2 8th/Judah Island Complete Inner Sunset 2 5th Ave Chicane Complete Inner Sunset 3 4th Ave Chicane Complete Inner Sunset 3 7th Avenue Bike Lanes/TWLTL Complete Inner Sunset 3 5th/Parnassus Island Complete Inner Sunset 4 7th Avenue/Moraga Island Complete Inner Sunset 4 6th Ave Bulb-outs Planned Inner Sunset 5 Other Measures to Address Unanticipated Impacts Planned Inner Sunset FF Lincoln Gateway Treatments I Complete Inner Sunset FF Irving Street Bulb-outs Complete Inner Sunset FF 7th/Kirkham Countdown Signals Future Funding Inner Sunset FF 6th/Irving Countdown Signals Future Funding Inner Sunset FF 7th Ave Bulb-outs Future Funding Inner Sunset FF Lincoln Gateway Treatments II Future Funding Inner Sunset FF Street Trees Rejected Inner Sunset FF 9th/Irving Gateway Treatment Rejected Inner Sunset FF Lincoln Way Bulb-outs Rejected Jordan Park/Laurel Heights Jordan Park/Laurel Heights 1A Collins St Edgeline Striping Underway Jordan Park/Laurel Heights 1A Laurel Village Conti X-Walk Upgrades Planned Jordan Park/Laurel Heights 1A Mayfair Painted Ped Islands Underway Jordan Park/Laurel Heights 1 Laurel St Speed Hump Planned Jordan Park/Laurel Heights 1 Collins St Speed Hump Planned Jordan Park/Laurel Heights 1 Iris Ped Island Planned Jordan Park/Laurel Heights 1 Euclid Bike Lanes/Restriping Planned Jordan Park/Laurel Heights 1 Palm Ave Speed Humps Planned Jordan Park/Laurel Heights 1 Jordan Ave Speed Humps Planned Jordan Park/Laurel Heights 1 Commonwealth Ave Speed Humps Planned Jordan Park/Laurel Heights 1 Parker Ave Speed Humps Planned Jordan Park/Laurel Heights 1 Spruce St Speed Humps Planned Jordan Park/Laurel Heights 2 California Ped Island Planned Jordan Park/Laurel Heights 2 California Ped Island Planned Jordan Park/Laurel Heights 2 Spruce Ped Islands Planned Jordan Park/Laurel Heights 2 Laurel Ped Islands Planned P:\Prop K\SP-5YPP\2013 Update\5YPP etc\ep 38\TC ImplementationRemainingCostEstimates.xlsx Page 7 of 13

57 54 Plan Phase Location Status Jordan Park/Laurel Heights 2 Euclid Speed Hump Planned Jordan Park/Laurel Heights 2 Mayfair Speed Hump Planned Jordan Park/Laurel Heights 3 Heather Ped Islands Planned Jordan Park/Laurel Heights 3 Parker Traffic Circle Planned Jordan Park/Laurel Heights 3 Collins Traffic Circle Planned Minna/Natoma Minna/Natoma 1 Natoma/14th St Raised Crosswalk Complete Minna/Natoma 1 Minna/14th Raised Crosswalk Complete Minna/Natoma 1 Capp/16th St Raised Crosswalk Planned Minna/Natoma 1 Adair/Capp Raised Crosswalk Complete Minna/Natoma 1 Minna btwn 14th St and 15th St Speed Hump Complete Minna/Natoma 1 Natoma btwn 14th St and 15th St Speed hump Complete Minna/Natoma 1 Capp btwn Adair and 15th St Speed hump Underway Minna/Natoma 1 15th St/SVN-Natoma SPEED HUMP Underway Minna/Natoma 1 Minna btwn 14th St and 15th St WS Edge Line Complete Minna/Natoma 1 Natoma btwn 14th St and 15th St ES Edge Line Complete Minna/Natoma 1 15th St btwn SVN and Minna Edge Lines Complete Minna/Natoma 1 Capp St btwn 15th-16th Sts Edge Lines Underway Minna/Natoma 1 Adair St btwn Capp-SVN NS Edge Line Complete Minna/Natoma 1 Raised Crosswalk - Minna/15th Planned Minna/Natoma 1 Raised Crosswalk Natoma/15th Planned Minna/Natoma 1 Raised Crosswalk 15th/Capp Planned Minna/Natoma 1 Raised Crosswalk 15th/Mission Planned Minna/Natoma 1 Raised Crosswalk Adair/SVN Planned Minna/Natoma 2 Sidewalk Bulb-out, Capp, btwn 15th-Adair Planned Minna/Natoma 2 