Golden Gate Recreation Area Long Range Transportation Plan by Fehr & Peers

Golden Gate National Recreation Area

Long Range Transportation Plan

2015-2035

» Golden Gate National Recreation Area Photographs provided by the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Fehr & Peers Design and Layout by Fehr & Peers 332 Pine Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 941014

Â» CO N T E N T S

for the long range transportation plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 1.1 LRTP Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

1.2 Golden Gate National Recreation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

1.2.1 Marin County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

1.2.2 San Francisco County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

1.2.3 San Mateo County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

1.3 LRTP Planning Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

1.4 LRTP Report Outline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Chapter 2 POLICIES, GOALS, & OBJECTIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.1 Policy Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 2.1.1 GGNRA General Management Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 2.1.2 Capital Investment Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 2.1.3 MAP-21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 2.1.4 Climate Change Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 2.1.5 NPS Call to Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 2.2 LRTP Goals and Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Table of Contents

Â» CONTENTS Chapter 3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 3.1 Mobility, Access, Connectivity, and Visitor Experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 3.1.1 Existing Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 3.1.2 Future Trends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

3.1.3 Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 3.2 Resource Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 3.2.1 Existing Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 3.2.2 Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 3.2.3 Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 3.3 Environmental Excellence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 3.3.1 Existing Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

3.3.2 Future Trends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 3.3.3 Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 3.4 Financial Sustainability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 3.4.1 Existing Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 3.4.2 Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 3.5 Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 3.5.1 Existing Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 3.5.2 Future Trends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 3.5.3 Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Chapter 4 INVESTMENT STRATEGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 4.1 Preferred Scenario. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 4.1.1 Mobility, Access, Connectivity, and Visitor Experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 4.1.2 Resource Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Â» CO N T E N T S 4.1.3 Environmental Excellence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 4.1.4 Financial Sustainability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 4.1.5 Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 4.2 Financial Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 4.3 Preferred Funding Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 4.4 Partnership Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Chapter 5 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 5.1 Phasing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

5.2 Implementation Plan and Phasing by County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

5.2.1 Marin County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

5.2.2 San Francisco County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

5.2.3 San Mateo County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

5.2.4 Parkwide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Chapter 6 MONITORING PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

6.1 Transportation Geodatabase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

6.2 Facility Management Software System (FMSS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

6.3 Permanent Count Stations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

6.3.1 Motorized Vehicle Counts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

6.3.2 Non-Motorized Vehicle Counts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

6.4 Public Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

6.5 Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

6.6 Annual Transportation Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

4.2.1 Funding Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Marin Headlands Source: Fehr & Peers

» EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

for the long range transportation plan

Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) is one of the National Park Service’s most urban parks. The park’s transportation program works to connect that urban environment with the park environment by creating and maintaining a system that provides broad access and enhances the user experience while also protecting the park’s sensitive resources.

The overarching vision for this plan, constant for all three counties, is to provide and manage park access, enhance park visitors’ experiences, protect park resources, manage traffic congestion, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. Partner transportation plans in adjoining gateway communities and counties align with the GGNRA vision of regionally integrating a multimodal system that relies on travel by bus, rail, ferry, bicycle, and foot to supplement and, where feasible, supplant automobile use. Increasing transportation choices also helps the park provide equitable access to and within park sites and reduce traffic congestion. This Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) followed a months-long process to set specific thematic goals in accordance with local and national policies and reports, identify key deficiencies present in the park’s existing transportation system, analyze outstanding capital projects and deferred maintenance, and identify an overall program to best utilize expected local, federal, and partner funding to create a more accessible, safer, and sustainable park in the decades to come.

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Creating this connection is often challenging due to the certain park characteristics. The park is not contiguous, but a collection of distinct and diverse sites with very different transportation and access challenges. Each of the three distinct park locations (Marin County, San Francisco, and San Mateo County) that make up the GGNRA provides its own unique challenge in balancing the urban environment with the park environment.

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Executive Summary

The Long-Range Transportation Plan

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Although long-range transportation planning is an established practice at state Departments of Transportation (DOT), Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO), and cities and counties throughout the United States, it is new to Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMA) and the National Park Service (NPS). Title 23 of the U.S. Code requires all FLMAs to conduct transportation planning in a manner consistent with State DOTs and MPOs, and NPS selected GGNRA as the pilot park to develop the transportation planning process for the agency.

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

In developing the pilot planning

process and this plan, the LRTP Management Team utilized NPS policies, directives, and existing park plans along with the best transportation planning practices from State DOTs, MPOs, cities, and counties throughout the United States. Particular attention was given to the transportation planning practices and plans of GGNRA partners including the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), transportation agencies within San Francisco, Marin, and San Mateo counties, the California DOT (Caltrans), and other federal and state agencies. Collaborating with these agencies helped ensure that the GGNRA LRTP reflects the values of its

regional partners and is consistent with transportation plans throughout the Bay Area. In addition to work done by GGNRA partners, the Long Range Transportation Plan acts in accordance with a wide variety of policies and plans already in place for the NPS, GGNRA, Muir Woods, and partner agencies. The LRTP team reviewed the following policies and plans to help determine the overall direction of the LRTP: » GGNRA General Management Plan » Capital Investment Strategy » MAP-21 » Climate Change Action Plan » NPS Call to Action

Source: GGNP

Each of these documents provided guidance toward creating a longrange transportation plan that acts in accordance with the general policy atmosphere, and focuses on financial sustainability, prioritization of important assets, strong transportation systems, and an overall focus on protecting resources and creating a sustainable park system.

Goals & Objectives During the review of other policies and the overall transportation planning process, five themes emerged that establish a framework for decisionmaking. Each thematic area is defined by one goal statement to focus attention on key, long-term strategic transportation priorities. Each goal indicates the ultimate purpose or result desired for the theme and is followed by objectives that specify what GGNRA wants to achieve. The themes provide the foundation for establishing the LRTP goals and objectives by bringing together the two primary NPS mission goals – visitor experience and resource protection, with one principle of particular importance to GGNRA – environmental excellence, and three common transportation principles – mobility, access, and connectivity, financial sustainability, and safety. For the LRTP, the founding purpose of visitor experience was merged with the transportation principle of mobility, access, and connectivity as one theme to capture the interdependency of improving both the transportation options and visitor experience. The full list of Goals and Objectives are summarized in Table ES-1.

» EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Table ES-1 | Goals and Objectives Summary Table

Theme

Goal

Objectives

Mobility, Access, Connectivity, and Visitor Experience

Create equitable and convenient multimodal transportation options which are enjoyable and welcoming experiences for all visitors

2. Access – Ensure that the park is available and accessible to the broadest diversity of visitors including those whose access was limited in the past 3. Connectivity – Improve intermodal connections to and within the park 4. Improve traveler information, wayfinding, and orientation for all modes of travel 5. Integrate interpretation, education, and stewardship into the transportation experience

Resource Protection

1. Manage visitation and the park transportation system to minimize resource impacts and achieve the desired conditions of park resources

Inspire an environmental consciousness by demonstrating environmental excellence in transportation

1. Demonstrate environmental leadership through transportation initiatives that maximize energy-efficiency and minimize the GGNRA carbon footprint

2. Restore the health of resources adversely affected by transportation within the park

2. Provide sustainable and context sensitive solutions to promote energy and resource conservation 1. Optimize transportation investments to minimize costs and maximize visitor and resource benefit

Financial Sustainability

Optimize management of the park transportation system

2. High priority (OB 1-2) assets should receive priority over lower priority ones 3. Maintain high priority assets to a minimum 0.15 Facility Condition Index (FCI) 4. New assets should only be constructed if they will be maintained as high priority assets

Safety Source: NPS, 2015

Ensure safety is a high priority for the park

1. Establish procedures for documenting transportation safety issues, identifying hot spots, and ensuring issues are being addressed 2. Reduce traffic congestion on park roadways, entrances, and at parking lots to improve safety

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Environmental Excellence

Preserve and protect park resources by minimizing transportation impacts

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

1. Mobility – Improve multimodal options to reduce reliance on cars and reduce congestion

Identifying Transportation Challenges & Needs

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

After identifying the five thematic goals for the LRTP, the process of creating a preferred scenario and identifying potential projects began. Through a series of technical studies, NPS developed a list of potential park deficiencies, where the above goals were not being met. The primary goal of the LRTP is to address these deficiencies found parkwide, with special attention paid to mobility, access, connectivity, and the way those issues relate to the overall visitor experience. Ways of addressing these deficiencies include implementing best management practices with regards to active transportation infrastructure, shuttle systems, and parking management to enhance the experience of all park-goers, no matter how they may arrive, as well as integrating the five thematic goals into the park’s overall maintenance and operations plan. Beyond mobility and the visitor experience, NPS also identified other deficiencies that interact with transportation programs or infrastructure. For instance,

resource protection is one of the Park Service’s core mission goals, and the LRTP seeks to address it by reducing transportation’s impacts on sensitive landscapes, manage culverts and creeks, and also provide a sensitive way to acknowledge historical and cultural resources. Similarly, in order to build a commitment to environmental excellence, NPS identified where future sea level rise may threaten park assets. As a transportation goal, safety requires addressing the safety of transportation infrastructure for all users. This includes capital improvements to reduce blind corners, dangerous conditions, and a lack of sidewalks, but also includes providing safety improvements as a part of routine maintenance and other roadway projects. Finally, the entire preferred scenario is sensitive to future funding and the park’s financial sustainability. GGNRA seeks to balance needs between maintaining and operating existing assets with making improvements on critical needs, and also balance the needs of other park non-

transportation assets, such as buildings, recreational trails, and fortifications, among others.

Investment Strategy The LRTP is required to be financially-constrained, meaning the strategies in the preferred scenario are limited to what can be reasonably expected to be funded through anticipated financial resources. The park will not

be able to meet all of the needs of the transportation system; the need to operate and maintain all assets, as well as pay down existing deferred maintenance, could absorb all of the GGNRA’s transportation funding and more. With federal sources of funding forecast to be more constrained than in the past, it will be increasingly important to prioritize transportation investments and ensure

they contribute toward the long-term vision of the park’s transportation system. In addition, it will be important to continue and expand the use of innovative financing strategies to implement transportation projects and programs. Figure ES-1 shows the preferred scenario’s spending by capital projects and operations/maintenance, as well as the expected federal funding through 2035.

Figure ES-1 | Spending and Anticipated Funding by Year

» EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Mobility, access, connectivity, and visitor experience Resource protection Environmental excellence

Safety

» Balance the maintenance of existing assets with addressing critical gaps and deficiencies; » Balance funding amongst travel modes; and » Account for increased maintenance costs associated with new infrastructure in financial planning The preferred scenario is thus designed to best utilize funding to maintain existing assets and enhance access to the GGNRA for all types of people, while also working toward the LRTP goals.

The Preferred Scenario in Brief The preferred scenario strategically targets each of the five LRTP goals. Figure ES-2 illustrates spending on projects addressing each goal; overall, the LRTP focuses on improving and maintaining transportation operations

in a safe way, while protecting the resources held within the GGNRA. Note that in Figure ES-2, all projects will sum to more than the total projected funding; this is due to most projects contributing to multiple goals.

Figure ES-2 | Spending on Projects Addressing Each Goal

11 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Financial sustainability, and

In addition to ensuring these goals are addressed, the preferred scenario of transportation projects is also intended to:

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

The investment strategy of the longrange transportation plan is to fund transportation projects that address the deficiencies identified via the technical reports in the following areas:

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

individual improvements for each study area were identified and scored according to optimizer band, cost, and potential to meet GGNRA’s goals, they were formed into a phased program that corresponds with expected federal and local funding streams.

As Figure ES-3 illustrates, GGNRA has prioritized early investments in enhancing mobility and improving the visitor experience, with ongoing commitments to environmental excellence and safety. Ongoing investments spanning the entire LRTP period are primarily devoted to improving financial

sustainability (including maintaining existing transportation assets) and to developing projects and programs that help the NPS meet multiple goals. This phased approach also takes into account the potential variation in federal funding, as well as expected funding levels through each program period. Optimizer Band Spending

Figure ES-3 | Phasing by Primary Goal

The optimizer band system was also used to prioritize projects for inclusion in the preferred scenario. Figure ES-4 shows spending by optimizer band, as well as spending on projects with no optimizer band assigned. Of projects with an optimizer band assigned, the majority of spending occurs on assets assigned to high-priority assets (OB1). Projects included without an optimizer band (shown as ‘N/A’ in Figure ES-4) include all operations spending, as well as any capital projects that would add a new asset to the Park System’s asset portfolio. Because the OB system is designed for the maintenance of existing assets, it cannot

assign a band to projects adding new assets to the GGNRA. The highest priority asset maintenance projects (OB1) are primarily parkwide projects, especially those addressing deferred maintenance of high priority assets. Muir Woods also contains a large number of projects investing in OB1 assets. Muir Woods sees a very high number of visitors, and is currently experiencing overcrowded and unsafe parking conditions that hurt both the visitor experience and the park’s resource management goals; accordingly, capital improvements are prioritized for that location. The large level of funding to projects not assigned an optimizer band (“N/A” in Figure ES-4) represents projects that are primarily funded by local and state sources. This might include projects that are a priority of local jurisdictions, or it may reflect a need to build new assets as the best way to meet GGNRA’s goals.

» EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Component Renewal

Figure ES-4 | Preferred Scenario Spending by Optimizer Band and Location

Optimizer Band

CRV

Existing DM

DM Buydown

RM not Performed

2030 DM

$109,397,000

$6,453,833

$42,798,000

$7,253,790

$63,308,000

$16,151,879

$1,500,000

$510,074

$15,161,000

$35,796,000

$6,289,734

$729,212

$7,018,000

$95,504,000

$17,769,836

$1,034,374

$18,804,000

Totals

$346,803,000

$53,919,071

$15,207,623

$2,273,66

40,984,000

13 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Table ES-2 | GGNRA Paved Transportation Asset Portfolio – Component Renewal

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Table ES-2 shows the results of the preferred scenario on the deferred maintenance (DM) of GGNRA’s paved asset portfolio. It is forecast that paved assets in optimizer bands 1 and 2 will have little to no deferred maintenance in 2030, resulting from paying down almost $14 Million is existing DM into and fully funding recurring maintenance requirements. Bands 3-5 will all see increased DM due to lack of investments into component renewal and further accumulation of DM due to insufficient funds to address on-going recurring maintenance.

Operations & Maintenance

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Table ES-3 shows the results of the preferred scenario on the pavement condition rating (PCR) of the park’s paved assets (roads and parking lots). It is forecast that the condition of paved assets in optimizer bands 1 and 2 will improve between 2013 and 2030. This is due to investing in the buydown of DM on those assets as well as fully funding the operational and maintenance

needs. Band 3 will nearly maintain its condition rating by modestly investing in DM, while providing over half the asset’s effective O&M need. The condition rating for Bands 4 and 5 are forecast to significantly deteriorate over the plan’s horizon. Many of the Band 5 assets are currently under parkpartner management and are being maintained through agreement. One of the recommended

actions of the LRTP is to identify actions that would put the assets forecast to deteriorate over time on a more sustainable path. There approaches could include increase partner contributions, establishment of a sustainable endowment dedicated to maintaining the park, or other innovative financing approach. It is also possible that the federal budget forecast could improve over the coming decade, though this plan does not make that assumption.

Table ES-3 | GGNRA Paved Transportation Asset Portfolio – Operations & Maintenance

Optimizer Band

API

2013 PCR

Total O&M Need

Anticipated Funding

Annual Shortfall

% of Need

2030 PCR

89.02

$289,709

100

92.21

62.04

$100,009

100

93.13

65.07

$285,608

$150,000

$135,608

63.53

71.09

$197,327

$27,258

$169,904

45.80

49.10

$381,339

$465

$380,623

24.58

Totals

63.99

0.24

$1,253,992

$567,441

$1,085,144

Â» EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Figure ES-5 | Pavement Condition Rating 2030, Marin County

Figure ES-6 | Pavement Condition Rating 2030, San Francisco & San Mateo Counties Fort Point

Fort Mason

580

Presidio

Lands End

PACIFIC OCEAN

MARIN

Stinson Beach

101

Muir Woods

SAN FRANCISCO 280

Ocean Beach 131

South Coastal Bluffs

Muir Beach Tennessee/Oakwood Valleys

Fort Funston

101

PACIFIC OCEAN

Milgara Ridge

Marin Headlands

Pavement Condition Rating (2030) 0 - 20

Fort Baker

Pavement Condition Rating (2030)

61 - 80

81 - 100

Mori Point 82

41 - 60

61 - 80

0.5

280

21 - 40

41 - 60

SAN MATEO

Mussel Rock

0 - 20

21 - 40

2 Mile

Managed Boundary 0

PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING 2030

Lands_End_Sutro_Ft_MileyPresidio Area A - Lobos_Creek_25thAv Golden Gate National Recreation Area LRTP

South Coastal Bluffs

81 - 100

Fort Point

Managed Boundary

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Homestead Valley

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Stinson Beach North

0.5

2 Mile

To Mori Point

Sweeney Ridge

Cattle Hill

101

1 35

PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING 2030

Golden Gate National Recreation Area LRTP

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Table ES-4 and ES-5 show the results of the preferred scenario on the deferred maintenance of GGNRAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s non-paved asset portfolio. Table ES-4 shows results of the non-motorized transportation network, while Table ES-5 includes trails as well as water transportation assets such as piers and wharves.

Table ES-4 | GGNRA Non-Paved Transportation Asset Portfolio Component Renewal (Multi-Use Trails)

Optimizer Band

CRV

Existing DM

DM Buydown

RM not Performed

2030 DM

$102,360,576

$13,300,000

$7,900,000

$4,540,000

$9,940,000

$36,360,000

$310,000

$1,440,000

Totals

$13,610,000

$9,340,000

$4,540,000

9,940,000

Table ES-5 | GGNRA Non-Paved Transportation Asset Portfolio Component Renewal (Multi-Use Trails + Piers & Wharves)

Optimizer Band

CRV

Existing DM

DM Buydown

RM not Performed

2030 DM

$102,360,576

$13,300,000

$15,700,000

$4,540,000

$9,940,000

$36,360,000

$3,4000,000

$3,700,000

$2,730,000

$3,030,000

3-5

$250,000,000

$45,000,000

$15,100,000

$5,330,000

$16,430,000

Totals

$388,720,576

$61,700,000

$26,700,000

$9,872,730

$29,400,000

» EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Implementation general outline for the park’s phasing approach and priorities it intends to focus on in the short, mid and long term.

Years FY 15-20

Years FY 20-25

» Identify supplemental funding for O&M budget to ensure Optimizer Bands 1-3 are funded at levels consistent to meet goals in preferred scenario.

» Complete improvements to Fort Mason Trail system

» Identify and implement mitigation measures at highest priority safety concern areas.

» Complete Intelligent Transportation System (including changeable message signs at key locations, and on-line trip planning system) to support parkwide transportation demand management and visitor information, particularly during peak visitation periods and emergencies. » Begin transportation improvements in San Mateo parklands, including wayfinding, trailheads at high priority sites, and public transportation connections. » Make improvements to San Francisco non-motorized transportation network (Presidio Coastal Trail, San Francisco Bay Trail, Fort Mason), including physical gaps, wayfinding improvements, and safety concern areas. » Improve public transportation to Presidio (Crissy Field, Golden Gate Bridge area)

» Implement Pilot Tennessee Valley shuttle service » Redesign and Construct Stinson Beach Parking lots to address flooding, sea level rise, and natural resource deficiencies » Expand Marin Headlands public transit access

17 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

» Complete Muir Woods transportation improvements consistent with GMP and project-specific environmental review(s). Improvements would include changes to transportation facilities, institution of a transportation reservation system, and shuttle expansion.

» Complete Tennessee Valley Trailhead Improvements

For the park to ensure sound transportation decision-making and assess progress toward meeting park goals, transportation data will be monitored over time with a transportation monitoring program. For a monitoring plan to be effective in meeting this objective, the program requires that it be feasible (e.g. resources and staffing for counts and program management are reasonable), and that the data collected relates to established performance measures and provides value in the decision making process. This monitoring program will be phased in over time in order to build the program and integrate its use into park management practices over time. Table ES-6 lists the performance measures associated with each goal, as well as a brief plan for how NPS will update these metrics on a regular basis.

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Due to financial constraints, planning needs, and funding flows, not all projects identified in the preferred scenario can begin implementation immediately. The following provides a

Monitoring Plan & Performance Measures

Table ES-6 | LRTP Performance Measures

Goal GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Objectives

Performance Measure Theme: Mobility Access, Connectivity, and Visitor Experience 1. Improve transit serving the park sites (expand routes, expand hours, improve headways) 2. Increase in bike access to and within the park sites

1. Mobility – Improve multimodal options to reduce reliance on cars and reduce congestion Create equitable and convenient multimodal transportation options which are enjoyable and welcoming experiences for all visitors

3. Increase in pedestrian access to and within the park sites 4. Decrease in peak parking demand at locations with parking shortfalls or high incidences of informal and spillover parking 5. Improve accessibility of the park to underserved populations (disabled, low-income, school children) 6. Increase in percent of population within 60-minute transit trip 7. Improve wayfinding where appropriate, improve traveler information both at-site and online, encourage greater use of park website, or/and support new technologies for transportation (e.g. mobile app that provides travel info) 8. Provide interpretative, educational, or stewardship material (either physically or electronically) at transportation locations such as buses, bus stops, parking lots, trail heads, etc. 9. Growth in park visitors during off-peak periods relative to regional growth or better distribution of visitors across park sites.

Âť EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Table ES-6 | LRTP Performance Measures

Goal

Objectives

Performance Measure

Preserve and protect park resources by minimizing transportation impacts

1. Manage visitation and the park transportation system to minimize resource impacts and achieve the desired conditions of park resources

1. Decrease in peak parking demand at locations with parking shortfalls or high incidences of informal and spillover parking

2. Restore the health of resources adversely affected by transportation within the park

3. Reduction in motorized transportation network coverage (in acres)

2. Reduction in wildlife-vehicle collisions 4. Provides opportunity to reduce impacts to sensitive and natural resources 5. Provides opportunity to reduce impacts to cultural resources 6. Affords the opportunity to improve natural resources (i.e. adding culverts)

Inspire an environmental consciousness by demonstrating environmental excellence in transportation

1. Demonstrate environmental leadership through transportation initiatives that maximize energyefficiency and minimize the GGNRA carbon footprint 2. Provide sustainable and context sensitive solutions to promote energy and resource conservation

1. Reduction in total transportation-related energy consumption 2. Project is a climate adaptation strategy for at risk transportation assets.

19 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Theme: Environmental Excellence

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Theme: Resource Protection

Table ES-6 | LRTP Performance Measures

Goal

Objectives

Performance Measure

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Theme: Financial Sustainability

Optimize management of the park transportation system

1. Optimize transportation investments to minimize costs and maximize visitor and resource benefit

1. Cost/rider on shuttle systems supported with NPS funding

2. High priority (OB 1-2) assets should receive priority over lower priority ones

3. FCI/PCR of transportation assets (by optimizer band)

3. Maintain high priority assets to a minimum 0.15 Facility Condition Index (FCI) 4. New assets should only be constructed if they will be maintained as high priority assets

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

2. Cost/revenue hour on shuttle systems supported with NPS funding 4. DM of transportation assets (by optimizer band) 5. Spending on transportation (by category) 6. Spending on transportation (by mode) 7. Spending on transportation (by optimizer band)

Theme: Safety

Ensure safety is a high priority for the park

Source: NPS, 2014

1. Establish procedures for documenting transportation safety issues, identifying hot spots, and ensuring issues are being addressed. 2. Reduce traffic congestion on park roadways, entrances, and at parking lots to improve safety

1. Improves measurement and documentation of safety issues. 2. Improves safety for pedestrian, bicyclists, transit riders, and/or drivers to and w/in park sites. 3. Reduces number of collisions and need for emergency response.

» EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Conclusion

21 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Source(s): Fehr & Peers, GGNP

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

This LRTP represents a vision for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area of a park committed to the visitor experience, and a path forward for improving park accessibility for all users, no matter how they travel; to continue the NPS’s primary goals of resource preservation through all transportation programs and infrastructure; to create safe environments for visitors; to address sea level rise and other environmental concerns; and to do all of the above within the context of the GGNRA’s funding environment. The preferred scenario follows a months-long process of considering the priorities of NPS, GGNRA, park visitors, and surrounding communities, and seeks to create the best possible transportation outcomes for all parties involved given overall funding constraints.

Fort Baker Source: GGNPS

» INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1

of the long range transportation plan

This report presents a specific five-year Park Transportation Improvement Program (PTIP) for all sites within the GGNRA as well as Muir Woods National Monument. More generally, it defines how the PTIP and future transportation planning can align with GGNRA’s commitments toward mobility and access, resource protection, environmental excellence, safety, and financial sustainability. This report discusses the existing policies of the GGNRA as well as partner agencies and local governments, the existing transportation system (including its deficiencies and needs), the methodology for prioritizing projects in a way that maintains the park’s financial health, and a general implementation and phasing plan for the preferred transportation projects.

STATS

16+M

park visitors each year

75,398acres of land and water

59 miles 19 of shoreline

separate ecosystems

1972

year the park was established

23 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Transportation is intrinsically woven into the fabric of the human experience, encompassing not only how we get from place to place, but also how we conduct our daily routines and how we get to our destinations. Whether it is getting to and from Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) park sites, or traveling to work, school, medical appointments, errands, shopping, or social engagements – we are all affected by the kinds of transportation available to us. The location and appearance of transportation facilities, the design of streets, sidewalks, and trails, and the availability of public transportation or parking can make all the difference in how we experience our daily activities or recreational pursuits at GGNRA parks. Conversely, the amount and type of transportation affects the ability to manage access to park sites and meet resource, visitor experience, and other park goals.

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Introduction

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

View from Marin

Source: Fehr & Peers

» INTRODUCTION

1.1 LRTP Purpose

In developing the pilot planning process and this plan, the LRTP Management Team utilized NPS policies, directives, and existing park plans along with the best transportation planning practices from State DOTs, MPOs, cities, and counties throughout the United States. Particular attention was given to the transportation planning practices and plans of GGNRA partners including the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), transportation

agencies within San Francisco, Marin, and San Mateo counties, the California DOT (Caltrans), and other federal and state agencies which ensures the GGNRA LRTP reflects the values of its regional partners and is consistent with transportation plans throughout the Bay Area.

25 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Although long-range transportation planning is an established practice at State Departments of Transportation (DOT), Metropolitan Planning

Organizations (MPO), and cities and counties throughout the United States, it is new to Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMA) and the National Park Service (NPS). Title 23 of the U.S. Code requires all FLMAs to conduct transportation planning in a manner consistent with State DOTs and MPOs, and NPS selected GGNRA as the pilot park to develop the transportation planning process for the agency.

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Transporting people to and within park sites is integral to the GGNRA mission to connect people with parks and this Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is the park’s roadmap for enhancing multimodal transportation within park boundaries and working with partners outside park boundaries to achieve the vision of a regionally integrated system throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. The LRTP is the conduit for communicating GGNRA’s transportation vision, constraints, and funding realities to internal and external partners, stakeholders, and the public, and it ensures that limited federal, state, local, and park partner resources are expended effectively and efficiently to maximize their benefits.

