Traffic Calming Program Revision Materials

Enclosure Table of Contents

No. Item Page No.

1 SFMTA Traffic Calming Program Revision Final Report 1

2 Backlog of Traffic Calming Implementation Projects 47

3Citywide Map of Traffic Calming Area-wide and Site Specific Projects

61

M:\PnP\2013\Memos\06 June\Prop K Annual Call Enclosure\Enclosure 2 Traffic Calming\TOC Traffic Calming Revision Materials

Item 8 Enclosure (2 of 2) Plans and Programs Committee June 18, 2013

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Edwin M. Lee Mayor

Tom Nolan Chairman

Cheryl Brinkman Vice-Chairman

Leona Bridges Director

Malcolm Heinicke Director

Jerry Lee Director

Joél Ramos Director

Cristina Rubke Director

Edward D. Reiskin Director of Transportation

One South Van Ness Ave. Seventh Floor San Francisco, CA 94103

Tele: 415.701.4500

www.sfmta.com

SFMTA Traffic Calming Program Revision

CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................................... 2

Background ................................................................................................... 4

Guiding Objectives ........................................................................................ 5

Best Practices For Application Based Programs .......................................... 9

Evaluation of SFMTA’s Application-Based Program ................................... 22

Applications and Acceptance Rates ........................................................ 22

Ranking Criteria ....................................................................................... 24

Traffic Calming Process Timeline ............................................................ 27

Device Types .......................................................................................... 30

Balloting .................................................................................................. 30

Implementation ........................................................................................ 32

Resident Survey ...................................................................................... 33

Revised Methodology For Application Based Program ............................... 34

Outreach ................................................................................................. 34

Year-Round Correspondence ................................................................. 35

Application Requirements ....................................................................... 35

Evaluation & Ranking .............................................................................. 36

Planning Recommendation ..................................................................... 36

Community Outreach .............................................................................. 37

Balloting of Residents .............................................................................. 37

Funding Cycle and Program Costs .......................................................... 38

Rebalanced Priorities .................................................................................. 39

Local Streets Track ................................................................................. 39

Schools Track ......................................................................................... 41

Arterial and Commercial Streets Track .................................................... 41

Program Funding..................................................................................... 43

Next Steps .................................................................................................. 44

1

2

INTRODUCTION The Traffic Calming Program Revision was launched in spring of 2012 to implement changes to the way the SFMTA selects and delivers traffic calming projects in San Francisco. This project was conceived in part to address the City’s increased desire to focus on pedestrian and bicycle safety, spurred by the Mayor’s Executive Directive on Pedestrian Safety. In addition, feedback received from San Francisco residents and stakeholder groups, as well as city staff involved in the Traffic Calming Program, pointed to a need to consider changes to improve the delivery of residential traffic calming projects. Based on this direction and feedback, the following goals were established to guide the process of revising the program:

Improve the efficiency of traffic calming project development and implementation in order to maximize limited resources and deliver projects in a reasonable time frame.

Align project selection and prioritization criteria with the stated goals of traffic calming and other adopted City goals and policies.

This document describes SFMTA staff’s proposal for changes to the Traffic Calming Program, and in particular to projects funded through the dedicated Proposition K sales tax funds for traffic calming. The document details the following topics:

Guiding Objectives for the Revision Process This section lays out the City and agency goals that relate to the traffic calming program, and identifies specific guiding objectives used during the process of the revision to develop the proposals included in this document.

Best Practices for Application-Based Traffic Calming Programs SFMTA staff reviewed traffic calming programs in other US jurisdictions to inform revisions to San Francisco’s process.

Evaluation of the SFMTA’s Application--Based Program SFMTA staff reviewed the processes and results over the past ten years of the application-based traffic calming program, seeking opportunities to increase efficiency and improve project results.

2

3

Revised Methodology for Application-Based Program This section describes SFMTA’s plan to process applications from residents and implement basic traffic calming measures more efficiently and with greater transparency and predictability to applicants.

Rebalanced Funding Priorities This section details the SFMTA’s proposed program areas and relative funding priorities that form a more balanced three-track approach, better reflecting the original intent of the Traffic Calming Guidelines.

Next Steps The revised application-based program will begin immediately, but the increased focus on corridors and schools will be transitioned over the next several years so that the existing backlog of residential traffic calming projects can be addressed.

The proposed changes are consistent with the existing SFMTA Traffic Calming Guidelines, which were developed in 2000 in response to the SFCTA’s Strategic Analysis Report on Traffic Calming. These funding and administrative changes reinforce, rather than shift, the programmatic priorities of the Traffic Calming Guidelines.

3

4

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

4

5

GUIDING OBJECTIVES San Francisco’s Traffic Calming Guidelines, developed in 2000, lay out goals for traffic calming projects developed by the SFMTA. This revision process was not intended to supplant these goals, but rather to ensure that the SFMTA’s program balances the various priorities identified in the Traffic Calming Guidelines in a way that is consistent with other City and agency priorities, and that makes the best use of limited resources. To this end, the following goals were established to guide the process of revising the program:

Improve the efficiency of traffic calming project development and implementation in order to maximize limited resources and deliver projects in a reasonable time frame.

Align project selection and prioritization criteria with the stated goals of traffic calming and other adopted City goals and policies.

Key San Francisco and SFMTA Goals The decision to make adjustments to the SFMTA’s traffic calming program came in part as a response to Mayor Gavin Newsom’s Executive Directive on Pedestrian Safety, which focuses on reducing serious and fatal pedestrian injuries in San Francisco. This directive is one of several policy documents that relate to traffic calming, prioritizing bicycle and pedestrian safety, increasing bicycling and walking, and improving livability for San Francisco residents. Some of the key policy documents that guided this process are quoted below: Mayors Executive Directive on Pedestrian Safety:

I am directing city agencies to coordinate through the Director’s Working Group toward a citywide target of a 25% reduction in serious and fatal pedestrian injuries by 2016 and 50% reduction by 2012. Serious and fatal pedestrian injury reductions should also reduce existing inequities in serious injuries by neighborhood. These injury prevention goals should be linked with a complementary citywide goal of increasing walking as a share of trips in the city.

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Strategic Plan:

Goal 1. Create a safer transportation experience for everyone. o Objective 1.3: Improve the safety of the transportation system.

Goal 2. Make transit, walking, bicycling, taxi, ridesharing, and carsharing the preferred means of travel.

o Objective 2.3: Increase use of all non-private auto modes.

5

6

Goal 3. Improve the environment and quality of life in San Francisco.

SFMTA Traffic Calming Guidelines

Arterial - Improve safety, especially for pedestrians and bikes Local - Improve traffic safety for residential users, pedestrians and

bicyclists Schools - Improve traffic safety at and near schools, especially for

children (preK-12) In addition to these established goals, SFMTA staff heard from policy makers and stakeholder groups that it is important for San Francisco residents to have a program that is responsive to the concerns for safety on their neighborhood streets. Overall, these goals emphasize safety, particularly for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as promoting increased walking and biking and improved livability.

Limitations of Application-Based Traffic Calming The program that has been in place for the past decade has focused increasingly on responding to applications on residential streets, and there continues to be a high level of interest from residents across the city to improve traffic safety in their neighborhoods. However, collision data collected over the years shows that the streets that are most likely to have high levels of injuries and fatalities are arterials and busy commercial corridors – streets that are not eligible for the residential traffic calming program. A program that prioritizes safety above all else would look at collisions across the city, and would be unlikely to prioritize the locations that rise through the application-based program. Even within the realm of residential traffic calming, responding to requests favors locations where residents are engaged and active members of their communities, but may miss locations where there are equally severe speeding problems but residents do not know to apply. While the application-based program meets goals related to livability and public engagement, it is not the means through which the goals around reducing injuries and fatalities can be reached. By improving the efficiency of the application-based traffic calming program, the SFMTA hopes to improve the experience for residents wishing to apply,

6

7

while increasing the amount of funding available for traffic calming along busy arterial and commercial corridors and near schools.

Guiding Objectives – Process Efficiency Improving the process efficiency of traffic calming in San Francisco primarily relates to refining the application-based traffic calming program to maximize limited resources and deliver projects in a reasonable time frame.

The steps taken to evaluate the efficiency of the program included:

Reviewing other cities’ traffic calming programs and identifying key lessons and opportunities

Evaluating each step of the application-based process including o Analyzing the process and results from ten years of the

SFMTA’s traffic calming program o Seeking feedback from participants and stakeholders

Developing a proposal for the revised methodology Seeking feedback from stakeholders on the proposed methodology

The resultant process is designed to achieve the following overarching “process efficiency” objectives:

Reduce timeline from application to completed project Improve communication and transparency with residents Continue to implement approximately 20-25 projects based on

resident applications each year

Guiding Objectives – Rebalancing Priorities After 10 years of delivering traffic calming projects, the SFMTA wanted to revisit the priorities of the program to ensure that project selection and prioritization criteria are consistent with the goals stated in the SFMTA’s Traffic Calming Guidelines and other adopted City goals and policies. Through the revision process, the steps taken to re-examine the program’s priorities included:

Reviewing existing agency and city goals Working with stakeholder groups and considering existing city plans

to identify opportunities for traffic calming to have the greatest benefits

Developing a proposal for the rebalanced traffic calming tracks Seeking feedback from stakeholders on the rebalanced traffic

calming tracks

7

8

The resultant process is designed to achieve the following overarching “rebalancing priorities” objectives:

Schools o Increase funding opportunities o Align projects to focus on speed reduction near schools

Arterial and Commercial Streets o Increase funding opportunities o Align projects to focus on speed reduction where the highest

number of collisions occur Local Streets

o Maintain ability for residents to identify potential project locations and engage in the traffic calming process

o Identify opportunities for traffic calming on streets that have the potential to increase walking and biking

8

9

BEST PRACTICES FOR APPLICATION BASED PROGRAMS This chapter provides an overview of traffic calming practices in five North American municipalities, with a focus on program elements that contrast with San Francisco’s methods. The cities that were interviewed for this report are:

Berkeley, California New York City, New York Portland, Oregon Sacramento, California Seattle, Washington

These programs vary in size, criteria, process, and timeline. Some cities manage either a neighborhood traffic calming program, arterial traffic calming program, both, or none. Some cities’ programs are focused on a specific traffic calming device, such as speed humps or traffic circles, while other cities manage these treatment-specific programs in addition to a formal traffic calming program.

Selection of Municipalities SFMTA staff reviewed the program websites of over 20 municipalities, looking for programs that seemed to face some of the same issues as San Francisco, but with approaches that differ from our current program. Eight cities were contacted for further information, and five of these were available for a telephone interview with SFMTA staff.

Berkeley, California Berkeley has a community-driven traffic calming program for residential streets:

Various traffic calming devices are considered Projects cover one or a few residential blocks 3-4 projects added each year Annual application cycle (detailed in graphic on next page) Individual residents request initial review; 50% plus 1 support to

apply 12-30 month timeline depending on treatment type and available

funding Typically 2 community meetings $50,000 annual construction budget Current program model in place since 2009

9

10

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

10

11

Annual cycle of traffic calming including requests, studies, and planning

Key Lessons for San Francisco

Berkeley staff felt the clear annual project cycle was essential for setting expectations among residents.

The annual cycle is oriented around their budget, with the decision on which projects will be completed in the next year coinciding with the annual CIP submittal.

As in San Francisco, requests/applications are initially evaluated on basic criteria such as collision history and 85th percentile speeds. In Berkeley, however, when a location meets these criteria the neighborhood has one month to complete a petition in which over 50% of households declare their support for some traffic calming measure. This occurs before any community meetings are held and before specific devices are proposed. This removes projects from consideration that do not have sufficient community support, and speeds up the process once preferred measures are identified.

New York City, New York The New York Department of Transportation (NYDOT) has a community-driven traffic calming program called Neighborhood Slow Zones. The

11

12

program is inspired by the 20’s Plenty for Us campaign in Britain, and includes reducing the speed limit to 20 mph, adding painted gateway treatments at all entrances to the slow zones, painting the speed limit on the streets, and adding speed humps on some streets. The program features:

Annual application deadline 13 applications selected out of 100 received in 2011 Neighborhood groups or institutions may apply (not individual

residents) Slow Zones range in size from one-tenth to one-third of a square mile Projects are presented for approval to Community Boards at their

standing meetings – no other community meetings or balloting takes place

Each project costs on the order of $200,000 Current program model in place since 2011

Left: Slow Zone Gateway Treatment in the Bronx, New York City. Right: close up of a Slow Zone

sign.

Initial Application Applications must be submitted by Community Boards, local institutions, community groups, merchant associations, or elected officials; individuals may not apply. The application requires applicants to do the following:

Propose “strong” project boundaries that are typically major streets, freeways or surface rail lines, or dead ends.

Complete an inventory of the project area, noting the presence of schools, senior centers, parks, hospitals, truck or bus routes, subway stations.

List all organizations/officials that support the proposed implementation of a slow zone, and provide letters of support.

Project Selection During the review stage, staff assign points to applications that meet criteria related to collision history, presences of schools or parks, community support letters etc There is an emphasis on collision history, rather than

12

13

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

13

14

Funding Signs, markings, and labor costs combined are approximately $50,000 to $70,000 for each slow zone, and with an average of 14 speed humps at $10,000 each, a typical project budget is approximately $200,000. Because this year was the first year of accepting applications, more were selected than could be completed within the year. Although the process is scheduled to take place on an annual basis, the exact number that can be funded on an annual basis remains uncertain. All projects are supported by NYCDOT operating funds. Speed Hump Program Process New York City has a separate process for implementing individual speed humps. Approximately 1,500 requests are submitted per year by a simple online request form, and speed surveys are conducted at around 500 locations that meet basic criteria (primarily based on transit or past investigation at the same location). Roughly 200 locations meet thresholds for speed and/or collision history; these are recommended to the community boards and built if approved. Neighborhood balloting is only conducted when specifically required by the community board. Speed humps are currently supported by the NYCDOT operating budget and are a routine part of roadwork. Key Lessons for San Francisco

Strong community support is required for initial consideration, and is focused on institutions and community groups rather than on individual resident preference

Staff use a limited toolbox to quickly design each Slow Zone. Because applicants have clear expectations of what will be included in their project if accepted, staff do not engage in a back-and-forth dialogue to develop a customized design.

Contrasting with the strong community support required for Slow Zones, speed humps are regarded as a standard treatment for a specific problem. If a location meets the criteria for a speed hump, it will be recommended for implementation.

Because all funding comes from the department’s operating budget, project timelines are less tied up by funding cycles.

Portland, Oregon Portland has currently suspended its traffic calming program due to funding cuts. Prior to its suspension, the Portland Department of Transportation (PDOT) managed a Streamlined Speed Bump Purchase Program and a

14

15

Traffic Calming Program. This summary focuses on the Traffic Calming Program:

Rolling application deadline Typical project defined as a local street segment from one collector to

another collector street Individual residents request preliminary review; 33% support to apply;

67% support to approve project Typically one open house for projects on local service streets; two

meetings for projects on neighborhood collector streets 200 projects on hold at time of suspension Program and funding focus has shifted from Traffic Calming Program

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

15

16

within 60 days. The final approvals include city administrative approval and city council approval. If at any point in the process the proposed project does not meet the program requirements, the neighborhood may reinitiate the process after a 24 month waiting period. Unlike high volume local service streets and neighborhood collectors, low volume local streets typically only require one community meeting to discuss the goal of speed reduction. Local streets require 67 percent project approval from residents. During the review period of local service street applications, staff assign points to applications for traffic volume, traffic speed, presence of high speeders, presence of sidewalks, bikeway designation, and walkway designation.

Funding & Implementation Construction begins as soon as full funding has been received. Funding sources include grants, Urban Renewal Areas, and voluntary financial contributions from residents. In recent years funding has been shifted towards neighborhood greenways and Safe Routes to School projects. Due to this funding reorganization, staff may consider addressing concerns brought by new requests from a neighborhood greenway framework.