Permeable Paving MinnaNatomaAdair Future Funding North Bernal Heights North Bernal Heights 1 Tiffany Speed Humps Complete North Bernal Heights 1 Left Turn Lane Chavez/Mission Complete North Bernal Heights 1 Reverse Direction of SJ Avenue Complete North Bernal Heights 2 Tiffany/Duncan Barrier Complete North Bernal Heights 2 Alabama/Cesar Chavez Signal Complete North Bernal Heights 2 SJ/Guerrero Bulb-out Complete North Bernal Heights 2 Folsom/Precita Bulb-outs Complete North Bernal Heights 2 Gateway bulb-outs at Folsom/Chavez Complete North Bernal Heights 3 Folsom Chicanes (Trial) Complete North Bernal Heights 3 Alabama Chicanes (Trial) Complete North Bernal Heights 4 Folsom Chicanes (Build-out) Complete P:\Prop K\SP-5YPP\2013 Update\5YPP etc\ep 38\TC ImplementationRemainingCostEstimates.xlsx Page 8 of 13

58 55 Plan Phase Location Status North Bernal Heights 4 Alabama Chicanes (Build out) Complete North Bernal Heights 4 Precita Elbow Complete North Bernal Heights 4 Stoneman Chicanes/Median Rejected North Bernal Heights 5 Precita Speed Humps west of Folsom Complete North Bernal Heights 5 Alabama/Mullen Bulb Complete North Bernal Heights 6 Sidewalks on Folsom and BHB Complete North Bernal Heights 6 BHB/Esmeralda Reconfiguration Underway North Bernal Heights 6 Gateway bulb-outs at Cesar Chavez Underway North Bernal Heights FF Tiffany/29th Bulb-out Planned North Bernal Heights FF BHB/Esmeralda Reconfiguration Planned North Bernal Heights FF Alabama/Norwich Bulb Rejected O'Shaughnessy O'Shaughnessy 1 Striping edgelines, 25 MPH legends Complete O'Shaughnessy 1 Trial Gateway Median Island Installation Complete O'Shaughnessy 2 Build out median Complete O'Shaughnessy FF Build columns, improve lighting Future Funding Potrero Hill Potrero Hill 1 19th St btwn Carolina and Wisconsin - speed hump Complete Potrero Hill 1 Mariposa at Vermont - gateway island Complete Potrero Hill 1 Mariposa at Pennsylvania - gateway island Rejected Potrero Hill 1 Rhode Island at Southern Heights - bulbout Rejected Potrero Hill 1 Rhode Island at Southern Heights - island Complete Potrero Hill 1 Kansas btwn 26th and 23rd - islands, edgelines Complete Potrero Hill 2 Vermont btwn Mariposa and 17th St - road diet (painted) Underway Potrero Hill 2 Crest of Hill - Various Locations Underway Potrero Hill 2 Mariposa at Mississippi - gateway island Underway Potrero Hill 2 Pennsylvania btwn 20th and 22nd - edgelines Underway Potrero Hill 2 Pennsylvania btwn 22nd and 23rd - edgelines, angled parking Underway Potrero Hill 2 23rd St at Kansas - gateway island Underway Potrero Hill 3 Vermont btwn Mariposa and 17th St - road diet with landscaped island Planned Potrero Hill 3 Rhode Island at 20th St - island Planned Potrero Hill 4 19th at Carolina - choker Planned Potrero Hill 5 Kansas at 26th - gateway island Planned Potrero Hill 5 26th St btwn Kansas and De Haro - chicane (painted island trial) Underway Potrero Hill FF 17th St at Arkansas - bulbouts Future Funding Potrero Hill FF 17th St at Carolina - bulbouts Future Funding Potrero Hill FF 20th St at Missouri - bulbouts Future Funding Potrero Hill FF 20th St at Texas - bulbouts Future Funding P:\Prop K\SP-5YPP\2013 Update\5YPP etc\ep 38\TC ImplementationRemainingCostEstimates.xlsx Page 9 of 13