MUIR WOODS NATIONAL M ONUMENT STINSON BEAC H

MUIR BEACH

Figure 1-1 | Study Area

TENNESSEE/ OAKWOOD VALLEYS

MARIN Golden Gate National Recreation Area HEADLANDS

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

FORT BAKER 101 £ ¤ CRISSY

GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE

The goal of the park’s

FORT MASON

£ ¤ 980

BAKER BEACH LANDS END

transportation program is to tie the influence Pacific Ocean of the park and urban

FIELD

ALCATRAZ

OCEAN BEACH

880

101 £ ¤

environments together with a transportation system that provides

FORT FUNSTON 280 £ ¤

access that enhances user experience while

MUSSEL ROCK

San Francisco Bay

protecting the park’s sensitive resources.

MILGARA RIDGE

MOR I POINT SWEENEY RIDGE PEDRO POINT

280 £ ¤

580

£ ¤

¦ ¨ §

San Francisco

£ ¤

» INTRODUCTION

1.2 Golden Gate National Recreation Area Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) is one of the largest urban national parks in the world.

Golden Gate National Recreation Area is also rich in natural resources, comprising 19 separate ecosystems in seven distinct watersheds and 1,273 plant and animal species. With 80 sensitive, rare, threatened, or endangered species including the Northern Spotted Owl, California Redlegged Frog, and Coho Salmon, the park has the fourth largest number (33) of federally protected or endangered species of all units in the National Park System. GGNRA is among the most urban parks in the National Park Service. The influence that it brings to the urban environment is significant; however, the influence the urban environment brings to the park is equally strong. The goal of the park’s transportation program is to tie the two together with a transportation system that provides access

that enhances user experience while protecting the park’s sensitive resources. Achieving this goal is challenging due to the characteristics of the park and its interface with the surrounding communities. The park is not a contiguous one, but a collection of distinct and diverse sites with very different transportation and access challenges. The sites vary in their proximity and connectivity with the urban environment; from sites fully knitted within the urban fabric of San Francisco, some along the urban areas’ periphery, to very isolated and remote areas. Each of the three distinct park locations (Marin County, San Francisco, and San Mateo County) that make-up the GGNRA provides its own unique challenge in finding this balance (see Figure 1-1). Traditional solutions to maintaining acceptable traffic flows, such as road widening, tend to be prohibitively expensive and environmentally damaging, and inconsistent with park goals and policies. Instead, a full range of

approaches to provide and manage access is needed to enhance park visitors’ experience, protect park resources, and reduce traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, and air pollution. Partner transportation plans in adjoining gateway communities and counties align with the GGNRA vision of regionally integrating a multimodal system that relies on travel by bus, rail, ferry, bicycle, and foot to supplement and, where feasible, supplant automobile use. Increasing transportation choices also helps the park achieve the goals of providing equitable access to and within park sites and reducing traffic congestion.

27 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The park contains numerous historical and cultural resources including Alcatraz, Marin Headlands, Fort Mason, Muir Woods National Monument, Fort Point National Historic Site, and the Presidio in San Francisco, among others. The park’s archaeological sites, military forts, and other historic structures present a rich chronicle of two hundred years of history representing Native American culture, the Spanish Empire frontier, the Mexican Republic, evolution of

American coastal fortifications, maritime history, 18th century and early 20th century agriculture, military history, California Gold Rush, Buffalo Soldiers, and the growth of urban San Francisco.

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Established in 1972 to make national park resources more accessible to urban populations and bring “parks to the people,” GGNRA’s 75,398 acres of land and water extend north of the Golden Gate Bridge to Tomales Bay in Marin County and south into San Mateo County, encompassing 59 miles of bay and ocean shoreline. These lands represent one of the nation’s largest coastal preserves and attract over 16 million visitors each year, making GGNRA one of the most highly visited units in the NPS.

Figure 1-2 | Marin County

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Marin County consists of many popular park sites, including: Muir Woods, Muir Beach and Overlook, Stinson Beach, Marin Headlands, Fort Baker, Slide Ranch, Tennessee Valley, and many others (Figure 1-2). The setting for parklands in Marin County varies. Sites include those that are very close to dense urban areas immediately north of the Golden Gate Bridge, and others that are located in much more rural areas. Similarly, the challenges of the managing and maintaining the sites are significantly different as well. For example, Marin Headlands is relatively large with many miles of roads, bridges, and tunnels to maintain, while Muir Woods is very small, has very limited infrastructure to maintain, but has the most challenging access issues in the park that requires a dedicated shuttle system, intelligent transportation systems (ITS), and active parking management.

Source: NPS

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

» INTRODUCTION GGNRA sites in Marin County share these general transportation characteristics: N E

W S

Wayfinding

Public Transportation

»Primary access is by private car, and parking is limited in several locations.

»Signage is generally good, with some improvements needed throughout sites and on nearby roads.

»Providing direct transportation service to rural areas is challenging due to high cost of operations, seasonality of visitation, and lack of sustainable fund sources.

»Many sites experience very serious

congestions during weekends and peak season.

»Local, non-park roads leading to the

park experience serious congestion during peak visiting periods. Many of these roads are also prone to failure due to erosion and landslides adding to access challenges.

»The park has two permanent changeable message signs (with two more planned), to support active demand management, shuttle operations support, and emergency management.

»Current services are largely focused on weekends and holiday periods but has been expanded significantly in recent years to address worsening congestion and improve visitor experience.

Non-Motorized Transportation »Bicycle access is fair to good to and within the Marin Headlands and Fort Baker areas, but poor to more rural sites, which have challenging rides over steep topography and lack of facilities. »Pedestrian access to surrounding communities by sidewalk or path is very limited.

»Recreational bicycle travel between San Francisco and Southern Marin County has risen exponentially in recent years. The demand from this use has created an acute need to improve and expand non-motorized facilities to improve safety and visitor experience.

Source(s): Fehr & Peers, NPS

29 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

»Primary access to sites in Southern Marin County are via Golden Gate Bridge and Alexander Ave, a primary arterial which runs between Fort Baker and Marin Headlands.

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Access

Figure 1-3 | San Francisco County

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

San Francisco County is home to Alcatraz, Fort Mason, Crissy Field, Presidio, Fort Funston, Ocean Beach, Cliff House, Lands End and Sutro Park, China Beach, Baker Beach, Fort Point, and other popular destinations (Figure 1-3). The park sites in San Francisco are among the most visited and most well known internationally. The park is nestled in a very dense urban setting and benefit from proximity to an extremely rich transit environment. Combinations of transit are in place to varying degrees throughout the city/county including: bus, light rail, heavy rail, commuter rail, and ferry service.

Source: NPS

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

» INTRODUCTION GGNRA sites in San Francisco County share these general transportation characteristics: N E

W S

»Parking facilities are available at each site; however, some, particularly in the vicinity of the Golden Gate Bridge, can be very crowded.

»Signage is generally good, however, there is no park site information signage at local transit stops.

»Connectivity to other local attractions

is excellent.

Public Transportation »Public transportation access is generally very good. Traveling between park sites is a little more difficult than accessing the site generally.

via commuter rail), and the Transbay Terminal (connects MUNI bus service with AC Transit from the east, SamTrans from the south and Golden Gate Transit from the north).

»Although San Francisco is a transit-rich environment, some park sites are underserved, particularly in the Crissy Field and Fort Funston areas. Recreational travel across the city during noncommute times and the weekend is more difficult, requiring multiple transfers with diminished frequency of service.

Non-Motorized Transportation »Bicycle access is good to excellent, and sidewalks connect the city with the parks.

31 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

»The primary regional road links for visitors traveling to the San Francisco parks are State Route 1 (SR 1) and US 101. SR 1 connects with the Great Highway and provides access to all the park sites on the coast of the Pacific Ocean. US 101 provides access to all the park sites on the northern waterfront via Interstate 80 (I-80), the Embarcadero, or Van Ness Ave.

»The primary visitor gateway nodes are multimodal. San Francisco International Airport connects with Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to Downtown San Francisco. BART also connects east bay residents with downtown, where they can transfer to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (MUNI) light rail and buses to reach park sites. From the north, Golden Gate Transit provides service to the San Francisco Ferry Terminal (also serviced by the Oakland-Alameda Ferry), which connects to MUNI light rail. Other important multimodal hubs for GGNRA visitors include: the Daily City BART station (connects SamTrans and MUNI), the Caltrain station at 4th/ Townsend (connects downtown San Francisco with downtown San Jose

Source: Fehr & Peers

Wayfinding

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Access

Long Range Transportation Plan Golden Gate National Recreation Area Visitor Experience Technical Report

VD BL ON

L CO

XXX

GE D R

nSKYLINE COLLEGE SN E ATH

K S H A RP PA R

1 2

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

San Mateo

MUSSEL ROCK

MORI POINT SHELLDANCE NURSERY

35 £ ¤

SWEENEY RIDGE

TE RR A NO

BL VD

0.5

CRENS HAW DR

OLD COAS T H IGHWAY

LA D

S IT A

LIN

M AR

D TA

BLVD

Many sites are inaccessible by transit, and in some cases are also difficult to access by car due to the lack of wayfinding and limited parking. The road network through the parkland area is comprised predominantly of SR 1, and local streets and roads.

DEVIL'S SLIDE

0.5

2 Miles

1 Miles

0.25

L ON GV IE W DR

E TT PA LM E AV

S C RE

PEDRO POINT

B ELCRES T AVE

SOUTH COASTAL BLUFFS

D LV

LIN

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

§ ¦ ¨ 280

£ ¤ 1

Pacific Coast Highway

PHLEGER ESTATE

C AN AD A R D

Huddart County Park

RANCHO CORRAL DE TIERRA

Legend Trail ! ! ! ! ! !

Bay Area Ferry Bike Trail Public Transit

Road Network Interstate Highway Secondary Local

Presidio (Not Park Managed) Park Managed Area State & Other Parks San Francisco Parks NPS Unit

0.5

Produced by DSC Planning Division

2 Miles

0.5

2 Miles

January 2012

Source: NPS

280

A N A B LV D

San Francisco

DR OR

MILAGRA RIDGE

OC E

R ST E W VE A

MAN

1 £ ¤

§ ¦ ¨

Pacific Coast Highway

San Mateo County park sites include Milagra Ridge, Sweeney Ridge/Cattle Hill, Mori Point, Pedro Point, Devil’s Slide, Phleger Estates, Rancho Corral de Tierra, San Francisco Watershed trail easements, and other generally low visited sites (Figure 1-4). Compared to San Francisco and Marin Counties, the park sites in San Mateo County are more difficult for visitors to access and have underdeveloped access, parking, and trail connectivity.

N DA

D BLV

JO H

PALMETTO AV

Marin

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

San Mateo County

Figure 1-4: Map #3

» INTRODUCTION GGNRA sites in San Mateo County share these transportation characteristics: N E

W S

Public Transportation

»Visitation is generally low to medium compared to the San Francisco and Marin parks, however, peak periods, particularly during spring and summer weekends, can be very crowded at some sites particularly along the coast.

»Wayfinding signage to park sites is very limited.

»Public transportation is minimal and focused primarily on weekday commuters, with reductions in service on weekends; some sites have no public transit access.

»Parking facilities are generally

undeveloped and dispersed.

»Roadway connections are fair. »The two main regional road links for

serve as a visitor hub in the north, and Sweeney Ridge has potential as a southern multimodal hub. SamTrans has service to Skyline Community College, providing an opportunity for transit access to both Sweeney Ridge and Milagra Ridge with adjustments to routing.

»Bicycle access is limited. »Poor pedestrian access. »Hiking and biking opportunities

abound in the San Mateo park sites and opportunities to significantly improve trails connectivity are underway.

33 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

visitors going to the San Mateo parks are SR 1 and Interstate280 (I-280). Highway 92 connects SR 1 and I-280 to the south of the parklands, and provides access to the Phleger Estate via Highway 35.

»The Daly City BART station could

Non-Motorized Transportation

Source(s): Fehr & Peers, GGNP

Wayfinding

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Access

Figure 1-5: LRPT Planning Process

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

» INTRODUCTION

1. Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)

» Vision document with 20-year Horizon; revised every four years

Source: Fehr & Peers

» Contains the unconstrained needs for the transportation system

Transportation Improvement Program (PTIP)

» Program of projects

prioritized in the 5-Year Capital Improvement Program; updated annually

» Longer-term expenditure strategy to ensure implementation of projects best designed to achieve the vision, mission, and goals in the LRTP As part of the LRTP planning process, GGNRA went through the main steps outlined in Figure 1-5. As part of the existing and future conditions analysis, technical reports were developed for the following topics: transportation, visitor experience, natural resources, cultural resources, and climate change (see Appendix A). Public meetings were conducted in March 2013 and October 2014. In addition, multiple internal workshops were conducted with GGNRA staff and NPS staff.

