|
Introduction & Acknowledgements
San Francisco has one of the highest vehicle densities of any major city in North America. Combined with a small geographic area and a network of mostly narrow streets, the resultant traffic congestion and its impacts have reached unacceptable levels. Traffic congestion negatively impacts San Franciscans' quality of life in many ways: degraded air quality, diminished pedestrian and bicycle safety, heightened noise levels, and an increased demand for space to be allocated to motor vehicle parking. Beyond this, there are social implications of increased level of traffic congestion.
The solutions to this problem are complex and interconnected in nature. No matter how aggressive, traffic calming alone cannot be a panacea for the City's ever increasing traffic congestion. In order for traffic calming to succeed in its mission to reduce motor vehicle impacts upon the City, the population must be able to access alternatives to private automobile use , including transit, walking and bicycling. Further, they must know that these alternatives are safe, reliable, realistic, and socially palatable. In order for Traffic Calming to work effectively, transit must function effectively and be perceived by the public as a quick, safe and comfortable option.
These guidelines were developed by the Technical Working Group and the Community Working Group following the adoption of Strategic Analysis Report (SAR) 97-3 on Traffic Calming. The report instructed Authority staff to work with DPT and other departments to develop an implementation schedule for the next steps identified in the report. As a result, the Authority convened the two working groups to develop these policy guidelines. The SAR is available on the San Francisco County Transportation Authority's web page or from the Authority's office. These guidelines may be revised and modified as the City implements the program. For more information on these guidelines or on the traffic calming program, contact Bridget Smith of SFMTA/DPT at 415.701.4491.
Staff thanks the working group members for their involvement in the process and dedication to the task. Thanks also to other San Francisco County Transportation Authority, Department of Parking and Traffic and City Department staff who provided input on the development of these guidelines.
| Community Working Group |
Gloria Fontanello,
Coalition of SF Neighborhoods |
Milton Marks,
Friends of the Urban Forest |
Elizabeth Sullivan,
Neighborhood Parks Council |
Betsy Thagard,
Pedestrian Safety Task Force/Walk San Francisco |
Roger Bazeley,
Parent Teacher Association |
Michael Kasolas,
St. Francis Homes Association |
Eric Poole,
St. Mary's Park Association |
Bob Planthold,
Senior Action Network |
Sheila Kolenc,
San Francisco Beautiful |
Leah Shahum,
SF Bicycle Coalition |
Jeffrey Tumlin,
SPUR |
Jim Morrison,
Traffic Calming Coalition/
Bicycle Advisory Committee |
Toby Levine,
Traffic Calming Coalition |
| Technical Working Group |
Joe Steinberger,
Bay Area Quality Management District |
Michael Radetsky & Abbie Yant,
SF Department of Public Health |
Tom Folks, Cathal Hennessy & Bridget Smith,
Department of Parking and Traffic |
Nelson Wong,
SF Department of Public Works |
Parker Waterson,
Laidlaw Transit |
Steve Patrinik,
SF Municipal Railway |
Captains Tony Avalos & Bob Imbellino,
SF Fire Department |
Officers Belous & Shine,
SF Police Department |
Stephen Shotland,
SF Planning Department |
John Barber,
SF Unified School District |
Matthew Seubert,
SF County Transportation Authority |
|
|
back to top
Working Group Workplan
In order to follow through on the Next Steps section of the Strategic Analysis Report on Traffic Calming, the working groups shall develop a policy on traffic calming, including an examination of each of the following issues:
- an inventory of potential traffic calming locations in San Francisco
- a process for evaluating requests for traffic calming
- a process for public involvement
- maximizing public awareness and building community support through education
- reviewing and refining a traffic calming device inventory or toolkit
- a methodology for evaluating impacts and traffic diversion thresholds
- a process for monitoring and evaluating the results of the installation of traffic calming devices
- a functional classification of City streets with information about appropriate devices
- a funding strategy to implement the policy
- a process for active interdepartmental communication and education
- a commitment by participants to follow through to implementation
- how enforcement can work with a traffic calming program.
back to top
Three Track Approach
The three tracks are as follows:
1. A track for arterial and commercial streets which uses a corridor approach.
2. A track for neighborhoods which has an area-wide focus. This was later amended to: a local street track with an area-wide focus, and a local street track with a site-specific focus, which would follow a streamlined process.
3. A track for safe routes to school which is site specific.
1. Arterial and Commercial Streets
The traffic calming track for arterial and commercial streets is called "Livable Streets."
A. Goals, Objectives and Guiding Principles
Goals
- The primary goal is to improve safety, especially for pedestrians and bicyclists. The degree of success in achieving this goal could be measured by accident statistics.
Other goals include:
- creating a more pleasant and healthy environment
- balancing the needs of different transporation users. This could be quantified by performance standards.