59 56 Plan Phase Location Status Potrero Hill FF Mariposa btwn Arkansas and Carolina - midblock xwalk with bulbout Future Funding Potrero Hill FF 17th St at Missouri - bulbouts Future Funding Potrero Hill FF Mariposa at Carolina - bulbouts Future Funding Potrero Hill FF Mariposa at Arkansas - bulbouts Future Funding Potrero Hill FF DeHaro at 18th St - bulbouts Future Funding Potrero Hill FF DeHaro at 19th St - bulbouts Future Funding Potrero Hill FF 18th St at Vermont - bulbouts Future Funding Potrero Hill FF 19t St at Vermont - bulbouts Future Funding Potrero Hill FF 18th St at Kansas - bulbouts Future Funding Potrero Hill FF 19th St at Kansas - bulbouts Future Funding 7th St, Bryant to Brannan - convert from one- to two-way (restriping, signal work, relocate Potrero Hill FF meters, signage) Future Funding Potrero Hill FF Potrero Hill Public Housing redesign Future Funding Randolph/Broad Randolph/Broad 1 Evaluate STOP sign controls in area Complete Randolph/Broad 1 Edgelines Complete Randolph/Broad 2 19th Ave Bike Lanes (Randolph to Beverly) Underway Randolph/Broad 2 Orizaba at Randolph, Move stop Rejected Randolph/Broad 2 Randolph at Victoria Future Funding Randolph/Broad FF Randolph at Bright Ave Future Funding Randolph/Broad FF Randolph at Head Ave Future Funding Randolph/Broad FF Randolph at 19th Ave Future Funding Saint Francis Wood Saint Francis Wood 1 Yerba Buena Wy btwn Santa Paula Ave and Santa Clara Ave Hump Complete Saint Francis Wood 1 Santa Clara Ave btwn St. Francis Blvd and Monterey Blvd cushion Complete Saint Francis Wood 1 Santa Ana Ave btwn Portola Dr and St. Francis Blvd hump Complete Saint Francis Wood 1 Santa Ana Ave btwn St. Francis Blvd and Monterey Blvd hump Complete Saint Francis Wood 1 San Benito Wy btwn Portola Dr and St. Francis Blvd hump Complete Saint Francis Wood 1 San Benito Wy btwn St. Francis Blvd and Monterey Blvd hump Complete Saint Francis Wood 1 Santa Ana Ave at San Anselmo and Portola Dr channelization Planned Saint Francis Wood 1 Santa Clara Ave btwn St. Francis Blvd and San Anselmo Ave hump Complete Saint Francis Wood 1 San Fernando Wy btwn St. Francis Blvd and Portola Dr hump Complete Saint Francis Wood 1 San Fernando Wy btwn St. Francis Blvd and Monterey hump Complete Saint Francis Wood 1 San Pablo Ave btwn Yerba Buena Ave and Santa Monica Wy hump Complete Saint Francis Wood 1 San Pablo Ave btwn Santa Monica Wy and Portola Dr hump Complete Saint Francis Wood 1 Yerba Buena Ave at San Pablo Ave island Rejected Saint Francis Wood 2 Santa Clara Ave at Yerba Buena Ave channelization, landscaping Underway Saint Francis Wood 2 Yerba Buena btwn Miraloma and San Pablo hump Complete P:\Prop K\SP-5YPP\2013 Update\5YPP etc\ep 38\TC ImplementationRemainingCostEstimates.xlsx Page 10 of 13

60 57 Plan Phase Location Status Saint Francis Wood 3 Santa Clara Ave intersection north of Monterey island, choker, bulb out Complete Saint Francis Wood FF Yerba Buena Ave at Santa Paula Ave island Future Funding Saint Francis Wood FF San Anselmo Ave at St. Francis Blvd island Future Funding Saint Francis Wood FF Other Measures to Address Unanticipated Impacts Future Funding Silver Terrace Silver Terrace 1 Scotia btwn Silver and Quint Speed hump Underway Silver Terrace 1 Topeka btwn Silver and Quint Speed hump Complete Silver Terrace 1 Thornton btwn Waterville and Mercury hump Underway Silver Terrace 1 Latona btwn Thornton and Bayview Speed hump Underway Silver Terrace 1 Williams at Apollo and at Ceres Islands Underway Silver Terrace 1 Maddux btwn Quint and Thomas (Choker) Now