The remainder of the LRTP will cover the following topics: LRTP POLICIES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES – a discussion of the LRTP policies, goals, and objectives that helped shape the LRTP TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM – a detailed discussion of existing conditions, future trends, needs, and recommendations for the following themes:

Mobility, access, connectivity, and visitor experience

Resource protection Environmental excellence Financial sustainability Safety INVESTMENT STRATEGY – a detailed discussion of the approach the park intends to take in addressing its transportation needs, including the financial plan. FINANCIAL PLAN – a summary of funding strategies to support the LRTP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/PARK TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM – a detailed review of the implementation plan for the first five years. MONITORING PLAN – a strategy on how to monitor and assess the status and performance on implementing the vision of the LRTP

35 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

» Defines GGNRA’s transportation vision, mission, goals, strategies, and performance measures

2. Implementation Plan/Park

1.4 LRTP Report Outline GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

GGNRA’s LRTP fits within a broader planning context both locally and in the region and is consistent with transportation plans outside the geographic boundaries of GGNRA including Caltrans, MTC, and neighboring cities and counties. As with these plans, the GGNRA LRTP is comprised of two main components:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

1.3 LRTP Planning Process

Muni route to Marin Source: Fehr & Peers

» POLICIES

Chapter 2

Partner transportation plans in adjoining gateway communities and counties align with the GGNRA vision of regionally integrating a multimodal system that relies on travel by bus, rail, ferry, bicycle, and foot to supplement and, where feasible, supplant automobile use. Increasing transportation choices also helps the park provide equitable access to and within park sites and reduce traffic congestion.

STATS

national performance goals from MAP-21

transportation goals from the GMP

goals & objectives for the LRTP

strategies from the climate action plan

37 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The LRTP’s overarching vision, constant for all three counties, is to provide and manage park access, enhance park visitors’ experiences, protect park resources, manage traffic congestion, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. However, to summarize and refine this vision, the LRTP Management Team reviewed a wide range of local, state, and federal policies, and worked with stakeholders to define key goals for the park, resulting in the development of five thematic goals: Mobility, Access, Connectivity, and the Visitor Experience; Resource Protection; Environmental Excellence; Financial Sustainability; and Safety. These thematic goals were further refined into discrete objectives, which in turn provided direction in creating a preferred transportation improvement program for the Park.

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Policies, Goals, & Objectives for the long range transportation plan

GMP Goals for the park’s transportation system »

Create enjoyable and welcoming transportation experiences for all visitors.

Preserve and protect park resources by minimizing transportation impacts.

Create equitable and convenient multimodal transportation options to and within the park.

Inspire environmental consciousness by demonstrating environmental excellence in transportation.

Optimize management of the park transportation system through coordinated planning, programming, management, and maintenance

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

2.1 Policy Context The Long Range Transportation Plan acts in accordance with a wide variety of policies and plans already in place for the NPS, GGNRA, and partner agencies. This section provides a general overview of the most pertinent policies to the GGNRA’s transportation goals, as well as an overview of how the LRTP’s goals and preferred scenario mesh with other plans.

2.1.1 GGNRA General Management Plan The General Management Plan (GMP) provides the foundation for the development of the LRTP goals and objectives. The GMP (recently updated in 2014) is a key document for GGNRA, because within the GMP can be found the aspirations of those who care about the park, expressed as a framework that will direct and sustain more detailed implementation planning and guide management decisions over the next twenty years. The GMP identifies several key transportation issues that the LRTP should address, primarily that the existing system of access to park lands neither fully addresses the needs of park visitors, nor adequately protects park resources. The GMP also identifies concerns related to a lack of affordable transit options, increasing congestion and automobile emissions, safety issues, and a general need for improved, safe connections between communities and parks. These direct identifications of certain transportation

measures illustrate the priorities of GGNRA leadership, as well as the input of the communities surrounding the GGNRA. The more specific action items were evaluated during the preferred scenario analysis process, which is detailed in section 4.2. More general action items were incorporated into the LRTP’s general goals to guide projects throughout the GGNRA. The LRTP was prepared in accordance and consistency with the GMP. All actions and strategies are consistent with the GMP and its Environmental Impact Statement/Record of Decision. All specific actions identified will be subject to their own environmental compliance requirements.

» POLICIES

2.1.2 Capital Investment Strategy

Visitor Use advises parks to prioritize investments in facilities that primarily serve visitors, are primary points of recreation, and encourage users to spend more time

Resource Protection seeks to prioritize investments that preserve and protect valuable and unique natural and cultural resources. Activities that rank high in this area include investments in the preservation and repair of historic (List of Classified Structures) assets, and environmental and cultural restoration. Health and Safety adds priority to investments that correct facility or site related deficiencies and hazards that may cause injury or harm to the public, staff, or the environment. Beneficial activities include the correction of identified unsafe or hazardous conditions on NPS facilities. Ultimately, the National Park Service will develop processes and procedures to use this framework to assess and prioritize all of its major capital investments.

To help implement the vision of the Capital Investment Strategy, the LRTP assessed potential projects using the Park’s optimizer band system. This allowed GGNRA to identify which projects best meet the priorities listed above. This process is discussed in more detail in Section 3.4: Financial Sustainability.

2.1.3 MAP-21 MAP-21 (the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act) was passed in 2012, and continues to be the primary federal authorization bill for surface transportation programs. Along with detailing funding policies for federal transportation dollars, MAP-21 also highlights seven national performance goals. The projects listed within the LRTP seek to help GGNRA meet several of these goals.

MAP-21 National Performance Goals: Safety - To achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. Infrastructure Condition - To maintain the highway infrastructure asset system in a state of good repair. Congestion Reduction - To achieve a significant reduction in congestion on the National Highway System. System Reliability - To improve the efficiency of the surface transportation system. Freight Movement and Economic Vitality - To improve the national freight network, strengthen the ability of rural communities to access national and international trade markets, and support regional economic development. Environmental Sustainability - To enhance the performance of the transportation system while protecting and enhancing the natural environment. Reduced Project Delivery Delays - To reduce project costs, promote jobs and the economy, and expedite the movement of people and goods by accelerating project completion through eliminating delays in the project development and delivery process, including reducing regulatory burdens and improving agencies’ work practices. Among these goals, the preferred scenario especially addresses those of safety, infrastructure condition, and environmental sustainability. An emphasis on connecting communities to GGNRA and promoting non-automotive means of transportation may also help achieve congestion reduction, system reliability for non-automobile users, and enhance economic vitality among neighboring communities. MAP-21 also specifically earmarks $250 million for projects that increase access to federal lands like the GGNRA, via the Federal Lands Access Program.

39 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Financial Sustainability emphasizes: build only what can be maintained; right-size the portfolio; reduce liabilities; and eliminate non-essential development in parks in order to emphasize the park’s natural and cultural significance. Activities that rank high in this area include: the investment in high priority, mission critical assets; disposition of nonessential facilities; and, actions that reduce operating and maintenance liabilities.

outdoors. Beneficial activities include investments that directly enable outdoor recreation, and investments that are primary touch points for visitors to the park.

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Maintaining the transportation assets of GGNRA is a critical goal. The NPS has adopted a system of assessing and prioritizing called the Capital Investment Strategy (CIS). The CIS framework brings lifecycle cost considerations and NPS mission-related benefits into investment decisionmaking. The four key elements, strategic goals, and anticipated activities that will result from implementation of the CIS are highlighted below.

2.1.4 Climate Change Action Plan GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

In 2008, GGNRA adopted a Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) designed to reduce the park’s emissions and reach a carbon neutral operating state by 2016. This includes a variety of strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, as well as key carbon offset strategies. As transportation contributes to more than a quarter of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, compliance with the CCAP is necessary as part of the LRTP’s development process. As such, the LRTP aims to contribute to each of the four identified strategies for GHG emissions reduction outlined in the LRTP.

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

Golden Gate National Recreation Area Climate Change Action Plan

Strategy 1: Reduce emissions from park facilities and operations by identifying and implementing emission mitigation actions. The LRTP identifies projects that will help shift travelers away from private automobiles, as well as developing plans for increased transit service and other traffic mitigations such as intelligent transportation systems (ITS).

monitoring and evaluation plan that applies to all projects that may have the potential to reduce GHG emissions. By reporting on projects outcomes, raw outputs such as vehicle miles traveled and mode share can help GGNRA identify its progress toward carbon neutral status.

Strategy 2: Plan for and adapt to future impacts of climate change. Transportation infrastructure that may be affected by future climate change (such as sea level rise) has been identified, and prioritized accordingly based on its risk in the preferred scenario. Strategy 3: Increase climate change outreach and education efforts. By promoting alternative means of transportation, the LRTP’s preferred scenario helps educate GGNRA visitors on the effects their transportation choices may have on the climate.

In 2016, the National Park Service will be 100 years old. As part of its planning efforts, the NPS produced its Call to Action to identify key goals, strategies, and action items to achieve its visions for the Service’s next century. In creating an ongoing legacy, this Call to Action focuses on four overarching themes of Connecting People to Parks, Advancing the Education Mission, Preserving America’s Special Places, and Enhancing Professional and Organizational Excellence. The following action items apply directly to the GGNRA LRTP, which acts to help achieve this vision.

Strategy 4: Evaluate progress and identify areas for improvement. The LRTP includes an in-depth

Action 4 (“In My Back Yard”): Improve urban residents’ knowledge of and access to outdoor and cultural

2.1.5 NPS Call to Action

experiences close to home by ensuring that every national park located in an urban area has a well-promoted physical connection to the public transportation system or to a pedestrian/bicycle path. Action 5 (“Parks for People”): Enhance the connection of densely populated, diverse communities to parks, greenways, trails, and waterways to improve closeto-home recreation and natural resources conservation. We will achieve this through a proactive Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program that mobilizes citizens in support of improved access to outdoor areas in at least 50 of the communities nationwide with the least access to parks. Action 18 (“Ticket to Ride”): Expand opportunities for students to directly experience national parks, where natural and historic settings inspire powerful learning. To achieve this we will provide transportation support for 100,000 students each year to visit national parks through collaboration with the National Park Foundation and other park

fundraising partners. Action 23 (“Go Green”): Reduce the NPS carbon footprint and showcase the value of renewable energy to the public by doubling, over 2009 levels, the amount of renewable energy generated within parks and used by park facilities. Action 24 (“Invest Wisely”): Focus investments from all maintenance fund sources on high priority national park assets to address critical deferred maintenance and code compliance needs. By doing so we will correct the health and safety, accessibility, environmental, and deferred maintenance deficiencies in at least 25 percent of the facilities that are most important to park visitor experience and resource protection. By emphasizing connections between communities and the GGNRA, as well as complying with the NPS’ general guidelines for capital investments, the LRTP seeks to help GGNRA achieve the NPS’ vision for its second century.

» POLICIES

2.2 LRTP Goals and Objectives

» Provide and maintain high quality transportation infrastructure and services » Deliver efficient, effective, and environmentally friendly transportation infrastructure projects and services

» Provide and maintain high quality

transportation infrastructure and services

» Deliver efficient, effective, and environmentally friendly transportation infrastructure projects and services

» Serve as a leader and innovator in

transportation, as well as in cooperating with local, regional, state, federal, and industry partners.

During the transportation planning process five themes emerged that establish a framework for decision-making that balances each thematic area. Each thematic area is defined by one goal statement to focus attention on key, longterm strategic transportation priorities. Each goal indicates the ultimate purpose or result desired for the theme and is followed by objectives that specify what GGNRA wants to achieve.

The following Goals and Objectives Summary Table is provided as an easy reference and overview of the goals and objectives for each theme. The sections that follow the table give a thorough description of the purpose of each thematic component, along with the corresponding existing conditions, future forecasts, needs, and strategy recommendations for achieving the goals and objectives of each theme.

41 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

NPS Transportation Goals:

» Serve as a leader and innovator in transportation, as well as in cooperating with local, regional, state, federal, and industry partners.

Finally, GGNRA established performance measures for each goal to evaluate progress. Measuring performance is necessary to establish program priorities and allocate human and financial resources and it is measured in terms of quantity, quality, timeliness, and cost. Along with financial information, performance reports will inform discussions on ways to improve program and system efficiency and effectiveness. Meaningful performance measures can be challenging to track because they rely on resource intensive data gathering and analysis to report consistently over time. However, the need to have, and report on, meaningful performance measures are critical to understand the effectiveness of strategies employed to address challenges, developing adaptive management strategies, and to communicate to NPS leaders, elected officials, partners, and the public. Performance measures are discussed in detail in Section 7: Monitoring Plan.

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

This section of the LRTP defines GGNRA’s transportation goals and objectives, which tier off the hierarchy of the agency and park transportation mission statements and the NPS transportation goals, which are to:

Table 2-1 | Goals and Objectives Summary Table

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Theme

Goal

Mobility, Access, Connectivity, and Visitor Experience

Create equitable and convenient multimodal transportation options which are enjoyable and welcoming experiences for all visitors

Objectives 1. Mobility – Improve multimodal options to reduce reliance on cars and reduce congestion 2. Access – Ensure that the park is available and accessible to the broadest diversity of visitors including those whose access was limited in the past 3. Connectivity – Improve intermodal connections to and within the park 4. Improve traveler information, wayfinding, and orientation for all modes of travel 5. Integrate interpretation, education, and stewardship into the transportation experience

Resource Protection

Environmental Excellence

Preserve and protect park resources by minimizing transportation impacts

1. Manage visitation and the park transportation system to minimize resource impacts and achieve the desired conditions of park resources

Inspire an environmental consciousness by demonstrating environmental excellence in transportation

1. Demonstrate environmental leadership through transportation initiatives that maximize energy-efficiency and minimize the GGNRA carbon footprint

2. Restore the health of resources adversely affected by transportation within the park

2. Provide sustainable and context sensitive solutions to promote energy and resource conservation 1. Optimize transportation investments to minimize costs and maximize visitor and resource benefit

Financial Sustainability

Optimize management of the park transportation system

Safety Source: NPS, 2015

Ensure safety is a high priority for the park

Â» POLICIES

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Marin Headlands Source: GGNPS

Âť THEMES

Chapter 3

Golden Gate National Recreation Area for the long range transportation plan

This chapter is structured by the five themes that frame the goals and objectives for the LRTP:

STATS

visitors per month

mobility, access, connectivity, and visitor experience

resource protection

environmental excellence

financial sustainability

safety

Each section will outline the theme and the corresponding goals and objectives. It will also discuss the existing conditions, future forecasts, needs, and recommendations for each theme.