Objectives to achieve goals
- reduce vehicular speed where appropriate
- reduce posted speed limits where appropriate
- improve the environment for pedestrians and bicyclists
- increase driver awareness of other users
- educate drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists and other users regarding safety
- enforce traffic safety laws
- provide opportunities for alternate modes
Guiding principles and policies
- learn from successful and unsuccessful efforts
- use actions appropriate to the problem, given limited funding and high demand
- coordinate construction with planned or already-underway projects
- maintain person throughput and basic mobility
- consider traffic diversion impacts
- maintain street classification as defined in the General Plan
- maintain access for:
- emergency vehicles
- Muni (keeping in mind the City's Transit First policy)
- autos (especially considering impacts on the CMP network)
- freight (particularly on commercial streets)
- disabled
- bicyclists
- pedestrians
- minimize reduction of on-street parking (especially on commercial streets)
B. Evaluation Process
1. Develop a list of all commercial, commercial/arterial, and arterial streets in the City. (Staff has begun work on this list.)
2. Screen this list using the following steps:
- Screen the entire list by pedestrian and bike injuries - the top 100 move forward.
- Rank the top 100 streets from step 1 by mid-block collision rate - the top 25 move forward.
- Return to the list any street known to have construction repairs planned within the next five years.
- Review the list for geographical balance. Some streets that were screened out may be added back.
This list will be re-screened periodically. More detail on screening criteria can be found below.
3. Score the resultant list based on the following factors:
- Requests
- Speeding
- Traffic volume
- Commercial zoning
- Residential density (or non-auto mode split)
- Pedestrian generators (such as schools and parks)
- Office districts and tourist areas (including hotels)
- Bike and transit routes
- Transit-Oriented Community Urban Plan (T-CUP) area
- Linkage to Downtown Pedestrian Program improvement
The list will then be re-evaluated for geographical balance. Staff will later determine the relative weight of these factors.
C. Public Involvement Process
1. Outreach to involve all key stakeholders, including City staff
2. Community Workshop #1
a) explain process
b) define problem and goals
c) prioritize interests
3. A guided walk-through to better define the problems, mapping problems to specific locations, and mapping potential solutions (this could alternately be done "virtually" using video footage)
4. More stakeholder contact
5. Community Workshop #2
a) present toolkit of measures
b) design charette in groups
c) look for commonalities and trade-offs in alternatives
6. Staff and/or consultant develop alternatives
7. Present alternatives to key stakeholders
8. Refine alternatives
9. Present alternatives at community meeting and select alternative
10. Public hearing
back to top
Traffic Calming Policy Development
Arterial and Commercial Streets: Screening Criteria
The following steps are proposed as the screening criteria of arterial and commercial streets as part of the traffic calming policy being developed for the City and County of San Francisco.
STEP ONE: SCREEN BY PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE INJURIES
Using available collision data from 1994 to 1998, from the State Wide Integrated Traffic Report System, we will analyze only those collisions that involved pedestrians and bicyclists who were either killed or severely injured. From that, we will carry forward the top 100 locations.
STEP TWO: RANK BY MID-BLOCK COLLISION RATE
In 1994 the Department of Parking and Traffic, in conjunction with the Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Public Works, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, undertook a project to list and rank all the streets in the City for their safety. They analyzed all of the streets block by block developing a database of data on mid-block collisions, traffic volumes, speed limits, classification and type of streets and then determined mid-block collision rates.
Using this information, we will apply it to the 100 locations from Step 1 and then rank the locations. Based on engineering judgment, the list will be expanded to form study areas that will be several blocks in length. The top 25 segments will be carried forward to be scored.
The report uses volume data from 1992 and collision data from 1988 to 1992. We plan to update the data before screening streets.
STEP THREE: CONSTRUCTION CO-ORDINATION
Using the Department of Public Works five-year Construction Plan, we will return to the list any street previously screened out but known to have construction repairs planned within the next five years.
STEP FOUR: GEOGRAPHICAL BALANCE
Prior to finalizing the list and to avoid focusing all our attention on one area of the City, the list will be reviewed for geographical balance. Some streets that were previously screened out may be added back.
back to top |
2. Local Streets
A. Goals, Objectives and Guiding Principles
Goals
- improve traffic safety for residential users, pedestrians and bicyclists
- create a more livable and pleasant environment
- accommodate the mobility needs of residents and visitors
Objectives to achieve goals
- reduce cut-through traffic
- restrict trucks, tour buses and other inappropriate vehicles in certain instances
- reduce vehicular speed where appropriate
- improve the environment for pedestrians and bicyclists
- increase mutual awareness among road users
- ongoing public education of drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists and other users about safety
- educate drivers about the prima facie speed limit
- enforce traffic safety laws
- provide opportunities for alternate modes
- address parking issues
Guiding principles and policies
- traffic safety is the top priority
- coordinate construction with planned or already-underway projects
- consider traffic diversion impacts
- maintain street classification as defined in the General Plan
- maintain consistency with the Transportation Element of the General Plan
- maintain access for:
- emergency vehicles
- Muni (keeping in mind the City's Transit First policy)
- autos (in most cases)
- sanitation service
- minimize reduction of on-street parking (especially on commercial streets)
B. Evaluation Process
There will be two processes--one for area-wide problems and one for site-specific requests.
