MedicineLakex

 

Microsoft word - final sar 1115.doc

FINAL SAR 98-2 • 11/15/99 • Page 1 gateway to the regional freeway system for a large portion of the City, including the Bay Bridge, I-80 (the West Approach), US 101 and I-280. It is also the location of the FINAL SAR 98-2
CalTrain Depot and the Transbay Terminal, which are STRATEGIC ANALYSIS REPORT
served by regional transit operators from the North, South and East Bay. This means that as new land uses take hold, on TRAFFIC IMPACTS in SOMA
SOMA's streets must continue to act as a critical physical link to the regional transportation system, handling Initiated by Commissioner Leno through traffic to and from the freeways as well as Accepted by the Authority Board SOMA's own growing internal traffic and balancing on November 15, 1999 regional connectivity, the economic vitality of the City and neighborhood livability concerns. Table of Contents
A number of significant transportation projects are either planned or already underway in SOMA, including the I. Introduction .1 replacement of the West Approach to the Bay Bridge II. Background.2 (estimated by CalTrans to be a 6-year project), the seismic retrofit of the Bayshore Viaduct (US 101), the Mid- B. Previous Transportation Studies.3 Embarcadero Roadway, the Third Street Light Rail Line III. Strategic Analysis .4 and Central Subway, the extension of CalTrain to A. Construction Impacts & Mitigation Plans .4 B. Travel Demand Analysis .6 Downtown and the replacement of the Transbay Terminal. C. Implications for Authority Policy-Making .12 IV. Conclusions .13 In order to succeed in meeting the challenge of absorbing V. Bibliography/Sources Consulted .14 growth and freeway construction impacts at the same time, the City must set out to answer three key questions. First, I. INTRODUCTION
it must decide what it wants SOMA to look like in the future. No matter what scenario, there will be more Purpose of Document
people living and working in SOMA, and many more This report provides the SFCTA Board with a brief but visiting the area. Many more trips will be made every day comprehensive summary of transportation-related issues in and out of, and within SOMA. So, inevitably, there in the South of Market Area (SOMA). This Strategic will be more congestion, more demands on the transit Analysis Report, or SAR for short, highlights for the system, more pedestrians and cyclists on the streets, and Board the significance of these issues in areas of SFCTA more competition for parking. Depending on how the jurisdiction, and identifies implications for future policy land use is structured, there may be opportunities to decisions by the Board in its capacity as administrator of absorb significant numbers of trips by transit, walking and Proposition B (sales tax) funds and Congestion biking. Second, the City must decide what transportation Management Agency for San Francisco. Every effort was conditions or standards it wants for SOMA: how much made to make this a factual document, avoiding congestion on the streets, what levels of delay, how much speculation, and leaving judgment to the reader. This crowding on transit vehicles, etc. Third, the City must put document was designed to inform policy-level decision- in place improvements to the transportation system to making, and its abbreviated length (only 14 pages plus ensure that the desired standards can be met. The City attachments) optimizes its usefulness to Authority Board must do all this while working around a large CalTrans members. Technical discussion has been condensed and construction site for the next six years. only facts deemed essential to outline the policy-level issues are included. Additional information is available During this period, the City faces several challenges and from the sources cited, or by calling Carmen C. Clark, opportunities. From a transportation system performance Executive Director, at (415) 522-4802. perspective, the challenge will be to put in place interim solutions that help minimize construction impacts and Executive Summary
keep the City moving and SOMA growing throughout the South of Market (SOMA) is the most dynamic growth freeway reconstruction period. From a fiscal perspective, area in the City. Once a warehousing district, it is a the challenge will be to find and put in place interim geographic area larger than downtown, and it is called to transportation strategies that also can be the basis for play a number of distinct roles. It includes housing, longer-term solutions, so that transportation investments industry, office buildings, retail areas, and major are additive, rather than duplicative or wasteful. By entertainment and cultural destinations. SOMA is also the working in partnership with CalTrans, MUNI and regional FINAL SAR 98-2 • 11/15/99 • Page 2 transit operators to put in place a good traffic management contains the richest supply of transit services and plan for the freeway construction period, the City has the infrastructure anywhere west of the Hudson River. In that opportunity to permanently influence travel behavior, section of the City, transit accounts for nearly 56 % of establish the right mix of auto, transit and other trips, and work trips, while single-occupant automobiles carry only keep SOMA and the City moving and thriving for years to 22% of the workers and, of the rest, 16 % share rides, 5 % come. There is an opportunity to shape SOMA and its walk and around 1% bike to work. It would be physically transportation system so that what results is an area that is impossible to accommodate that many jobs in downtown more livable and makes full use of the potential of San Francisco if transit wasn't carrying such a large walking, biking and transit trips to eliminate some auto proportion of work trips. Finally, there are about 125,000 trips. This will help alleviate congestion, reduce the parking spaces in the northeast quadrant, counting on- demand for new parking, reduce accidents, improve street and off-street spaces, private and public. safety, and ensure that transit vehicles and freight can get The transportation strategy that permitted the prodigious growth of downtown San Francisco and sustained its The SAR analyzes the demand for new trips due to employment base over the last 30 years is one of expected new development in SOMA, focusing on the overriding emphasis on the supply of transit service and next 5 years. It also makes reasonable assumptions about parking control policies intended to support the use of new transportation infrastructure and services expected to transit. Parking supply has been curbed and discouraged be in place in that time frame, and evaluates the resulting and, as occurs in most large central cities of the world, conditions on the roadway and transit networks, and the market forces have determined parking rate levels in need for parking. The SAR also includes a master private garages. The only exceptions have been the schedule analysis of all transportation construction municipal parking garages where artificially low parking projects in SOMA, as well as key private development rates have been in effect to support the vitality and projects, to try to establish construction impacts on the reinforce the competitiveness of the downtown retail capacity of the roadway network. district. In short, San Francisco has supported an approach to the supply and management of transportation A key finding of the SAR is that a critical factor in that emphasizes person throughput rather than vehicle determining how many people will actually drive in throughput. This is the context within which the transpor- SOMA is the capacity of the freeway ramps, in addition to tation challenges of SOMA should be considered. parking supply and demand. As more demands are placed on the Bay Bridge and freeways, p.m. peak back-ups onto SOMA streets could be exacerbated, impacting motorists We have approached the SAR's travel demand analysis with both regional and San Francisco destinations, and task from the understanding that SOMA is the most resulting in potentially significant impacts on intersections dynamic growth area in the City. SOMA occupies a that are key to maintaining a reliable flow of surface geographic area larger than downtown and a good portion of that area is on bay fill. SOMA originally developed as a warehousing and light industry district for the City, but The SAR makes several key conclusions and follow-up it has been transitioning away from that role for several recommendations, which, to avoid repetition, are found in decades, due among other factors to the decline of the Section IV of this report. port, the radical changes in the nature of industrial production and of the U.S. economy, and the steadily II. BACKGROUND