250%

capacity of some parking lots during peak times

non-motorized transportation routes

700K

pounds of CO2 eliminated per year by Alcatraz solarPV

45 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

1M+

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Transportation System of the

3.1 Mobility, Access, Connectivity, and Visitor Experience GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

GOAL: Create equitable and convenient multimodal transportation options which are enjoyable and welcoming experiences for all visitors

»OBJECTIVE 1 Mobility: Improve multimodal options to reduce reliance on cars and reduce congestion »OBJECTIVE 2 Access: Ensure that the park is available and accessible to broadest diversity of visitors including those whose access was limited in the past »OBJECTIVE 3 Connectivity: Improve intermodal connections to and within the park »OBJECTIVE 4 Improve traveler information, wayfinding, and orientation for all modes of travel »OBJECTIVE 5 Integrate interpretation, education, and stewardship into the transportation experience.

Mobility, access, and connectivity form the keystone of GGNRA’s multimodal transportation system. The transportation system, in turn, plays a key role in the quality of a visitor’s

experience traveling to, from, and within the park lands. Although cars will continue to be an important part of the transportation system and may be the best choice for some trips, GGNRA is committed to reducing dependence on the automobile by increasing the efficacy of other modes of travel. Creating practical transportation choices and educating the public of their viability and desirability will increase use of modes other than cars. Mobility ensures that visitors can easily and conveniently travel between park sites using their preferred mode of transportation. Access ensures that underrepresented populations and visitors of all ages and physical abilities are able to connect with park sites. Connectivity provides visitors with a variety of transportation options for traveling to and within park sites by making intermodal links between different modes of transportation, such as car, bus, and ferry connections to bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Visitor Experience begins at home when one is considering a visit to a park and continues through the journey to the park, within the park, and on the return trip home, relying heavily on the mobility, access, and connectivity features of the transportation system. Convenient access to national parks throughout the United States is an NPS goal and agency policy states that, “In meeting the goal of accessibility, emphasis will be placed on ensuring persons with disabilities are afforded experiences and opportunities along with other visitors, to the greatest extent reasonable”. GGNRA strives to meet that goal by filling gaps in the park’s multimodal transportation system and collaborating with transportation partners throughout the Bay Area to make connections between park sites and communities throughout the region. Transportation plays an important role in the quality of a visitor’s experience by facilitating their physical movement from place to place. Transit systems, such as buses and ferries, provide the

park with the opportunity to further enhance the quality of the visitor experience by providing on board interpretive programs that empower visitors to form their own intellectual, emotional, and physical connections to the meanings and values found in the parks’ stories. Effective interpretive and educational programs are important because they encourage the development of a personal stewardship ethic and broaden public support for preserving and protecting park resources so that they may be enjoyed by present and future generations. GGNRA is also dedicated to “universal design” principles that provide access for people with disabilities. It is estimated there are over 54 million persons in our country today who meet the legal definition of a person with a disability. This includes those who have significant degrees of mobility, sensory, or cognitive limitations. Further, when we consider the growing percentage of our population that is age 65 or older; those

» THEMES

With its special mandate to “bring parks to the people,” GGNRA will continue its leadership role in fostering improved community-based connections with its underrepresented populations, in promoting a seamless system of parklands and open space with surrounding jurisdictions, and in promoting “Healthy Parks, Healthy People.”

3.1.1 Existing Conditions

3.1.1.1 Visitor Use Due in part to their proximity to a major urban center and in part because of their vast beauty and diverse landscapes, the GGNRA is one of the most heavily visited parks within the National Park system with a total 2013 visitation of 14.3 million. Historically, San Francisco has seen

Seasonally, visitation in GGNRA peaks in the summer, has shoulder seasons in the spring and fall, and receives the

least visitation in the winter (Figure 3-1). This is consistent with the general seasonality of parks across the county, since summer is a peak time for vacations. It is important to note, too, that even in months when visitation is comparatively low, the number of visitors in each month still

Figure 3-1 | GGNRA Seasonality of Visitation

exceeds 1 million (NPS 2012). That is presumably due to the high percentage of local users and the region’s consistently mild year-round temperatures.

47 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

This section will provide a picture of the existing conditions of GGNRA as it relates to visitor use, parking conditions, traffic congestion, public transit access and capacity, bicycle and pedestrian access, and wayfinding conditions.

approximately twice the visitors as Marin County; due to the relatively recent addition of San Mateo County sites to the park, visitation data has not yet begun to be recorded.

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

with invisible disabilities, such as cardiac and respiratory problems; those who have temporary disabilities, such as broken arms or legs; parents with strollers and wheeled devices, and the families and friends who will be traveling with these individuals, a majority of our nation’s population can benefit from accessible facilities and programs. Recommendations provided by the GGNRA LRTP will be designed to meet park standards with respect to accommodating persons with disabilities. GGNRA is conducting a concurrent ADA Transition Plan that is explicitly tasked with improving the GGNRA compliance with ADA. Therefore, this plan does not include detailed study or recommendations for improving accessibility within the park system outside a general commitment to the “universal design” principles mentioned above. Due to GGNRA’s unique location adjacent to a large urbanized area, suburban towns, and smaller rural communities, the park serves as an entry point for many first-time visitors to the national park system.

FigureFigure 3-2 | 4-6A: GGNRA Parking Lots - Marin County GGNRA Parking Lots - Marin County

Long Range Transportation Planning Golden Gate National Recreation Area California

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

3.1.1.2 Parking

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Many GGNRA sites generate a significant number of visitors traveling by car and tour bus, and therefore parking facilities are important components of site access. In many cases, particularly outside of the City of San Francisco, public transit connections are limited, and many transit routes stop short of park destinations or serve the parks only on weekends and holidays. As a result, most visitors to GGNRA facilities, especially those traveling outside of San Francisco, arrive by personal vehicle which makes the availability of parking a critical component to overall Park access and visitor experience. Parking demand exceeds capacity at many park sites, and in some cases very significantly (up to 250% above capacity at Muir Woods, for example). This condition creates a number of challenges including safety concerns, park resource and visitor experience impacts, and operational challenges to park managers.

The most constrained parking areas include:

£ ¤ 580

»Muir Woods, »Tennessee Valley, »Presidio (West Bluff, Battery

Marin

San Francisco Bay

East, GG Overlook, Merchant Road),

MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT

»Marin Headlands (Battery

STINSON BEACH

Spencer, Hawk Hill, Bonita Lighthouse),

»San Mateo coastal park sites »Stinson Beach.

MUIR BEACH

Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3 present maps of GGNRA parking lots with capacity details and parking utilization during the peak period. Peak period is the summer tourist months (from Memorial Day weekend to Labor Day weekend). The parking utilization data comes from a combination of surveys, studies, reports, and qualitative data from park staff.

TENNESSEE/ OAKWOOD VALLEYS

MARIN HEADLANDS

Pacific Ocean

FORT BAKER

ALCATRAZ

£ ¤ 101

GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE

CRISSY FIELD

BAKER BEACH

LANDS END

Legend NPS LRTP Road Network Parking Capacity Peak Period Utilization

Counties

0 - 13

No Data

Park Managed Area

19 - 42

0-74%

San Francisco Parks

46 - 100

75-85%

115 - 230

85-95%

280 - 437

95%+

0.5

Produced by DSC Planning Division

2 Miles

OCEAN BEACH

San Francisco

Á May 2013

FORT MASON

» THEMES FORT BAKER

MARIN

Long Range Transportation Planning

4-6B: Golden Gate National Recreation Area Fig 3-3Figure | GGNRA Parking Lots - San Francisco & San Mateo Counties HEADLANDS GGNRA Parking Lots - San Francisco and San Mateo Counties California

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

ALCATRAZ

3.1.1.3 Traffic Congestion

£ ¤ 101

GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE

CRISSY FIELD

BAKER BEACH LANDS END

§ ¦ ¨ 80

San Francisco Bay

San Francisco OCEAN BEACH

£ ¤ 101

Pacific Ocean FORT FUNSTON

280

San Mateo

MUSSEL ROCK

Legend NPS LRTP Road Network Counties

MILGARA RIDGE

Park Managed Area San Francisco Parks Parking Capacity 0 - 13 19 - 42

MORI POINT

46 - 100

CORRAL DE TIERRA

115 - 230 280 - 437

SWEENEY RIDGE

Peak Period Utilization No Data 0-74%

PEDRO POINT

75-85%

£ ¤ 280

85-95% 95%+ 0

0.5

2 Miles

Produced by DSC Planning Division

Á May 2013

US 101 and I-280 provide primary regional access to GGNRA destinations in San Francisco, San Mateo County, and Marin County. US 101 serves San Francisco and San Mateo County, and extends north via the Golden Gate Bridge to Marin County and the North Bay. Within San

Traffic analysis for the GGNRA LRTP includes 50 key roadway segments located in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties that provide access to GGNRA sites. Existing volumes and levels of service (LOS) conditions for the study roadways are described below. Currently, (See Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5), most study roadways in Marin County operate with relatively little congestion, with the exception of SR 1 from Panoramic Highway to US 101 and on US 101 north of SR 1. These segments operate near or over capacity during the weekday PM or weekend mid-day peak hours. A majority of the roadway segments in San Francisco and San Mateo counties operate with substantial congestion during peak periods. There are currently four segments operating at or above capacity

49 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

£ ¤

Francisco, US 101 operates on surface streets (Lombard Street and Van Ness Avenue). I-280 provides regional access to southern San Francisco, the Peninsula, and the South Bay.

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Despite GGNRA’s goal of reducing reliance on automobiles for access to its sites, maintaining adequate automobile access is a key component of the overall transportation strategy for the GGNRA, particularly in sites not well served by transit. Regional congestion around the park affects visitors and employees traveling by automobile, particularly in those areas where visitation levels are relatively high and where travel options are limited. GGNRA strives to minimize impacts from access, both to park resources and to adjoining areas and communities. In this section, key regional roadways and intersections are analyzed to understand the existing roadway performance around the park sites.

FORT MASON

Figure 4-1: Study Roadway Segments and Existing LOS (Marin and San Francisco)

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

Long Range Transportation Planning Golden Gate National Recreation Area California

Figure 3-4 | Study Roadway Segments and Existing LOS (Marin and SF)

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

in San Francisco, and six segments operating at or above capacity in San Mateo County. The roadway segments operating with the highest congestion levels are primarily freeways or major arterials that are heavily congested during the PM peak hour due to typical urban commute patterns. For large-scale planning efforts, it is common to evaluate automobile circulation and access using generalized roadway volumes and associated LOS thresholds as described above. However, intersections are an important component of automobile access because they can often form bottlenecks during peak periods even on roadways that are otherwise uncongested. The eleven intersections analyzed are not an exhaustive list of intersections important to park facilities, but are instead intended to highlight some of the key locations where travelers to the park sites may experience congestion that may not be fully captured in the roadway-level analysis. Other intersections are included

because the Park Service is considering improvements or transportation management strategies nearby. Some of the study intersections currently experience excessive delay and congestion during peak periods, and operate at LOS F (See Figure 3-6). These intersections include the Three Corners, the Four Corners, and the Merchant Road / US 101 northbound ramp intersections. These intersections experience a very high level of tourist traffic. The congestion at Merchant Road is exacerbated by the number of tour buses entering and exiting the parking areas and the significant volumes of pedestrians and bicyclists as well.

£ ¤ 580

Marin

M01

M08

MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT STINSON BEACH

M14

M15

San Francisco Bay M05

M02 M06

M07

M04

M03

MUIR BEACH M10

M09

TENNESSEE/ OAKWOOD VALLEYS

MARIN HEADLANDS

M11

FORT BAKER

M12

ALCATRAZ

M13

GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE

£ ¤ 101

FORT MASON

CRISSY FIELD SF04

Pacific Ocean

SF05

SF03

BAKER SF01 BEACH

SF14

LANDS END

SF08

OCEAN BEACH

§ ¦ ¨ 80

SF06

SF02

San Francisco SF10

SF07

£ ¤ 101

SF13

SF09 SF12

FORT FUNSTON

SF11

SM12

Legend

280 £ ¤

Study Road Segments

NPS LRTP Road Network

Existing LOS

San Francisco Parks

LOS A-D (Within Capacity)

Park Managed Area

LOS E (At Capacity)

Counties

SM01

MUSSEL ROCK

SM14

LOS F (Over Capacity ) No LOS Data 0

0.5

SM13 SM11

Produced by DSC Planning Division

2 Miles

SM16

January 2013

» THEMES

Figure 4-2:

Figure 3-5 Roadway | StudySegments Roadway and Existing LOS Mateo) Golden(San Gate National Recreation Area Study and Segments Existing LOS (San Mateo) Long Range Transportation Planning

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

California

FORT FUNSTON

SF11

SF09

SF13

SF12

Figure 3-6 | Selected Intersections and Existing LOS Figure 3-6 San Francisco Vulnerable Transportation Assets Year 2100 (5 Ft. Sea Level Rise)

Long Range Transportation Planning Golden Gate National Recreation Area California

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

SM12

San Francisco Bay

MARIN HEADLANDS

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

280 £ ¤

FORT BAKER ALCATRAZ SM14

SM13

San Francisco Bay

£ ¤

101 GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE

SM01

SM11 SM16

MILGARA RIDGE

Pacific Ocean SM17 SM15

MORI POINT

BAKER BEACH

SM18

San Francisco

LANDS END

SWEENEY RIDGE

PEDRO POINT

80 § ¦ ¨

£ ¤

SM02

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

San Mateo

CORRAL DE TIERRA

See Inset Figure 3-7

280

SM10

OCEAN BEACH

£ ¤ 101

SM19

Coastal Trail SM04 SM03

SM06

Pedro Point Trail

Pacific Ocean

SM20

SM07

FORT FUNSTON

SM05

£ ¤ 280

SM08

Legend Study Road Segments

NPS LRTP Road Network

Existing LOS

PHLEGER ESTATE

Assets Affected by Sea Level Rise of 5 Feet

Legend

SM09

Transportation Network

Building

San Francisco Parks

NPS LRTP Road Network

LOS A-D (Within Capacity)

Park Managed Area

Counties

LOS E (At Capacity)

Counties

San Francisco Parks

Road

Park Managed Area

Trail

LOS F (Over Capacity )

Parking Lot

No LOS Data

0.5

Sea Level

Produced by DSC Planning Division

2 Miles

January 2013

0.375

0.75

1.5 Miles

Produced by DSC Planning Division

Á April 2013

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

Golden Gate National Recreation Area California

Key Transit Routes Serving GGNRA - Marin County 70, 80

« ¬ 22

« ¬ 17

« ¬ 36

« ¬ 22

« ¬ 222

! !

