Memorandum. Date: RE: Citizens Advisory Committee

Transcription

1 Memorandum Date: RE: Citizens Advisory Committee April 27, 2011 To: From: Subject: Summary Citizens Advisory Committee Anna LaForte Deputy Director for Policy and Programming ACTION Adopt a Motion of Support for the Programming of $579,000 in San Francisco Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Capital Funds to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency for the Sunset Elementary School and AP Giannini Middle School SR2S Project In December 2009, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) adopted the framework for programming funds anticipated under the yet-to-be-developed six-year federal surface transportation act. The first funding cycle (Cycle 1) covers Fiscal Years 2009/ /12 and includes several grant programs, one of which is MTC s new Safe Routes to School Program (SR2S). MTC designated $17 million in federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program funds for Cycle 1 of the SR2S program. The intent of this program is to complement existing state and federal SR2S programs, furthering implementation of SR2S programs region-wide. MTC s program also has an overall goal of significantly reducing vehicle emissions stemming from school-related travel. Of the $17 million, $2 million was made available through a region-wide competitive call for projects and $15 million was been distributed among the nine Bay Area counties based on K-12 school enrollment. San Francisco s share is $1,079,000. We have been working with the San Francisco Safe Routes to School Coalition to develop a two-pronged approach (i.e., education/outreach and capital projects) to enhance the existing SR2S efforts in San Francisco and best achieve the objectives for SR2S set by MTC. On January 20, 2011, we issued a call for San Francisco SR2S capital projects applications to San Francisco project sponsors. By the March 8, 2011 deadline, we received one project application from the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) for a SR2S project at Sunset Elementary School and AP Giannini Middle School, requesting all $579,000 in available SR2S capital funds. At its March 23, 2011 meeting, the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) deferred the consideration of this item to the April meeting to provide an opportunity for an SFMTA project manager to respond to concerns raised by a few members of the CAC. We are seeking a motion of support to program $579,000 in San Francisco SR2S capital funds to the SFMTA for the Sunset Elementary School and AP Giannini Middle School SR2S Project. BACKGROUND On December 16, 2009, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) adopted the framework for programming funds anticipated under the yet-to-be-developed six-year federal surface transportation act. The first funding cycle (Cycle 1) covers Fiscal Years 2009/ /12 and includes several grant programs, many of which are managed by the respective county Congestion Management Agency (CMAs), such as the Authority in San Francisco. One of these programs is MTC s new Safe Routes to School Program (SR2S). The intent of this program is to complement existing state and federal SR2S programs, furthering implementation of SR2S programs region-wide. MTC s program also has an overall goal of significantly reducing vehicle emissions stemming from school-related travel. MTC designated $17 million in federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds for Cycle 1 of the SR2S program. Of this amount, $2 million was made available through a region-wide competitive call for projects and $15 million was distributed among the nine Bay Area counties based on K-12 school enrollment. San Francisco s share of the $15 million pool is $1,079,000, which is administered by the Authority. M:\Meetings\Memo to CAC\2011\04-Apr 2011\SR2S - Capital Project FINAL.doc Page 1 of 5

2 We have been working with the San Francisco Safe Routes to School Coalition (Coalition) to develop a two-pronged approach (i.e., education/outreach and capital projects) to enhance the existing SR2S efforts in San Francisco and best achieve the objectives for MTC s SR2S program. The Coalition is led by the Department of Public Health (DPH) with support from program partners including the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD), the Department of Children, Youth and Families, the Police Department and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA). On July 20, 2010, through Resolution 11-08, the Authority Board programmed $500,000 in Fiscal Year 2010/11 SR2S funds to the DPH for the SR2S Education and Outreach Program. That program will begin in the 2011/12 school year and will last through the 2012/13 school year. The remaining $579,000 for the San Francisco SR2S capital projects program is the subject of this memorandum. The purpose of this memorandum is to present the staff recommendation for programming $579,000 in San Francisco SR2S capital funds to the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), and to seek a motion of support for its approval. DISCUSSION MTC s SR2S Program is intended to fund projects that significantly reduce vehicle emissions stemming from K-12, school-related travel. In accordance with MTC and CMAQ (the fund source for the SR2S program) guidelines, the SR2S capital projects program is designed to help fund infrastructure improvements that fall within the following general categories: On-street bicycle facilities Off-street bicycle/pedestrian facilities Pedestrian/bicycle crossing improvements Traffic calming and speed reduction Traffic diversion improvements MTC guidelines require a minimum 11.47% local match for SR2S funds. On January 20, 2011, we issued a call for San Francisco SR2S capital project applications for $579,000 in available funds. The SR2S capital project funds are programmed in Fiscal Year 2011/12, which means they can only be used to fund only one project phase. Therefore, we determined that it was best to reserve the funds for the construction phase. By the March 8, 2011 deadline, we received one project application from the SFMTA for a SR2S project at Sunset Elementary School and AP Giannini Middle School, requesting all $579,000 in San Francisco SR2S capital funds. Project Description: The SFMTA is seeking to improve Ortega Street at the entrances of Sunset Elementary School and AP Giannini Middle School between 37 th Avenue and 41 st Avenue. Proposed improvements include median islands, sidewalk bulb-outs, raised crosswalks, angled parking, and a landscaped island (see Attachment 1 in Attachment A). This project will help to encourage more children and parents to walk or bike to school, thereby reducing the amount of vehicle travel and related emissions, by shortening crossing distances, improving the visibility of pedestrians, providing a pedestrian refuge and slowing traffic on the street and at the school parking lot entrances. M:\Meetings\Memo to CAC\2011\04-Apr 2011\SR2S - Capital Project FINAL.doc Page 2 of 5