increasing value of land in San Francisco. A. Planning Context
SOMA has been called to play a number of distinct roles: as the extension of the downtown high-rise and retail district; as the home of major regional attractions like the Every day, around 1 million trips take place with a Pacific Bell Ballpark, the Moscone Convention Center, destination in the northeast quadrant of San Francisco. and the Yerba Buena Center/Metreon; as the location of This is the area bounded by Van Ness Avenue to the west, new housing throughout the area, and of residential the Bay on the north and Townsend and the Central enclaves like South Beach; and as the incubator of hi-tech Freeway to the south. This area encompasses SOMA, as and multimedia start-up firms in the area now known as well as downtown, Chinatown, North Beach and Multimedia Gulch. While located outside of the study Fisherman's Wharf, and it holds some 400,000, or about area designated for this report, the new UCSF campus and two thirds, of the roughly 580,000 jobs in the City. The Mission Bay will also have impacts on the local SOMA northeast quadrant has the densest job concentration and it transportation system and the regional transportation FINAL SAR 98-2 • 11/15/99 • Page 3 system, which is accessed through SOMA. The analysis of the transportation problems affecting SOMA, and the Some of the SAR's suggestions for more efficiently formulation of short and long-term responses, must recog- managing the ballpark travel demand included: aggressive nize the need to support and balance all of these roles. marketing so that fans know they have travel options when they buy their ballgame tickets; charging for parking as an B. Previous Transportation Studies
add-on to the price of admission as a disincentive to driving and as a potential source of revenues to subsidize Strategic Analysis Report on China Basin Ballpark
transit services; striping transit preferential lanes on This section summarizes the findings of the Authority's SOMA streets so that MUNI could run dependable service China Basin Ballpark SAR. The City's Ballpark/Mission to and from the ballpark; and pedestrian improvements Bay Transportation Coordination Committee has such as overcrossings and sidewalk widenings to handle subsequently developed a transportation mitigation plan the flood of pedestrian traffic after games. that addresses many of the issues discussed below. Strategic Analysis Report on Multimedia Gulch
The ballpark SAR looked primarily at transit capacity, The Gulch SAR focused on two main issues: unmet roadway capacity and parking issues related to the transportation needs in the Multimedia Gulch and potential proposed ballpark. The analysis estimated system solutions, and the impact of transportation issues on performance based on travel assumptions provided by the multimedia business retention. The SAR noted that the Giants. At the time of the SAR analysis, the Giants Gulch is one of the most accessible areas of the City, well estimated about 73 weeknight and weekend games and 8 served by freeways and regional transit. However, weekday games per year. Maximum capacity of the traveling within the Gulch by transit can be difficult. ballpark was estimated at 42,000. North/south service in the area between 5th and 8th Streets is the most limited in the greater downtown area and there The Giants assumed a conservative transit mode split of is a gap in east/west service between Bryant and 16th 14% to 20%, although they indicated that the ultimate goal Streets. There also is no direct connection from the was a 50% transit share. Based on the Giants' Mission District to the Caltrain Depot. The SAR pointed assumptions, the SAR estimated that additional passenger out that a number of MUNI improvements are planned or capacity ranging from 1,800 to 4,000 passengers would be underway that will improve transit service in the Gulch needed on MUNI to meet demand for weeknight and such as the Third Street light rail line. The most important weekend games, but noted that the additional vehicles improvement in regional transit access to the Gulch is required might be available from the existing MUNI fleet. improving MUNI service between Gulch destinations and However, this would not be the case for weekday games if regional transit. they end later than 3 p.m., since they would overlap with the p.m. peak when all of MUNI's available service is The SAR pointed out that alternatives to both transit and deployed. Possible ways to respond to the capacity automobiles could fill some gaps in the transportation deficits include reducing service elsewhere in the MUNI picture. Taxis could play a role in improving Gulch system, acquiring additional vehicles, or allowing AC transportation options, particularly during the midday or Transit and Golden Gate Transit to provide direct service evening when transit service is less frequent. The relative to the ballpark. lack of transit service in some areas of the Gulch and parking and congestion problems make bicycle travel a Given the available information, the roadway capacity comparatively attractive option. Furthermore, the Gulch is analysis was done at an order of magnitude level. The quite flat, making travel by bicycle relatively easy and fast SAR concluded that there would be significant congestion compared to other parts of the City. Both cyclists and in the area around the ballpark, and on city arterials pedestrians face safety issues in the Gulch with fast leading to and from I-280 and I-80, probably for an hour moving traffic and freeway ramps. Long blocks and the before and after a game. absence of pedestrian amenities make the Gulch less attractive for pedestrian trips. The Giants parking analysis estimated sufficient parking available for weekend and weeknight games, but also Key follow-up steps recommended by the SAR include: projected a 1,400-space deficit for the 8 weekday games revisiting the transit preferential street network to consider each year. Clearly, addressing this issue will require an inclusion of additional SOMA streets; smart management amount of creativity, because it doesn't make sense to size of the existing parking supply, applying high technology transportation facilities for an event that only takes place 8 to encourage ridematching and carpooling, exploring high days a year. The Giants did assume use of on-street, off- tech approaches to the enforcement of transit lanes; and re- street, public and private parking for fans. evaluating the overall role of transit in SOMA. FINAL SAR 98-2 • 11/15/99 • Page 4 development in each subzone. The SAR analyses for year 1995 Citywide Travel Behavior Survey Final Report
2005 were based on an inventory of development projects The 1995 CTBS was a travel behavior survey of San already in the approval pipeline, rather than on regionally Francisco employees. Among other findings, the survey modeled growth projections. We coordinated with City corroborated for San Francisco what we already knew to departments with jurisdiction over development in SOMA be true elsewhere: that there is a strong correlation (the Planning Department, the Redevelopment Agency and between the cost of parking and the decision to drive alone the Port) to gather information on all projects currently in to work. For instance, the survey found that 47% of pre-planning stages, under review, already approved for commuters who drove alone to work parked for free. On development, under construction, or constructed within the the other hand, when transit commuters were asked how last year. Project size thresholds were used to limit the much they would have to pay for parking if they drove to number of projects for the analysis to those that would be work, only 12% indicated that they would have free significant trip generators and thus present more parking. Another analysis of survey responses showed substantial implications for the area's transportation that commuters who had free parking drove alone to work system. For commercial developments the threshold was 90% of the time while commuters who reported parking 40,000 square feet of either new development and/or costs greater than $5 per day indicated that they drove rehabilitated space for new use (e.g., warehouse alone to work only 70% to 75% of the time. conversion to office use). For residential developments the threshold was 20 dwelling units. It might be noted that Doyle Drive Intermodal Study Data Collection Report