70, 80 19

« ¬

! !

! ! !

£ ¤

580

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

Marin

! ! ! !

« ¬

! !

222

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

61 ¬ «

! !

« ¬

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

¬ « 66 " )

! ! ! ! ! !

Marin City Transit Hub

! !! !

! !

! ! ! !

V U

! !

! ! !! ! ! ! !

FORT MASON

CRISSY FIELD

76X

10, 70, 80

LANDS END

! ! ! ! ! !

V U

BAKER BEACH

76X

V U

101

U V £ ¤

GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE

Pacific Ocean

ALCATRAZ

10, 70, 80, 92

! !

! ! ! !

FORT BAKER

76X

MARIN HEADLANDS

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

70, 80

! !

« ¬

! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

Sausalito Ferry Terminal

! !

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

TENNESSEE/ OAKWOOD VALLEYS

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

61 ¬ « 10, 70, 80

MUIR BEACH

! ! ! ! !! !

Pohono Park and Ride

« ¬ 222

V UU V 76X

76X

¦ ¨ § 80

OCEAN BEACH

San Francisco

£ ¤ 101

Legend NPS LRTP Road Network

Key Transit Locations W. Marin Stagecoach -61

! ! ! ! !

Bay Area Ferry

Muir Woods Shuttle - 66

Counties

San Francisco Muni - 76X

Park Managed Area

Golden Gate Transit

San Francisco Parks

FORT FUNSTON

Marin Transit 0

0.5

Produced by DSC Planning Division

2 Miles

Á 280 £ ¤

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

61 ¬ «

December 2012

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

San Francisco Bay

" )

« ¬

66 " )

« ¬ 22

61 ¬ «

STINSON BEACH

« ¬ 19

MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Non-automotive transportation services are available within the GGNRA through public transit agencies and the private sector. The range of services includes fixed route transit bus service, light rail passenger service, cable car service, paratransit service, scheduled ferry services, scheduled and non-scheduled tour bus services, and charter bus services. The park works in partnership with many of these service providers including San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) (Lines 38, 76, 29, 28, and others), Marin Transit (Routes 61, 66), Golden Gate Transit, Presidio Trust, and the San Mateo Transit District (SamTrans). Figure 3-7, Figure 3-8, Figure 3-9, and Figure 3-10 show the key transit routes serving GGNRA. Continuing to improve these partnerships and access is a primary focus of the park’s transportation strategy. The utilization rates for these transit lines can be found in the transportation technical report in Appendix A.

Figure 3-7 | Key Transit Routes Serving GGNRA - Marin County Long Range Transportation Planning Figure 4-7:

3.1.1.4 Transit Access and Capacity

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

» THEMES

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Figure 3-84-8: | Key Transit Routes Serving GGNRA - San Francisco CountyNational Park Service Figure Long Range Transportation Planning !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

5, 31, 71, F, N N

22 19

8X/8BX

23 18 23

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

S a n 43F r a n c i s c o

71, F, L, N

22 L

5, 31, 38, 38L, 41, 71

30/45

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

38/38L

OCEAN BEACH

38/38L

1 1

30/41

41/45

Powell-Mason

30 8X/8BX

LANDS END

22 28

BAKER BEACH

Pacific Ocean

18 31

FORT MASON

38 / 38L

Powell-Hyde

CRISSY FIELD

101

£ ¤

GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE

ALCATRAZ

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

San Francisco Bay

FORT BAKER

MARIN HEADLANDS

U.S. Department of the Interior

Golden Gate National Recreation Area California

Key Transit Routes Serving GGNRA - San Francisco County

18 29

£ ¤ 101

29 49 29

FORT FUNSTON

8X/8BX

San Mateo Muni Bus Routes

Other Muni Routes

38; 38L

Cable Cars

41; 45

Light Rail

San Francisco Parks

8BX; 8X

Street Car

Park Managed Area

0.25

0.5

1 Miles

Produced by DSC Planning Division

NPS LRTP Road Network ! ! ! ! !

Bay Area Ferry

Counties January 2013

Source: Fehr & Peers

280 £ ¤

Legend

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

FigureFigure 3-9 |4-9: PresidiGo Transit Routes

! ! ! ! !

Long Range Transportation Planning ! ! National Park Service ! Golden Gate National Recreation Area U.S. Department of the Interior California !

! !

PresidiGo Transit Routes

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Pacific Ocean

! ! !

! !

! ! !

FORT MASON

! !

CRISSY FIELD

! !

BAKER BEACH

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

101 £ ¤

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE

! !

LANDS END

§ ¦ ¨ 80

San Francisco OCEAN BEACH

101 £ ¤

Legend PresidiGO Routes Downtown Around the Park – Presidio Hills Around the Park - Crissy Field

NPS LRTP Road Network ! ! ! ! !

Bay Area Ferry San Francisco Parks Park Managed Area Counties

0.25

0.5

1 Miles

Produced by DSC Planning Division

Á January 2013

Sources: Fehr & Peers, GGNP

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

ALCATRAZ

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

San Francisco Bay

! ! ! !

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

FORT BAKER

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

MARIN HEADLANDS

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

» THEMES

FigureFigure 3-104-10: | Key Transit Routes Serving GGNRA - San County Long Mateo Range Transportation Planning

Golden Gate National Recreation Area California

Key Transit Routes Serving GGNRA - San Mateo County

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

280 £ ¤

121 V U

110 U V

MUSSEL ROCK

118 V U 112 V U

123 U V

MILGARA RIDGE 123 U V 121 V U

San Francisco Bay 140 V U

MORI POINT 110 V U 112 U V 118 V U

Pacific Ocean

£ ¤ 280

294 V U

Transportation and Recreational Trails San Mateo

294 V U

17 V U

CORRAL DE TIERRA

294 V U

294 V U 294 U V 17 V U

294 V U 294 V U

Legend Sam Trans Route

NPS LRTP Road Network

110

San Francisco Parks

112

Park Managed Area

118

Counties

17 V U

PHLEGER ESTATE

121 123 140 17 294 0

0.5

2 Miles

Produced by DSC Planning Division

Á December 2012

A non-motorized transportation route (NMTR) is any route in which the primary mode of travel is accomplished without the use of motorized equipment which reduces vehicle trips and/or vehicle miles. Additional criteria were established to help prioritize NMTRs in the context of long range transportation plans. High priority NMTRs are integral to maintaining connectivity within the multimodal transportation network, which would be incomplete or impassable without it. This includes NMTRs

In contrast to NMTRs, recreational trails are nonmotorized routes, but do not serve a direct or primary transportation function. Instead, recreational trails are developed and maintained primarily for recreational purposes, such as walking, hiking, mountain biking, and/ or equestrian use. Recreational trails are used for scenic touring and viewing scenery from overlooks. These trails comprise a vast majority of non-motorized trails in the park and represent a significant part of the park and main purpose for many visitors. Trails provide access so people can connect to the area’s natural and historic treasures. Figure 3-11 shows the all the recreational trails within the GGNRA parklands.

55 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

PEDRO POINT

SWEENEY RIDGE

Multiple GGNRA sites are directly accessible on foot or on bicycle, and all sites have trails and pathways designed for walkers, hikers, and/or bicyclists. Especially in denser urban locations such as San Francisco, many visitors access the park by foot or by bicycle. This section discusses the existing conditions for pedestrians and cyclists with regards to park access.

that connect major places of interest. Medium priority trails are part of the broader multimodal transportation network; these NMTRs could become integral to the network if they connect places of interest. There are 44 NMTRs in the GGNRA system presented in Figure 3-11.

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

FORT FUNSTON

3.1.1.5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Access

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Bicycling is a popular activity at GGNRA sites and draws many users throughout the GGNRA system. A wide variety of bicycle routes connect to GGNRA facilities throughout the region. Designated Class I off-road bicycle paths, Class II on-road bike lanes, and Class III shared on-road bicycle routes are present in Marin County, San Francisco, and San Mateo County and provide varying degrees of connectivity to GGNRA sites (see Figure 3-12). Several regional access roads are designated on-street bikeways, including SR 1, Panoramic Highway, Muir

Woods Road, Tennessee Valley Road, and Bunker Road. While these on-street bikeways do not all include a striped bicycle right of way or formal bike lane, many have wide shoulders and are used frequently by cyclists. The Marin Bicycle Map also highlights busy or narrow routes and steep grades in order for cyclists to avoid undesirable roads when traveling outside of the network of designated bicycle routes. In Marin County, a network of unpaved roads legal for bicycle use also wind throughout the GGNRA parklands. Off-street bike paths connect the Marin County waterfront, and on-

street bikeways are present throughout the county. Bicycling is a key component of the City of San Francisco’s transit and climate action plan goals, which specifically call for an increase in bicycling and walking as alternatives to driving. The City’s continuously expanding bicycle network includes over 200 miles of existing bikeways, with specific plans to improve connectivity between neighborhoods and transit hubs throughout the city. GGNRA sites along the northeastern San Francisco waterfront between the Bay Bridge and Golden Gate Bridge are easily accessible by off-street shared use paths

connecting the Embarcadero, Alcatraz Landing, Fisherman’s Wharf, Fort Mason, Crissy Field, and the Golden Gate Bridge. Additional designated on-street bicycle routes, with and without striped bike lanes, connect the western waterfront, from the Golden Gate Bridge to Land’s End, Ocean Beach and south. Most San Mateo County bicycle routes are concentrated in the densely populated eastern half of the county. Limited off-street bicycle routes and designated on-street bike lanes cut through neighborhoods and urban corridors, and connect to a broader network

of shared right of way onstreet bicycle routes. Cyclists can travel south from City of San Francisco beaches to northern San Mateo County coastal destinations through a network of designated bicycle routes. The more recreational non-coastal destinations such as Sweeny Ridge and other trails are accessible by nondesignated suggested routes.

Source(s): Fehr & Peers, GGNP

Bicycle Access

» THEMES

FigureFigure 3-11 4-11: | GGNRA Trail Network

Long Range Transportation Planning Golden Gate National Recreation Area California

Golden Gate National Recreation Area Trail Network

£ ¤ 580

MUIR WOODS NATIONAL M ONUM ENT

Dias Ridge Trail MUIR BEACH

Rhubarb Trail TENNESSEE/ OAKWOOD VALLEYS

Tennessee Valley Trail

Miwok Trail Morning Sun Trail

MARIN HEADLANDS

FORT BAKER

Smith Trail Julian Trail

Crissy Field Promenade

GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE

£ ¤ Battery East Trail CRISSY 101

FIELD

GG Bridge Coastal Trail BAKER BEACH LANDS END

ALCATRAZ FORT MASON

San Francisco Bay Trail

Baker Beach Access

980

OCEAN BEACH

£ ¤ 580

£ ¤ 880

§ ¦ ¨ 80

San Francisco Pacific Ocean

£ ¤

Great Meadow Paths

Presidio Bluffs Trail

£ ¤ 101

Coastal Trail

FORT FUNSTON

£ ¤ 280

MUSSEL ROCK

San Francisco Bay MILGARA RIDGE

Headlands Trail

Bootlegger's Steps

MORI POINT SWEENEY RIDGE

£ ¤ 280

PEDRO POINT

San Mateo CORRAL DE TIERRA

Legend Non-Motorized Transportation Route Transportation - high priority Transportation - medium priority Recreational San Francisco Parks Park Managed Area Counties 0

PHLEGER ESTATE 2

Produced by DSC Planning Division

4 Miles

Á January 2013

57 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Several bicycle rental companies in San Francisco cater to waterfront and GGNRA site visitors. These rental companies encourage visitors to follow a clockwise route between Downtown San Francisco, the Golden Gate Bridge, and Sausalito, with a return trip to San Francisco via the ferry. This has added thousands of cyclists per day to these routes, and causes congestion in some of GGRNA’s key waterfront bike facilities. At times ferries from Sausalito (and Tiburon) to San Francisco are filled to capacity with so many bicycle riders that some people must wait for multiple ferries before there is space available. The City of Sausalito, Golden Gate Transit, Marin Transit, bike rental companies, and others have been working on solutions to address the very high demand of bikes at ferry terminals. In addition, bicycle facilities in San Francisco and Marin will need to be improved over time to meet this growing need.