3 This project is currently in the planning and conceptual design phase. The SFMTA has indicated that design is currently about 10% complete and it has much more extensive school and public outreach planned to vet design options. The SFMTA intends to complete the planning and environmental clearance phase, which was informed by a SR2S walking audit, by July Design will be 30% complete at the conclusion of this phase. This work is being funded by the SFMTA s operating budget. The SFMTA intends to begin final design in July 2011 and finish it by January The construction contract will be advertised in May 2012 and awarded in November The SFMTA will begin construction in December 2012 and complete it by December A detailed schedule and line item budget for the project are on pages 11 and 12, respectively, of Attachment A. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is replacing a groundwater supply pipeline on Ortega Street between January 2013 and November This matches the construction project for this SR2S project and the SFMTA will coordinate sequencing of construction with the PUC and the San Francisco Department of Public Works. Evaluation Process: We evaluated the single application that we received to determine it met all of the eligibility and screening criteria shown in Attachment B, which it did. One of the key factors that we looked for was if the selected project was prioritized through a SR2S walking audit process. Walking audits are a crucial piece of a successful SR2S program because they provide an opportunity for a collaborative (e.g., agency, school district and parents) and systematic gathering of data about environmental conditions (social, built, and natural) that affect the choices made by parents and students regarding walking or biking to school. Through our existing on-call planning contract, we recently arranged for a consultant well-versed in SR2S issues (Parisi Associates) to train SFMTA staff and other Coalition members in conducting walking audits. Along with training SFMTA staff, the consultant developed outreach materials for the SFMTA to use to coordinate walking audits (Attachment C). The first walking audit that was as part of this program was in May 2010 at Sunset Elementary School and AP Giannini Middle School and it is the impetus behind the project proposed in the SR2S application. The SR2S funds have a regional project delivery deadline that requires submittal of the obligation package for construction by February 1, Failure to meet the deadline can result in loss of funds to the project and San Francisco. We are concerned that the six-month timeline for final design (July 2011 February 2012) is a tight schedule compared to the typical design timeline for comparable SFMTA projects. Therefore, as a condition of programming these funds we will require monthly check-ins with the SFMTA project manager to help ensure that the project is proceeding on schedule and can meet the February 1 deadline. The SFMTA has indicated that this project is a high priority and it anticipates being able to meet the deadline. Update Since March 23 CAC Meeting: At its March 23, 2011 meeting, the CAC deferred the consideration of this project to the April meeting to provide an opportunity for an SFMTA project manager to respond to concerns raised by a few members of the CAC. These concerns included the following: 1) the angled parking seemed to increase the possible conflict between students and vehicles by moving some of the drop-off and pick-up out to the street and increasing reverse driving movements; 2) the median island at 41 st Avenue conflicted with the placement of the crossing guard and was not located where people were making u-turns, which it was purported to prevent; 3) the raised crosswalks and curb bulbs at the school exits and entrances seemed like they would be addressing issues that resulted from the angled parking; and 4) the interventions were not focused on the correct section of the school area, according to the walk/bike map and the student location map, and there should be more focus on Sunset Boulevard, Noriega Street and Taraval Street as they had higher incidences of speeding and pedestrian collisions. M:\Meetings\Memo to CAC\2011\04-Apr 2011\SR2S - Capital Project FINAL.doc Page 3 of 5

4 On April 13, 2011, Authority and SFMTA staff met with CAC members Robert Switzer and Glenn Davis to review the concerns. The SFMTA agreed to the following next steps in addition to attending the April CAC meeting to respond to questions from committee members. First, the SFMTA will provide a broader context for the project by providing a brief overview of a number of pedestrian safety and traffic signal projects that are currently underway on Sunset Boulevard. In particular, funding has been secured to install new traffic signals at four intersections (Kirkham, Quintara, Santiago, and Ulloa) along Sunset Boulevard and to add pedestrian signals at four additional intersections (Lawton, Pacheco, Rivera, Vicente) (Attachment D). Second, the SFMTA will expand its field work to a broader radius around Sunset Elementary and AP Giannini Middle. The additional field work will include, but will not be limited, to performing school-peak period pedestrian counts at select intersections along Sunset Boulevard, investigating other concerns that the SFMTA has logged within the vicinity of the school and investigating other specific concerns identified through the community outreach process. Third, the SFMTA will expand its effort to do public outreach, particularly to parents and community members that reside east of Sunset Boulevard. Public meetings for the project will include a PTA meeting in April 2011 and a community meeting in May The SFMTA s internal review process will occur in June 2011 with the public hearing in July Fourth, the SFMTA has recorded the CAC s feedback on the conceptual design, including issues with the angled parking and median islands, and it will be considered along with other public comment in developing the conceptual and final design for the project. Prop K Request for Final Design: As part of the Fiscal Year 2011/12 Prop K Annual Call for Projects, the SFMTA has submitted a request for $100,000 in Prop K funds for final design of this project. The annual call is included as a separate information item on the April 27 CAC agenda. It will return to the CAC as an action item in May for Board approval in June. This would make funds available for final design in July, consistent with the SFMTA s proposed schedule. The SFMTA will submit a request for $75,000 in Prop K funds for the local match to the construction phase in winter 2012, to correspond with the completion of the design phase and the beginning of construction. The SFMTA has proposed funding both phases with Prop K funds from the Traffic Calming category. We are seeking a motion of support to program $579,000 in San Francisco SR2S capital funds to the SFMTA for the Sunset Elementary School and AP Giannini Middle School SR2S Project. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt a motion of support for the programming of $579,000 in San Francisco SR2S capital funds to the SFMTA for the Sunset Elementary School and AP Giannini Middle School SR2S Project. 2. Adopt a motion of support for the programming of $579,000 in San Francisco SR2S capital funds to the SFMTA for the Sunset Elementary School and AP Giannini Middle School SR2S Project, with modifications. 3. Defer action, pending additional information or further staff analysis. FINANCIAL IMPACTS There are no impacts on the Authority s Fiscal Year 2010/11 budget associated with the recommended action. M:\Meetings\Memo to CAC\2011\04-Apr 2011\SR2S - Capital Project FINAL.doc Page 4 of 5