this 20-unit threshold probably screens out many of the As part of this 1995 study, the Authority conducted license "live/work" developments occurring in SOMA, which plate surveys of Golden Gate Bridge users to gain a better often tend to be smaller projects on smaller infill lots. understanding of travel behavior. The survey found that Nevertheless, in the overall context of future development 30% of Golden Gate Bridge automobile traffic is destined in the study area over the coming five-year period, these for the northeast quadrant of the City. The report noted small residential projects will generate relatively that this was surprising given the high level of transit insignificant numbers of new person-trips. service provided in this area. One possible explanation cited by the report was the availability of inexpensive Transportation Projects
parking: over 40% of survey respondents indicated that As part of the evaluation of construction impacts we they park for free in the City's downtown (i.e. northeast developed a master schedule of transportation projects quadrant), and over 55% park for less than $5 per day. expected to occur within the same 5-year time frame (see Attachment II). They range from installation of traffic III. STRATEGIC ANALYSIS
signal and guidance devices to construction of the Third Street light rail transit line to implementation of BART's A. Construction Impacts & Mitigation Plans
new train control system to various bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Attachment III shows the location of the The evaluation methodology in this SAR focuses on two most significant transportation projects in SOMA. areas: transportation impacts generated by land use development, and transportation impacts generated by In addition to the construction impacts associated with construction of major transportation projects. In addition some of these projects, there will also be system to permanently increasing the total number of people performance benefits such as increases in capacity, traveling, private development can also have impacts on efficiency and safety. These are accounted for in the travel the transportation system during the construction period, demand analysis section. when construction equipment or safety considerations may necessitate the closure of street lanes and the detouring of The West Approach and Bayshore Viaduct Projects
traffic, and it can interfere with traffic mitigation strategies There is not a formal traffic management plan (TMP) for such as the addition of temporary lanes and bus-only lanes. the Bayshore Viaduct seismic retrofit project since Caltrans is able to do most of the work beneath the Private Sector Projects
overhead freeway structure without disrupting the flow of For purposes of this analysis, SOMA was divided into traffic. The work has required the temporary removal of eight study areas or subzones, taking into account the parking under the Bayshore Freeway (about 1500 spaces present neighborhood character, land use and total, up to 500 spaces at a time), but most of that is transportation infrastructure (see Attachment I). In order expected to return after the seismic work is completed. to perform a schedule analysis and to estimate future travel All the Bayshore-related contracts are already under demand in SOMA, we had to develop estimates of land use growth and changes resulting from private sector FINAL SAR 98-2 • 11/15/99 • Page 5 The West Approach, which is more of a replacement involving demolition and construction of temporary and project than a retrofit, will have a San Francisco TMP to permanent structures, will require the temporary loss of address impacts on city streets and a regional TMP to approximately 4,000 spaces, all at once, for the duration of address impacts on the Bay Bridge/I-80 corridor. Caltrans the project. While these spaces are all expected to be has been meeting regularly with City staff to discuss the restored at the end of the project, the effect of their San Francisco TMP. Some key issues have already been temporary loss is unknown. The City is considering ways resolved. For instance, Caltrans and the City, under the to address this issue through the TMP process. lead of DPT, have agreed on time windows for construction work, to minimize traffic disruptions during One way to provide a context for understanding the weekday peak traffic periods and minimize noise impacts relative magnitude of this loss is to compare the 4,000 on residents during nighttime hours. For these reasons, spaces to the number of currently available parking spaces Caltrans intends to schedule construction-related closures in SOMA. Unfortunately, this number is not available at in the vicinity of the bridge anchorage area on weekends this time, but an estimate should be available after the Department of Parking and Traffic completes the SOMA parking study that is currently underway. In the Caltrans has prepared draft plans for construction staging meantime, we do know that there are approximately that provide a preliminary schedule for the sequence of 125,000 parking spaces located in the northeast quadrant, construction, approximate time frames for each project which encompasses the area east of Van Ness Avenue and phase and identification of local street, on/off-ramp and north of the Central Freeway and Townsend Street. This freeway lane closures. The preliminary schedule shows a includes almost the entire South of Market Area as defined six-stage project lasting approximately six years. Due to for this report (see Attachment 1) as well as downtown, the complex nature of the project, which includes Chinatown and Fisherman's Wharf. Although SOMA demolition and reconstruction of a significant portion of (approx. 1.9 sq. miles) represents about 50% of the area of the West Approach, the plans include a number of arterial the northeast quadrant (approx. 4 sq. miles), other factors and ramp closures that will require some sort of mitigation such as the type and density of land use and the in the TMP. Some of these closures include: distribution of parking supply should be considered to get a more complete understanding of this parking issue. • Transbay Terminal bus on-ramp — closed 20 weekends over a period of six years. The City is reviewing the construction staging information • Essex Street on-ramp — closed 50 weekends and up to and providing comments to Caltrans on potential 18 months during Stage 5. The Essex Street traffic mitigation measures such as traffic and transit detour will be routed onto the Sterling Street on-ramp, which routes, traffic control officers to help direct traffic at key will be widened to provide an exclusive lane on the intersections and construction of overhead contact system (e.g. wires) so MUNI trolley routes can detour when • Harrison Street off-ramp — potentially closed for 4.5 necessary. The City is preparing cost estimates for the years. A new Folsom Street off-ramp, temporarily TMP that include both capital and operations costs. striped with three lanes and including a new branch touching down at Folsom (known as the Folsom leg), The current schedule for the West Approach project shows will carry this traffic. The Folsom leg will be that the TMP will be finalized in December 1999. constructed during the first phase of the West Following approval of the TMP, Caltrans and the City Approach project. need to execute a Cooperative Agreement, which is the formal financial agreement that allows implementation of The City and Caltrans are working together to develop the TMP. The Cooperative Agreement is scheduled for detours, as appropriate, for all of these closures. While approval by the City in April 2000 and by Caltrans in May Caltrans is making an effort to minimize impacts on local 2000. Construction is scheduled to begin in September streets, particularly during the weekday peak periods, it is 2000. This may not allow sufficient time for clear that there will be impacts on local streets. For implementation of the TMP since some of the instance, some of the detours associated with ramp and implementation measures may require a longer lead-time. street closures effectively reduce capacity on local streets, For instance, DPT needs time to hire and train traffic and while a widened Sterling Street on-ramp will facilitate control officers, and transit operators need time to acquire better absorption of traffic detoured from the closed Essex additional vehicles and negotiate labor contracts to allow Street on-ramp, there will still be less capacity than if both provision of additional service. the Essex Street and Sterling Street on-ramps were open. MTC and Caltrans are taking the lead on the regional The complex nature of the West Approach project, TMP, the focus of which will likely be provision of FINAL SAR 98-2 • 11/15/99 • Page 6 additional transit service (e.g. BART, AC Transit, ferries, MUNI, etc.). San Francisco needs to actively participate B. Travel Demand Analysis