HUMP Underway Silver Terrace 1 Thornton btwn Neptune and Diana Speed hump Complete Silver Terrace 1 Quesada btwn Third and Newhall Speed humps Complete Silver Terrace 1 Revere btwn Third and Newhall Speed hump Complete Silver Terrace 2 Williams/Vesta Bulb Planned Silver Terrace 2 Bridgeview/Topeka bulb Planned Silver Terrace 2 Silver Gateways at Ledyard, Scotia, Topeka Planned Silver Terrace FF Bridgeview/Newhall bulb Future Funding Silver Terrace FF Third St Gateway at Quesada Future Funding Silver Terrace FF Third St Gateway at Revere/Bayview Future Funding South Bernal Heights South Bernal Heights 2 St. Mary's Alemany/Justin Bulb-out Complete South Bernal Heights 2 Crescent/Mission/College channelization Complete South Bernal Heights 2 Virginia/Coleridge Circle Complete South Bernal Heights 2 Holly Park/Elsie Complete South Bernal Heights 2 St. Mary's College/Genebern Circle Complete South Bernal Heights 2 St. Mary's Mission/Murray Bulb-out Complete South Bernal Heights 2 St. Mary's Genebern/Murray Circle Complete South Bernal Heights 2 St. Mary's Genebern/Justin Circle Complete South Bernal Heights 2 Virginia/Elsie/Eugenia Channelization Complete South Bernal Heights 2 Andover Speed Humps Complete South Bernal Heights 2 BHB Speed Humps Upper Complete South Bernal Heights 2 Crescent Cushions Complete South Bernal Heights 2 Andover Bulb-outs Complete South Bernal Heights 2 BHB Sidewalk Upper Complete South Bernal Heights 2 Patton School Crosswalks Complete South Bernal Heights 2 Crescent School Crosswalks Complete South Bernal Heights 2 Crescent Bike Lane/Striping Complete P:\Prop K\SP-5YPP\2013 Update\5YPP etc\ep 38\TC ImplementationRemainingCostEstimates.xlsx Page 11 of 13

61 58 Plan Phase Location Status South Bernal Heights 2 Crescent Bulb-outs (Agnon) Underway South Bernal Heights 2 Patton Speed Hump Planned South Bernal Heights 2 Crescent Bulb-outs (Murray) Underway South Bernal Heights 4 Richland Speed Humps Complete South Bernal Heights 4 Esmeralda Ped Corridor Textured Paving Complete South Bernal Heights 4 Mayflower Textured Paving Complete South Bernal Heights 4 BHB New Sidewalk and Island at BHB/Nevada/Powhattan Complete South Bernal Heights 4 Alemany /Crescent/Putnam Reconfiguration Planned South Bernal Heights 4 Bocana/Wool Striping Rejected South Bernal Heights 4 Alemany Bulbouts Rejected South Bernal Heights FF Revere School Bulb-outs Future Funding South Bernal Heights FF Holly Park Bulb-outs Future Funding Sunnyside Sunnyside 1 Flood Ave between Detroit and Edna Rejected Operational improvements - various locations: Congo St btwn Stillings and Martha red zone, Acadia at Joost tall veh restriction, Monterey and Circular yield sign and teeth, WS Forester north of Monterey block off driveway, Sunnyside 1 Monterey at Edna center STOP marking Complete Sunnyside 1 Mangels Ave between Foerster and Gennessee Complete Sunnyside 1 Mangels Ave between Foerster and Detroit Complete Sunnyside 1 Hearst Ave between Foerster and Gennessee Complete Sunnyside 1 Staples Street between Foerster and Gennessee Complete Sunnyside 1 Joost Ave between Edna and Foerster Complete Sunnyside 1 Mangels Ave between Detroit and Congo Complete Sunnyside 1 Intersection of Joost and Lippard median island Complete Sunnyside 1 Intersection of Monterey Boulevard and Circular expand median Underway Sunnyside 1 Joost between Acadia and Lippard 90 degree