5 RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion of support for the programming of $579,000 in San Francisco SR2S capital funds to the SFMTA for the Sunset Elementary School and AP Giannini Middle School SR2S Project. Attachments A. Sunset Elementary School and AP Giannini Middle School Safe Routes to School Project Application B. San Francisco Safe Routes to School Capital Project Program Prioritization Process C. San Francisco Safe Routes to School Walking Audit Flyer D. Outer Sunset Traffic Signal Projects Overview Map M:\Meetings\Memo to CAC\2011\04-Apr 2011\SR2S - Capital Project FINAL.doc Page 5 of 5

6 San Francisco County Transportation Authority Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Capital Projects Program Application Due: 5:00 pm, March 8, 2011 A. PROGRAM INFORMATION Project Sponsor 1 Agency San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) Contact person Mark Lui Address 1 South Van Ness Avenue, 8 th Floor San Francisco, CA address mark.lui@sfmta.com Telephone number Fax Other Partner Agencies (e.g. all parties that will receive funding) Agency Contact Person Address Telephone Not Applicable School Representative for the Project Nik Kaestner, Director of Sustainability San Francisco Unified School District 135 Van Ness Avenue, Room 215A San Francisco, CA kaestnern@sfusd.edu Brief Description of Program (including name and location of selected school): The SFMTA is pursuing SFCTA Safe Routes to School (SRTS) funding for Sunset Elementary School and nearby AP Giannini Middle School. The SFMTA is seeking to improve Ortega Street at the two school entrances between 37 th and 41 st Avenues in San Francisco. The capital funds will be used to provide a safer route to school for students wishing to walk or bicycle to and from the school. Proposed improvements include median islands, sidewalk bulb-outs, raised crosswalks, angled parking, and a landscaped island. These traffic calming devices and pedestrian improvements will help reduce the wide open feel of this wide residential street and encourage motorists to reduce speeds. It will also help encourage more children and parents to walk or bike to and from school. 1 Project sponsor is the agency that will administer the project. Since SR2S projects are federally-funded, the project sponsor must be capable of entering into a Master Agreement with Caltrans. Page 1 of 13

7 B. PROJECT ELIGIBILITY 1. Is the applicant project sponsor eligible to directly receive SR2S funds (e.g. does the sponsor have a Master Agreement with Caltrans)? The SFMTA is eligible to directly receive SRTS funds. We have several active federal SRTS projects that use the State Master Agreement with Caltrans. 2. Describe how the scope elements are eligible for federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds. Please also describe how the project will reduce school-related vehicle travel. Section 5 in the call for projects and Attachment 2 contain more information on project eligibility. This is CMAQ eligible because this project will significantly increase walking and biking to and from school and greatly reduces the number of vehicle trips and related vehicle emissions. This project will provide pedestrian and bicycle crossing improvements, sidewalk improvements, traffic calming and speed reduction in the study area. By providing these improvements, more students will be encouraged to walk or bicycle to school. This project builds on a walking audit funded by a noninfrastructure federal Safe Routes To School (SRTS) Program administered by the San Francisco Department of Public Health (SFDPH). As part of the San Francisco Safe Routes to School Program, the SFMTA, SFDPH, and the San Francisco Unified School District found that 61% of the students at Sunset Elementary School live within 1 mile of the school yet about 70% of the students arrive by car according to a parent/student survey conducted at the school and only 16% of the students walked or biked to school. When parents were asked why they don t let their children walk or bike to school, over 50% responded that this is due to intersection safety and speeding concerns. The survey also finds that for parents who currently do not let their kids walk or bike to school, over 30% of them say they will change their decision and will allow their kids to walk or bike to school if safety improvements are made to address intersection safety and speeding. Another 7% said they would consider changing their decision. 3. Will the project sponsor be able to submit an obligation package, which includes final design and proof of CEQA and NEPA clearance, for construction funds to Caltrans by February 1, 2012? What is the current % complete of design? The SFMTA will submit a construction obligation package to Caltrans by February 1, The project is at approximately 10 percent design and is currently moving forward with planning and outreach to complete the conceptual design and meet the needs of the schools and area residents. Page 2 of 13

8 4. Describe how scope elements are consistent with the 2009 Regional Transportation Plan and the San Francisco Countywide Transportation Plan (e.g. cite the RTP project number). The Safe Routes to School projects in this Call for Projects are consistent with the 2009 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the San Francisco Countywide Transportation Plan. The 2009 RTP s vision is primarily based on the three E Principle. It meets the Environment Principle by reducing vehicle miles travelled (and increasing walking and bicycling) and the Equity Principle by developing a more livable community through streetscape improvements. The 2009 Regional Transportation Plan specifically calls out the implementation of a traffic calming program (reference number 21503), aimed at reducing auto traffic speeds and improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety throughout San Francisco. This project is consistent with the San Francisco Countywide Transportation Plan s New Expenditure Plan for Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements. It specifically fits into the programmed improvements for Traffic Calming and helps address safety and circulation issues associated with bicycle circulation and safety, pedestrian circulation and safety, and the installation of curb ramps meeting current guidelines. C. PROJECT NARRATIVE Project Need/Goals and Objectives 1. Describe the transportation need that the proposed project seeks to address and how project elements will meet that need. The transportation need for this project is to improve bicycle and pedestrian access to Sunset and AP Giannini schools. There is also a need to improve conditions for students riding transit and accessing the schools from Muni stops on Sunset Boulevard. The community s safety concerns within the Outer Sunset Schools project area include high traffic speeds, illegal U-turns, failure to yield the right of way to pedestrians, and the wide street width. The goals of this project are to improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders and encourage more students to walk and bike to school. Specifically, this project will increase traffic control, reduce vehicular speeding, and reduce crossing distances for pedestrians at the project site through physical improvements on Ortega Street as described here. Improvements currently anticipated include (See Attachment 1 Existing and Proposed Plan): Design and Construct Curb Bulbs: Two new curb bulbs (with ADAcompliant curb ramps) to shorten crossing distances and make student pedestrians more visible to motorists. These are proposed at the Ortega crossings at 38 th and 39 th Avenues. Page 3 of 13