in the development of the regional TMP since its success 1. Analysis
or failure will directly impact SOMA streets. For instance, if traffic on the West Approach is gridlocked, Our analysis process is outlined in the flowchart displayed traffic queuing on the on-ramps will spill onto local streets in Attachment IV. First, we divided the area into eight and cause congestion. subzones based on land use and transportation characteristics, as shown in Attachment I. Then we There are many details about the construction schedule and developed an estimate of likely development in the next 5 construction staging that won't be known until a contractor years for each subzone and calculated from it the likely is on-board to design the final staging plan. Furthermore, growth in total trips (work and non-work). Next we on a project this size, schedule delays and changes in estimated (using information from the regional travel construction activities are certain to happen. Given this, model and the Citywide Travel Behavior Surveys) the the City needs to maintain good lines of communication pattern of trip origins and destinations linking each of the with Caltrans to ensure an expeditious flow of information subzones in SOMA to the four quadrants of the City and from the contractor, to Caltrans, to City staff. This will to the North, South and East Bay. Then (again using allow sufficient lead-time to ensure that the public is existing information) we estimated the percentages of informed of changes and that the proper mitigation those trips that would take place by automobile, by transit, measures are in place. by bicycle, walking, and in car or vanpools. Finally, we identified the transportation improvements that are likely Another area that will require on-going coordination with to be implemented in the same 5-year time frame and, Caltrans relates to street excavation work and approval of reconciling capacity and demand for all transportation construction permits in SOMA. DPW's Street modes, we arrived at an assessment of how the Coordination Center (SCC) already faces the challenge of transportation system is likely to perform in those time coordinating street resurfacing and street excavation work frames. The performance of the system is typically performed by various utilities and city departments. described using variables like congestion, transit vehicle While it is unreasonable to ban all street excavation work crowding and schedule reliability, travel times, safety, in SOMA for the duration of the West Approach project, parking supply vs. demand, and/or their surrogates, the SCC can try to limit the amount of work that is done, depending on what data is available and at what level of and avoid scheduling street excavations that would reliability. Our entire analysis was performed for the p.m. exacerbate the impacts of Caltrans retrofit work. Similarly, peak hour, because we wanted to be certain that we could City approval of construction permits should be address the most challenging scenario. Key assumptions coordinated with the West Approach work and TMP for our analysis process are highlighted in the sections that mitigation measures. For example, the City should not allow a private contractor to use a parking lane for equipment storage if that parking lane is needed to carry Development Projections
traffic as part of a TMP detour route. The demand analysis for year 2005 was based on an evaluation of development projects already in the approval Providing good information both through the media and pipeline, rather than on regionally modeled growth through traffic operations systems (TOS) (e.g. changeable projections. The process and assumptions that went into message signs) will be critical mitigation measures. The the development of the land use inventory were discussed TMP should ensure that the Caltrans TOS system is previously in Section III. A. under ‘Private Sector functional and integrated with the City's Integrated Traffic Projects.' The one significant project in the SOMA study Management System, which is in the design stages. area that was not included in the demand analysis is the Giants Ballpark because the performance analysis focuses Finally, congestion on the bridge (I-80) and U.S. 101 on the typical weekday p.m. peak period (4 to 6 p.m.), routinely causes congestion on SOMA and north of whereas the Giant's weekday games are scheduled to Market streets. As part of the TMP, Caltrans should either end by 3 p.m. or begin at 7:30 p.m. Ballpark undertake a freeway operations analysis to explore ideas congestion will occur primarily for one hour preceding such as ramp metering that could allow San Francisco and following ballgames, and is outside the time window traffic more efficient access to the freeway and an HOV we are examining. Nevertheless, the potential overlap of lane on the bridge. These improvements could help ballpark events with peak periods is a concern, and it is during the West Approach seismic retrofit, and also being addressed by the City's Ballpark/Mission Bay remain as permanent improvements after the retrofit is Transportation Coordination Committee. In addition, FINAL SAR 98-2 • 11/15/99 • Page 7 coordination between the ballpark and West Approach San Francisco reduces to 2%. The mode split distribution TMPs is recommended as one of the follow-ups to this (e.g. origin/destination information) for bicycle trips within San Francisco was based on the 1992 Citywide Travel Behavior Survey (CTBS). The walk mode split To put the demand projections resulting from this was based on the 92 CTBS for superdistrict 1 (e.g. the methodology into perspective, our consultant compared northeast quadrant, including SOMA). the land use calculations to ABAG's modeled projections for Year 2005. The comparison indicated that the actual Taxi trips are considered under different categories (e.g. development projects in the pipeline for the next five transit, rideshare, other) depending on the source. For years far surpasses ABAG's projections, which are based purposes of this SAR, we assumed that taxi trips were on regional economic competition for new jobs and pop- included under the rideshare mode. ulation. This being the case, and given that for the sake of the analysis we are assuming that 100% of the pipeline Non-work trips — Transit, drive alone and rideshare mode
projects would actually materialize (which is never the splits were based on the MTC trip tables. The bike and case), we opted to not add a background growth factor. walk mode splits were based on the 1990 MTC Travel Survey Working Paper #4, Table 5.3. Travel Demand Projections
Trip generation rates based on land use types were Forecast Mode Split Scenarios
derived from the Planning Department's current In order to provide a context for SOMA travel demand transportation impact guidelines as were the percentage of projections, we developed two potential future mode split trips coming into the area versus the percentage leaving scenarios as policy objectives against which we evaluated the area. The transportation impact guidelines showed a transportation system capacity and performance. The roughly 50/50 split between work and non-work trips for scenarios were developed by first looking at existing daily trips. Since non-work trips are discretionary and travel and land use patterns in SOMA, both for the area as more likely to be foregone during the congested peak a whole and within the various subzones that we defined period, we adjusted the split to 60% work trip vs. 40% for the SAR study. It is important to note that while mode non-work for the peak hour. split is ultimately the aggregated result of numerous individual travel decisions (e.g. where to travel, when to The trip purpose was taken from the MTC trip tables, travel, how to travel — by bus, car, etc.), policymakers which include work and non-work trips. Non-work trips have a tremendous influence on mode split through the combine shopping, social/recreational, and non-home- actions they take related to land use patterns, urban design standards, provision of transportation infrastructure and services, and policies such as parking Origin-destination figures came from the MTC model as pricing. It is in this context that we have developed two well. Inside San Francisco, we grouped the origins into different, but foreseeable mode split scenarios for this San Francisco's four superdistricts. Outside of San SAR, so the types of policy decisions that are needed to Francisco, we grouped the origins into South Bay (San achieve the scenarios and their associated trade offs are Mateo and Santa Clara counties), East Bay (Alameda, brought to light. Contra Costa and Solano counties) and North Bay (Marin, Sonoma and Napa counties). Of the two future mode split scenarios, Scenario 1 is a continuation of current mode split while Scenario 2 Mode Splits