Key Lessons for San Francisco

Portland staff reported initially working with the Portland Fire Bureau on a case by case basis, but at some point switched to a full analysis of critical response routes. This six month process resulted in a classification that was far simpler and more consistent, and resulted in greater support from the Fire Bureau.

Portland requires 33 percent of residents’ support before investigating a location, but does not require the full 67 percent support until after a public meeting is held to explain the benefits to residents.

Sacramento, California Sacramento has two separate programs: a residential speed hump program and their Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP). This summary focus on the NTMP program:

Average size is 600 residences, ranges from 40 to 1,700 4 new applications in 2011, have been clearing a backlog in recent

years Rolling application deadline with well-defined project stages 10 signatures needed to apply

16

17

Projects are prioritized within each of 8 city districts 2 year minimum timeline, historically up to 4-5 years 2 community meetings and 6 working group meetings Each project is $46,000 to $60,000 including $6,000 for pre-

implementation costs (evaluation, outreach materials) Current program model in place since 1999

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

17

18

Project Implementation and Next Steps After the project is approved, it may be six months for the city to go through its CEQA process and then installation takes three months to a year depending on the type of devices and the weather conditions. The TCC will meet one more time after the devices have been installed to see whether they feel the neighborhood issues have been addressed; if not, additional measures may be considered. Speed Hump Program The City of Sacramento also has streamlined “Speed Hump Program” – though they typically install split speed lumps instead of humps due to fire department preference. For this process, residents apply for a specific block rather than an area. Ten neighbors must sign the initial application – by signing the petition residents also agree to have the speed hump in placed front of their house, if deemed the most appropriate location. If a street was included in a NTMP area but the plan did not include a speed hump or lump for that street, the street will not be considered through the speed hump program. Locations that meet basic thresholds are then ranked based on traffic speeds and volumes, parks, schools, etc., with especially high priority placed on school locations. Geographic distribution is included in the ranking, with the top locations from each district chosen to move forward, though after equal distribution among districts additional funding will go to highest overall ranked streets. Funded locations will be implemented and unfunded locations will be added to the waiting list for future years. Key Lessons for San Francisco

Sacramento staff note that though each project seems to have a complex and lengthy process, there is little customization in the process for each area plan and they are able to run the program with three staff people.

City staff describe their program as being “down home” and say that the neighbors appreciate the mailed newsletters, fliers, brochures, and other ongoing communication throughout the process. This, too, does not require much customization on the part of city staff except to input data from collected surveys. Each project has materials and mailing costs built in.

Sacramento has an accelerated speed hump program but has policies to remove redundancy between this and the NTMP program.

18

19

Seattle, Washington The Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) operates a Traffic Calming Program, Arterial Traffic Calming Program, and a Traffic Circle Program. Traffic Calming Program

Multi-phase application process with rolling requests for education and enforcement and annual deadline to be considered for physical measures (speed humps, traffic circles, chicanes)

Projects cover one to a few blocks All applicants required to attend an informational meeting on the

traffic calming process Residents can reserve speed guns and conduct initial speed

monitoring All complete applications may receive enforcement and education Annual funding for five to ten projects to receive physical measures

Initial Application/Request Seattle’s general Traffic Calming Program is conducted in two phases. Starting in Phase I, residents may submit a request at any time and SDOT staff will perform a preliminary assessment. If the location qualifies, then the applicant will be asked to enlist the support of at least four more neighbors, submit an enrollment form, and attend a neighborhood traffic calming meeting. This is a regularly scheduled informational meeting that occurs in different parts of the city throughout the year. During the meeting, SDOT staff provide an overview of different traffic calming options and the city’s application process, and residents learn how to use a radar speed gun. After attending a meeting, applicants who chose to move forward can check out a radar speed gun and use it to conduct neighborhood speed monitoring. Everyone who goes through this speed survey process qualifies for Phase I, and locations with 85th percentile speeds above 30 mph can be evaluated for Phase II. Of 200 people who submit initial requests for traffic calming, around 100 will attend one of the informational meetings, 50 of these will check out a radar gun at some point during the year, and 5-10 of these will ultimately qualify for Phase II. Phase I: Enforcement and Education Seattle provides education and targeted enforcement for any neighborhood that still has concerns after conducting a speed survey. These are fairly minor measures that are phased in and out, and basically serve as reminders to neighbors that there are speeding concerns. This could include distributing brochures and lawn signs, posting temporary “speed

19

20

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

A multi-stage application process means that of 200 initial requests for traffic calming only 5-10 submit an application for physical measures.

By requiring applicants to do their own surveys, Seattle reduces the locations where they conduct their own evaluation, and residents get

20

21

a firsthand understanding of what speeds are actually like on their streets.

Regardless of actual speeding, Seattle makes several inexpensive options available to neighborhoods that still want them after measuring speeds

For their traffic circle program, Seattle requires a strong commitment from the entire neighborhood before prioritizing a location

Traffic circle applications are only valid for 3 years so that low-ranked locations do not languish on a waiting list.

21

22

EVALUATION OF SFMTA’S APPLICATION-BASED PROGRAM SFMTA Livable Streets staff reviewed past methodologies for screening traffic calming applications, for prioritizing accepted applications and for public involvement in the development of projects. Staff analyzed the results of past projects and reviewed the time and cost needed to select, plan, design and implement projects. Additionally, a survey was conducted of residents who had previously participated in the Traffic Calming Program. This section details the results of this evaluation and identifies opportunities for improvements. Some key observations from the analysis include:

An average of 26 traffic calming devices are installed each year More new residential traffic calming measures are planned each year

than can be implemented 20 percent of projects are rejected in the neighborhood ballot Residents feel the process is too long and confusing

Each section below includes recommendations for improving the process of delivering traffic calming in San Francisco.

Applications and Acceptance Rates Applications from residents identify locations for traffic calming and establish community support for projects. The application that was previously used in San Francisco required residents to note the details of traffic concerns on their streets as well as to obtain ten signatures from neighbors. Application Requirements In considering what information and degree of support should be required for the application, SFMTA staff reviewed other cities with traffic calming programs and asked residents about their experience with applying for traffic calming. Some key observations from this review include:

Of survey respondents who had submitted a traffic calming application, 61 percent agreed with the statement “It was easy to apply to the traffic calming program” and 32 percent were neutral, while only 7 percent disagreed with the statement.

Many cities require a higher level of community support than San Francisco does before a traffic calming device is planned. (See Best Practices chapter for more information)

These findings indicate that the existing traffic calming application process is not onerous, and that the SFMTA could consider requiring a greater show of commitment from residents up front to reduce the likelihood of a measure being rejected during the balloting process.

22

23

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

Applications Received and Accepted per Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Nu

mb

er o

f A

pp

licat

ion

s

Fiscal Year

Other

Rejected

Combined with Areawide

Accepted

23

24

Over ten years of the traffic calming program, an average of 50 applications were received each year, of which an average of 19 were ultimately accepted. (Applications from Fiscal Year 11/12 are not shown because during that year the SFMTA stopped accepting applications for the duration of the Traffic Calming Revision project.) Application Timeline & Ranking In the former traffic calming program, applications were received throughout the year and evaluated on a rolling basis. Once an application was accepted based on speeding thresholds, it would be assigned a score based on the severity of the issue (see section on Ranking Criteria, below) and added to a continually updated list of accepted projects. This ensured that the most severe locations received a higher priority for planning and implementation, but also meant that an “accepted” project that had a low score could be continually outranked by more recent applications. Some of these applications remained on the waiting list for years, causing confusion and frustration for the original applicant who had been told that they were “accepted.” Recommendations

Consider an annual call for applications to gain efficiencies by processing many applications at once, and to be able to rank locations before issuing acceptances, reducing the circumstance that an “accepted” location languishes on the waiting list.

Ranking Criteria The ranking criteria impact the order in which project locations are addressed, and attempt to prioritize locations that are in the greatest need of traffic calming. The SFMTA uses a calculator to determine a score for each location based on the following criteria:

Speeds Volume/Cut-Through traffic Collisions Local Conditions (including schools, parks, bicycle routes) Coordination with other projects Exhibition driving

SFMTA staff analyzed how the points assigned for different criteria affected overall ranking as well as the appropriateness of existing ranking criteria and weights.

24

25

Prioritizing Speeds versus Prioritizing Collisions One topic for evaluation that was identified before the Traffic Calming Program Revision began was that locations were prioritized and evaluated based on speeds, rather than collisions, though collision rates would seem to be the more accurate indication of safety. Unlike speeding data, which is only collected upon request, the SFMTA has access to collision data for the entire city, allowing for a true prioritization of locations by collisions. In fact, citywide collisions have been analyzed in this manner through the Walk First initiative and the Pedestrian Safety Strategy. The analysis showed that the top collision locations are on arterial streets and busy commercial corridors, while the types of residential streets that are evaluated through the Local Track traffic calming program have relatively low levels of collisions. The Rebalancing Priorities section of this report addresses this disparity by presenting recommendations for increasing the focus of the broader Traffic Calming Program to address these high injury corridors. Within the residential areas that are the primary candidates for the application-based program, the low frequency of collisions makes it a difficult metric to use to distinguish between potential projects. Because vehicle speeds correlate to injury severity and are easily quantifiable, speed reduction is a primary goal. Goals around improving livability and increasing walking and biking can also be achieved through speed reduction, which impacts the experience of these streets on a daily basis. Impact of Ranking Points The chart below shows what happened to the top 20 ranked locations when points for each criteria were removed from the total score.

Top 20 Locations when Points for One Criterion are Excluded

The inclusion of vehicle speed in the rankings had the greatest impact on whether or not a location stayed in the top 20, while the top 20 locations did not change at all when points that had been assigned for exhibition driving,

25

26

schools, or parks were excluded. If these criteria are intended to improve a location’s priority, the weighting of these criteria are too low. Also notable was the difference in impact between cut through points and volume points: points assigned for these two criteria both had to do with the amount of traffic, but they were differentiated as follows:

Volumes: assigned points were proportional to the total vehicle volumes measured on that street.

Cut Through Traffic: points were assigned based on the degree to which traffic levels were appropriate for that street, based on a multitude of local conditions.

A quarter of the projects in the chart above were prioritized because of cut through traffic: without cut through points, five of these locations would not have been in the top 20. Points for vehicle volumes had a much smaller impact, and the following chart gives a more detailed picture of how these two criteria were weighted, using 60 sample locations:

Combined Volume and Cut Through Points

Grouped by Average Daily Traffic (ADT)

Giving weight to cut through traffic was a reasonable metric when the Traffic Calming program began, and a primary consideration was how to re-direct traffic to arterial streets or otherwise reduce volumes on a street. However, if the goals of the traffic calming program are realigned to be more focused on reducing speeding, the SFMTA should consider removing cut through points from the ranking system. Given that speeding is defined by the percentage of vehicles driving above the speed limit, higher vehicle volumes translate to more speeding vehicles, and to greater risk. Total volumes should be included as an important criteria even if volumes are not targeted through traffic diversion. Finally, considering that the primary goal of the traffic calming measures is to reduce speeding, SFMTA staff reviewed the relationship between

26

27

speeding and total ranking score. The chart below shows the total points for 60 locations; the height of each bar is the total score for each location, and the points for speeding are shown in yellow.

Total Points, Sorted by Speed Points

In the ranking system that the SFMTA has used over the past ten years, many other factors besides speeding had a strong influence on project ranking. If the SFMTA hopes to primarily address speeding, the ranking points should be adjusted accordingly. Recommendations SFMTA staff recommend making the following changes to the ranking criteria:

Increase the weighting given to speeding and to schools Remove cut-through traffic as a ranking criterion, and instead focus

on total traffic volumes

Traffic Calming Process Timeline The long timeline of traffic calming implementation was high on the list of concerns for SFMTA staff and stakeholders alike. In the resident survey, over seventy percent of respondents agreed with the statement “The overall process took longer than I felt was reasonable,” and the statement “The timeline of planning and implementation should be shortened” was rated as the most important of a number of statements about the traffic calming process. At the root of the long timeline for implementing traffic calming devices is the fact that the SFMTA, working with San Francisco residents, identified and

27

28

committed to traffic calming projects at a faster rate than the projects could be delivered given staffing and funding constraints. The practice of approaching traffic calming from an “area-wide” perspective has been particularly responsible for what has become a multi-million dollar backlog of project commitments. The area-wide process was developed as a way to look at multiple locations in the same neighborhood together, to address the possibility that building a traffic calming device on one street – the street that submitted an application – could result in traffic being diverted to a neighboring street which might have similar characteristics but did not apply. The boundaries of area-wide projects were drawn to incorporate all residential streets between arterials, major collectors, or commercial streets that were seen as the appropriate locations for diverted traffic. Once defined, area-wide projects were ranked based on the highest scoring application within that area. The table below shows the timeline of a typical area-wide traffic calming process. The dates are provided for the Silver Terrace Area-wide project, to illustrate the process.

Area-wide Process Silver Terrace Timeline

Accept Applications FY 02/03 – FY 08/09 4 Accepted Applications

Define Area-wide & Rank Location FY 06/07 Ranked 20th

Community Process FY 09/10 – FY 10/11 Public Workshops and Working Group meetings, 20 devices proposed

Legislation, Environmental Review FY 10/11

Implementation FY 11/12 – FY 16/17 First 4 humps installed in 2012; implementation is ongoing

In the case of Silver Terrace, four applications were combined into the Silver Terrace Area-wide in 2006, but the project ranked 20th at the time, and the community process did not begin for several years. For most area-wide projects, multiple public workshops were held and a community working group was established to develop the details of the plan with the SFMTA. During this open-ended process,

28

29

All residents living in a defined area-wide were welcome to participate, and many residential streets were considered for traffic calming devices, whether or not an application had been submitted for that street. Many more devices were proposed through this process than were requested through the original applications. The community process included education about many different types of traffic calming devices, and residents chose from speed humps, islands, chicanes, curb extensions and restriping – devices that range greatly in cost.

This open-ended approach led to the development of thoughtful, comprehensive traffic plans for each area-wide location, but with a long list of desired devices that often included costly measures. For Silver Terrace, the plan for the project included a total of 20 devices at a cost of $500,000. With several area-wide plans approved in a given year, implementation timelines for each plan were broken into phases and implementation scheduled over several years, so that each year each neighborhood could see a piece of their plan realized – but it could take many years before all of the early phase projects were implemented, and often a “wish list” of less critical projects remains with no strategy for implementation in the near term. For the Silver Terrace project, it was ten years between when the first application was accepted and when the first speed humps were installed. The backlog to implement these large area-wide plans causes frustration for residents who have participated in the community process and identified their desired projects. Additionally, the SFMTA staff time required to address the backlog leads to further delays in starting the planning processes for newly received applications – or applications with low rankings that have been on the waiting list for years. Though the goal of addressing traffic calming issues on a neighborhood scale is commendable, the results are unsustainable for the SFMTA. For many of the devices that are implemented, particularly speed humps, the planning process is overly lengthy and costly. Meanwhile, for those proactive residents who recognize a problem on their streets and submit an application, the timeline from application to installation is perceived as unreasonably long. Recommendations

Consider focusing traffic calming on spot improvements to address resident concerns in a more timely manner, rather than an area-wide approach to traffic calming

29

30

Consider other approaches to address residential locations that do not apply for traffic calming

Device Types As noted above, the community process for area wide traffic calming included an opportunity for residents to identify their preferred devices, based on a broad range of available options. Typical device costs vary greatly, from around $7,000 for a speed hump to $20,000 for a median island to $70,000 or more for a curb extension. (These costs include detailed design, construction labor and construction materials; speed hump costs are fairly standardized while horizontal deflection devices and curb extensions vary greatly depending upon the location.) The greater expense of some devices does not translate to increased effectiveness for reducing speeds. Speed humps, which are the least costly device in SFMTA’s traffic calming toolbox, have been consistently successful at bringing speeds to within 5 mph of the speed limit on streets where they have been installed. Other measures have had mixed results due in part to the greater variation in the designs that have been implemented. Furthermore, some designs, like curb extensions, are intended to improve visibility and yielding to pedestrians at intersections, rather than to address speeding than takes place midblock. In order to achieve the goal of speed reduction and to benefit the most people, speed humps should be considered where appropriate based on local conditions. Recommendations

SFMTA staff should recommend an appropriate traffic calming device based on engineering judgment, and should evaluate each location for the appropriateness of speed humps before considering more costly options.