9 Design and Construct New Median Island: Addition of a median island to slow down motorists (especially left turning traffic), to provide a refuge for pedestrians, and to reduce the incidence of illegal U-turns and double parking. This island will also provide a place for pedestrians who cannot complete the crossing in one stretch, shortening the crossing distances. This median is proposed on the west end of the block between 38 th and 39 th Avenues. Design and Construct Pedestrian Refuge Islands: Addition of two pedestrian refuge islands will provide a safe place for pedestrians that cannot complete the crossing by shortening crossing distances, and making pedestrians more visible to motorists. Refuge islands will serve as entry treatments to the four block project area, at the 37 th and 41 st Avenue intersections. Design and Construct Raised Crosswalks: Installation of raised crosswalks across three of the school driveways will slow motorists entering the parking lots from all directions. These raised crosswalks help emphasize the driveway as an area where pedestrians should be expected. Additionally, a raised crosswalk is proposed for the southern leg of the Ortega Street/37 th Avenue intersection. This will provide an improved crossing for students between the Muni stops on Sunset Boulevard and the schools. Raised crosswalks are traffic calming devices designed as long speed humps with flat sections in the middle allowing for gradual slowing of vehicles. Installation of Angled Parking: Ortega Street is a wide roadway with one travel lane in each direction and a parking lane on each side. This project will modify the on-street parking where feasible, from parallel parking to front pull-in angled parking. This will decrease the amount of space dedicated to the travel lanes and lead to slower vehicle speeds. 2. Describe the specific school community this project will serve, and provide pertinent demographic data, transportation data, and/or maps. Please indicate and describe the nonmotorized mode share (walking, biking) of all trips to the school. Existing Conditions The project location is in the Outer Sunset, an urban residential neighborhood. The housing stock consists mostly of single-family units; however, the attached houses create a dense, urban environment of over 18,000 people per square mile. Approximately half of the AP Giannini and Sunset students live in the neighborhood and others are bussed from different areas of San Francisco. Next year, as the San Francisco Unified School District moves to a neighborhood school policy, the number of students living within a close proximity to the two schools will increase. Page 4 of 13

10 The street grid is characterized by long blocks in the north-south direction (~600'), short blocks in the east-west direction (~250') and very wide streets with relatively low traffic volumes. Due to the neighborhood's proximity to the ocean and prevalence of fog, there are few trees in the Outer Sunset. At 50 feet wide with only one through lane and one parking lane in each direction, no medians, and 1,835 Average Daily Traffic (the majority of which is concentrated in the pick-up and drop-off peak periods), Ortega Street is typical of the area. In addition, Ortega has a downhill slope of 5% east to west. Three north-south avenues dead-end on Ortega due to the presence of the schools. Ortega traffic is uncontrolled at three of five study area intersections. Due to these characteristics (wide lanes, downhill slope, low traffic volumes, absence of trees and long stretches without traffic controls), motorists speed through the area despite the posted speed limit and school area signage. The wide street and dead ends also invite motorists to perform three-point U-turns in the street during school drop-off and pick-up times, causing confusion and a safety issue when the area is most crowded with students. Walking Routes (See Attachment 2 Walking/Biking/Transit Map) The San Francisco Safe Routes to School Program worked with Sunset Elementary School officials and parents to create a walking map for students and parents to use in determining a route to school. The walking routes identified are Noriega and Ortega Streets on the east-west and 39 th and 41 st Avenues as the primary north-south routes. The all-way STOP controls at 39 th and 41 st Avenues at Ortega Street and the adult crossing guard at 41 st Avenue make these the ideal walking routes. In addition, many of the north-south streets to the east of 37 th Avenue and west of 41 st Avenue were identified as good walking routes. The intention of the proposed project is to increase pedestrian and walking safety and comfort along the main east-west walking route (Ortega Street). Bicycle Routes (See Attachment 2 Walking/Biking/Transit Map) Streets parallel to Ortega are attractive choices for bicycling due to the flat wide roadways. An official signed bicycle facility exists on 34 th Avenue (Bike Route 85), just east of AP Giannini. Bike Route 85 connects with the northern and southern west parts of San Francisco. Cross-town bike routes connect to Bike Route 85 to the north and south of Ortega Street. Page 5 of 13

11 Public Transportation (See Attachment 2 Walking/Biking/Transit Map) Several Muni bus routes provide access to the Outer Sunset school area. The 29 serves Sunset Boulevard half a block east of AP Giannini. The 71 serves Noriega Street one block north of the project site. Although the Outer Sunset District is well-served by transit by national standards, bus routes are spaced much further apart here than in other sections of San Francisco. For example, the nearest east-west route is a long city block away (~600') from most points at our site. The nearest north-south route is at Sunset Blvd, one block away from the east end but 5 blocks away from the west end of our site; and the next closest north-south route is on 46 th Avenue, several blocks west of the west end point of our site. Thus, children who take public transit walk significant distances to get to and from school. The intersection of Ortega and 37 th Avenue is particularly important for transit users. Many middle school students cross that intersection to get to the bus stop on Sunset Blvd. Lastly, the school bus zone for AP Giannini is located on 37 th Avenue near Ortega, which makes this street corner a hub of student activity. School Enrollment Sunset Elementary School had an enrollment of approximately 375 students in 2010/11. These students travel to school by various means of transportation. The table below presents results from a student hand raising tally in October The results show that the largest percentage of students arrive and depart from school in a family vehicle. The percentage of students walking and biking is approximately 16 percent during both the morning and evening periods. Trips Walk Bike School Family Bus Vehicle Carpool Transit Morning % 0.2% 5% 73% 5% 1% Afternoon % 0.3% 8% 66% 8% 1% AP Giannini Middle School had an approximate enrollment of 1,172 students in 2010/11. There is no survey tally available from the school since the tally exercise was only performed by elementary schools participating in the existing Safe Routes to School Program. However, it can be assumed that the mode trip to and from school is similar to that of Sunset Elementary School but with more students taking transit. The closest transit line is the Muni 29 route. The table below presents the number of passengers loading and unloading from the bus during the morning commute and afternoon commute times. It can be assumed that the vast majority of these riders are students. Page 6 of 13