reflects a shift in travel behavior with relatively minor The current mode splits for both work and non-work trips reductions in auto travel and commensurate increases in to SOMA are based on year 2000 MTC Trip Tables. The transit, walk and bike modes that might be accommodated tables are for all daily trips, not just for peak period trips. by a variety of transportation system improvements (see Therefore we adjusted them for peak period factoring. table below). While both of these scenarios are reasonably realistic and foreseeable, they would be Work trips — Transit, rideshare and auto trips were based
brought about by a different set of policies that the City on the MTC trip tables. Since the trip tables don't include could choose in order to shape the way the transportation bike or walk trips, we adjusted them to include a 3.7% system in SOMA functions. They would allow the City to bike mode split for work trips with San Francisco origins, accommodate the same amount of projected growth in the based on a Binder research poll from 1997 provided by area, but with different outcomes in terms of system the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. Since about half of performance and livability. the work trips are from inside San Francisco and half outside, the overall bike mode split for all work trips to FINAL SAR 98-2 • 11/15/99 • Page 8 development projects were estimated for 2005 as follows: Future Mode Split Scenarios (P.M. Peak)
parking supply was estimated by adding up all of the new Scenario 1 (same spaces to be provided as part of development projects (information from the Planning Department and project Work trips:
environmental studies) and subtracting existing (surface) Auto – drive alone parking that will be eliminated by construction of new developments (information from field surveys conducted by Wilbur Smith Associates in August/September 1999.) Demand was estimated for weekday midday conditions (the period of peak parking demand) using mode split information from the Citywide Travel Behavior Study, the Non-work trips:
Planning Department's guidelines for transportation studies, and existing demand (e.g. occupancy rates) obtained through surveys conducted by Wilbur Smith Associates. The temporary loss of 4,000 parking spaces associated with the Caltrans' retrofit projects was not included in the calculation of new parking demand. It is assumed that these spaces will be restored after Travel behavior varies considerably within various completion of the Caltrans' projects. In the meantime, the subareas of South of Market. The defined study area for City is working on ways to address the temporary loss of the SOMA SAR covers an area nearly equal in size and functional variety to that of North of Market from the financial district to the northern waterfront to the Van 2. Interpretation of Analysis Results
Ness corridor. The 1998 employment density figures that Demand Analysis — New trips by land use & subzone
were used in the Multimedia Gulch SAR show that the The total new p.m. peak hour demand in South of Market Market Street corridor, particularly from 4th Street to the created by the pipeline land use projects through year waterfront, has by far the greatest concentration of 2005 is projected to be 47,150 person trips, using all workers in the study area. The remaining portions of modes of transportation. South of Market south of about Howard Street have significantly lower employment densities. We should keep in mind, however, that this situation is likely to New Person Trips by Land Use
change in the coming 5-year study horizon as commercial development continues to grow in areas south of the Market Street corridor. Thus, to the extent that travel behavior is influenced by employment density, transportation patterns in the deeper reaches of SOMA are likely to change more significantly in the future than they will for the already well-established areas in the Market Street core. Transportation Network Assumptions
Several transportation projects are expected to be implemented over the next five years and have been considered in the system performance analysis as baseline Figure 1 shows these total new trips in the SOMA study improvements for both scenarios. They are shown in area by type of land use. The analysis indicates that there Attachment III. Some of the projects are expected to bring is a roughly even distribution of new development over significant added capacity to the system while others are the five-year time frame of office, retail, residential and relatively minor improvements that mainly increase the special-use projects (such as entertainment, cultural, and safety, efficiency or convenience of certain components of convention facilities). the local and regional transportation system. Attachment V shows that these new trip-generating Parking Supply/Demand
developments will be concentrated in a few of the study Parking supply and demand associated with new SOMA subzones. For instance, subzone 2 is the C-3 downtown district on the south side of Market Street, encompassing 1 The source for mode splits, the MTC Trip Tables, does not distinguish the Transbay Terminal area. Not surprisingly, most of the between single occupant and rideshare auto trips for non-work travel. FINAL SAR 98-2 • 11/15/99 • Page 9 new office growth will occur in this subzone, along with the SOMA study area, 5,500 or more during the p.m. peak some retail and residential development. It is unlikely a period. And similarly, there will be a fairly significant coincidence that most of the new growth is located in number of new bicycle trips on South of Market streets, subzones 1-4 (along Market Street in the downtown, The upwards of 1,150 under Scenario 2 assumptions. Embarcadero, and 4th/King Streets. area near the Caltrain Depot), which are the areas with the highest level of New P.M. Peak Hour Trips by Mode2 transit service and good connections to both local and regional transit. There is a smaller amount of new growth that is expected in the remaining subzones, in the vicinity (drive alone and (7,000 from SF) (6,000 from SF) of the freeways and the west-southwest parts of SOMA. These areas have relatively lower levels of transit service and consequently, a greater proportion of the new travel demand might be expected to be accommodated by automobiles versus transit, given the current transportation Transit Analysis
For each of the two scenarios, the total transit ridership Origin/Destination: Figure 2 summarizes the origins and created from new development through year 2005 was destinations of these new trips affecting the SOMA distributed to MUNI and regional carriers based on current landscape. As mentioned earlier, origins and destinations patterns of origin and destination distribution. As are assumed to remain the same as today and are based on summarized in Figure 2 above, 60% of the trips are MTC model assumptions. Figure 2 shows that over 60% expected to be within San Francisco and the remainder will be destined for San Francisco locations (Note: distributed between the east bay, south bay and north bay destinations are shown since the analysis is based on the corridors, with the east bay being the dominant regional p.m. peak). The majority of the remainder of the new trips corridor. The screenline analysis, shown in Attachment will be to and from the east bay (21%) and a significant VII, uses these major directional corridors to determine portion will also originate in and be destined to the south the degree to which transit carriers will experience increased ridership demand along the indicated desire lines or corridors. It needs to be emphasized that screenline analysis is an accepted sketch level planning New PM Peak Hour Person Trips by Destination