STINSON BEACH

Muir Beach Trail

Bicycle Tours and Rentals

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Marin

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

Figure 3-12 4-12: | Regional Bicycle Facilities Figure

Long Range Transportation Planning Golden Gate National Recreation Area California

Regional Bicycle Facilities

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Marin

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

Wayfinding refers to a variety of signs, maps, and other graphic or audible methods used to convey location and directions to travelers. Information includes all advanced travel planning information—directions, maps, notices of road closures and/ or traffic conditions, estimated travel times between locations, details about available/ suggested modes of access, schedules for transit and activities, etc.—as well as information gathered during a trip such as radio updates of traffic conditions, Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) signs, explanatory signs at transit hubs/stops, input from anyone consulted regarding transportation, brochures, and other printed material obtained while visiting.

£ ¤ 580

MUIR WOODS NATIONAL M ONUM ENT STINSON BEACH

MUIR BEACH

TENNESSEE/ OAKWOOD VALLEYS MARIN HEADLANDS

FORT BAKER

£ ¤ CRISSY GOLDEN GATE 101

BRIDGE

FIELD

ALCATRAZ FORT MASON

£ ¤ 980

BAKER BEACH LANDS END

Pacific Ocean

£ ¤ 580

£ ¤ 880

¦ ¨ § 80

San Francisco

£ ¤

OCEAN BEACH

101

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

FORT FUNSTON

£ ¤ 280

MUSSEL ROCK

San Francisco Bay MILGARA RIDGE

MORI POINT SWEENEY RIDGE

£ ¤ 280

PEDRO POINT

San Mateo

For Marin County, there are directional and park identity signs both within Marin County parklands and on roads leading to them that are generally clear and highly visible. Most signs use the recognizable brown background with white text to signal to visitors

CORRAL DE TIERRA

Legend

Bicycle Facilities

San Francisco Parks

Class 2

Park Managed Area Counties

Class 3 0

NPS LRTP Road Network

Class 1

4 Miles

Produced by DSC Planning Division

3.1.1.6 Wayfinding

PHLEGER ESTATE

Á January 2013

that the site is managed by a public land agency such as the National Park Service or the state parks department, and they are posted on major travel corridors such asUS 101 and SR-1. Wayfinding provided for accessing Muir Woods has strengths and weaknesses. There are effective ITS signs on US 101 that informs visitors when the Muir Woods parking lot is full and directs them where to exit to reach the shuttle. Once off the highway, however, the wayfinding signs for the shuttle stop locations are blue with white text, which is inconsistent with the graphic identity of the park. This can create confusion on the part of the visitor and may complicate access to the shuttle stops. For San Francisco County, wayfinding and park identification signage has opportunities for improvement. Along the trail from San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park to the Golden Gate Bridge, for instance, there are several key locations in which there is no wayfinding to direct visitors to points of interest or even to indicate which path is a

» THEMES

transit, bike, and pedestrian trends, and visitor experience trends.

3.1.2 Future Trends This section will provide a picture of future trends of the transportation system in the region and how this may impact GGNRA, including population growth, demographic changes, travel trends, congestion forecasts,

3.1.2.1 Regional Population Growth Forecast As might be expected from an urban park, although tourism plays an important role in park visitation (particularly at Alcatraz and Muir Woods), a substantial portion of visitation at GGNRA sites is

made of locals. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and MTC’s Regional Transportation Plan - Plan Bay Area (2013), the population of the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay Area will rise from 7.2 million in 2010 to 9.3 million in 2040, an increase of 2.1 million residents or 30% – approximately 1% population growth per year. ABAG and

MTC expect significant population and job growth to occur near GGNRA sites in San Francisco and San Mateo Counties; less growth is projected for Marin County (Table 3-1).

Table 3-1 | Population and Job Growth by County, 2010–2040

Population County

Jobs

2010

2040

Growth

% Increase

2010

2040

Growth

% Increase

Alameda

1,510,270

1,987,950

477,680

32%

694,450

947,650

253,200

36%

Contra Costa

1,049,030

1,338,440

289,410

28%

344,920

467,390

122,470

36%

Marin

252,410

285,400

32,990

13%

110,730

129,140

18,400

17%

Napa

136,480

163,680

27,200

20%

70,650

89,540

18,890

27%

San Francisco

805,240

1,085,730

280,490

35%

568,720

759,500

190,780

34%

San Mateo

718,450

904,430

185,980

26%

345,200

445,080

99,880

29%

Santa Clara

1,781,640

2,423,470

641,830

36%

926,260

1,229,530

303,270

33%

Solano

413,340

511,600

98,260

24%

132,350

179,930

47,580

36%

Sonoma

483,880

598,460

114,580

24%

192,010

257,460

65,450

34%

TOTAL

7,150,740

9,299,160 2,148,420

30%

Source: ABAG, 2013. Adapted from Plan Bay Area, Table 12 (p. 40) and Table 15 (p. 57).

3,385,300 4,505,220 1,119,920

33%

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

For San Mateo County, directional and park identification signs are generally limited, and completely lacking in some areas. A visitor survey conducted in 2004 at Mori Point and Sweeney Ridge revealed that one-third of visitors surveyed did not know they were in GGNRA lands and

42% rated the quality of trail signs as “poor” or “very poor”.

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

continuation of the main trail. Moreover, the lack of signage is a missed opportunity to inform visitors that they are within a national park. In addition to lack of signage along the trails, access to the trails from transit stops is also not identified through signage, so that visitors looking for the sites may have difficulty finding them and visitors who wander onto parklands may not know they are in the park. As with Marin County parklands, advance travel planning information related to transportation to San Francisco parklands is fairly limited on the park website (www.nps. gov/goga), mainly consisting of park maps and links to external trip planning websites (511.org and Transit & Trails) on the “Directions” page.

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Increasing tourism will also contribute to higher visitation levels at GGNRA, and thus represent increased demand placed on the park’s transportation system. Despite a significant dip following the economic downturn of 2008, total spending on tourism in the Bay Area, a rough proxy for tourist visitation levels, increased by 8.4% from 2007 to 2012. Near-term forecasts from the U.S. Travel Association project a 16% increase in total international visitors to the U.S. from 2013 to 2017; over the same period, total domestic

leisure person-trips are expected to rise by 7%. A trend that park managers have noticed in recent years is the increasing popularity of the “staycation” concept. As a result of the economic downturn, more people are choosing not to travel far on their vacations but rather decide to save money by staying home and visiting destinations in their local area. Once visitors experience the park while stay-cationing, they are more likely to return during their regular discretionary time

PROJECTED 2040 POPULATION OF THE BAY AREA

INCREASE

increased proportion of residents age 65 and above

and are therefore making the conversion from local nonusers to local users of the park. The GMP identifies attracting local nonusers as one of its guiding principles, stating that park managers would: undertake proactive strategies that make the park welcoming and accessible to those at every economic strata, people with disabilities, and ethnic and cultural communities who have not traditionally visited the park in number proportionate to the changing demographics of California and the nation.

25 25 25

Growing population below the age of 25

700,000 number of new households

3.1.2.2 Demographic Change Substantial demographic change is projected for the population of the Bay Area. The proportion of residents age 65 and above will increase from 12% of the current population to 22% of the 2040 population. Meanwhile, generational turnover will result in a growing population below the age of 25. As such, increasingly more young and elderly citizens will find themselves reliant, by choice or necessity, on travel modes other than the private automobile. Transportation

network companies such as Lyft and Uber may also provide increased mobility for these populations, which could contribute to increased vehicle traffic, but decreased parking demand, within GGNRA sites. Of the roughly 700,000 new households projected to arrive in the Bay Area between 2010 and 2040, more than half (57%) will fall into the “very low” or “low” income categories. This influx of lower-income households underscores the importance of transportation equity to local and regional transportation plans.

number new households that will fall into “low” or “very low” income

Âť THEMES

3.1.2.3 Vehicle Travel Trends

Figure 3-14 | US VMT per Capita

61 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

This dynamic mirrors national trends, in which VMT per capita have fallen since 2005 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; prior to the economic downturn - but total VMT have remained flat and are beginning to rise again (Figure 3-13). This phenomenon of flat or slightly lower VMT has given rise to a number of predictions regarding the ways in which demographic changes, lifestyle choices, and fuel economy have all affected driving patterns, and how those influences may affect how we travel in the future. Figure 3-14 provides

Figure 3-13 | US Annual VMT

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Future forecasts from MTC and ABAG suggest that total vehicle miles traveled in the Bay Area will continue to rise, contributing to increased traffic congestion on roadways to and within GGNRA sites. Plan Bay Area is projected to reduce 2040 vehicle miles traveled per capita by 9% compared with baseline 2005 VMT per capita. However, in the context of a projected 30% population increase by 2040, this 9% VMT per capita decrease translates into a total VMT increase of 18% by 2040.

a comparison of predicted future VMT per capita from a variety of sources. The forecasts differ on whether VMT per capita will rebound. However, Fehr & Peers has forecasted that 2040 VMT per capita will be between 85% and 100% of the 2007 VMT per capita. These long-term trends are helpful in understanding how the GGNRA should be investing in infrastructure over the long term.

3.1.2.4 Traffic Congestion Forecasts GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Travel demand forecasts were prepared for the study roadway facilities to represent year 2035 roadway conditions (See Figure 3-15 and Figure 3-16). These travel demand forecasts were developed using the regional travel demand model maintained by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The study roadway segments in Marin County will operate similarly to existing conditions, with the exception of US 101 north of SR 1 which would see significantly increased congestion. This is reasonable given the likely low amount of development that will occur in this part of Marin County in the next 20 years. In San Francisco and San Mateo County, regional-level forecasts predict worsening congestion in the future on both mainline freeway segments and major arterials. Key intersections also expect to see future year traffic volume increases, and corresponding increases in congestion. Existing congested intersections will likely not

improve without any future planned improvements to reduce vehicle traffic. Likewise, intersections operating with average or tolerable delay now may increase to significant or excessive delay in the future if no improvements are made. This is especially true for routes that already see heavy tourist traffic or heavy commute hour traffic, especially those providing access to Muir Woods.

Figure Figure 3-154-3:| Study Roadway Segments and Future Long LOS (Marin and SF)National Park Service Range Transportation Planning Study Roadway Segments and Future LOS (Marin and San Francisco)

U.S. Department of the Interior

Golden Gate National Recreation Area California

£ ¤ 580

Marin

M01

M08

MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT STINSON BEACH

M14

M15

M05

M02 M06

M07

San Francisco Bay

M04

M03

MUIR BEACH M10

M09

TENNESSEE/ OAKWOOD VALLEYS

MARIN HEADLANDS

M11

FORT BAKER

M12

ALCATRAZ

M13

GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE

£ ¤ 101

FORT MASON

CRISSY FIELD SF04

Pacific Ocean

SF05

SF03

BAKER SF01 BEACH

SF14

LANDS END

SF08

OCEAN BEACH

§ ¦ ¨ 80

SF06

SF02

San Francisco SF10

SF07

£ ¤ 101

SF13

SF09 SF12

FORT FUNSTON

SF11

SM12

Legend Study Road Segments

NPS LRTP Road Network

Future LOS

San Francisco Parks

LOS A-D (Within Capacity)

Park Managed Area

LOS E (At Capacity)

Counties

LOS F (Over Capacity )

280 £ ¤

SM01

SM11

MUSSEL ROCK

SM14

SM13

No LOS Data 0

0.5

Produced by DSC Planning Division

2 Miles

SM16

December 2012

» THEMES

Figure 3-16 | Study Roadway Segments and Future Long LOS (San Mateo) Range Transportation Planning Figure 4-4:

Golden Gate National Recreation Area California

Study Roadway Segments and Future LOS (San Mateo) FORT FUNSTON

SF11

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

SF12

SM12

San Francisco Bay

SM13

SM01

SM11 SM16

MILGARA RIDGE

SM17 SM15

MORI POINT

SM18

SWEENEY RIDGE

PEDRO POINT

£ ¤ 280

SM10

SM19

3.1.2.6 Bicycle and Pedestrian Trends

SM04 SM03

Non-motorized transportation is a popular and growing travel mode to, from, and within GGNRA sites. SFMTA’s official pedestrian strategy seeks to increase walking and reduce trips of less than a mile taken by car by 25% by 2021. City policy also seeks to boost cycling mode share to 20% of all trips by 2020, though this goal is currently quite

SM06

Pacific Ocean

SM20

SM07

SM05

SM08

Legend Study Road Segments

NPS LRTP Road Network

Future LOS

Counties

LOS A-D (Within Capacity)

Park Managed Area

LOS E (At Capacity)

San Francisco Parks

PHLEGER ESTATE

SM09

LOS F (Over Capacity ) No LOS Data

0.5

Produced by DSC Planning Division

2 Miles

Á January 2013

3.1.2.7 Visitor Experience Trends Technological advances can potentially aid wayfinding to and within GGNRA sites, improving visitor experience. Smartphones and other internet-enabled mobile devices continue to increase their market penetration, with 58% of Americans owning a smartphone in 2014, including 47% of Americans from households earning less than $30,000 a year. At the same time, there has been a proliferation of apps and mobile-optimized web sites offering trip planning services, including trips utilizing a wide range of public transit services

63 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

San Mateo

CORRAL DE TIERRA

SM02

remote. Similarly, among Plan Bay Area’s performance targets is an effort to increase average daily time spent in active transportation by 70%. This increased regional focus on non-motorized transportation modes strongly supports GGNRA’s commitment to active transportation within park sites. This is particularly true of GGNRA’s plans to maintain and develop its network of transportation trails.

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

280 £ ¤

SM14

3.1.2.5 Transit Trends Looking forward, some indicators suggest that younger Americans are exhibiting an indifference toward auto ownership: vehicle purchases are down 30% among adults aged 18 to 34, fewer than half of teenagers acquire a driver’s license during their first year of eligibility, and the same age group frequently expresses a preference to live and work in communities that are well served by transit. GGNRA’s Mobility, Access, Connectivity, and Visitor Experience goals are well suited to meet the needs of this emerging cohort.