Balloting It is SFMTA policy to ballot residents on streets where traffic calming measures will be installed to ensure that each measure has sufficient public support and to allow an opportunity for further public comment. Twenty percent of ballots must be returned, and over 50 percent must be in favor of the device. Although neighbors have approved the devices a majority of the time, it was not uncommon for the ballot to fail. Furthermore, sometimes a measure passed ballot, but was objected to by residents whose property would front the device – sometimes the measure was approved by the block as a whole but no location could be found to install it.

30

31

SFMTA staff reviewed the frequency that traffic calming measures did not make it through the balloting process. The table below shows the success rate for 59 devices that were balloted between 2010 and 2012, with an overall success rate of 80 percent:

* Two of the failed measures were rejected at the public hearing, before reaching the ballot. By the time projects reach the ballot box, significant SFMTA staff time has already been spent evaluating locations, spearheading the community process, and planning and designing devices. Because the traffic calming program is set up to implement devices requested by residents (rather than identified by staff), each device that fails at the ballot box represents time that staff could have been dedicating to other requests on the traffic calming waiting list. The primary purpose of requiring a petition as part of the application is to ensure that there is community support before the SFMTA dedicates staff time to a project. Though detailed information was not available on why some measures did not pass their neighborhood ballot, a few factors can be identified that may help explain the discrepancy between these results and the community support established through the application:

The long lead time between the original petition and balloting may mean that neighborhood residents or priorities had changed.

The minimum ten signatures from residents represented a fairly small proportion of some blocks, and perhaps the petitioners did not accurately reflect the views of their neighbors.

If a location was identified through the area-wide process rather than through a resident application, there may have been a champion for the location at a community meeting or in the community working groups, while other neighbors may have been less involved.

A ballot was also counted as having failed if not enough responses were received; in some locations, neighbors may not have been opposed to a measure but did not care enough to send in their ballot.

Traffic Calming Measure Total Balloted Failed at Ballot Speed Humps 29 20.7 %

Bulbouts 5 20.0 % Islands 16 6.3 %

Other (eg striping changes) 9* 33.3 % Overall 59 18.6 %

31

32

Recommendations Consider requiring greater commitment from residents at time of

application, to reduce likelihood of going through a planning process but having a device rejected at the ballot box.

Consider having application signatures count towards the ballot to reduce the chances that a measure will fail due to lack of response

Require that by signing the petition signatures or voting “yes” on a ballot, residents also agree to have the device installed in front of their house, if considered the most appropriate location.

Reduce the timeline between application and implementation to maintain support and momentum for traffic calming on a given street

Implementation The implementation process includes ushering planned projects through the final steps of balloting, legislation, environmental review, design, and construction. In recent years, the limiting factor has been available staff resources to plan and implement traffic calming. The backlog of projects that the SFMTA has committed to installing is made up of planned projects that can be implemented as soon as funding and staff time are available. The chart below shows the number of traffic calming devices that have been implemented each year through the traffic calming program (some other devices, particularly curb extensions and median islands, are frequently installed through other SFMTA efforts). Note: The variation in device type from year to year has to do with the timeline of available funding; when a new grant is received, staff will generally prioritize speed humps, which are fastest to implement, as work progresses on other projects.

Number of Traffic Calming Devices Implemented Each Year

32

33

Since 2005, the SFMTA has implemented between around 20 and 35 traffic calming devices each year, and an average of 26 per year. Recommendations

Consider hiring additional staff to keep up with available funding for traffic calming implementation

Consider focusing resources on implementing the residential traffic calming backlog rather than developing new area-wide traffic calming plans

Consider only accepting residential traffic calming applications at a rate that can be implemented in a short timeframe based on funding and staff resources.

Resident Survey The SFMTA conducted a survey of residents who had been involved in the traffic calming process, including those who had applied to the program themselves, had attended a community meeting, or had been a member of a community working group. The survey was also available publicly on the SFMTA website. Responses from these surveys reinforced feedback that SFMTA staff have received anecdotally over the years from residents and stakeholders. Some key elements of the feedback from residents include:

Overall process takes too long Want more transparency and follow-up Value community meetings Want more devices installed Find the process confusing Felt it was easy to apply to the program

Unfortunately, priorities identified by respondents through the survey were sometimes in conflict, such as a desire for thorough community process as well as for a faster implementation timeline. Not all of the interests of residents are possible given the SFMTA’s limited resources, but should be balanced with other SFMTA and city priorities for the Traffic Calming program. Recommendations

Develop improved procedures for communicating with residents about the process for getting traffic calming and the status of specific applications. Reducing the implementation timeline is a broader goal of the program which should also help address the communication issues.

33

34

REVISED METHODOLOGY FOR APPLICATION BASED PROGRAM The SFMTA has revised how it processes requests for traffic calming from San Francisco residents. The process takes cues from best practices in other cities, and is intended to address some of the primary issues identified through the evaluation of the past application process. The new methodology also incorporates feedback from stakeholder groups and policy makers who were consulted as part of the revision process. This section details the process for handling traffic calming applications from first contact with residents to project closeout. Some of the key changes and the issues they are meant to address are summarized below:

Annual program cycle o More transparent, predictable and easier to understand o Shorter waiting time between acceptance and construction o More efficient use of staff resources

More community support required for application o Reduces likelihood of project being rejected at ballot box

Prioritize speed reduction and school locations Only accept applications that can be built the following year Most appropriate and cost effective device is recommended

Outreach SFMTA will update and print brochures and applications, and update the Traffic Calming Program website to reflect the changes to the application-based program. SFMTA staff will also reach out to neighborhood organizations, policy makers, and stakeholder groups to inform them of the traffic calming application, planning and implementation process. The website will include:

An overview of the residential traffic calming program Information about ranking and criteria for inclusion Detailed instructions for applying Links to resources that residents can pursue independently Traffic calming brochure Traffic calming application

Brochure and application materials will be made available in English, Spanish and Chinese.

34

35

Year-Round Correspondence Although applications will be evaluated once a year, residents may have questions throughout the year about the traffic calming process and about whether their neighborhood might be an appropriate candidate. SFMTA staff will be available to respond to these requests. In addition, if residents submit applications in advance of the annual deadline, SFMTA staff will review the applications for completeness within 30 days of receipt, and request missing information if applicable.

Application Requirements The purpose of having residents submit applications for traffic calming is to identify areas of concern and to establish community support for street changes before the SFMTA dedicates resources to a project. Location Characteristics – Completed by Applicant One resident will be the primary contact person for each application, and will be responsible for providing the following pieces of information:

Personal contact information Block to be considered (street name and cross streets) Primary traffic concerns Presence of schools, senior centers, parks etc

Staff will be available year-round to assist residents with any questions they may have about the application process. Community Support – Petition of Neighbors A petition must be circulated to establish community support for traffic calming on each block where it is requested. A completed application will have signatures from at least 20 residential or business units, or 50 percent of addresses on the street if it has fewer than 40 units. Multiple signatures from the same unit will not be counted. By signing the petition, neighbors agree to the following statements:

I agree to have a speed hump installed in front of my residence/ business if deemed the most appropriate solution; and

My signature here counts as a “yes” vote unless I later submit a “no” vote in the upcoming neighborhood ballot.

Applications can be sent to the SFMTA by mail, or sent as a PDF to an email address set up specifically for receiving traffic calming applications and questions about the application process. An annual deadline will be identified for each year’s evaluation cycle; applications received after the deadline will be considered the following year.

35

36

When an application is received, SFMTA staff will acknowledge receipt of the application by informing the applicant of when they can expect to receive a determination of acceptance. Staff will also review any descriptions of traffic concerns in the applications, and will refer any immediate concerns to the SFMTA Traffic Operations division.

Evaluation & Ranking After the application deadline, SFMTA staff will begin the process of evaluating each location. The SFMTA will contract with an outside firm to conduct speed surveys for each eligible location. Staff will review application information for accuracy and will compile additional data needed for the ranking process. Once all data is collected, project locations will be ranked based on the following criteria:

Evidence of speeding Presence of a school, playground, senior center etc Traffic volumes Collision history Evidence of exhibition driving Opportunities for increasing walking and biking

Evidence of speeding will be the weighted highest, with other criteria weighted roughly equally, subject to professional judgment by SFMTA staff. The SFMTA will rank all eligible locations from the year’s batch of applications. The number of accepted projects will depend on the available funding and what devices are recommended, as described in the next section.

Planning Recommendation Once the locations with greatest need for traffic calming are identified, SFMTA staff will begin the process of reviewing locations for the most appropriate engineering solution, beginning with the top 25 ranked locations. Blocks will first be evaluated for whether a speed hump would be appropriate for the location and possible given street geometry. If a speed hump is not an appropriate solution, staff would consider other traffic calming devices such as chicanes, traffic islands, medians and traffic circles. The budget estimate prepared as part of the Traffic Calming Revision was based on approximately 25 devices constructed per year, of which 65% are speed humps. If the top 25 locations result in a significantly higher or lower proportion of speed humps, the total number of devices could change for that year.

36

37

After the list of projects is identified, SFMTA staff will inform applicants of the results. These responses could take one of these forms:

Accepted – locations recommended for devices in the current cycle Rejected – locations that do not rank for the current cycle. Applicants

wishing to be considered in future years must re-apply.

Community Outreach For locations where the recommended device would require parking removal or displacement, or is considered a potentially controversial choice for the location, SFMTA staff will offer to meet with interested residents. SFMTA staff would work with the primary applicant to find a meeting location, and would send the meeting announcement to all residents on the affected block. The purpose of these meeting would be for SFMTA staff to present the pros and cons of one or two devices that would be appropriate for the location, and take feedback from neighbors to advise the projects’ final design. For locations requiring this additional community outreach, the implementation cycle may be delayed a month or two compared to locations receiving standard speed humps.

Balloting of Residents Once the device for each location is determined, either through the planning recommendation process or after a meeting with neighbors, information about the device will be sent out along with ballots. The ballot process is largely unchanged from the current guidelines, as follows: The residents on the block where the device will be located (including corner lots and residents who have to use the affected street to access their homes) will be balloted to get a final vote. Each known address will receive one ballot card for one vote. The SFMTA will make a good faith effort to make sure every valid address gets a vote. A few key elements of the ballot process will be different from the past process:

A “Yes” vote means the respondent agrees to have the device placed in front of their property, if deemed the most appropriate location

A resident who signs the original petition but doesn’t return a ballot would be counted as voting “Yes.” A notification to this effect would be included in the ballot.

37

38

Public Hearing Once the votes are counted and the simple majority of the residents who voted (50%+1) approve, the project is scheduled for an SFMTA Public Hearing where members of the public will have an opportunity for further comment. If the project is approved, the plans are sent to the appropriate City departments for installation.

Detailed Design and Construction Detailed Design and Construction would be conducted by SFMTA and DPW staff according to current standards for traffic calming in San Francisco.

Project Closeout Residents of streets receiving traffic calming will be informed when the device is complete.

Funding Cycle and Program Costs One of the many benefits of having a standardized annual cycle is that it simplifies and streamlines the process of securing funding. By applying for several phases of the project together, the SFMTA will be able to begin project development and design work as soon as project locations are identified. The SFMTA recommends applying to the SFCTA once a year for all funds for the Application-Based Residential Traffic Calming program, with design and construction funds contingent upon the submission of the project list for the that cycle. SFTMA staff estimate the project described in this section would cost approximately $600,000 each year to implement at current costs, as shown: Program Outreach and Correspondence $30,000Project Selection and Development (including evaluation, ranking, planning recommendation, outreach and conceptual engineering)

$300,000

Design Engineering (including SFMTA detailed design) $25,000Construction (including DPW design, labor and materials) $235,000Total $590,000

38

39

REBALANCED PRIORITIES The Proposition K Expenditure Plan item 38 provides approximately $2.5 million each year towards traffic calming projects, divided into the three “tracks” identified in the SFMTA’s Traffic Calming Guidelines: “Arterial and Commercial Streets,” “Local Streets” and Schools. Over the years, in an effort to be responsive to requests from residents, the SFMTA has dedicated the majority of its annual Traffic Calming funds towards the local track. However, the proposed methodology outlined above for the new Application-Based Traffic Calming Program streamlines the SFMTA’s response to resident requests, allowing more of the available funding to be considered for other uses. The next pages detail the SFMTA’s proposed program areas that form a more balanced three-track approach, better reflecting the original intent of the Traffic Calming Guidelines.

Local Streets Track In the past, funding for the “Local Streets Track,” which considers local-access residential streets has primarily gone towards area-wide traffic calming plans. These planning efforts looked at entire neighborhoods identified based on one or several applications from residents. This program was intended to be responsive to applications, but ultimately included a decision from SFMTA staff as to what streets made most sense to include in an area-wide approach. As a result of this approach, each area-wide plan included many more proposed devices, as well as more expensive devices, than would have been recommended if each application was addressed individually. This greater expense led to longer lead times from when applications were received to when planning began. This led to the SFMTA to mainly focus on responding to resident requests rather than proactively planning and implementing traffic calming in areas that could lead to the greatest benefits. The proposal for the revised Local Streets Track is to de-couple the application-based process from the proactive efforts of the SFMTA. This will bring greater transparency to both components, and will allow improved response time for residents who apply, while dedicating specific funding to locations in the city where traffic calming can provide benefits in terms of safety and promoting alternative transportation options. Application-Based Residential Traffic Calming Program The SFMTA will continue to implement 20-25 traffic calming measures per year based on community requests. The key features of the Application-Based program are as follows:

39

40

Community members must apply for a specific block SFMTA staff will evaluate applications once a year and will prioritize

applications based on the following criteria, listed in order of weight: o Evidence of Speeding o Presence of a school, playground, senior center etc o Traffic Volumes o Collision History o Evidence of Exhibition Driving o Opportunities for increasing walking and biking

SFMTA staff will recommend a traffic calming measure for the top 20-25 locations, and residents will vote on the measure. Measures could include:

o Speed humps o Traffic islands o Chicanes o Traffic circles

Construction will take place within a year and a half of evaluation The SFMTA estimates that the total annual funding for this program will be approximately $600,000. Proactive Residential Area Improvements Funding for “Proactive Residential Area Improvements,” will be used by the SFMTA to plan and implement traffic calming measures in residential locations that have not submitted applications but where there is potential for benefits in terms of safety, livability, and mode shift. The criteria for selecting projects for this category are as follows:

Projects that increase geographic equity – The Application-Based program is limited by the fact that it relies on engaged and active residents to take the first step towards identifying problem locations. The SFMTA will consider locations where speeding issues are reported but where community members might be less engaged and not submit official applications.

Projects with the potential to increase walking and biking –

A speed hump or traffic island alone may not be able to increase walking and biking significantly, but could have a greater impact when combined with measures like landscaping, bicycle facilities, or wayfinding efforts. The SFMTA will consider implementing traffic calming measures in coordination with projects aimed at increasing walking and biking.

40

41

Home Zones and Small Area-Wides – In some circumstances, a site-specific traffic calming measure may not be sufficient to address a pattern of speeding or cut-through traffic in a neighborhood. If applications are frequently received from the same neighborhood despite site-specific solutions, or if professional judgment dictates, the SFMTA could consider taking a home-zone or area-wide approach.