12 Unloading During AM Peak Loading During School and PM Peak Southbound Northbound 90 8 Total In addition to these two schools, the Sunset Public Library and the West Sunset Playground are also in the study area. Saint Ignatius, a private high school is one block south of the study area, on Sunset Boulevard. This large concentration of pedestrian generators makes this area a center for pedestrian activity and would greatly benefit from pedestrian safety improvements. 3. Please provide evidence of collision history and overall safety issues that the subject project hopes to address (Note: a map of the area with collisions will suffice). Also, please specifically address how this project will improve those issues. From 2004 to 2008, there were 31 traffic collisions involving child pedestrians or child bicyclists within a mile of the Sunset Area schools. Of those 31 crashes, 25 involved a child pedestrian. Please see Attachment 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions for location information. The pedestrian and traffic calming improvements will help address the following community traffic concerns. Excessive Speeds The installation of median islands, raised crosswalks, angled parking and sidewalk bulb-outs will all serve to calm traffic. Median islands and the angled parking between 37 th and 41 st Avenues will narrow Ortega Street and force through and turning vehicles to slow down. Planting the median with trees will also help reduce the "wide open" feel of Ortega Street. The installation of speed tables across parking lot entrances and 37 th Avenue will force drivers to slow down as they cross the sidewalk. Confusion and Decreased Visibility due to Double-Parking and Illegal U- Turns The installation of the median and the narrowing of the lanes through the measures listed above will help prevent illegal U-turns and double-parking. The installation of curb bulbs and median islands will improve visibility of pedestrians, increasing safety for children crossing the street. Page 7 of 13

13 Failure of Motorists to Yield to Pedestrians The introduction of traffic calming devices as listed above will reduce traffic speeds and increase pedestrian visibility, increasing the rate of yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk. Long Crossing Distances The installation of curb bulbs and medians islands will all serve to shorten crossing distances for students and provide a safer space in the middle of the roadway should the students not be able to complete a crossing before a vehicle comes from the opposing direction. Corner bulbs also elevate pedestrians, making them more visible while allowing them to better observe traffic conditions before crossing. They also tighten the radius for turning vehicles, forcing them to reduce their speed when making a turn. Together, the measures listed above can be expected to significantly improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists on Ortega Street. 4. How many students attend the school and live within one mile of the school? Please see Attachment 4 Student Residences for location information. The tables below list enrollment at the two project area schools and the students residential proximity. Sunset 2009 Enrollment Students Percent of Total Live Within 1 Mile of School % Live Within 0.50 Miles of School % Total Enrollment 326 A.P. Giannini 2009 Enrollment Students Percent of Total Live within 1 mile of School % Live within 0.50 miles of School % Total Enrollment 1,172 Page 8 of 13

14 Project Readiness 1. Please describe the implementation strategy for the project (e.g. Agency X will design the project and Agency Y will construct the project). Please be specific about the scope of work that each agency will perform, and if a contractor will be used for any part of the project. The SFMTA is in communication with the schools and the San Francisco Unified School District. The School District and the school principals are strongly in favor of the project. The project is also adjacent to Ortega Public Library. The SFMTA will work with Library Facilities in accommodating its needs for the project area. To implement the project, the SFMTA will work with San Francisco Department of Public Works (DPW) on the project design and implementation. The SFMTA will complete the planning and conceptual design including outreach to stakeholders. The SFMTA will work in coordination with the San Francisco Planning Department Major Environmental Analysis- to complete the CEQA and NEPA review for the project. The SFMTA will work with the DPW to develop the construction engineering drawings and the actual construction of the project. DPW will contract out the project for construction. 2. Has the project received approvals from other agencies that may have jurisdiction over the project? If not, what approvals remain and when are they expected? The project has not received approvals at this time. Approvals will occur between the conceptual design of the project and completion of the final design. The project will go through internal SFMTA review and interagency review before proceeding to the MTA Board of Directors for approval. DPW street legislation and City General Plan referral must also occur for construction of the project. The DPW administrative process requires DPW to accept the curb extensions. The City Planning Department manages the General Plan referral. This process will confirm that the project is consistent with the San Francisco General Plan. 3. Are there any other capital projects that will require coordination with this project (e.g. street resurfacing)? The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is replacing a groundwater supply pipeline on Ortega Street between January 2013 and November This matches the construction project for this SR2S project and the SFMTA will coordinate sequencing of construction with its City partners, the PUC and DPW. 4. Describe a plan for funding ongoing maintenance of the project including the agency that is responsible for those activities. The project will be maintained by DPW. DPW is responsible for city street maintenance including street cleaning and any required landscaping upkeep. Page 9 of 13

15 1. Has the project been prioritized through a SR2S walking audit? If so, please provide the date of the audit, a list of participants and documentation of the prioritization from the school participants (e.g. a list of prioritized interventions from the school principal). On May 26, 2010, the SFMTA conducted a walking audit with the Sunset Elementary school principal, a parent representative, two SFMTA transportation engineers and the San Francisco Police Department district officers assigned to school areas to understand the traffic concerns on the street. The participants identified the wide street layout that encourages speeding, sudden and illegal U- turns, and motorists rolling through crosswalks and not yielding to pedestrians. The wide street exacerbates these traffic problems especially during the pick-up and drop-off times when parents and students are in a hurry to exit or enter the school. Attached is a letter developed by the SFMTA resulting from the walking audit and distributed to the audit participants. School and Community Support 1. Does the project have diverse (e.g. broad) school (e.g. administration, teachers and parents) and community support? Please provide letters of support, and specific reference to community meetings regarding the project. The SRTS project has diverse school and community support. A variety of letters of support are attached to this application, including from the following representatives: the Chair of the Board of Supervisors Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee, San Francisco Unified School District Superintendent, Principal of Sunset Elementary School, the San Francisco Department of Health, and the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. The community is aware of previous efforts seeking funds for SRTS improvements on Ortega Street. They are supportive and will play an active role in the planning and design of the project. The SFMTA is already scheduling meetings with the school Parent Teacher Associations for Spring Page 10 of 13