technique for providing an order of magnitude level estimate of how well forecasted ridership demand matches with available capacity. However, our screenline analysis only provides detail at the corridor level, not at the route level. Therefore, our analysis may indicate a potential capacity shortfall in a corridor (e.g. the Geary corridor), but it doesn't tell you which routes (e.g. 1-California vs. 38-Geary) would experience the shortfall. Similarly, our analysis does not capture trips that occur entirely within the screenline or study area. It only captures trips which cross a screenline. Given the above limitations of the screenline analysis, the Mode Split: The demand analysis indicates that under SAR concludes that, in general, the projected ridership Scenario 1, about 13,000 new vehicle trips would be increases could potentially be absorbed by the various generated from this total demand, 7,000 of which would carriers without significant increases in service, after be from residents of San Francisco, and approximately taking into account existing unused capacity and planned 16,000 new transit trips using both local and regional efficiency improvements and new service increases. In carriers. Of those new vehicle and transit trips, about two- the case of BART, although the numerical increase is thirds are outbound from SOMA during the p.m. peak substantial, additional standing room capacity does exist hour. Scenario 2, which sets higher goals for transit usage and implementation of the new train control system, than does Scenario 1, results in about 11,500 vehicle trips which will allow trains to run at closer intervals through from new development, 6,000 of which would be to and from San Francisco locations, and approximately 18,000 new transit trips. Not insignificantly, under both scenarios 2 One vehicle trip may include more than 1 person trip, depending on there is expected to be a large number of new walk trips in the number of vehicle occupants. Transit, walk and bike trips are all person trips. FINAL SAR 98-2 • 11/15/99 • Page 10 the Transbay Tube, may some provide some additional northeast (greater downtown area to Fisherman's Wharf) capacity. For BART, accommodating the projected because of the significant number of internal trips that ridership increase is primarily a question of how much would be expected in SOMA as a result of new additional crowding riders will tolerate. Caltrain, development. These trips wouldn't be captured by the SamTrans, and Golden Gate Transit all appear to have screenline analysis. The Multimedia Gulch SAR did capacity sufficient to meet the projected demand. AC highlight some deficiencies in current MUNI service Transit and the East Bay ferry system have recently South of Market, such as a gap in east/west service increased service or have plans to increase service within between Bryant and 16th Streets and the need for better the five-year time frame of our analysis, which should connections to regional transit (see Section II. B.). The enable them to absorb the expected ridership increases. Gulch SAR suggested that MUNI consider a restructuring of service in SOMA, a suggestion made even more urgent A key factor in determining whether AC Transit, by the dynamic growth that SOMA is expected to Samtrans, Golden Gate Transit and MUNI (discussed experience over the next 5-years. MUNI has already below) will be able to handle the projected increased responded to this need and has undertaken a study that is ridership is the level of congestion on surface streets and looking at the possible restructuring of its service within freeways. During the 5-year time frame of the SAR South of Market. There are also several transit projects analysis, vehicle trips are expected to increase, which will underway, such as the F Market extension to Fisherman's cause delays to the surface routes of these operators. Wharf and the F line connector (formerly known as the E Minimizing and perhaps even reducing traffic-related line connector), that can help better connect the eastern delays to transit would likely be necessary to enable side of SOMA to north of Market. transit to absorb the expected amount of new trips. In order to achieve the transit mode splits forecast by For MUNI, the SAR analysis shows that the system's either scenario used in the SAR analysis, the City will ability to handle additional riders varies by screenline. have to increase MUNI capacity and improve reliability. The northwest San Francisco screenline (trips to the The capacity increases don't necessarily need to be Richmond) appears to have sufficient capacity to meet the achieved by adding new service. For example, reducing increased demand. For the southwest (Sunset, etc.) bunching, minimizing breakdowns, and ensuring that screenline, the projected transit ridership increases would scheduled vehicles are put in service will all effectively stretch MUNI's capacity to near its limit. The K, L, M and increase capacity. As mentioned above, the replacement N subway lines, which carry a significant amount of the of MUNI's entire fleet is currently underway and should transit trips currently destined for the southwest quadrant result in noticeably improved reliability. Other strategies of the City, are already very crowded at peak periods. that need to be considered include improved enforcement Improving the reliability of these lines would likely be of transit-only lanes (perhaps electronically), striping of necessary to help meet the expected growth in this additional transit-only lanes, transit signal pre-emption corridor. Replacement of the entire LRV fleet and and the expansion of MUNI's proof of payment. continued refinement of the new automatic train control system should partially address this need. Roadway Analysis
Similar to the transit analysis, the total vehicle usage For the southeast screenline (trips to the Mission, created from new development through year 2005 was Bayview, etc.), the projected increase in ridership is more distributed to local roadways and the freeway system and than double the current unused capacity for the p.m. peak analyzed for each of the two scenarios. As Attachment hour — a shortfall of approximately 1500 new trips. To VIII shows, the results of the analysis indicate that the provide a context, 1500 new trips would require additional Bay Bridge and I-280 and their street-level connecting capacity equivalent to approximately 24 regular trolley ramps will be most severely impacted by the added buses, 16 articulated trolley buses, or 13 light rail cars. demand from growth in South of Market through year Although MUNI's Third Street light rail line — expected to be in operation by 2004 — could absorb some of these new trips, it would not help address potential capacity A key finding of the SAR is that a critical factor in deficits in the Mission or Potrero/San Bruno subcorridors determining how many people will drive to SOMA from where buses are already at capacity. Additional analysis, the east and south bay is the capacity of the freeway beyond the scope of this SAR, would be needed to ramps. Congestion on the mainline freeway and on the identify the specific subcorridors and/or routes which on-ramps backs up traffic onto surface streets, causing would need to serve the projected new trips. gridlock at intersections, and restricting auto and transit mobility during the peak commute periods. For example, The screenline analysis is very difficult to interpret for the traffic control officers (TCOs) are needed at the FINAL SAR 98-2 • 11/15/99 • Page 11 intersection of First and Market Streets to keep cross- encouraging employers to offer staggered work hours and traffic from blocking transit traffic on Market Street telecommuting options to their employees. because of backups on the Bridge and/or the 1st Street on- ramp. As more demands are placed on the Bay Bridge Another finding is that p.m. peak hour crossings of Market and freeways, p.m. peak back-ups onto SOMA streets Street will have major impacts at the intersections east of could be exacerbated, resulting in potentially significant 6th Street. About 1,200 to 1,500 vehicles are expected to impacts on intersections that are key to maintaining a desire to cross Market at the four intersections between 6th reliable flow of surface transit and traffic. and Montgomery, and 550 to 900 vehicles will use crossings at the five intersections further east to the foot of Key conclusions of this analysis are that given that the Bay Bridge and ramps are already operating at capacity The bottom line for local street level of service and (as evidenced by the regular back-ups of freeway-bound increased traffic volumes will probably be that capacity traffic on surface streets) and that the mainline's inability limitation on the freeways, bridges and ramps will likely to absorb any substantial number of new trips results in keep local street volumes near current levels and increase surface street congestion, the projected increase of the proportion of trips using transit (in fact, potentially between 2,700 and 3,000 new p.m. peak hour trips in the well beyond the mode share shift assumed under Scenario Bay Bridge corridor would not realistically be accom- 2 for this analysis) or shifting some of the vehicle trips to modated. Many of those trips would need to shift to off- peak shoulder travel times. In addition, capacity peak hours, shift to a transit travel mode, or be forgone. A limitations related to freeways will almost certainly similar situation can be expected with the I-280, though it increase the frequency and incidence of spillover gridlock is somewhat less constrained than the Bay Bridge. impacts on SOMA streets. This conclusion may present a Nevertheless, between 3,000 and 3,500 trips to I-280 are strong argument for an even more aggressive policy expected to enter at the King Street on-ramp, drawing objective for transportation in South of Market, for significant surface street traffic through SOMA and along example setting a 55% transit mode share objective for all the Embarcadero and threatening congestion at the ramps SOMA work trips during the p.m. peak and an overall if the capacity on the freeway itself is surpassed. 45% transit share for all trips during the p.m. peak, regardless of purpose. In addition to the congestion caused by freeway related back-ups, congestion will increase on local SOMA streets Bicycle and Pedestrian Analysis