The proposed funding for Proactive Residential Area Improvements is $500,000 per year. This would cover about one project if directed towards something like a neighborhood greenway or a home zone type project. The SFMTA will consider and propose projects as part of the recurring CIP process as well as the SFCTA’s 5YPP process.

Schools Track In the past, funding for schools in the Traffic Calming program has been used as a local match for Safe Routes to School grants, which focus on pedestrian safety around San Francisco’s schools. Moving forward, the local match will be provided through other funding sources, freeing up funding within the Traffic Calming program to be directed towards reducing speeds near schools. This is an opportunity to implement similar devices to what are used in residential areas, but without requiring initiation from area residents as in the application based program. The SFMTA will work with the Safe Routes to School Coalition to identify potential locations through existing school-area assessments.

In addition to considering new school locations, the SFMTA proposes adjusting the ranking criteria for the Application-Based Residential Traffic Calming Program to elevate the priority of locations where schools are present. The proposed funding for the Schools track is $150,000 each year.

Arterial and Commercial Streets Track Half of all severe and fatal traffic collisions occur on just 7% of San Francisco’s street miles; these high-injury corridors are primarily arterials or busy commercial streets where there are high volumes of vehicles and pedestrians. Because vehicle speeds are a significant factor in determining the severity of the injuries, traffic calming is an important piece of the puzzle for reducing these injuries and increasing traffic safety in San Francisco. The Traffic Calming Arterial and Commercial Streets Track seeks opportunities to reduce speeds on corridors either in coordination with other projects or as independent projects prioritized based on need.

41

42

Prioritized Corridor Speed Reduction Funding for Prioritized Corridor Speed Reduction will be used to make low-cost improvements on corridors with high collision rates and evidence of speeding, but where there are no current plans for more intensive streetscape improvements. Potential treatments include speed humps, lane narrowing, road diets, and traffic signal changes. The concurrent Corridor Speed Reduction Pilot project and continued development of San Francisco’s Pedestrian Strategy will result in more detailed recommendations for identification of streets and treatments, but the project selection criteria are likely to include:

High levels of injury collisions Evidence of speeding Potential for increased use by people walking and biking Eligible streets include arterials defined in the San Francisco General

Plan as well as commercial streets, multi-lane streets, collectors, and signalized corridors.

The SFMTA Pedestrian Strategy identifies San Francisco’s high-injury corridors using similar prioritization metrics, and will be used in the selection of these corridors. Project Coordination The SFMTA will also seek opportunities to coordinate with planned streetscape projects that reduce speeding and increase safety. This could include projects making significant investment in bicycle facilities, intersection safety, transit improvements, or landscaping, which would not be appropriate to be fully funded through traffic calming, but where matching funds could help with project implementation. Project Coordination funds could also be used to capitalize on smaller coordination opportunities such as regularly scheduled repaving. SFMTA could use these funds for the planning phase for striping changes that could be incorporated into a repaving project on a street that has a history of speeding or collisions but which isn’t at the top of the list for the Prioritized Corridor Speed Reduction program. The proposed budget for the combined Arterial and Commercial Streets Track would be $1,250,000 per year, with a flexible breakdown between Prioritized Corridor Speed Reduction and Project Coordination.

42

43

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

Current vs Proposed Breakdown of Prop. K Traffic Calming Funds

43

44

NEXT STEPS These recommendations for a revised traffic calming program will be implemented gradually as the SFMTA clears out a backlog of planned residential traffic calming projects, and incorporates the new recommendations into the SFMTA’s Capital Improvement Plan and the SFCTA’s Five Year Prioritization Program. The revised application-based program will begin immediately, but the increased focus on high-injury corridors and schools will be transitioned over the next several years so that the existing backlog of residential traffic calming projects can be addressed.

Roll-out of Application-Based Residential Traffic Calming Traffic calming applications were not accepted for a year during the revision process. In March 2013, the SFMTA reopened the program to residents, with a roll-out that included:

a revised website with information about the new process a new application form announcement email to residents who have expressed interest in

traffic calming over the past year announcement email Supervisors and their aides

The new process for evaluating these applications and planning new measures will start in August 2013 according to the proposed timeline.

Completion of Planned Residential Traffic Calming There are approximately $6 million worth of traffic calming measures in the project development pipeline that have yet to be funded. In locations where area-wide processes were already scheduled, planning has gone on as before and several new area-wide plans are under development, though the resultant plans may be more constrained than in the past. In addition to area-wide plans, many site-specific locations are slated for planning and implementation, including locations that were originally intended to be incorporated into future area-wides. These locations will be reprioritized using the revised criteria and locations that no longer meet SFMTA criteria could be dropped. The SFMTA is devoting staff resources and funding to ensure that its existing traffic calming commitments are fulfilled even while the program is transitioned to place more focus on high-injury corridors, schools, and an annual residential program. This includes hiring more staff in the Livable Streets subdivision, streamlining internal project development and review processes, and working with the Department of Public Works to improve coordination and shorten construction timelines. The SFMTA expects to complete the planned traffic calming measures over the next 6 years.

44

45

Incorporation of Revised Program into CIP The SFMTA’s existing Capital Improvement Program (CIP) incorporates the new Application-Based Program at the proposed funding level of $600,000 per year, and includes the required funding for implementing the backlog of outstanding area-wide and site-specific traffic calming measures within five years. In the first 3 years of the CIP, these combined projects are anticipated to use the majority of available traffic calming funding from Prop K; new projects near schools and along corridors are expected to begin once the backlog is largely complete. SFMTA staff will incorporate the new arterial and local track recommendations into the next draft of the CIP.

Incorporation of Revised Program into Prop K 5YPP As noted previously, the Proposition K EP 38 category provides around $2.5 million each year towards traffic calming projects, divided into the three “tracks” identified in the SFMTA’s Traffic Calming Guidelines: Arterial and Commercial Streets, Local Streets, and Schools. The existing Five Year Prioritization Program for Traffic Calming includes these categories, but with around 90 percent of the funding allocated for the Local Track. As the SFMTA completes its 5YPP update for 2013-2018, the proposed programmatic distribution will be recommended as the eventual funding levels for the different tracks, transitioning gradually as the backlog of projects is cleared out in upcoming years. An amendment will be made to the current 5YPP for the FY 13-14 year allowing the SFMTA to seek funds for the first year of the new Application-Based Program.

45

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

46

Bac

klog

of

Tra

ffic

Cal

min

g Im

ple

men

tati

on P

roje

cts

Co

st B

reak

do

wn

of

Co

mp

lete

d A

reaw

ide

Pro

ject

s

Pro

ject

Sup

D

istr

ict

2011

Est

imat

ed T

otal

C

ore

Impl

emen

tatio

n C

ost*

Rem

aini

ng F

undi

ng

Nee

ds fo

r C

ore

Pro

ject

Im

plem

enta

tion

**

Pro

ject

Sta

tus

(As

of M

ay 2

013)

18th

Ave

(19

th-L

inco

ln B

ypas

s)5,

7$5

88,8

00$0

Will

be

com

plet

e w

hen

wor

k as

soci

ated

with

S

R2S

gra

nt is

com

plet

ed.

Bay

view

10$7

54,2

00$7

2,00

0P

hase

2 o

f 4 is

und

erw

ayB

uena

Vis

ta/1

7th/

Roo

seve

lt W

ay8

$415

,600

$128

,000

Pha

se 2

of 3

und

erw

ayC

edro

/Cer

ritos

& H

ollo

way

/Gar

field

7, 1

1$4

87,6

00$4

8,00

0P

hase

2 o

f 3 is

und

erw

ayC

entr

al R

ichm

ond

1$1

,846

,852

$808

,000

Pha

se 2

of 4

is u

nder

way

Circ

ular

Ave

nue

7,8

$339

,950

$0P

hase

3 o

f 3 is

und

erw

ayC

layt

on5,

8$8

5,60

0$3

2,00

0P

hase

1a

is u

nder

way

Cre

stla

ke4

$247

,500

$0C

ompl

eted

Exc

elsi

or11

$1,0

44,3

50$3

2,00

0P

hase

3 o

f 3 is

und

erw

ayF

illm

ore

5$4

5,00

0$0

Com

plet

edIn

ner

Sun

set

5,7

$1,6

26,9

50$3

70,0

00P

hase

4 o

f 5 u

nder

way

Jord

an P

ark/

Laur

el H

eigh

ts2

$448

,500

$437

,400

Pha

se 1

a is

und

erw

ayM

inna

/Nat

oma

6$8

39,7

00$5

90,8

50P

hase

1 o

f 2 u

nder

way

Nor

th B

erna

l Hei

ghts

9$3

,526

,500

$422

,500

Pha

se 6

of 6

und

erw

ayO

'Sha

ughn

essy

7,8

$133

,750

$0C

ompl

eted

Pot

rero

Hill

10$7

21,2

00$3

84,0

00P

hase

2 o

f 5 u

nder

way

Ran

dolp

h/B

road

11$5

59,0

00$0

Pha

se 2

of 2

is u

nder

way

Sai

nt F

ranc

is W

ood

7$2

66,8

50$2

4,00

0P

hase

2 o

f 3 u

nder

way

Silv

er T

erra

ce10

$677

,050

$436

,000

Pha

se 1

of 2

und

erw

ayS

outh

Ber

nal H

eigh

ts9

$2,1

23,3

00$4

88,0

00P

hase

2 o

f 4 u

nder

way

Sun

nysi

de7,

8$2

61,7

00$1

20,0

00P

hase

2 o

f 3 u

nder

way

Ter

esita

Bou

leva

rd7

$703

,800

$192

,000

Pha

se 2

of 3

und

erw

ayW

est P

orta

l7

$155

,000

$155

,000

Pha

se 3

of 3

und

erw

ay

To

tals

$17,

898,

752

$4,7

39,7

50*

Sho

ws

the

"Tot

al C

ost"

use

d in

201

1 m

inus

the

"Wis

h Li

st"/

Fut

ure

Fun

ding

pro

ject

s. T

hese

cos

ts a

re n

ot u

pdat

ed w

ith 2

013

cost

esi

mat

es.

** T

wo

Are

awid

e P

lans

hav

e be

en c

ompl

eted

sin

ce 2

011:

Jor

dan

Par

k/La

urel

Hei

ghts

and

Cla

yton

. The

se a

re in

clud

ed a

nd c

osts

of m

easu

res

upda

ted.

Est

imat

ed C

ost

Bre

akd

ow

n o

f A

reaw

ides

in P

lan

nin

g P

has

e &

Sit

e-sp

ecif

ic M

easu

res

Pro

ject

Sup

D

istr

ict

Num

ber

of L

ocat

ions

Est

imat

ed F

undi

ng N

eeds

fo

r P

roje

ct

Impl

emen

tatio

n***

Pro

ject

Sta

tus

(As

of M

ay 2

013)

Dew

ey A

reaw

ide

7-

$450

,000

In P

lann

ing

Vis

itaci

on V

alle

y10

-$4

50,0

00In

Pla

nnin

g E

xist

ing

Site

-Spe

cific

Var

ious

20$3

00,0

00R

anke

d Li

st, d

evic

es n

ot id

entif

ied

Fut

ure

Site

-Spe

cific

V

ario

us31

$300

,000

Will

be

eval

uate

d an

d re

-ran

ked

in 2

013

To

tals

$1,5

00,0

00**

* T

hese

est

imat

es a

re b

ased

on

past

exp

erie

nce

with

are

awid

e an

d si

te-s

peci

fic im

plem

enta

tion.

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

13 U

pdat

e\5Y

PP e

tc\E

P 38

\TC

Impl

emen

tatio

nRem

aini

ngCo

stEs

timat

es_6

-11-

13Pa

ge 1

of 1

47

Pla

nP

has

eL

ocat

ion

Stat

us

18th

Ave

(19t

h-Li

ncol

n By

pass

)1

Colle

ct S

peed

Dat

a on

Juda

h (1

6th

to 1

7th)

Com

plet

e18

th A

ve (1

9th-

Linc

oln

Bypa

ss)

1E

valu

ate

STO

P sig

n co

ntro

ls in

are

aCo

mpl

ete

18th

Ave

(19t

h-Li

ncol

n By

pass

)1

17th

Ave

Spe

ed H

ump

(bet

Irvi

ng a

nd Ju

dah)

Com

plet

e18

th A

ve (1

9th-

Linc

oln

Bypa

ss)

118

th A

ve S

peed

Hum

p (b

et Ir

ving

and

Juda

h)Co

mpl

ete

18th

Ave

(19t

h-Li

ncol

n By

pass

)1

Hav

e Sc

hool

Saf

ety

Prog

ram

revi

ew sc

hool

circ

ulat

ion

and

load

ing

patte

rns

Com

plet

e18

th A

ve (1

9th-

Linc

oln

Bypa

ss)

118

th A

ve C

hoke

r (be

t Lin

coln

and

Irvi

ng)

Com

plet

e18

th A

ve (1

9th-

Linc

oln

Bypa

ss)

218

th A

ve C

hoke

r (L-

I)Co

mpl

ete

18th

Ave

(19t

h-Li

ncol

n By

pass

)2

17th

Ave

Cho

ker (

L-I)

Rejec

ted

18th

Ave

(19t

h-Li

ncol

n By

pass

)2

18th

Ave

Cho

ker (

I-J)

Rejec

ted

18th

Ave

(19t

h-Li

ncol

n By

pass

)2

Linc

oln

Way

Med

ian E

xten

sions

Rejec

ted

18th

Ave

(19t

h-Li

ncol

n By

pass

)3

18th

Ave

/Lin

coln

Bul

bout

Rejec

ted

18th

Ave

(19t

h-Li

ncol

n By

pass

)3

Juda

h St

Bul

bout

s (@

17th

)U

nder

way

18th

Ave

(19t

h-Li

ncol

n By

pass

)FF

18th

/Irv

ing

Stre

et B

ulbo

uts

Und

erw

ay

Bayv

iew1

Eva

luat

e ST

OP

sign

cont

rols

in a

rea

Com

plet

eBa

yview

1Fi

tzge

rald

(bet

Inga

lls a

nd H

awes

) - Is

land

Com

plet

eBa

yview

1H

udso

n (b

et In

galls

and

Cas

hmer

e) -

Islan

dCo

mpl

ete

Bayv

iew1

Hud

son

(bet

New

hall

and

Men

dell)

- Sp

eed

Hum

pPl

anne

dBa

yview

1M

cKin

non

Spee

d H

ump

(Lan

e to

Keit

h)Co

mpl

ete

Bayv

iew1

Oak

dale

(bet

Inga

lls a

nd G

riffit

h) -

Spee

d H

ump

Com

plet

eBa

yview

1O

akda

le (b

et L

ane

and

Keit

h) -

Hum

p an

d Is

land

Rejec

ted

Bayv

iew1

Palo

u (S

C), b

et L

ane

and

Keit

h - H

ump

and

Islan

dRe

jecte

dBa

yview

1Pa

lou

Ave

Spe

ed C

ushi

ons (

bet K

eith

and

Jenn

ings

)U

nder

way

Bayv

iew1

Que

sada

, bet

Lan

e an

d K

eith

- Isla

ndCo

mpl

ete

Bayv

iew1

Reve

re, b

et L

ane

and

Keit

h - I

sland

Com

plet

eBa

yview

1Sh

afte

r, be

t Lan

e an

d K

eith

- Isla

ndRe

jecte

dBa

yview

1Th

omas

, bet

Lan

e an

d K

eith

- Isla

ndRe

jecte

dBa

yview

1U

nder

woo

d, b

et L

ane

and

Keit

h - H

ump

Com

plet

eBa

yview

1V

an D

yke,

bet L

ane

and

Keit

h - C

ushi

onRe

jecte

dBa

yview

2H

udso

n (W

est o

f Keit

h) -

Hum

p an

d Is

land

Rejec

ted

Bayv

iew3

Kirk

woo

d at

Dor

mito

ry -

Bulb

-out

Com

plet

eBa

yview

3K

irkw

ood

at D

orm

itory

II -

Bulb

-out

Com

plet

eBa

yview

2Pa

lou

(SC)