An area-wide approach would be necessary for:
- an entire neighborhood
- an area of several square blocks
- the installation of a complicated device
- when policy changes involve an entire neighborhood (such as bus route changes or truck restrictions)
A site-specific approach would be used for the installation of pre-approved non-diversionary devices on a single block or intersection. Examples of such devices might include traffic circles or bulb-outs.
Area-wide
Selection criteria for area-wide projects would include:
- accident statistics
- speed/volume (the worst streets as identified by the neighborhood would be surveyed)
- requests (based on a minimum threshold of petition signatures - not who has the longest list)
- by supervisorial district (geographic equity)
- zoning/population density
- special attractions (such as parks and institutions)
- construction coordination
- Transit-Oriented Community Urban Plan (T-CUP) areas
The program would be advertised to the public. Neighbors would circulate petitions to have their project area evaluated. Projects would be selected from among those received by a cut-off date. DPT could call for requests every six or twelve months.
Site-specific
Selection criteria for site-specific projects would include:
- requests
- volume
- speed
- anecdotal evidence of exhibition driving
- accidents
- geographic balance
- construction coordination
- Transit-Oriented Community Urban Plan (T-CUP) areas
The program would be advertised to the public. Requests would be inventoried, and the list would be updated once or twice annually. Projects would be selected by a scoring and ranking of all requests received within the review period. DPT could do a speed/volume survey after it receives the initial request, and include the information on the petition to be mailed out. If available, information about accidents could also be included on the petition.
C. Public Involvement Process
Area-wide
1. Notification of residents (a multi-lingual notice could be mailed out to a list of community organizations from MOCD or the Planning Department. Public notices could be also placed in newspapers. Additionally, we would request that existing neighborhood groups perform outreach. Institutions would be notified and would be responsible for notifying their members.)
2. Informational meeting for community (ask residents to help define the area and to identify the problem streets. This could also be the time to inform the neighborhood about traffic reduction strategies. The SFPD would be invited to the meeting to discuss enforcement.)
3. Mail out survey on problems to residents
4. Working group selected (an inclusive group of around 10 members)
5. Working group works with staff to develop alternatives
6. Community meeting for presentation of alternatives
7. Consensus is reached at the meeting or there is a formal (supermajority) vote
8. Public hearing
(The public approval process will then follow: general plan referral, environmental review, etc. The entire process is likely to take up to six months.)
Site-specific
For site-specific locations, the process would be streamlined.
1. Notification of residents (a multi-lingual mailing notice could be mailed out to a list of community organizations from MOCD or Planning Department. Public notices could be also placed in newspapers. Institutions would be notified and would be responsible for notifying their members.)
2. DPT sponsors initial public meeting, open to all--presents options (slides etc.), gathers community input (this could also be the time to inform the neighborhood about traffic reduction strategies. The SFPD would be invited to the meeting to discuss enforcement.)
3. Community decides its preference for type of device at the public meeting or by mailing back responses
4. Follow-up meeting if no consensus is reached on a solution, or to present alternative solutions
5. Project ballot of residents on the affected street
6. Public hearing
back to top
3. Schools
A. Goals, Objectives and Guiding Principles
These are similar to those developed for the local street track of the program.
Goals
- improving traffic safety at and near schools, especially for children (preK-12)
- accommodating the mobility needs of children in and out of the school site
- creating a more livable and pleasant environment at and near schools
Objectives to achieve goals
- reduce vehicular speed where appropriate
- increase separation of school pedestrians and vehicles
- improve the safety environment for children by reducing traffic hazards
- increase awareness of school sites by motorists
- ;ongoing public education about school traffic safety
- education of drivers about the speed limits around school zones
- enforcement of traffic safety laws around school zones
- provide opportunities for alternate modes (such as Muni, paratransit, walking, and bicycling) for children to get to and from school
Guiding Principles and Policies
- school traffic safety is the top priority
- coordinate construction with planned or underway school facility or street construction
- consider traffic diversion impacts
- maintain street classification as defined in the General Plan
- maintain consistency with the Transportation Element of the General Plan
- consider impacts on the Congestion Management Program Roadway Network
- maintain access for:
- school buses
- Muni
- emergency vehicles
B. Evaluation Process
Hospitals, parks, pre-schools, colleges and other institutions would be dealt with through the site-specific track of the traffic calming program. The geographic are for traffic calming should be defined as the school zone. The proposed project selection criteria are:
- request by school, SFUSD or PTA
- size of school within its category (projects should be distributed among all categories of schools)
- elementary schools (including preK-12 and combined elementary/child development centers)
|