as a result of increased demand associated with new While the SAR's order of magnitude travel demand developments. The two mode split scenarios used for the analysis does not lend itself to making project specific SAR analysis estimate between 11,500 and 13,000 new recommendations about needed SOMA bicycle and p.m. peak hour vehicle trips. For context, a single lane on pedestrian improvements, we can draw some general an arterial like Folsom can handle between 750 and 900 conclusions. For instance, no matter what future mode split is assumed for SOMA, with over 47,000 new p.m. peak hours trips forecasted for 2005, there will be more Although completion of The Embarcadero Roadway bicyclists, pedestrians, and vehicles in SOMA. Since (early 2000) may provide some traffic relief to Main, there is usually a direct correlation between increased Beale, Fremont and First Streets between Market and vehicular volumes and bicycle and pedestrian accidents, Harrison Streets, the SOMA transportation system won't we can expect that additional safety improvements will be be able to accommodate a significant number of increased needed. As discussed in the Multimedia Gulch SAR, vehicles trips during the p.m. peak, nor would it be heavy traffic volumes; wide one-way streets which allow consistent with current City policy to do so. The City's autos to travel relatively fast; the presence of freeway ability to sustain so many jobs in the downtown is directly ramps; lack of bicycle lanes and lack of pedestrian dependent on the ability of transit to carry a significant amenities such as sidewalks and street lighting in many portion of work trips. Any increase in p.m. peak vehicles parts of SOMA pose particular challenges to safe non- would be competing with surface transit for limited motorized travel. roadway space, making transit less reliable, slower and a less viable commute option. Given this, the most Some localized bicycle and pedestrian improvements will appropriate roadway improvements might involve better be put in place as part of land use projects (e.g. Mission enforcement (e.g. don't block the intersection, traffic Bay, Pacific Bell Ballpark, etc.), and other improvements control officers) and projects such as the integrated traffic are currently planned or underway such as the 4th Street management system which will help improve traffic and sidewalk widening, installation of downtown pedestrian transit flow during special events. At the same time, signage and various bicycle lanes. It should be noted that transportation demand strategies could be used, such as there are tradeoffs to be considered with some types of FINAL SAR 98-2 • 11/15/99 • Page 12 improvements, such as removing a lane of traffic to add a order to understand the associated tradeoffs, the parking bicycle lane. Generally, improvements in bicycle safety discussion needs to be set in the transportation and land and convenience must be balanced with possible increases use context described in Section II.A. It is not consistent in traffic congestion and delays to surface transit. Given with current City policy to encourage more vehicle trips the dynamic changes expected in SOMA over the next 5 during peak periods since this would work at cross years, the City may wish to undertake an areawide analy- purposes with the City's approach to handling the peak sis of SOMA bicycle and pedestrian issues to ensure that traffic demand in the downtown by relying on transit to there are no significant gaps in access for these modes. carry a significant portion of trips. Increasing vehicle trips would result in increased delays to surface transit, making By improving conditions for cyclists and pedestrians, we it less reliable and a less viable alternative to travel by can encourage the shift of some vehicle trips to these autos. Finally, any new parking lots or garages should be modes and thereby help ease traffic congestion. This located so as to avoid congested spots and to minimize might be particularly true for areas where new residential access conflicts with transit traffic. growth is expected in SOMA. Pedestrian travel could become even more viable in these areas if neighborhood In this context, the conclusions about future parking serving land uses (e.g. grocery store, dry cleaners) are demand in SOMA are as follows: 1) After adding up the located within walking distance. Finally, pedestrian new spaces expected to be provided by new SOMA improvements can also be supportive of transit, for developments and subtracting existing spaces expected to example by providing a well-lit sidewalk between the be lost, there is an estimated net gain of about 3,000 SOMA origin or destination and the transit stop. spaces in SOMA. 2) Even after accounting for the net gain in parking spaces, there may be a need for 2,600 to C. Implications for Authority Policy Making
3,600 additional parking spaces in SOMA in the next 5 years to meet maximum weekday midday parking Mitigation Costs
demand. 3) There are strong reasons to suggest that any City departments are currently developing cost estimates additional new parking be located either south or under I- for likely mitigation activities that can be safely assumed 80/U.S. 101 versus north of the freeways. This would to be needed in order to cope with the West Approach avoid adding increased automobile traffic on streets near Replacement project. As discussed in the sections above, the Market Street corridor that carry the highest volume of congestion on the Bay Bridge and US 101 is clearly surface transit in the City, and help maintain access to the responsible for significant back-ups on SOMA streets, and freeways from north of Market for existing vehicle construction activity, including the closure of on-ramps, volumes. On the other hand, south of the I-80/U.S. 101 will likely result in a worsening of such conditions. It can there is relatively less auto congestion, lower levels of be expected that the costs of preparing the SOMA transit transit service and lower land use densities so it would be and roadway system for this challenge will run into the reasonable to expect that a relatively higher proportion of many millions of dollars. trips would happen by auto, which would benefit from the additional parking. One potential mitigation measure — relocating trolleybus catenaries (overhead wires) to re-route the 30 Stockton The decision to provide additional parking needs to be and the 45 Union-Stockton lines around the freeway made in conjunction with consideration of ways to better construction — is estimated to cost around $5 million. manage parking supply and demand. This can be Perhaps more important, given how critical it is to achieved by travel demand management strategies (e.g. maintain surface transit service in and out of the area, it offering real-time rideshare matching services, employer- may be necessary to post traffic control officers at many based trip reduction programs), by making alternatives to intersections in SOMA, perhaps over the entire automobiles more attractive and viable as travel options construction period, to ensure that transit vehicles will not (e.g., designating rideshare parking near key destinations, be impeded by gridlocked traffic. The City should not be providing bicycle lanes, rerouting transit service to serve expected to shoulder the burden of managing impacts on new trip generators, enforcing transit lanes, etc.), and by city streets resulting from freeway back-ups and making more efficient use of the existing parking supply construction-related detours, especially as they affect (e.g. instituting valet parking or adjusting parking rates to transit service. The West Approach project budget should encourage more frequent turnover.) clearly reflect such considerations.