, bet

Keit

h an

d Je

nnin

gs -

Hum

pU

nder

way

Bayv

iew2

Que

sada

, bet

Keit

h an

d Je

nnin

gs -

Hum

pU

nder

way

Bayv

iew4

Que

sada

, Rev

ere

and

Shaf

ter (

bet I

ngall

s and

Haw

es)

- Hum

psPl

anne

dBa

yview

2Re

vere

, bet

Keit

h an

d Je

nnin

gs -

Cush

ion

Und

erw

ayBa

yview

2Sh

afte

r, be

t Keit

h an

d Je

nnin

gs -

Hum

pU

nder

way

18th

Ave

(19

th-L

inco

ln B

ypas

s)

Bay

view

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

13 U

pdat

e\5Y

PP e

tc\E

P 38

\TC

Impl

emen

tatio

nRem

aini

ngCo

stEs

timat

es_6

-11-

13Pa

ge 1

of 1

3

48

Pla

nP

has

eL

ocat

ion

Stat

us

Bayv

iew2

Thom

as, b

et K

eith

and

Jenn

ings

- H

ump

Und

erw

ayBa

yview

2U

nder

woo

d, b

et K

eith

and

Jenn

ings

- H

ump

Rejec

ted

Bayv

iew2

Van

Dyk

e, be

t Keit

h an

d Je

nnin

gs -

Hum

pRe

jecte

dBa

yview

FFPa

lou

Ave

nue

Bike

Lan

esFu

ture

Fun

ding

Bayv

iewFF

Gat

eway

Tre

atm

ents

(Que

sada

bet

3rd

and

Lan

e)Fu

ture

Fun

ding

Bayv

iewFF

Gat

eway

Tre

atm

ents

(Haw

es a

t Que

sada

, Rev

ere

and

Shaf

ter;

Inga

lls a

nd T

hom

as, J

enni

ngFu

ture

Fun

ding

Bayv

iewFF

Gat

eway

Tre

atm

ents

(Haw

es a

t Que

sada

, Rev

ere

and

Shaf

ter;

Inga

lls a

nd T

hom

as, J

enni

n gFu

ture

Fun

ding

Buen

a V

ista/

17th

Stre

et/R

oose

velt

Way

117

th S

treet

from

Tem

ple

to O

rd S

ts -

EB

- Spe

ed-R

adar

Sig

nCo

mpl

ete

Buen

a V

ista/

17th

Stre

et/R

oose

velt

Way

1Ro

osev

elt fr

om M

useu

m W

ay to

Par

k H

ill T

er/1

5th

St -

Chica

neCo

mpl

ete

Buen

a V

ista/

17th

Stre

et/R

oose

velt

Way

1Ro

osev

elt a

t Par

k H

ill/1

5th

St -

Two

Islan

dsCo

mpl

ete

Buen

a V

ista/

17th

Stre

et/R

oose

velt

Way

1Bu

ena

Vist

a A

ve a

t Upp

er T

er -

Bulb

-out

Com

plet

e

Buen

a V

ista/

17th

Stre

et/R

oose

velt

Way

2Ro

osev

elt fr

om 1

7th

St to

Low

er T

er -

Upp

er R

oose

velt

optio

n (ra

dar s

ign

or is

land)

Und

erw

ayBu

ena

Vist

a/17

th S

treet

/Roo

seve

lt W

ay2

Roos

evelt

from

17t

h St

to L

ower

Ter

- E

dge

Line

sU

nder

way

Buen

a V

ista/

17th

Stre

et/R

oose

velt

Way

217

th S

treet

at T

empl

e St

- Bu

lb-o

utU

nder

way

Buen

a V

ista/

17th

Stre

et/R

oose

velt

Way

2Bu

ena

Vist

a A

ve a

t Fre

deric

k St

- Pe

dest

rian

Islan

dU

nder

way

Buen

a V

ista/

17th

Stre

et/R

oose

velt

Way

2Ro

osev

elt a

t Bue

na V

ista

Ter -

Med

ian Is

land

Und

erw

ayBu

ena

Vist

a/17

th S

treet

/Roo

seve

lt W

ay2

Buen

a V

ista

Ave

from

Fre

deric

k St

to B

uena

Vist

a Te

r - E

dge

Line

sU

nder

way

Buen

a V

ista/

17th

Stre

et/R

oose

velt

Way

2Ro

osev

elt a

t Clif

ford

Ter

- Pe

dest

rian

Islan

dU

nder

way

Buen

a V

ista/

17th

Stre

et/R

oose

velt

Way

3Ro

osev

elt a

t 17t

h St

- Pe

dest

rian

Islan

dPl

anne

dBu

ena

Vist

a/17

th S

treet

/Roo

seve

lt W

ay3

Roos

evelt

at 1

5th

St -

Bulb

-out

- SW

cor

ner

Plan

ned

Buen

a V

ista/

17th

Stre

et/R

oose

velt

Way

3Bu

ena

Vist

a Te

r at B

uena

Vist

a A

ve E

ast -

Ped

estri

an Is

land

Plan

ned

Buen

a V

ista/

17th

Stre

et/R

oose

velt

Way

FF17

th S

treet

at C

orbi

n Pl

Ste

ps -

Chok

ers

Futu

re F

undi

ngBu

ena

Vist

a/17

th S

treet

/Roo

seve

lt W

ayFF

Roos

evelt

at M

useu

m W

ay -

Bulb

-out

Futu

re F

undi

ng

Cedr

o/Ce

rrito

s & H

ollo

way

/Gar

field

1H

ollo

way

at J

unip

ero

Serr

a - b

ulb

outs

Com

plet

eCe

dro/

Cerr

itos &

Hol

low

ay/G

arfie

ld1

Hol

low

ay b

etw

een

Beve

rly a

nd H

ead

- chi

cane

s/ed

gelin

es (p

ainte

d tri

al)Co

mpl

ete

Cedr

o/Ce

rrito

s & H

ollo

way

/Gar

field

1Ce

rrito

s bet

wee

n O

cean

and

Mon

cada

- sp

eed

hum

pCo

mpl

ete

Cedr

o/Ce

rrito

s & H

ollo

way

/Gar

field

1Ce

rrito

s bet

wee

n M

onca

da a

nd M

erce

des -

repl

ace

bum

p w

ith h

ump

Com

plet

eCe

dro/

Cerr

itos &

Hol

low

ay/G

arfie

ld1

Gen

eral

oper

atio

nal i

mpr

ovem

ents

- re

d zo

nes,

signa

ge, l

ane

strip

ing

Com

plet

eCe

dro/

Cerr

itos &

Hol

low

ay/G

arfie

ld1

Cedr

o be

twee

n O

cean

and

Mon

cada

- re

plac

e bu

mp

with

hum

pCo

mpl

ete

Cedr

o/Ce

rrito

s & H

ollo

way

/Gar

field

1Pa

lom

a be

twee

n O

cean

and

Mon

cada

- re

plac

e bu

mps

with

hum

pCo

mpl

ete

Cedr

o/Ce

rrito

s & H

ollo

way

/Gar

field

2H

ollo

way

bet

wee

n Be

verly

and

Hea

d - c

hica

nes (

islan

ds if

trial

is su

cces

sful

)Co

mpl

ete

Cedr

o/Ce

rrito

s & H

ollo

way

/Gar

field

2H

ollo

way

bet

wee

n Be

verly

and

Hea

d - h

umps

and

strip

ing

(if tr

ial w

as u

nsuc

cess

ful)

Und

erw

ay

Cedr

o/Ce

rrito

s & H

ollo

way

/Gar

field

2H

ollo

way

bet

wee

n Be

verly

and

Hea

d - h

umps

and

strip

ing

(if tr

ial w

as u

nsuc

cess

ful)

Und

erw

ay

Bu

ena

Vis

ta/

17th

Str

eet/

Roo

seve

lt W

ay

Ced

ro/

Cer

rito

s &

Hol

low

ay/

Gar

fiel

d

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

13 U

pdat

e\5Y

PP e

tc\E

P 38

\TC

Impl

emen

tatio

nRem

aini

ngCo

stEs

timat

es_6

-11-

13Pa

ge 2

of 1

3

49

Pla

nP

has

eL

ocat

ion

Stat

us

Cedr

o/Ce

rrito

s & H

ollo

way

/Gar

field

2G

arfie

ld a

t Bev

erly

- isla

ndU

nder

way

Cedr

o/Ce

rrito

s & H

ollo

way

/Gar

field

2G

arfie

ld b

etw

een

Beve

rly a

nd M

ontic

ello

- spe

ed c

ushi

ons

Und

erw

ayCe

dro/

Cerr

itos &

Hol

low

ay/G

arfie

ld2

Gar

field

bet

wee

n By

xbee

and

Rals

ton

- spe

ed c

ushi

ons

Und

erw

ayCe

dro/

Cerr

itos &

Hol

low

ay/G

arfie

ld2

Gar

field

bet

wee

n A

rch

and

Ram

sell

- spe

ed c

ushi

ons

Und

erw

ayCe

dro/

Cerr

itos &

Hol

low

ay/G

arfie

ld2

Beve

rly b

etw

een

Hol

low

ay a

nd G

arfie

ld -

spee

d cu

shio

n/hu

mp

Und

erw

ayCe

dro/

Cerr

itos &

Hol

low

ay/G

arfie

ld2

Cerr

itos-

Mer

cede

s-Lu

nado

cha

nneli

zatio

n isl

and

Und

erw

ayCe

dro/

Cerr

itos &

Hol

low

ay/G

arfie

ld2

Mer

cede

s at J

unip

ero

Serr

a - g

atew

ay is

land

Und

erw

ayCe

dro/

Cerr

itos &

Hol

low

ay/G

arfie

ld3

Hol

low

ay a

t Jun

iper

o Se

rra

- gat

eway

islan

dPl

anne

dCe

dro/

Cerr

itos &

Hol

low

ay/G

arfie

ld3

Gar

field

at J

unip

ero

Serr

a - g

atew

ay is

land

Plan

ned

Cedr

o/Ce

rrito

s & H

ollo

way

/Gar

field

FFG

arfie

ld a

t Byx

bee

- bul

b ou

tsFu

ture

Fun

ding

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

117

th A

ve b

twn

Balb

oa &

Cab

rillo

Sts

- sp

eed

hum

pCo

mpl

ete

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

118

th A

ve b

twn

Balb

oa &

Cab

rillo

Sts

- sp

eed

hum

pRe

ject

edCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

d1

Eva

luat

e ST

OP

sign

cont

rols

at in

ters

ectio

nsCo

mpl

ete

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

123

rd A

ve/A

nza

St -

traffi

c cir

cleCo

mpl

ete

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

1Ca

brill

o St

/Fun

ston

Ave

- Is

land

Com

plet

eCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

d1

14th

Ave

/Lak

e St

- Pa

inte

d Is

land

Com

plet

eCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

d1

14th

Ave

/Cab

rillo

St -

Islan

dCo

mpl

ete

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

117

th A

ve b

twn

Anz

a &

Balb

oa -

Islan

dRe

ject

edCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

d1

17th

Ave

btw

n A

nza

& G

eary

- Sp

eed

Hum

pCo

mpl

ete

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

222

nd A

ve b

twn

Calif

orni

a &

Clem

ent S

ts -

spee

d hu

mp

Und

erw

ayCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

d2

17th

Ave

/Lak

e St

- tra

ffic

circle

Und

erw

ayCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

d2

Fulto

n St

/Fun

ston

Ave

- isl

and

Und

erw

ayCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

d2

Anz

a St

/Fun

ston

Ave

- isl

and

Und

erw

ayCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

d2

Clem

ent S

t/Fu

nsto

n A

ve -

islan

dU

nder

way

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

2Ca

lifor

nia

St/F

unst

on A

ve -

islan

dU

nder

way

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

214

th A

ve/C

alifo

rnia

St -

islan

dU

nder

way

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

214

th A

ve/C

lemen

t St -

islan

dU

nder

way

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

214

th A

ve/A

nza

St -

islan

dU

nder

way

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

214

th A

ve/B

alboa

St -

islan

dU

nder

way

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

2Fu

lton

at 1

6th

Ave

- pe

d isl

ands

on

Fulto

nU

nder

way

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

2Ca

lifor

nia

near

Alam

o Sc

hool

- isl

and

Und

erw

ayCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

d2

Calif

orni

a ne

ar A

lamo

Scho

ol -

bus b

ulb

Und

erw

ayCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

d3

21st

Ave

/Lak

e St

- tra

ffic

circle

Plan

ned

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

324

th A

ve/L

ake

St -

traffi

c cir

clePl

anne

dCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

d3

Funs

ton

Ave

btw

n Fu

lton

& C

abril

lo S

ts -

spee

d hu

mp

with

islan

dPl

anne

dCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

d3

Funs

ton

Ave

btw

n Fu

lton

& C

abril

lo S

ts -

spee

d hu

mp

with

islan

dPl

anne

dCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

d3

Funs

ton

Ave

btw

n Ca

brill

o &

Balb

oa S

ts -

spee

d hu

mp

with

islan

dPl

anne

dCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

d3

Funs

ton

Ave

btw

n Ca

brill

o &

Balb

oa S

ts -

spee

d hu

mp

with

islan

dPl

anne

d

Cen

tral

Ric

hm

ond

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

13 U

pdat

e\5Y

PP e

tc\E

P 38

\TC

Impl

emen

tatio

nRem

aini

ngCo

stEs

timat

es_6

-11-

13Pa

ge 3

of 1

3

50

Pla

nP

has

eL

ocat

ion

Stat

us

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

3Fu

nsto

n A

ve b

twn

Balb

oa &

Anz

a St

s - sp

eed

hum

p w

ith is

land

Plan

ned

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

3Fu

nsto

n A

ve b

twn

Balb

oa &

Anz

a St

s - sp

eed

hum

p w

ith is

land

Plan

ned

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

3Fu

nsto

n A

ve b

twn

Clem

ent &

Cali

forn

ia St

s - is

land

Plan

ned

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

314

th A

ve b

twn

Cabr

illo

& F

ulto

n St

s - sp

eed

hum

p w

ith is

land

Plan

ned

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

314

th A

ve b

twn

Cabr

illo

& F

ulto

n St

s - sp

eed

hum

p w

ith is

land

Plan

ned

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

4Fu

nsto

n A

ve b

twn

Anz

a &

Gea

ry S

ts -

spee

d hu

mp

with

islan

dPl

anne

dCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

d4

Funs

ton

Ave

btw

n A

nza

& G

eary

Sts

- sp

eed

hum

p w

ith is

land

Plan

ned

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

4Fu

nsto

n A

ve b

twn

Gea

ry &

Clem

ent S

ts -

islan

dPl

anne

dCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

d4

Funs

ton

Ave

btw

n Ca

lifor

nia

& L

ake

Sts -

islan

dPl

anne

dCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

d4

14th

Ave

btw

n La

ke &

Cali

forn

ia St

s - is

land

Plan

ned

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

414

th A

ve b

twn

Calif

orni

a &

Clem

ent S

ts -

spee

d hu

mp

with

islan

dPl

anne

dCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

d4

14th

Ave

btw

n Ca

lifor

nia

& C

lemen

t Sts

- sp

eed

hum

p w

ith is

land

Plan

ned

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

414

th A

ve b

twn

Clem

ent &

Gea

ry S

ts -

spee

d hu

mp

with

islan

dPl

anne

dCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

d4

14th

Ave

btw

n G

eary

& A

nza

Sts -

spee

d hu

mp

with

islan

dPl

anne

dCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

d4

14th

Ave

btw

n G

eary

& A

nza

Sts -

spee

d hu

mp

with

islan

dPl

anne

dCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

d4

14th

Ave

btw

n A

nza

& B

alboa

Sts

- Is

lands

Plan

ned

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

414

th A

ve b

twn

Balb

oa &

Cab

rillo

Sts

- sp

eed

hum

p w

ith is

land

Plan

ned

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

414

th A

ve b

twn

Balb

oa &

Cab

rillo

Sts

- sp

eed

hum

p w

ith is

land

Plan

ned

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

415

th A

ve/C

alifo

rnia

St -

Islan

dsPl

anne

dCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

d4

15th

Ave

btw

n Ba

lboa

& C

abril

lo -

Islan

dsPl

anne

dCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

d4

22nd

Ave

btw

n Cl

emen

t & G

eary

- Is

lands

Plan

ned

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

424

th A

ve/A

nza

St -

ped

refu

ge is

lands

Plan

ned

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

425

th A

ve/A

nza

St -

gate

way

islan

dPl

anne

dCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

dFF

14th

Ave

btw

n Fu

lton

and

Cabr

illo

- isla

nd o

r oth

er m

easu

re (i

f nee

ded)