16 D. PROJECT SCHEDULE 1. Please provide the project schedule below. Refer to Attachment 1 in the Call for Projects, MTC s Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (Resolution 3606) for key timely use of funds deadlines. Project Phase Start Date (Month, Year) End Date (Month, Year) Planning/Conceptual Engineering March 2011 August 2011 Environmental Studies (NEPA clearance) September 2011 October 2011 ROW Activities/Acquisition Not Applicable Not Applicable Design Engineering October 2011 February 2012 Construction Obligation Package to Caltrans February 2012 Construction Funds Obligated (i.e. E-76) April 2012 Advertise Construction May 2012 October 2012 Award Construction Contract November 2012 November 2012 Construction December 2012 December 2013 Project Closeout January 2014 June Please identify expected level of NEPA and CEQA review and current status. Project staff has reviewed the conceptual project confirming that this project will likely be categorically excluded for NEPA and categorically exempt for CEQA. E. BUDGET 1. Please provide the detailed project budget below including contingency for each phase as appropriate. This is an embedded Excel spreadsheet. Double click on the sheet to modify in Excel. The budget is expandable by inserting new rows in Excel. Page 11 of 13

17 SR2S Capital Projects Program Line Item Budget Planning Phase Cost Agency: SFMTA Overhead Rate: 2.21 Position (Title and Classification) Hours Annual Base Salary Annual Fully Burdened FTE Cost Assistant Engineer/Transit Planner II 143 $ 92,716 $ 204, $ 14,087 Associate Engineer/Transit Planner III , , ,741 Engineer/Transit Planner IV , , ,401 Principal Engineer , , ,748 MEA (lump sum) 5,000 SUB-TOTAL $ 49,977 Design Phase Cost Agency: DPW Overhead Rate: 2.47 Position (Title and Classification) Hours Annual Base Salary Annual Fully Burdened FTE Cost Landscape Architect 88 $ 121,212 $ 299, $ 12,667 Assistant Engineer , , ,735 Associate Engineer , , ,714 Engineer , , ,670 Principal Engineer , , ,277 SUB-TOTAL $ 100,064 Construction Phase Hard Costs Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Cost Raised Crosswalk Driveway Each 3 $ 30,000 $ 90,000 Raised Crosswalk Roadway Each 1 80,000 80,000 Median Island Each 1 10,000 10,000 Curb Ramps Each 6 6,000 36,000 Landscaped Medians Each 2 20,000 40,000 Striping LS 1 20,000 20,000 Bulbouts Each 2 115, ,000 SUB-TOTAL $ 506,000 Construction Phase Labor Costs (Construction Management and Support) Agency: DPW Overhead Rate: 2.47 Position (Title and Classification) Hours Annual Base Salary Annual Fully Burdened FTE Cost Construction Support Landscape Architect 40 $ 121,212 $ 299, $ 5,758 Assistant Engineer , , ,212 Associate Engineer , , ,411 Engineer , , ,558 Principal Engineer , , ,566 Agency: SFMTA Overhead Rate: 2.21 Position (Title and Classification) Hours Annual Base Salary Annual Fully Burdened FTE Cost Construction Management Assistant Engineer 22 $ 92,716 $ 204, $ 2,167 Associate Engineer , , ,855 Engineer , , ,712 Principal Engineer 9 180, , ,724 Contingency (10% of Construction Phaese) 50,600 SUB-TOTAL $ 147,564 Construction Phase Budget Total Construction Phase Hard Costs $ 506,000 Construction Phase Labor Costs 147,564 Construction Phase Total $ 653,564 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET Planning Phase Total $ 49,977 Design Phase Total 100,064 Construction Phase Total 653,564 TOTAL $ 803,605 Page 12 of 13

18 F. FUNDING PLAN 1. Please provide a detailed funding plan below. This is an embedded Excel spreadsheet. Double click on the sheet to modify in Excel. The funding plan is expandable by inserting new rows in Excel. SRTS Capital Projects Program Funding Plan Source Fiscal Year Planning Design Construction Total SRTS Capital Projects Program Request 2011/12 $ 579,000 $ 579,000 Local Match (Prop K - EP 38) 2011/12 75,000 75,000 Other Sources (Prop K - EP 38) 2010/11 $ 100, ,000 Other Source (SFMTA Operating) 2009/10 $ 50,000 50,000 Total $ 50,000 $ 100,000 $ 654,000 $ 804, Please identify status (i.e. allocated, programmed, planned) of local match funds and any other non-sr2s funds included in the budget. Phase Source Status Amount Planning SFMTA Operating Allocated $ 50,000 Design Prop K EP 38 Planned 100,000 Construction (Match + Remainder) Prop K EP 38 Planned 75,000 Total $ 225,000 G. GRAPHICS Please attach any maps, charts, drawings or other materials that are necessary to show the detail and context of the program. Please see attachments. Page 13 of 13