Parking Supply
IV. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
There has been debate about the need to expand the A key finding of the SAR is that critical factors in parking supply in SOMA, to respond to development. In determining how many people will actually drive to FINAL SAR 98-2 • 11/15/99 • Page 13 SOMA include the capacity of the freeway ramps the SAR's findings: (particularly for trips to and from the east and south bays), parking supply, parking demand and roadway capacity. • Muni should complete and implement its South of As more demands are placed on the Bay Bridge and Market Service Concept Plan, now under freeways, p.m. peak back-ups onto SOMA streets could be development, to better serve transit patrons in SOMA. exacerbated, impacting motorists with both regional and • The Department of Parking and Traffic should San Francisco destinations, resulting in potentially complete their parking study (currently underway), significant impacts on intersections that are key to which will assess the need for parking in the short and maintaining a reliable flow of surface transit, and long-term, as well as identify potential sites for potentially impacting transit service. additional parking. The study should also look at ways to improve the efficiency of the current parking For the next 5 years, assuming that the current pace of supply by identifying innovative parking supply development will hold up, this report concludes that: management techniques for application in SOMA, including valet parking at major garages, robot 1. Because of freeway and intersection capacity parking, parking pricing structures, secondary use of limitations, only a multimodal approach, relying private parking facilities, and the like. heavily on transit service, will provide an adequate • The Authority and the Planning Department should response to the transportation challenges in SOMA. consider the possibility of preparing a follow-up 2. Congestion on the mainline freeway (US 101) and on report, developing specific recommendations for land the Bay Bridge is responsible for evening peak back- use policies and techniques and specific transportation ups onto SOMA streets as traffic is prevented from investments that would provide a coordinated leaving San Francisco, affecting the functioning of the transportation and land use vision for SOMA and in local street network and the effectiveness of surface particular, improve pedestrian environments in SOMA transit service. The additional trips in SOMA will neighborhoods and permit the replacement of certain exacerbate street network congestion in the vicinity of automobile trips by walking or bicycle trips. freeway on-ramps, and in the corridors leading • The Planning Department should continue to directly to the on-ramps, in the p.m. peak. encourage travel demand management (TDM) 3. What is known about the traffic management plans for techniques, including expansion of employer CalTrans construction work in SOMA suggests that assistance programs, as a way to help reduce peak the Caltrans projects will further exacerbate the point period demand. TDM techniques include ridesharing, made in 2) above, particularly through the closure of telecommuting, staggering work hours, offering transit on-ramps in San Francisco for extended periods of time. Mitigating these impacts will likely necessitate • The Department of Parking and Traffic and MUNI extensive use of traffic control officers and careful should work together to achieve close coordination and costly re-structuring and augmentation of transit between the Pacific Bell Ballpark and West Approach TMPs to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are 4. Given the significance of the expected impacts, the in place on game days. City should require that CalTrans demonstrate the • Using the results of surveys currently being adequacy of the traffic management plan and ensure conducted, CalTrans, in coordination with the mitigation funding availability to deal with the above Transportation Authority, MTC, and adjacent counties issues in advance of proceeding with construction in should address freeway traffic management the Fall of 2000, or modify the schedule to allow techniques, including congestion pricing on the Bay sufficient time for implementation of all necessary Bridge and freeway ramp metering. mitigation measures. • The Department of Parking and Traffic and MUNI 5. After accounting for the net gain of approximately should further explore the potential role of taxicabs 3,000 spaces as expected to be constructed as part of and dial-a-ride services in SOMA. new developments, there may be a need for 2,600 to 3,600 additional parking spaces in SOMA in the next 5 years, which should be located under or south of I- V. BIBLIOGRAPHY/SOURCES
80/US 101. These numbers are likely to be refined as a result of the Department of Parking and Traffic's 1992 Citywide Travel Behavior Survey — Employer, parking study, which is currently underway. Employee and Visitor Surveys, The Planning Department. Suggested Follow-Ups
Below is a listing of potential follow-up actions, based on
FINAL SAR 98-2 • 11/15/99 • Page 14 1995 Citywide Travel Behavior Survey Final Report, J.D.
Franz Research, et al for the San Francisco County
Transportation Authority, April, 1996.

Doyle Drive Intermodal Study Data Collection Report, San
Francisco Guideway Associates for the San Francisco
County Transportation Authority, March, 1995.
Guidelines for Environmental Review: Transportation
Impacts, The Planning Department, July 1991.
Strategic Analysis Report on China Basin Ballpark
Transportation Issues, San Francisco County
Transportation Authority, April 15, 1996.
Strategic Analysis Report on Multimedia Gulch, San
Francisco County Transportation Authority, March 8,
1999.
VI. CREDITS
José Luis Moscovich was the principal author of this
report. He had assistance from Authority staff Maria
Lombardo and Matthew Seubert, and from our consultants
Peter Cohen and Wilbur Smith Associates. We also are
thankful for the many comments and helpful suggestions
received from a number of individuals from City
departments and other agencies, in particular Amit Ghosh,
Hillary Gitelman, Paul Lord, and Fred Ridel from the
Planning Department; Jack Fleck, Jerry Robbins, Stuart
Sunshine and Bond Yee from the Department of Parking
and Traffic; Duncan Watry and Peter Straus from MUNI,
José Campos from the Redevelopment Agency and
Caltrans West Approach staff.

Source: http://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/content/legacy/documents/SOMASARFINAL.PDF