Futu

re F

undi

ngCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

dFF

15th

Ave

btw

n Fu

lton

and

Cabr

illo

- isla

nd o

r oth

er m

easu

re (i

f nee

ded)

Futu

re F

undi

ngCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

dFF

16th

Ave

btw

n Fu

lton

and

Cabr

illo

- isla

nd o

r oth

er m

easu

re (i

f nee

ded)

Futu

re F

undi

ngCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

dFF

17th

Ave

btw

n Fu

lton

and

Cabr

illo

- isla

nd o

r oth

er m

easu

re (i

f nee

ded)

Futu

re F

undi

ngCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

dFF

18th

Ave

btw

n Fu

lton

and

Cabr

illo

- isla

nd o

r oth

er m

easu

re (i

f nee

ded)

Futu

re F

undi

ngCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

dFF

19th

Ave

btw

n Fu

lton

and

Cabr

illo

- isla

nd o

r oth

er m

easu

re (i

f nee

ded)

Futu

re F

undi

ngCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

dFF

20th

Ave

btw

n Fu

lton

and

Cabr

illo

- isla

nd o

r oth

er m

easu

re (i

f nee

ded)

Futu

re F

undi

ngCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

dFF

21st

Ave

btw

n Fu

lton

and

Cabr

illo

- isla

nd o

r oth

er m

easu

re (i

f nee

ded)

Futu

re F

undi

ngCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

dFF

22nd

Ave

btw

n Fu

lton

and

Cabr

illo

- isla

nd o

r oth

er m

easu

re (i

f nee

ded)

Futu

re F

undi

ngCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

dFF

23rd

Ave

btw

n Fu

lton

and

Cabr

illo

- isla

nd o

r oth

er m

easu

re (i

f nee

ded)

Futu

re F

undi

ngCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

dFF

14th

Ave

/Lak

e St

Futu

re F

undi

ngCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

dFF

Oth

er M

easu

res t

o A

ddre

ss U

nant

icipa

ted

Impa

cts

Futu

re F

undi

ngCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

dFF

Bulb

-out

s whe

re c

oord

inat

ion

poss

ible

Futu

re F

undi

ngCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

dFF

Gea

ry G

atew

ays -

to b

e bu

ilt b

y BR

TFu

ture

Fun

ding

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

FFBa

lboa

Roa

d D

ietFu

ture

Fun

ding

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

FFFu

lton

at 2

0th

Ave

(loc

atio

n m

ay c

hang

e du

e to

TE

P bu

s sto

p ch

ange

s) -

ped

islan

ds o

n Fu

lton

Futu

re F

undi

ng

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

13 U

pdat

e\5Y

PP e

tc\E

P 38

\TC

Impl

emen

tatio

nRem

aini

ngCo

stEs

timat

es_6

-11-

13Pa

ge 4

of 1

3

51

Pla

nP

has

eL

ocat

ion

Stat

us

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

FF14

th a

nd F

ulto

n - g

atew

ay is

land

Futu

re F

undi

ngCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

dFF

15th

and

Ful

ton

- gat

eway

islan

dFu

ture

Fun

ding

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

FF16

th a

nd F

ulto

n - g

atew

ay is

land

Futu

re F

undi

ngCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

dFF

17th

and

Ful

ton

- gat

eway

islan

dFu

ture

Fun

ding

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

FF18

th a

nd F

ulto

n - g

atew

ay is

land

Futu

re F

undi

ngCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

dFF

19th

and

Ful

ton

- gat

eway

islan

dFu

ture

Fun

ding

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

FF20

th a

nd F

ulto

n - g

atew

ay is

land

Futu

re F

undi

ngCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

dFF

21st

and

Ful

ton

- gat

eway

islan

dFu

ture

Fun

ding

Cent

ral R

ichm

ond

FF22

nd a

nd F

ulto

n - g

atew

ay is

land

Futu

re F

undi

ngCe

ntra

l Rich

mon

dFF

24th

and

Ful

ton

- gat

eway

islan

dFu

ture

Fun

ding

Circ

ular

Ave

nue

1Ci

rcul

ar A

ve S

peed

Hum

ps (C

ongo

- Ju

dson

)Co

mpl

ete

Circ

ular

Ave

nue

1Ci

rcul

ar A

ve S

peed

Cus

hion

(Mon

tere

y - H

ears

t)Co

mpl

ete

Circ

ular

Ave

nue

1Pe

dest

rian

Islan

d at

Circ

ular

/Hea

rst

Com

plet

eCi

rcul

ar A

venu

e2

Pede

stria

n Is

land

at C

ircul

ar/F

lood

Com

plet

eCi

rcul

ar A

venu

e2

Pede

stria

n Is

land

at C

ircul

ar/S

tapl

esCo

mpl

ete

Circ

ular

Ave

nue

3Re

conf

igur

e Ju

dson

/Circ

ular

/Pau

ldin

gU

nder

way

Circ

ular

Ave

nue

3Re

conf

igur

e Ju

dson

/Circ

ular

/Pau

ldin

gU

nder

way

Circ

ular

Ave

nue

FFCh

icane

sFu

ture

Fun

ding

Clay

ton

1aCl

ayto

n St

reet

pain

ted

chica

neCo

mpl

ete

Clay

ton

1aCl

ayto

n St

reet

edg

e lin

esU

nder

way

Clay

ton

1aCl

ayto

n an

d Ca

rl St

reet

med

ian is

land

Und

erw

ayCl

ayto

n1a

Ash

bury

and

Dow

ney

Stre

et re

strip

ing

Und

erw

ayCl

ayto

n1

Clay

ton

Stre

et sp

eed

hum

pPl

anne

dCl

ayto

n1

Ash

bury

Stre

et sp

eed

cush

ions

(3)

Plan

ned

Clay

ton

FFCl

ayto

n an

d A

shbu

ry b

ulb-

outs

Futu

re F

undi

ng

Cres

tlake

1E

valu

ate

STO

P sig

n co

ntro

ls at

inte

rsec

tions

Com

plet

eCr

estla

ke1

36th

Ave

btw

n Y

orba

St a

nd S

unse

t Blv

d - i

sland

Com

plet

eCr

estla

ke1

37th

Ave

btw

n Y

orba

St a

nd S

unse

t Blv

d - i

sland

Com

plet

eCr

estla

ke1

34th

Ave

btw

n Y

orba

St a

nd W

awon

a St

- sp

eed

hum

pCo

mpl

ete

Cres

tlake

135

th A

ve b

twn

Yor

ba S

t and

Waw

ona

St -

spee

d hu

mp

Reje

cted

Cres

tlake

136

th A

ve b

twn

Yor

ba S

t and

Waw

ona

Sts -

spee

d hu

mp

Com

plet

eCr

estla

ke1

Cres

tlake

Dr b

twn

Yor

ba S

t and

Waw

ona

St -

spee

d hu

mp

Com

plet

eCr

estla

ke1

34th

Ave

btw

n W

awon

a St

and

Vice

nte

- spe

ed h

ump

Reje

cted

Cres

tlake

135

th A

ve b

twn

Waw

ona

St a

nd V

icent

e - s

peed

hum

pCo

mpl

ete

Cir

cula

r A

ven

ue

Cla

yton

Cre

stla

ke

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

13 U

pdat

e\5Y

PP e

tc\E

P 38

\TC

Impl

emen

tatio

nRem

aini

ngCo

stEs

timat

es_6

-11-

13Pa

ge 5

of 1

3

52

Pla

nP

has

eL

ocat

ion

Stat

us

Cres

tlake

136

th A

ve b

twn

Waw

ona

St a

nd V

icent

e - s

peed

hum

pCo

mpl

ete

Cres

tlake

1Cr

estla

ke D

r btw

n Co

nsta

nso

Wy

and

El M

iraso

l Pl -

spee

d hu

mp

Com

plet

eCr

estla

ke1

Esc

olta

Way

btw

n 33

rd A

ve a

nd 3

1st A

ve -

spee

d hu

mp

Com

plet

eCr

estla

ke1

Waw

ona

St b

twn

33rd

Ave

and

30t

h A

ve -

spee

d hu

mp

Com

plet

eCr

estla

ke1

Cres

tlake

Dr a

t Waw

ona

St -

islan

dCo

mpl

ete

Cres

tlake

134

th A

ve a

t Yor

ba S

t - b

ulb

outs

Com

plet

e

Exc

elsio

r1

Colle

ct T

raffi

c D

ata

on A

ddtl

Stre

ets

Com

plet

eE

xcels

ior

1A

then

s Spe

ed H

umps

Com

plet

eE

xcels

ior

1Li

sbon

Spe

ed H

ump

(Ava

lon/

Peru

)Co

mpl

ete

Exc

elsio

r1

Mad

rid S

peed

Hum

psCo

mpl

ete

Exc

elsio

r1

Mos

cow

Spe

ed C

ushi

ons

Com

plet

eE

xcels

ior

1M

adrid

Med

ian Is

land

Rejec

ted

Exc

elsio

r2

Mos

cow

Cho

ker @

Exc

elsio

rCo

mpl

ete

Exc

elsio

r2

Lisb

on b

etw

een

Italy

and

Fran

ceCo

mpl

ete

Exc

elsio

r2

Lisb

on G

atew

ay tr

eatm

ent

Com

plet

eE

xcels

ior

2M

adrid

gat

eway

trea

tmen

tCo

mpl

ete

Exc

elsio

r2

Spee

d H

umps

on

Add

tl St

reet

sPl

anne

dE

xcels

ior

2N

aples

/Silv

erRe

ject

edE

xcels

ior

3Pe

rsia

Bulb

outs

(@Pa

ris)

Com

plet

eE

xcels

ior

3Pe

rsia

Bulb

outs

(@V

ienna

)Co

mpl

ete

Exc

elsio

r3

Exc

elsio

r Bul

bout

sCo

mpl

ete

Exc

elsio

r3

Pers

ia Bu

lbou

ts (@

Mun

ich)