19

20 36TH 26TH Attachment A Attachment 2: Walking and Biking Map KIRKHAM ù KIRKHAM GREAT HWY èé LA PLAYA 45TH AVE 44TH AVE 43RD AVE 42ND AVE 41ST AVE 37TH èé LAWTON LAWTON ST 32ND AVE 31ST AVE SUNSET PLGND 43RD 42ND 41ST 40TH 39TH 38TH MORAGA GREAT èé GREAT HIGHWAY èé GREAT PACHECO 46TH 45TH 44TH 40TH AVE 40TH AVE 39TH AVE 38TH AVE 35TH 34TH 33RD 32ND 31ST 4 èé ù èé Giannini èé ù WEST SUNSET PLGND SUNSET 34TH NORIEGA ST ORTEGA ST 33RD AVE 30TH 29TH 28TH 27TH PACHECO NORIEGA ORTEGA 48TH 47TH QUINTARA QUINTARA Legend Sunset ES GREAT èé 40TH 39TH 38TH RIVERA èé RIVERA ST SANTIAGO ST SANTIAGO 27TH ù Crossing Guards Recommended Walking Routes Bike Path Bike Route Parks and Playgrounds èé Signal Busy Intersection Date: March 2010 Disclaimer: 1. New hazards or conditions may arise. Parents and children should exercise common sense in following the maps. 2. Safe Routes to Schools does not guarantee the safety of the routes. 3. Parents must make final determination regarding whether child is ready to safety travel on any given route ,000 2,000 Feet

21 GREAT HWY SUNSET BLVD Attachment 3: Bicycle and Pedestrian CollisionsAttachment A Sunset Elementary and AP Giannini Middle School, San Francisco, CA NORIEGA ST Sunset Giannini TARAVAL ST Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions: 10/31/ /31/2009 ") Bicycle Collisions 19TH AVE!( Pedestrian Collisions 1/2 Mile from School Area 1 Mile from School Area SLOAT BLVD SLOAT BLVD Miles Date: 02/17/11

22 GREAT HWY Attachment 4: Student Residences Attachment A Sunset Elementary and AP Giannini Middle School, San Francisco, CA NORIEGA ST Sunset Giannini Legend Sunset Student Residences Giannini Student Residences Sunset Giannini 1/2 Mile from School Area 1 Mile from School Area SLOAT BLVD TARAVAL ST 19TH AVE Miles Date: 02/17/11

23 December 10,2010 Dear Sunset Elementary school Walking Audit Participants: Gavin Nevisom I Mayor Tom Nolan I Chairman Jerry Lee I kcexhairman Cameron Beach I Director Cheryl Brinkman I Director Malcolm Heinicke I Director Bruce Oka I Director Nathaniel P. Ford Sr. I Executive DirectoriCEO Thank you for your participation in the Sunset Elementary School walking audit back on May 26,2010. The San Francisco Safe Routes to School Partnership and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency are happy to work together with the school community to bring to our attention your traffic safety concerns around the school. All participants should have received the notes that were recorded during the walking audit which helped us concentrate our efforts in addressing the school's safety concerns. They are attached for your reference. Some suggestions could be easily resolved and may by the time of this writing already have been completed. Other suggestions will require more time and funding to implement. Staff included a number of the more costly items in a Safe Routes to School infrastructure grant submitted on behalf of Sunset Elementary earlier this year. The following suggestions for Ortega Street between 37th and 41st Avenues were included in a Safe Routes to School (Infrastructure) grant application submitted by the SFMTA earlier this year. However, the City learned in November 2010 that Sunset Elementary School was not awarded the grant. These recommendations have been added to a database of school infrastructure projects to pursue as future funding opportunities arise. Recommended - Funding Dependent lncluded in SRTS Infrastructure Application Median islands on Ortega Street between 38th and 40th Avenues Refuge islands on Ortega Street at 37th, 38th, 39th and 41st Avenues Curb extensionslbulb-outs on Ortega Street at 37th, 38th and 39th Avenues a ADA-compliant curb ramps on Ortega Street between 37th and 41st Avenues Road diet or islandllane striping andlor angled parking on Ortega Street between 37th and 41st Avenues Install school driveway raised speed table at all school parking lot entrances Install raised pedestrian crossing through school parking lot - east of the exit driveway at 40th Ave Not Included in SRTS Infrastructure Application In-street yield to pedestrian signs o These are only installed in places where we have a raised island to protect it from-being hit and destroyed. Ortega Street has no islands. However, funding is still being sought to install islands. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency One South Van Ness Avenue. Seventh FI. San Francism. CA Tei: Fax:

24 * Prohibit on-street parking near crosswalks o The SFMTA paints red zones approaching crosswalks to improve visibility between pedestrians and vehicles. The SFMTA is studying intersections in the vicinity of Sunset to paint red zones near crosswalks. Recommended - Forwarded for Implementation * Repaint SLOW SCHOOL XING (SSX) markings o SSX markings are in good condition, but a STOP legend on 37th Avenue at Ortega Street was repainted. Repaint red zone o Red zone on Ortega Street and 39th Avenue was repainted. Not Recommended Centerlines o The SFMTA doesn't typically stripe centerlines on streets with low vehicle volumes. The lack of a centerline can actually cause vehicles to slow down and be more aware of their surroundings. * Advance stop bars o Advance stop bars are not necessary as sight distance is good. Repaint crosswalks o The threshold for repainting crosswalks is that about 60% of the paint is worn. Upon review crosswalks appear to be in acceptable condition. Advance yield lines with "yield here to pedestrian" signs o Advance yield lines are only used at uncontrolled crossings. Intersections with 4-way STOPS or traffic signals are not appropriate. * Update school area traffic control signing and assemblies o All school signs were reviewed and found to be standard Once again, thank you for participating in the Sunset Elementary School walking audit. We hope it was an enriching experience for all participants who all share the common goal -to increase walking and biking to schdol by increasing safety around Sunset Elementary School. If you have any questions, please contact Jeffrey Banks of my staff at , or via at jeffrey.banks@sfmta.com. Sincerely, ~ri&et Smith, Manager Livable Streets Subdivision