parking Rejected Sunnyside 2 Intersection of Hearst and Baden traffic circle Underway Sunnyside 3 Intersection of Acadia and Joost traffic circle Planned Sunnyside Intersection of Joost and Monterey expand median Complete Teresita Boulevard Teresita Boulevard 1 Teresita Chokers Ph. 1 Complete Teresita Boulevard 1 Teresita Speed Cushion (Sequoia-Gaviota) Complete Teresita Boulevard 1 Teresita Speed Cushion (Isola-Reposa) Complete Teresita Boulevard 1 Speed Radar Marrieta Complete Teresita Boulevard 1 Speed Radar Melrose Complete Teresita Boulevard 2 Teresita/Bella Vista Channelization I Complete Teresita Boulevard 2 Teresita/Bella Vista Channelization II Complete P:\Prop K\SP-5YPP\2013 Update\5YPP etc\ep 38\TC ImplementationRemainingCostEstimates.xlsx Page 12 of 13

62 59 Plan Phase Location Status Teresita Boulevard 2 Teresita Chokers Ph. 2 Planned Teresita Boulevard 3 Teresita/Marrieta Complete Teresita Boulevard 3 Teresita/Fowler Islands Planned Teresita Boulevard 3 Teresita Chokers Ph. 3 Planned West Portal West Portal 1 17th Ave Choker Complete West Portal 2 Wawona Choker Complete West Portal 3 14th/Vicente - Circle/Channelization Planned West Portal 3 16th and 18th Ave Treatment Planned West Portal 3 Edgelines (14th Ave - Vicente to Ulloa) Planned West Portal 3 14th Ave Choker - Vicente to Ulloa Planned P:\Prop K\SP-5YPP\2013 Update\5YPP etc\ep 38\TC ImplementationRemainingCostEstimates.xlsx Page 13 of 13

63 60 Area-wideTrafic Calmin gprojects ¼ 0 ½ 1Miles FARRELL, District 2 Broadway CHIU, District 3 SFMTAAreawideProjects STATUS Plan Comp lete MAR, District 1 25th Ave Central Richmond Lake St Jordan Park/Laurel Heights Fillmore SOMA Alleyways KIM, District 6 In Plan n in g PreviouslyDefin edareawide ProjectsledbyotherSFagen cies Sup ervisordistricts Divisadero BREED, District 5 Plan Complete: core p rop osed devices are in the p ip elin eforimp lemen tation 18th Ave Kirkham Street Inner Sunset Clayton Street Buena Vista-Roosevelt-17th St WIENER, District 8 Minna-Natoma Folsom St N. Potrero Hill In Planning: commun ity p rocess is on goin g, an d p rop osed devices wilbe added to imp lemen tation p ip elin e Previously defined areawide: accep tedap p lication sin theseareaswilbeaddressedassite-sp ecificp rojects TANG, District 4 Dewey Diamond Heights Blvd 24th St Valencia Mission St (S of Cesar Chavez) Cesar Chavez N. Bernal Hgts S. Potrero Hill COHEN, District 10 Crestlake West Portal St. Francis Wood Cerritos-Cedro 19th Holloway-Garfield Avenue Randolph-Broad YEE, District 7 O'Shaughnessy Teresita Sunnyside Circular Ocean AVALOS, District 11 Rolph/Naples Glen Park Excelsior S. Bernal Hgts CAMPOS, District 9 Silver Terrace Bayview Disclaimer: TheCityan dcoun tyofsan Fran ciscodoesn otguaran teetheaccuracy, adequacy,comp leten essorusefuln essofan yin formation.thecitydoes n otwaran tthep osition alorthematicaccuracyofthegisdata.thegis dataan dcartograp hicdigitalfilesaren otlegalrep resen tation softhe dep icteddata. In formation shown on thesemap sisderivedfrom p ublic recordsthatarecon stan tlyun dergoin gchan ge.un dern ocircumstan ces shalgismap p in gbeusedforfin aldesign p urp oses.thecityp rovides thisin formation on an "asis"basiswithoutwaran tyofan ykin d,exp ressor imp lied,in cludin gbutn otlimitedtowaran tiesofmerchan tabilityorfitn ess forap articularp urp ose,an dassumesn oresp on sibilityforan yon e suseof thein formation.