Und

erw

ayE

xcels

ior

3Pe

rsia/

Dub

lin g

atew

ay tr

eatm

ent

Und

erw

ayE

xcels

ior

FFM

adrid

/Rus

sia B

ulbo

uts N

E C

orne

r Onl

y (P

laygr

ound

)Fu

ture

Fun

ding

Exc

elsio

rFF

Mad

rid/R

ussia

Bul

bout

s All

Oth

er C

orne

rs(P

laygr

ound

)Fu

ture

Fun

ding

Fillm

ore

1W

ebst

er a

t Elli

s - P

ed V

isibi

lity

Impr

ovem

ents

Com

plet

eFi

llmor

e2

Web

ster

at E

llis -

Med

ian E

xten

sion/

Thum

bnail

Islan

dCo

mpl

ete

Fillm

ore

FFFi

llmor

e at

Elli

s - B

ulb-

outs

Futu

re F

undi

ngFi

llmor

eFF

Web

ster

at E

llis -

Bul

b-ou

tsFu

ture

Fun

ding

Fillm

ore

FFFi

llmor

e at

O'F

arre

ll - B

ulb-

outs

Futu

re F

undi

ngFi

llmor

eFF

Fillm

ore

at T

urk

- Bul

b-ou

tsFu

ture

Fun

ding

Fillm

ore

FFFi

llmor

e at

Gol

den

Gat

e - B

ulb-

outs

Futu

re F

undi

ngFi

llmor

eFF

Fillm

ore

at O

'Far

rell

- Rais

ed C

ross

walk

Futu

re F

undi

ng

Inne

r Sun

set

16t

h A

venu

e Sp

eed

Hum

psCo

mpl

ete

Exc

elsi

or

Fill

mor

e

Inn

er S

un

set

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

13 U

pdat

e\5Y

PP e

tc\E

P 38

\TC

Impl

emen

tatio

nRem

aini

ngCo

stEs

timat

es_6

-11-

13Pa

ge 6

of 1

3

53

Pla

nP

has

eL

ocat

ion

Stat

us

Inne

r Sun

set

1Lo

cksle

y Is

land

Com

plet

eIn

ner S

unse

t1

7th/

Irvi

ng C

ount

dow

n Si

gnals

Com

plet

eIn

ner S

unse

t1

Eva

luat

e ST

OP

sign

cont

rols

at in

ters

ectio

nsCo

mpl

ete

Inne

r Sun

set

1W

arre

n/La

wto

n Is

lands

Com

plet

eIn

ner S

unse

t2

7th/

Mor

aga

Rest

ripin

gCo

mpl

ete

Inne

r Sun

set

28t

h/Ju

dah

Islan

dCo

mpl

ete

Inne

r Sun

set

25t

h A

ve C

hica

neCo

mpl

ete

Inne

r Sun

set

34t

h A

ve C

hica

neCo

mpl

ete

Inne

r Sun

set

37t

h A

venu

e Bi

ke L

anes

/TW

LTL

Com

plet

eIn

ner S

unse

t3

5th/

Parn

assu

s Isla

ndCo

mpl

ete

Inne

r Sun

set

47t

h A

venu

e/M

orag

a Is

land

Com

plet

eIn

ner S

unse

t4

6th

Ave

Bul

b-ou

tsPl

anne

dIn

ner S

unse

t5

Oth

er M

easu

res t

o A

ddre

ss U

nant

icipa

ted

Impa

cts

Plan

ned

Inne

r Sun

set

FFLi

ncol

n G

atew

ay T

reat

men

ts I

Com

plet

eIn

ner S

unse

tFF

Irvi

ng S

treet

Bul

b-ou

tsCo

mpl

ete

Inne

r Sun

set

FF7t

h/K

irkha

m C

ount

dow

n Si

gnals

Futu

re F

undi

ngIn

ner S

unse

tFF

6th/

Irvi

ng C

ount

dow

n Si

gnals

Futu

re F

undi

ngIn

ner S

unse

tFF

7th

Ave

Bul

b-ou

tsFu

ture

Fun

ding

Inne

r Sun

set

FFLi

ncol

n G

atew

ay T

reat

men

ts II

Futu

re F

undi

ngIn

ner S

unse

tFF

Stre

et T

rees

Reje

cted

Inne

r Sun

set

FF9t

h/Ir

ving

Gat

eway

Tre

atm

ent

Rejec

ted

Inne

r Sun

set

FFLi

ncol

n W

ay B

ulb-

outs

Rejec

ted

Jord

an P

ark/

Laur

el H

eight

s1A

Colli

ns S

t Edg

eline

Stri

ping

Und

erw

ayJo

rdan

Par

k/La

urel

Heig

hts

1ALa

urel

Vill

age

Cont

i X-W

alk U

pgra

des

Plan

ned

Jord

an P

ark/

Laur

el H

eight

s1A

May

fair

Pain

ted

Ped

Islan

dsU

nder

way

Jord

an P

ark/

Laur

el H

eight

s1

Laur

el St

Spe

ed H

ump

Plan

ned

Jord

an P

ark/

Laur

el H

eight

s1

Colli

ns S

t Spe

ed H

ump

Plan

ned

Jord

an P

ark/

Laur

el H

eight

s1

Euc

lid @

Iris

Ped

Islan

dPl

anne

dJo

rdan

Par

k/La

urel

Heig

hts

1E

uclid

Bik

e La

nes/

Rest

ripin

gPl

anne

dJo

rdan

Par

k/La

urel

Heig

hts

1Pa

lm A

ve S

peed

Hum

psPl

anne

dJo

rdan

Par

k/La

urel

Heig

hts

1Jo

rdan

Ave

Spe

ed H

umps

Plan

ned

Jord

an P

ark/

Laur

el H

eight

s1

Com

mon

wea

lth A

ve S

peed

Hum

psPl

anne

dJo

rdan

Par

k/La

urel

Heig

hts

1Pa

rker

Ave

Spe

ed H

umps

Plan

ned

Jord

an P

ark/

Laur

el H

eight

s1

Spru

ce S

t Spe

ed H

umps

Plan

ned

Jord

an P

ark/

Laur

el H

eight

s2

Com

mon

wea

lth @

Cali

forn

ia Pe

d Is

land

Plan

ned

Jord

an P

ark/

Laur

el H

eight

s2

Park

er @

Cali

forn

ia Pe

d Is

land

Plan

ned

Jord

an P

ark/

Laur

el H

eight

s2

Euc

lid @

Spr

uce

Ped

Islan

dsPl

anne

dJo

rdan

Par

k/La

urel

Heig

hts

2E

uclid

@ L

aure

l Ped

Islan

dsPl

anne

d

Jord

an P

ark/

Lau

rel H

eigh

ts

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

13 U

pdat

e\5Y

PP e

tc\E

P 38

\TC

Impl

emen

tatio

nRem

aini

ngCo

stEs

timat

es_6

-11-

13Pa

ge 7

of 1

3

54

Pla

nP

has

eL

ocat

ion

Stat

us

Jord

an P

ark/

Laur

el H

eight

s2

Euc

lid S

peed

Hum

pPl

anne

dJo

rdan

Par

k/La

urel

Heig

hts

2M

ayfa

ir Sp

eed

Hum

pPl

anne

dJo

rdan

Par

k/La

urel

Heig

hts

3E

uclid

@ H

eath

er P

ed Is

lands

Plan

ned

Jord

an P

ark/

Laur

el H

eight

s3

Euc

lid @

Par

ker T

raffi

c Ci

rcle

Plan

ned

Jord

an P

ark/

Laur

el H

eight

s3

Euc

lid @

Col

lins T

raffi

c Ci

rcle

Plan

ned

Min

na/N

atom

a1

Nat

oma/

14th

St

Raise

d Cr

ossw

alkCo

mpl

ete

Min

na/N

atom

a1

Min

na/1

4th

Raise

d Cr

ossw

alkCo

mpl

ete

Min

na/N

atom

a1

Capp

/16t

h St

Rais

ed C

ross

walk

Plan

ned

Min

na/N

atom

a1

Ada

ir/Ca

pp R

aised

Cro

ssw

alk

Com

plet

eM

inna

/Nat

oma

1M

inna

btw

n 14

th S

t and

15t

h St

Spe

ed H

ump

Com

plet

eM

inna

/Nat

oma

1N

atom

a bt

wn

14th

St a

nd 1

5th

St S

peed

hum

pCo

mpl

ete

Min

na/N

atom

a1

Capp

btw

n A

dair

and

15th

St S

peed

hum

pU

nder

way

Min

na/N

atom

a1

15th

St/

SVN

-Nat

oma

SPE

ED

HU

MP

Und

erw

ayM

inna

/Nat

oma

1M

inna

btw

n 14

th S

t and

15t

h St

WS

Edg

e Li

neCo

mpl

ete

Min

na/N

atom

a1

Nat

oma

btw

n 14

th S

t and

15t

h St

ES

Edg

e Li

neCo

mpl

ete

Min

na/N

atom

a1

15th

St b

twn

SVN

and

Min

na E

dge

Line

sCo

mpl

ete

Min

na/N

atom

a1

Capp

St b

twn

15th

-16t

h St

s Edg

e Li

nes

Und

erw

ayM

inna

/Nat

oma

1A

dair

St b

twn

Capp

-SV

N N

S E

dge

Line

Com

plet

eM

inna

/Nat

oma

1Ra

ised

Cros

swalk

- M

inna

/15t

hPl

anne

dM

inna

/Nat

oma

1Ra

ised

Cros

swalk

Nat

oma/

15th

Plan

ned

Min

na/N

atom

a1

Raise

d Cr

ossw

alk 1

5th/

Capp

Plan

ned

Min

na/N

atom

a1

Raise

d Cr

ossw

alk 1

5th/

Miss

ion

Plan

ned

Min

na/N

atom

a1

Raise

d Cr

ossw

alk A

dair/

SVN

Plan

ned

Min

na/N

atom

a2

Side

walk

Bul

b-ou

t, Ca

pp, b

twn

15th

-Ada

irPl

anne

dM

inna

/Nat

oma

2Pe

rmea

ble

Pavi

ng M

inna

Nat

omaA

dair

Futu

re F

undi

ng

Nor

th B

erna

l Heig

hts

1Ti

ffany

Spe

ed H

umps

Com

plet

eN

orth

Ber

nal H

eight

s1

Left

Turn

Lan

e Ch

avez

/Miss

ion

Com

plet

eN

orth

Ber

nal H

eight

s1

Reve

rse

Dire

ctio

n of

SJ A

venu

eCo

mpl

ete

Nor

th B

erna

l Heig

hts

2Ti

ffany

/Dun

can

Barr

ierCo

mpl

ete

Nor

th B

erna

l Heig

hts

2A

labam

a/Ce

sar C

have

z Si

gnal

Com

plet

eN

orth

Ber

nal H

eight

s2

SJ/G

uerr

ero

Bulb

-out

Com

plet

eN

orth

Ber

nal H

eight

s2

Folso

m/P

recit

a Bu

lb-o

uts

Com

plet

eN

orth

Ber

nal H

eight

s2

Gat

eway

bul

b-ou

ts a

t Fol

som

/Cha

vez

Com

plet

eN

orth

Ber

nal H

eight

s3

Folso

m C

hica

nes (

Trial

)Co

mpl

ete

Nor

th B

erna

l Heig

hts

3A

labam

a Ch

icane

s (Tr

ial)

Com

plet

eN

orth

Ber

nal H

eight

s4

Folso

m C

hica

nes (

Build

-out

)Co

mpl

ete

Min

na/

Nat

oma

Nor

th B

ern

al H

eigh

ts

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

13 U

pdat

e\5Y

PP e

tc\E

P 38

\TC

Impl

emen

tatio

nRem

aini

ngCo

stEs

timat

es_6

-11-

13Pa

ge 8

of 1

3

55

Pla

nP

has

eL

ocat

ion

Stat

us

Nor

th B

erna

l Heig

hts

4A

labam

a Ch

icane

s (Bu

ild o

ut)

Com

plet

eN

orth

Ber

nal H

eight

s4

Prec

ita E

lbow

Com

plet

eN

orth

Ber

nal H

eight

s4

Ston

eman

Chi

cane

s/M

edian

Rejec

ted

Nor

th B

erna

l Heig

hts

5Pr

ecita

Spe

ed H

umps

wes

t of F

olso

mCo

mpl

ete

Nor

th B

erna

l Heig

hts

5A

labam

a/M

ullen

Bul

bCo

mpl

ete

Nor

th B

erna

l Heig

hts

6Si

dew

alks o

n Fo

lsom

and

BH

BCo

mpl

ete

Nor

th B

erna

l Heig

hts

6BH

B/E

smer

alda

Reco

nfig

urat

ion

Und

erw

ayN

orth

Ber

nal H

eight

s6

Gat

eway

bul

b-ou

ts a

t Ces

ar C

have

zU

nder

way

Nor

th B

erna

l Heig

hts

FFTi

ffany

/29t

h Bu

lb-o

utPl

anne

dN

orth

Ber

nal H

eight

sFF

BHB/

Esm

erald

a Re

conf

igur

atio

nPl

anne

dN

orth

Ber

nal H

eight

sFF

Alab

ama/

Nor

wich

Bul

bRe

jecte

d

O'S

haug

hnes

sy1

Strip

ing

edge

lines

, 25

MPH

lege

nds

Com

plet

eO

'Sha

ughn

essy

1Tr

ial G

atew

ay M

edian

Islan

d In

stall

atio

nCo

mpl

ete

O'S

haug

hnes

sy2

Build

out

med

ian

Com

plet

eO

'Sha

ughn

essy

FFBu

ild c

olum

ns, i

mpr

ove

light

ing

Futu

re F

undi

ng

Potre

ro H

ill1

19th

St b

twn

Caro

lina

and

Wisc

onsin

- sp

eed

hum

pCo

mpl

ete

Potre

ro H

ill1

Mar

ipos

a at

Ver

mon

t - g

atew

ay is

land

Com

plet

ePo

trero

Hill

1M

arip

osa

at P

enns

ylvan

ia - g

atew

ay is

land

Reje

cted

Potre

ro H

ill1

Rhod

e Is

land

at S

outh

ern

Heig

hts -

bul

bout

Reje

cted

Potre

ro H

ill1

Rhod

e Is

land

at S

outh

ern

Heig

hts -

islan

dCo

mpl

ete

Potre

ro H

ill1

Kan

sas b

twn

26th

and

23r

d - i

sland

s, ed

gelin

esCo

mpl

ete

Potre

ro H

ill2

Ver

mon

t btw

n M

arip

osa

and

17th

St -

road

diet

(pain

ted)

Und

erw

ayPo

trero

Hill

2Cr

est o

f Hill

- V

ario

us L

ocat

ions

- TB

DU

nder

way

Potre

ro H

ill2

Mar

ipos

a at

Miss

issip

pi -

gate

way

islan

dU

nder

way

Potre

ro H

ill2

Penn

sylv

ania

btw

n 20

th a

nd 2

2nd

- edg

eline

sU

nder

way

Potre

ro H

ill2

Penn

sylv

ania

btw

n 22

nd a

nd 2

3rd

- edg

eline

s, an

gled

par

king

Und

erw

ayPo

trero

Hill

223

rd S

t at K

ansa

s - g

atew

ay is

land

Und

erw

ayPo

trero

Hill

3V

erm

ont b

twn

Mar

ipos

a an

d 17

th S

t - ro

ad d

iet w

ith la

ndsc

aped

islan

dPl

anne

dPo

trero

Hill

3Rh

ode

Islan

d at

20t

h St

- isl

and

Plan

ned

Potre

ro H

ill4

19th

at C

arol

ina

- cho

ker

Plan

ned

Potre

ro H

ill5

Kan

sas a

t 26t

h - g

atew

ay is

land

Plan

ned

Potre

ro H

ill5

26th

St b

twn

Kan

sas a

nd D

e H

aro

- chi

cane

(pain

ted

islan

d tri

al)U

nder

way

Potre

ro H

illFF

17th

St a

t Ark

ansa

s - b

ulbo

uts

Futu

re F

undi

ngPo

trero

Hill

FF17

th S

t at C

arol

ina

- bul

bout

sFu

ture

Fun

ding

Potre

ro H

illFF

20th

St a

t Miss

ouri

- bul

bout

sFu

ture

Fun

ding

Potre

ro H

illFF

20th

St a

t Tex

as -

bulb

outs

Futu

re F

undi

ng

O'S

hau

ghn

essy

Pot

rero

Hill

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

13 U

pdat

e\5Y

PP e

tc\E

P 38

\TC

Impl

emen

tatio

nRem

aini

ngCo

stEs

timat

es_6

-11-

13Pa

ge 9

of 1

3

56

Pla

nP

has

eL

ocat

ion

Stat

us

Potre

ro H

illFF

Mar

ipos

a bt

wn

Ark

ansa

s and

Car

olin

a - m

idbl

ock

xwalk

with

bul

bout

Futu

re F

undi

ngPo

trero

Hill

FF17

th S

t at M

issou

ri - b

ulbo

uts

Futu

re F

undi

ngPo

trero

Hill

FFM

arip

osa

at C

arol

ina

- bul

bout

sFu

ture

Fun

ding

Potre

ro H

illFF

Mar

ipos

a at

Ark

ansa

s - b

ulbo

uts

Futu

re F

undi

ngPo

trero

Hill

FFD

eHar

o at

18t

h St

- bu

lbou

tsFu

ture

Fun

ding

Potre

ro H

illFF

DeH

aro

at 1

9th

St -

bulb

outs

Futu

re F

undi

ngPo

trero

Hill

FF18

th S

t at V

erm

ont -

bul

bout

sFu

ture

Fun

ding

Potre

ro H

illFF

19t S

t at V

erm

ont -

bul

bout

sFu

ture

Fun

ding

Potre

ro H

illFF

18th

St a

t Kan

sas -

bul

bout

sFu

ture

Fun

ding

Potre

ro H

illFF

19th

St a

t Kan

sas -

bul

bout

sFu

ture

Fun

ding

Potre

ro H

illFF

7th

St, B

ryan

t to

Bran

nan

- con

vert

from

one

- to

two-

way

(res

tripi

ng, s

igna

l wor

k, re

loca

te

met

ers,

signa

ge)

Futu

re F

undi

ngPo

trero

Hill

FFPo

trero

Hill

Pub

lic H

ousin

g re

desig

nFu

ture

Fun

ding

Rand

olph

/Bro

ad1

Eva

luat

e ST

OP

sign

cont

rols

in a

rea

Com

plet

eRa

ndol

ph/B

road

1E

dgeli

nes

Com

plet

eRa

ndol

ph/B

road

219

th A

ve B

ike

Lane

s (Ra

ndol

ph to

Bev

erly)

Und

erw

ayRa

ndol

ph/B

road

2O

rizab

a at

Ran

dolp

h, M

ove

stop

Rejec

ted

Rand

olph

/Bro

ad2

Rand

olph

at V

ictor

ia - b

ulbs

Futu

re F

undi

ngRa

ndol

ph/B

road

FFRa

ndol

ph a

t Brig

ht A

ve -

bulb

sFu

ture

Fun

ding

Rand

olph

/Bro

adFF

Rand

olph

at H

ead

Ave

- bu

lbs

Futu

re F

undi

ngRa

ndol

ph/B

road

FFRa

ndol

ph a

t 19t

h A

ve -

bulb

sFu

ture

Fun

ding

Sain

t Fra

ncis

Woo

d1

Yer

ba B

uena

Wy

btw

n Sa

nta

Paul

a A

ve a

nd S

anta

Clar

a A

ve H

ump

Com

plet

eSa

int F

ranc

is W

ood

1Sa

nta

Clar

a A

ve b

twn

St. F

ranc

is Bl

vd a

nd M

onte

rey

Blvd

cus

hion

Com

plet

eSa

int F

ranc

is W

ood

1Sa

nta

Ana

Ave

btw

n Po

rtola

Dr a

nd S

t. Fr

ancis

Blv

d hu

mp

Com

plet

eSa

int F

ranc

is W

ood

1Sa

nta

Ana

Ave

btw

n St

. Fra

ncis

Blvd

and

Mon

tere

y Bl

vd h

ump

Com

plet

eSa

int F

ranc

is W

ood

1Sa

n Be

nito

Wy

btw

n Po

rtola

Dr a

nd S

t. Fr

ancis

Blv

d hu

mp

Com

plet

eSa

int F

ranc

is W

ood

1Sa

n Be

nito

Wy

btw

n St

. Fra

ncis

Blvd

and

Mon

tere

y Bl

vd h

ump

Com

plet

eSa

int F

ranc

is W

ood

1Sa

nta

Ana

Ave

at S

an A

nselm

o an

d Po

rtola

Dr c

hann

eliza

tion

Plan

ned

Sain

t Fra

ncis

Woo

d1

Sant

a Cl

ara

Ave

btw

n St

. Fra

ncis

Blvd

and

San

Ans

elmo

Ave

hum

pCo

mpl

ete

Sain

t Fra

ncis

Woo

d1

San

Fern

ando

Wy

btw

n St

. Fra

ncis

Blvd

and

Por

tola

Dr h

ump

Com

plet

eSa

int F

ranc

is W

ood

1Sa

n Fe

rnan

do W

y bt

wn

St. F

ranc

is Bl

vd a

nd M

onte

rey

hum

pCo

mpl

ete

Sain

t Fra

ncis

Woo

d1

San

Pabl

o A

ve b

twn

Yer

ba B

uena

Ave

and

San

ta M

onica

Wy

hum

pCo

mpl

ete

Sain

t Fra

ncis

Woo

d1

San

Pabl

o A

ve b

twn

Sant

a M

onica

Wy

and

Porto

la D

r hum

pCo

mpl

ete

Sain

t Fra

ncis

Woo

d1

Yer

ba B

uena

Ave

at S

an P

ablo

Ave

islan

dRe

ject

edSa

int F

ranc

is W

ood

2Sa

nta

Clar

a A

ve a

t Yer

ba B

uena

Ave

cha

nneli

zatio

n, la

ndsc

apin

gU

nder

way

Sain

t Fra

ncis

Woo

d2

Yer

ba B

uena

btw

n M

iralo

ma

and

San

Pabl

o hu

mp

Com

plet

e

Sain

t F

ran

cis

Woo

d

Ran

dol

ph

/B

road

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

13 U

pdat

e\5Y

PP e

tc\E

P 38

\TC

Impl

emen

tatio

nRem

aini

ngCo

stEs

timat

es_6

-11-

13Pa

ge 1

0 of

13

57

Pla

nP

has

eL

ocat

ion

Stat

us

Sain

t Fra

ncis

Woo

d3

Sant

a Cl

ara

Ave

inte

rsec

tion

north

of M

onte

rey

islan

d, c

hoke

r, bu

lb o

utCo

mpl

ete

Sain

t Fra

ncis

Woo

dFF

Yer

ba B

uena

Ave

at S

anta

Pau

la A

ve is

land

Futu

re F

undi

ngSa

int F

ranc

is W

ood

FFSa

n A

nselm

o A

ve a

t St.