25

26

27

28

29

30

31 Attachment B San Francisco Safe Routes to School Capital Project Program Prioritization Process Prioritization Process: The Authority will prioritize completed SR2S Capital Projects Program applications that are submitted by the application deadline through a two-part process involving screening criteria and prioritization criteria. Screening Criteria: Projects must meet all screening criteria in order to be considered further for SR2S funding. The screening criteria will focus on meeting the eligibility requirements for SR2S funds and include, but are not limited to the following factors: Project is a fully-funded, stand alone project. Project sponsor is eligible for SR2S capital funds as outlined in Section 4 and the MTC and CMAQ eligibility guidelines. Project is eligible for SR2S capital funds as outlined in Section 5 and the MTC and CMAQ eligibility guidelines. Requested SR2S funds are at least $250,000. Project sponsor must be able to submit an obligation package for the SR2S Capital Projects Program by February 1, Project is consistent with the 2009 Regional Transportation Plan and Countywide Transportation Plan. Prioritization Criteria: Projects that meet all of the screening criteria will be prioritized for SR2S funding based on, but not limited to the factors listed below. The Authority reserves the right to modify or add to the prioritization criteria in response to additional guidance and, if necessary, to prioritize a very competitive list of eligible projects that exceed available programming capacity. Project Readiness: Projects that can clearly demonstrate an ability to meet timely use of funds requirements. This enables project benefits to be realized sooner and supports the regions strategy to obligate STP and CMAQ funds as early as possible. Within this criterion, the Authority will prioritize projects that can demonstrate CEQA clearance, have a potential for categorical exclusion in NEPA, have a high percentage of design already completed and can demonstrate the ability to complete design by February Walking Audits: Project stems from a SR2S walking audit conducted with school officials. Capture Area: Projects at schools with a large percentage of students living within 1- mile relative to other applicant projects. Mode Share: Projects at schools with low non-motorized transportation mode share relative to other applicant projects. School/Community Support: Projects with documented (e.g. letters of support) and diverse (e.g. broad) school (e.g. administration, teachers and parents) and community support. Safety: Projects with safety benefits will be given a higher priority. Project sponsors must clearly define the safety issue that is being addressed and how the project will M:\Meetings\Memo to CAC\2011\03-March 2011\SR2S - Capital Project ATT B.doc Page 1 of 2

32 Attachment C Identifying Barriers and Developing Solutions to Provide a Safer Route to School There are four basic steps involved in identifying barriers that limit children from walking and bicycling to school and in determining solutions to provide a safe route to school. Step 1: Bring Together the Right People and Plan a School Site Audit The first task is to bring the key stakeholders together to plan a school site audit. It is critical that the school principal, teachers, and interested parents and students are involved. It is also important that representatives from San Francisco s Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), Police Department (SFPD), and Department of Public Health (DPH) attend. Community members and pedestrian, bicycle, safety and disability advocates should also be present at the audit. The school should determine how many children currently walk or bicycle to school. Parent surveys can be used to understand parents attitudes towards walking or bicycling to school and identify barriers to walking and bicycling that need to be addressed. The SFMTA can prepare maps to illustrate where children live in proximity to school. The SFMTA and Safe Routes to School coalition members can assist with collecting technical information such as traffic counts, vehicle speeds, reported collisions, and can help with identifying driver-related safety issues. School and/or parent representatives should create a map identifying key issue locations and a showing a route for the school site audit. Step 2: Conduct a School Site Audit Walking around the school as a group to observe arrival and/or dismissal time can be one of the best ways to reach a collective understanding of the issues. There are many things to consider during a site audit, including: Are sidewalks or pathways continuous along the routes? Are sidewalks or pathways in good condition? Are there crosswalks and pedestrian signals to help people cross busy streets and intersections? Are curb ramps present at intersection crosswalks? Are there obstacles blocking the sidewalk? Are the sidewalks, pathways, and curb ramps ADA-compliant? Is secure and convenient bicycle parking available at school? Is there sufficient operating width for bicycles along the route? Is the roadway surface in good condition? Are curb radii too large, thus encouraging fast vehicle speeds? Do motorists behave appropriately? Do student pedestrians and bicyclists behave appropriately? Are sufficient sight distances and visibility provided, especially for pedestrians less than five feet tall? Are there adequate and visible signing and pavement markings? Is there enough lighting? Are crossing guards present?

33 Attachment C Identifying Barriers and Developing Solutions to Provide a Safer Route to School (continued) Step 3: Prioritize Issues and Develop Solutions It is likely that a school site audit will generate a list of potential issues. The next step is for school and parent representatives to prioritize the issues. Are some issues more critical to address than others? Are there quick wins that the group can identify that would help to generate additional enthusiasm for children to walk or bicycle to school? Solutions to issues often include a combination of education, encouragement, engineering and enforcement strategies. Safety is the first consideration. If it is not safe for children to walk and/or bicycle to school, then they should only be encouraged after problems are evaluated and addressed. Some problems will require engineering solutions; others may require education, encouragement, enforcement or a combination of strategies. The Safe Routes to School coalition has representatives from all relevant agencies that can provide necessary technical assistance. For example, SFMTA staff will review the prioritized issues and suggest enforcement or engineering solutions, if appropriate. These recommendations will be shared with the key school stakeholders for input. Step 4: Fund and Implement Infrastructure Solutions There are many low-cost engineering solutions that can often be put in place in a relatively short amount of time such as new signs or refreshing marked crosswalks. On the other hand some changes, such as new sidewalk construction, may need large amounts of capital and may take awhile to get funded and ultimately constructed. The SFMTA will identify feasible engineering solutions that meet applicable standards and will assist in seeking funding for implementation. Most moderate to higher cost engineering solutions will likely require outside funding from regional, state or federal sources. It should be noted that obtaining funding can be challenging and take years. Once funding is secured, it often takes another year or two to obtain environmental clearance, design and construct major infrastructure improvements. The SFMTA is committed to expediting all school area safety projects. For more information please contact: Oliver Gajda, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (415) Oliver.Gajda@sfmta.com, or Ana Validzic, MPH, San Francisco Department of Public Health (415) ana.validzic@sfdph.org Funding for the preparation of this brochure was provided by the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA). The brochure was prepared by Parisi Associates with support from the San Francisco Department of Public Health, San Francisco MTA, and San Francisco County Transportation Authority.

34 Attachment D