Fran

cis B

lvd

islan

dFu

ture

Fun

ding

Sain

t Fra

ncis

Woo

dFF

Oth

er M

easu

res t

o A

ddre

ss U

nant

icipa

ted

Impa

cts

Futu

re F

undi

ng

Silv

er T

erra

ce1

Sco

tia b

twn

Silv

er a

nd Q

uint

Spe

ed h

ump

Und

erw

aySi

lver

Ter

race

1 T

opek

a bt

wn

Silv

er a

nd Q

uint

Spe

ed h

ump

Com

plet

eSi

lver

Ter

race

1Th

ornt

on b

twn

Wat

ervi

lle a

nd M

ercu

ry h

ump

Und

erw

aySi

lver

Ter

race

1 L

aton

a bt

wn

Thor

nton

and

Bay

view

Spe

ed h

ump

Und

erw

aySi

lver

Ter

race

1W

illiam

s at A

pollo

and

at C

eres

Islan

dsU

nder

way

Silv

er T

erra

ce1

Mad

dux

btw

n Q

uint

and

Tho

mas

(Cho

ker)

Now

HU

MP

Und

erw

aySi

lver

Ter

race

1Th

ornt

on b

twn

Nep

tune

and

Dian

a Sp

eed

hum

pCo

mpl

ete

Silv

er T

erra

ce1

Que

sada

btw

n Th

ird a

nd N

ewha

ll Sp

eed

hum

psCo

mpl

ete

Silv

er T

erra

ce1

Reve

re b

twn

Third

and

New

hall

Spee

d hu

mp

Com

plet

eSi

lver

Ter

race

2W

illiam

s/V

esta

Bul

bPl

anne

dSi

lver

Ter

race

2Br

idge

view

/Top

eka

bulb

Plan

ned

Silv

er T

erra

ce2

Silv

er G

atew

ays a

t Led

yard

, Sco

tia, T

opek

aPl

anne

dSi

lver

Ter

race

FFBr

idge

view

/New

hall

bulb

Futu

re F

undi

ngSi

lver

Ter

race

FFTh

ird S

t Gat

eway

at Q

uesa

daFu

ture

Fun

ding

Silv

er T

erra

ceFF

Third

St G

atew

ay a

t Rev

ere/

Bayv

iewFu

ture

Fun

ding

Sout

h Be

rnal

Heig

hts

2St

. Mar

y's A

leman

y/Ju

stin

Bul

b-ou

tCo

mpl

ete

Sout

h Be

rnal

Heig

hts

2Cr

esce

nt/M

issio

n/Co

llege

cha

nneli

zatio

nCo

mpl

ete

Sout

h Be

rnal

Heig

hts

2V

irgin

ia/Co

lerid

ge C

ircle

Com

plet

eSo

uth

Bern

al H

eight

s2

Hol

ly Pa

rk/E

lsie

- Isla

nds a

nd S

peed

Hum

psCo

mpl

ete

Sout

h Be

rnal

Heig

hts

2St

. Mar

y's C

olleg

e/G

eneb

ern

Circ

leCo

mpl

ete

Sout

h Be

rnal

Heig

hts

2St

. Mar

y's M

issio

n/M

urra

y Bu

lb-o

utCo

mpl

ete

Sout

h Be

rnal

Heig

hts

2St

. Mar

y's G

eneb

ern/

Mur

ray

Circ

leCo

mpl

ete

Sout

h Be

rnal

Heig

hts

2St

. Mar

y's G

eneb

ern/

Just

in C

ircle

Com

plet

eSo

uth

Bern

al H

eight

s2

Virg

inia/

Elsi

e/E

ugen

ia Ch

anne

lizat

ion

Com

plet

eSo

uth

Bern

al H

eight

s2

And

over

Spe

ed H

umps

Com

plet

eSo

uth

Bern

al H

eight

s2

BHB

Spee

d H

umps

Upp

erCo

mpl

ete

Sout

h Be

rnal

Heig

hts

2Cr

esce

nt C

ushi

ons

Com

plet

eSo

uth

Bern

al H

eight

s2

And

over

Bul

b-ou

tsCo

mpl

ete

Sout

h Be

rnal

Heig

hts

2BH

B Si

dew

alk U

pper

Com

plet

eSo

uth

Bern

al H

eight

s2

Patto

n Sc

hool

Cro

ssw

alks

Com

plet

eSo

uth

Bern

al H

eight

s2

Cres

cent

Sch

ool C

ross

walk

sCo

mpl

ete

Sout

h Be

rnal

Heig

hts

2Cr

esce

nt B

ike

Lane

/Stri

ping

Com

plet

e

Silv

er T

erra

ce

Sou

th B

ern

al H

eigh

ts

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

13 U

pdat

e\5Y

PP e

tc\E

P 38

\TC

Impl

emen

tatio

nRem

aini

ngCo

stEs

timat

es_6

-11-

13Pa

ge 1

1 of

13

58

Pla

nP

has

eL

ocat

ion

Stat

us

Sout

h Be

rnal

Heig

hts

2Cr

esce

nt B

ulb-

outs

(Agn

on)

Und

erw

aySo

uth

Bern

al H

eight

s2

Patto

n Sp

eed

Hum

pPl

anne

dSo

uth

Bern

al H

eight

s2

Cres

cent

Bul

b-ou

ts (M

urra

y)U

nder

way

Sout

h Be

rnal

Heig

hts

4Ri

chlan

d Sp

eed

Hum

psCo

mpl

ete

Sout

h Be

rnal

Heig

hts

4E

smer

alda

Ped

Corr

idor

Tex

ture

d Pa

ving

Com

plet

eSo

uth

Bern

al H

eight

s4

May

flow

er T

extu

red

Pavi

ngCo

mpl

ete

Sout

h Be

rnal

Heig

hts

4BH

B N

ew S

idew

alk a

nd Is

land

at B

HB/

Nev

ada/

Pow

hatta

nCo

mpl

ete

Sout

h Be

rnal

Heig

hts

4A

leman

y /C

resc

ent/

Putn

am R

econ

figur

atio

nPl

anne

dSo

uth

Bern

al H

eight

s4

Boca

na/W

ool S

tripi

ngRe

jecte

dSo

uth

Bern

al H

eight

s4

Alem

any

Bulb

outs

Rejec

ted

Sout

h Be

rnal

Heig

hts

FFRe

vere

Sch

ool B

ulb-

outs

Futu

re F

undi

ngSo

uth

Bern

al H

eight

sFF

Hol

ly Pa

rk B

ulb-

outs

Futu

re F

undi

ng

Sunn

ysid

e1

Floo

d A

ve b

etw

een

Det

roit

and

Edn

a - s

peed

hum

psRe

ject

ed

Sunn

ysid

e1

Ope

ratio

nal i

mpr

ovem

ents

- va

rious

loca

tions

:Co

ngo

St b

twn

Still

ings

and

Mar

tha

red

zone

, Aca

dia

at Jo

ost t

all v

eh re

stric

tion,

Mon

tere

y an

d Ci

rcul

ar y

ield

sign

and

teet

h, W

S Fo

rest

er n

orth

of M

onte

rey

bloc

k of

f driv

eway

, M

onte

rey

at E

dna

cent

er S

TOP

mar

kin g

Com

plet

eSu

nnys

ide

1M

ange

ls A

ve b

etw

een

Foer

ster

and

Gen

ness

ee -

spee

d hu

mp

Com

plet

eSu

nnys

ide

1M

ange

ls A

ve b

etw

een

Foer

ster

and

Det

roit

- spe

ed h

ump

Com

plet

eSu

nnys

ide

1H

ears

t Ave

bet

wee

n Fo

erst

er a

nd G

enne

ssee

- sp

eed

hum

pCo

mpl

ete

Sunn

ysid

e1

Stap

les S

treet

bet

wee

n Fo

erst

er a

nd G

enne

ssee

- sp

eed

hum

pCo

mpl

ete

Sunn

ysid

e1

Joos

t Ave

bet

wee

n E

dna

and

Foer

ster

- sp

eed

hum

pCo

mpl

ete

Sunn

ysid

e1

Man

gels

Ave

bet

wee

n D

etro

it an

d Co

ngo

- spe

ed h

ump

Com

plet

eSu

nnys

ide

1In

ters

ectio

n of

Joos

t and

Lip

pard

med

ian is

land

Com

plet

eSu

nnys

ide

1In

ters

ectio

n of

Mon

tere

y Bo

ulev

ard

and

Circ

ular

exp

and

med

ianU

nder

way

Sunn

ysid

e1

Joos

t bet

wee

n A

cadi

a an

d Li

ppar

d 90

deg

ree

park

ing

Reje

cted

Sunn

ysid

e2

Inte

rsec

tion

of H

ears

t and

Bad

en tr

affic

circ

leU

nder

way

Sunn

ysid

e3

Inte

rsec

tion

of A

cadi

a an

d Jo

ost t

raffi

c cir

clePl

anne

dSu

nnys

ide

Inte

rsec

tion

of Jo

ost a

nd M

onte

rey

expa

nd m

edian

Com

plet

e

Tere

sita

Boul

evar

d1

Tere

sita

Chok

ers P

h. 1

Com

plet

eTe

resit

a Bo

ulev

ard

1Te

resit

a Sp

eed

Cush

ion

(Seq

uoia-

Gav

iota

)Co

mpl

ete

Tere

sita

Boul

evar

d1

Tere

sita

Spee

d Cu

shio

n (Is

ola-

Repo

sa)

Com

plet

eTe

resit

a Bo

ulev

ard

1Sp

eed

Rada

r Sig

n @

Mar

rieta

Com

plet

eTe

resit

a Bo

ulev

ard

1Sp

eed

Rada

r Sig

n @

Melr

ose

Com

plet

eTe

resit

a Bo

ulev

ard

2Te

resit

a/Be

lla V

ista

Chan

neliz

atio

n I

Com

plet

eTe

resit

a Bo

ulev

ard

2Te

resit

a/Be

lla V

ista

Chan

neliz

atio

n II

Com

plet

e

Sun

nys

ide

Ter

esit

a B

oule

vard

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

13 U

pdat

e\5Y

PP e

tc\E

P 38

\TC

Impl

emen

tatio

nRem

aini

ngCo

stEs

timat

es_6

-11-

13Pa

ge 1

2 of

13

59

Pla

nP

has

eL

ocat

ion

Stat

us

Tere

sita

Boul

evar

d2

Tere

sita

Chok

ers P

h. 2

Plan

ned

Tere

sita

Boul

evar

d3

Tere

sita/

Mar

rieta

Com

plet

eTe

resit

a Bo

ulev

ard

3Te

resit

a/Fo

wler

Islan

dsPl

anne

dTe

resit

a Bo

ulev

ard

3Te

resit

a Ch

oker

s Ph.

3Pl

anne

d

Wes

t Por

tal

117

th A

ve C

hoke

rCo

mpl

ete

Wes

t Por

tal

2W

awon

a Ch

oker

Com

plet

eW

est P

orta

l3

14th

/Vice

nte

- Circ

le/Ch

anne

lizat

ion

Plan

ned

Wes

t Por

tal

316

th a

nd 1

8th

Ave

Tre

atm

ent

Plan

ned

Wes

t Por

tal

3E

dgeli

nes (

14th

Ave

- V

icent

e to

Ullo

a)Pl

anne

dW

est P

orta

l3

14th

Ave

Cho

ker -

Vice

nte

to U

lloa

Plan

ned

Wes

t P

orta

l

P:\P

rop

K\SP

-5YP

P\20

13 U

pdat

e\5Y

PP e

tc\E

P 38

\TC

Impl

emen

tatio

nRem

aini

ngCo

stEs

timat

es_6

-11-

13Pa

ge 1

3 of

13

60

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

")

")")")")

")")

")")

")

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

$+

$+

$+ $+$+

$+$+

$+

$+

$+$+ $+

$+

$+$+$+$+

$+$+

$+$+$+

$+

$+

$+ $+$+$+$+$+

$+

$+$+

$+

$+$+

$+

$+

$+

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*

#*#* #*#*

#*#* 6,400$ 6,400$ Minna-Natoma

CentralRichmond

KirkhamStreet

Crestlake

Cerritos-Cedro

Dewey

ClaytonStreet

N. Potrero Hill

S. PotreroHill

N. VisitacionValley

Sunnyside

S. BernalHgts

N. BernalHgts

St.FrancisWood

InnerSunset

JordanPark/Laurel Heights

Bayview

Excelsior

WestPortal

18th Ave

Broadway

SilverTerrace

O'Shaughnessy

Randolph-Broad

Circular

Teresita

GlenPark

S. VisitacionValley

Lake St

25th Ave

BuenaVista-Roosevelt-17th St

Fillmore

Rolph/Naples

Divisadero

Valencia

19thAvenue

24th StCesar

Chavez

Ocean

Mission St(S of CesarChavez)

Folsom St

Holloway-Garfield

DiamondHeights

Blvd

Proposed TC Measures#* Spe e d Hu mps o r Cu s hio n s (26)$+ Bu lb-o u ts an d chican e s (39)!( Traffic is lan ds an d circle s (89)") Cro s s w alks an d pavin g tre atme n ts (10)!! To be de te rmin e d (6)

Site Spe cific TC Me as u re s TBD (22)

Areawide TC ProjectsPlan Co mple teIn Plan n in g

Planned Traffic Calming MeasuresThis map s ho w s all lo catio n s w he re the SFMTA cu rre n tly has plan s to in s tall traffic calmin g de vice s .De vice s that have be e n de te rmin e d thro u g h an are aw ide plan n in g pro ce s s are dis playe d. "To BeDe te rmin e d” in dicate s that a lo catio n has be e n acce pte d fo r traffic calmin g bu t the s pe cific de vice s has n o tbe e n e s tablis he d.

61