SF13

SF09

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Mobile phone service remains unreliable at some park

sites. In order to address this shortcoming, other ITS solutions including Changeable Message Signs (CMS) and Radio Data Systemâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; Traffic Message Channels (RDSâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;TMC) can be deployed. As ITS technology continues to improve, it will be easier to serve these platforms with more up-to-date and detailed information about traffic conditions, parking availability and pricing, and other visitor information.

3.1.3 Needs Through development of the LRTP and review of guiding policies and reports, mobility, access, connectivity, and visitor experience needs were identified. These needs reflect overarching observations park wide, as well as needs identified for specific sites. Needs are presented in detail categorically, as well as presented at a high level by LRTP objective.

3.13.1Parking and Congestion Needs In Marin County, wayfinding for Marin Headlands and Fort Baker would improve vehicle circulation and congestion. Road conditions in various parts of the County could be improved. Parking deficiencies at many sites could use creative solutions to reduce congestion and parking spill over. In San Francisco, parking capacity issues occur at

popular sites, including West Bluff and Battery East lots. In San Mateo County, parking areas are yet to be developed and should be formalized. Information should also be provided on how to access San Mateo sites via vehicle.

Source(s): Fehr & Peers, GGNP

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

(e.g. 511.org, transitandtrails. org) and multi-modal trips (e.g. RideScout). The NPS, working with its partners such as the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy and Bay Area Open Space Council, can provide improved trip planning tools, which will advance wayfinding, visitor experience, resource protection, and transportation demand management benefits.

» THEMES

for unsafe, non-standard locations

»Critical gaps in the transportation network that should be connected »Need for off-street, separated facilitates in areas of high usage

wayfinding, and accessibility to trails in San Mateo County

»Need for pedestrian crossings at locations where trails cross roadways (e.g., the California Coastal Trail, Tennessee Valley Trail, and others) Bicycle facilities are also lacking along Alexander Avenue, particularly at the interchange with US 101. Throughout Marin, bicycle facilities could be improved with additional bicycle lanes, bicycle racks at park sites, and “share the road” signs. In San Francisco, nonmotorized travel conflicts are high at the Golden Gate Bridge. Being the most visited GGNRA site, along with its relatively constrained viewing areas, this site sees significant visitor conflicts. Newly striped bicycle lanes provide smoother bicycle

connections are needed due to the high volumes of nonmotorized travel. The San Mateo County sites have minimal pedestrian and bicycle connections. The lack of accessibility to trails, connectivity of trails, and wayfinding signage pose challenges for visitors to San Mateo. Directional and informational signage to the more visited sites (such as Mori Point, Sweeney Ridge, Milagra Ridge) is minimal.

65 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

»Need for mitigation strategies

»Lack of connectivity,

flow but pushes pedestrians to more constrained, often overcrowded walking areas. The constant flow of private vehicle and tour bus visitors also cause safety concerns and congestion at and around the parking lots. The Presidio has an extensive network of bicycle and pedestrian trails but gaps need to be filled and directional signage needs to be implemented to allow visitors to navigate the area with more ease. Trails near the road network (such as the California Coastal Trail) need safe pedestrian crossings. At Crissy Field, additional directional signage and trail

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Completing and improving GGNRA’s non-motorized transportation network is a very important part of the park’s multi-modal transportation strategy. The park has seen significant annual increases in bicycle and pedestrian volumes in recent years as it has improved its facilities and been increasingly integrated into the local and regional bicycling network. The increasingly high volumes pose a challenge to the park to improve facilities, close gaps, and provide better wayfinding and information. Some of the key pedestrian and bicycle access issues include:

»Lack of bicycle and pedestrian facilities at more rural sites, particularly in Marin and San Mateo Counties

Source: Fehr & Peers

3.1.3.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Needs

3.1.3.3 Needs by LRTP Objectives Table 3-2 | Needs for Mobility, Access, Connectivity, and Visitor Experience

Objective

Needs

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

» Publicize alternative transportation in all advanced travel planning information, including promotion of the benefits associated with use of alternative modes.

» Improve the frequency of transit schedules to better meet the needs of users. » Continue and improve collaboration and partnerships with local/regional transit providers to provide service, where warranted.

» Consider new transit/shuttle service to park areas not currently served (e.g. Tennessee Valley, Fort Baker, Mori Point, Rancho Corral de Tierras, etc.).

» Transit incentives such as fee-free days to encourage occasional users and nonusers. » Improve park transit facilities by creating great places to wait and provide user friendly and intuitive

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

real time transit information.

Mobility – Improve multimodal options to reduce reliance on cars and reduce congestion

» Use remote parking facilities coupled with shuttles to reduce vehicle trips in congested areas and better distribute visitors

» Consider charging for parking and implementing time limits where demand consistently exceeds supply to improve turnover

» Manage parking, staging areas, and multimodal hubs to promote non-auto modes » Rehabilitate and improve bicycling and walking facilities to/from and within the park, including bicycle racks at trailheads

» Close gaps in bicycle and pedestrian network » Increase the number of days the Muir Woods shuttle operates to all weekends and holidays, and daily during the peak season.

» Expand the service of MUNI line 76 serving Marin County to include higher frequencies and Fridays. » Monitor visitation types and patterns in San Mateo County to determine what type(s) and extent of alternative transportation should be provided to San Mateo County sites.

» THEMES

Table 3-2 | Needs for Mobility, Access, Connectivity, and Visitor Experience

Objective

Needs

or public transportation.

Access – Ensure that the park is available and accessible to the broadest diversity of visitors including those whose access was limited in the past

» Consider parking and transit vouchers for underserved populations. » Consider instituting a reservation system at Muir Woods to better manage and distribute demand. » Improve parking situations at high demand locations by delineating spaces, increasing the efficiency of circulation through design changes, posting a ranger to direct cars, etc.

» Maintain and promote an advanced travel planning information system to educate visitors of access issues and encourage travel that advances park goals (i.e. reduced congestion, vehicle trips, etc.). of programs, the types of facilities and services provided, etc.

» Perform regular transportation monitoring to determine both current and anticipated increased demand for San Mateo County sites. Consider working with partners to provide parking areas.

» Create seamless connections between modes within the park (transit, water, trails). » Improve connectivity of trails and bicycle paths to each other as well as to communities and other forms of transportation.

Connectivity – Improve intermodal connections to and within the park

» Promote connection of the bikeway corridor to the Muir Woods corridor through multi-modal experiences.

» Provide transit connections to sites that are currently not accessible by transit. » Plan the timing of multimodal uses to maximize connectivity. » Install bike racks on park buses and at modal hubs, parking lots, trailheads, and visitor contact points. » Provide safe pedestrian paths and/or sides from local communities to trailheads, particularly in San Mateo County.

67 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

» Implement various visitor use management strategies to alter visitation patterns, involving the timing

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

» Maintain auto access for people with disabilities. » Provide incentives for visitor access via non-motorized modes of transportation

Table 3-2 | Needs for Mobility, Access, Connectivity, and Visitor Experience

Objective

Needs

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

» Add more detailed advanced travel planning information on park websites for GGNRA, Muir Woods, and Fort Point.

» Provide information to allow visitors to best navigate through non-park land. » Continue to work closely with partners who provide travel information (e.g., MTC, Bay Area Open

Space Council (Transit & Trails initiative), map engines (Google, Bing), travel writers, kiosks, chambers of commerce, concierge association, etc.) such as to ensure that GGNRA visitors have access to relevant information.

» Target nonlocal users through online resources, and reach out to local nonusers by making information available at key community locations.

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

» Translate advanced travel planning information and wayfinding to local communities into the Improve traveler information, wayfinding, and orientation for all modes of travel

language spoken by members of those communities (as well as generally for diverse and emerging audiences).

» Tailor the information presented to appeal to the unique cultural needs, tendencies, and desires of each group.

» Develop a comprehensive signage plan in conjunction with the Trails Forever initiative, considering the locations of signs and information presented.

» Develop outreach and communication strategies using traditional and new technologies

(e.g., print media in newspapers, magazines, hotels, restaurants, libraries, schools, and churches, and new technology such as the Internet, wireless networks, personal digital assistants, iPods, FM radio tours, 511, and virtual portals).

» Provide GGNRA staff with transportation information and training to assist visitors when in the field. » Collaborate with transit providers to make transit convenient, understandable, and easy to use by providing trip time to destinations around Bay Area, attractions along the way to distinct destinations, print and/or recorded messages on public transit, and next bus technology.

» Ensure that San Mateo County trailheads are clearly posted to be part of GGNRA.

» THEMES

Table 3-2 | Needs for Mobility, Access, Connectivity, and Visitor Experience

Objective

Needs

vehicles, at terminals, and intermodal hubs.

Integrate interpretation, education, and stewardship into the transportation experience

» Post rules of the road and trail at trailheads, parking lots, and other visitor contact points. » Evaluate locations for school bus drop-off and parking areas. » Identify grant programs to help cover transportation costs for school groups. » Partners with transit authorities to provide transportation to school groups. » Provide public transportation vouchers for park volunteers. » Designate a select number of parking spaces for park volunteers.

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

» Provide transit providers with GGNRA interpretive and educational materials for distribution on

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

3.2 Resource Protection

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

GOAL: Preserve and protect park resources by minimizing transportation impacts

»OBJECTIVE 1 Manage visitation and the park transportation system to minimize resource impacts and achieve the desired conditions of park resources

The 1916 Organic Act requires the National Park Service to “protect and preserve unimpaired the resources and values of the national park system while providing for public use and enjoyment.” According to NPS Management Policies, the terms “preserve, protect, and conserve have come to collectively embody the fundamental purpose of the NPS,” and these principles are at the heart of every park’s mission and daily operations. NPS Management Policies further articulate:

park system. The boundaries of most park units are not based strictly on ecological processes or other resource protection principles, and park units are increasingly subject to impacts from external sources. Examples include air pollution, water pollution, and the loss of scenic vistas, natural quiet, and wildlife habitat. To fulfill NPS protection responsibilities, strategies and actions beyond park boundaries may be employed. External threats may be addressed by using available tools—such as gateway community planning and partnership arrangements; NPS educational programs; and participation in the planning processes of federal agencies and tribal, state, and local governments. Strong fulfillment of Service responsibilities is required by the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and other applicable laws to minimize impacts on park resources and values.

The National Park Service will use all available authorities to protect lands and resources within units of the national

Transportation systems – from infrastructure such as roads, docks, and trails connections to modes of transportation

»OBJECTIVE 2 Restore the health of resources adversely affected by transportation within the park

such as cars, buses, and boats – have the potential to be extraordinarily detrimental to the natural environment. Therefore, preserving and protecting resources while providing a transportation system that connects people to parks is a delicate balancing act. It is particularly important to provide more opportunities for people to conveniently access park sites via transit and non-motorized modes of transportation.

3.2.1 Existing Conditions The transportation system has a potentially strong impact on both natural and cultural resources because these resources are interwoven with the infrastructure in the park lands. This section provides visuals on how close the resources are to the transportation system.

» THEMES

Figure 3-17 | Resource Resource Protection Protection Hotspots andHotspots Deficienciesand Deficiencies – Marin and SF Counties

Na tiona l Pa rk Serv ice U.S. Department of the Interior

Long Range Transportation Pla nning Golden Ga te Nationa l Recreation A rea California

M arin and San Francisco Counties

£ ¤ 580

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

San Francisco B ay

M a rin M U IR W O O D S STIN SO N BEA CH

M U IR B EA CH TEN N ESSE E/ O A K W O O D VA LLEY S

FO RT BA K ER

M A R IN H EA DLA N DS

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

A LCATR A Z

Pacific O cean

£ ¤ 101

FO RT M A SO N

CR ISSY FIELD

V U 1

LA N DS E N D

§ ¦ ¨ 80

S a n Fr a n c i s c o

£ ¤ 101

Legend Bay Area Ferry

Resource Protection Deficiency

Park Roads Bands 1 and 2

Resource Protection Hotspots

Park Roads Bands 3 - 5

Other Hotspots

NMT Trails Bands 1 and 2

Counties

NMT Trails Bands 3 - 5

Park M anaged Area

Parking Bands 1 and 2

San Francisco Parks

FO RT FU N STO N

£ ¤ 280

Parking Bands 3 - 5

Produced by: DSC Planning Division GIS

M U S S EL R O CK

0.5

Miles

S a n M a Date: t e2/26/2015 o

Source: Fehr & Peers

! ! ! ! !

Figure 3-18 | Resource Resource Protection Protection Hotspots andHotspots Deficienciesand Deficiencies – San Mateo County Long Range Transportation Planning Golden Gate National Recreation Area California

San Mateo County

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

£ ¤ 280

San Francisco Bay

San Mateo

MUSSEL ROCK

Pacific Ocean

Several areas within the GGNRA include cultural properties and individual cultural resources that should be considered when proposing transportation improvements. Many of the cultural resources are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), eligible for listing in the NRHP, or unevaluated yet deemed potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. Summarized in Table 3-4 are GGNRA sites which have cultural properties within GGNRA for which transportation issues and concerns exist.

MILGARA RIDGE

V U 1

MORI POINT

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

SWEENEY RIDGE

£ ¤ 280

PEDRO POINT

CORRAL DE TIERRA

Legend ! ! ! ! !

0.5

2 Miles

Produced by: DSC Planning Division GIS

3.2.2 Resource Protection Challenges Natural resources in the GGNRA, including water resources and biological resources, have the potential to be impacted with transportation improvements proposed as part of the LRTP. Summarized in Table 3-3 are issues associated with natural resources along key transportation corridors or within specific regions in the GGNRA LRTP Planning Area.

FORT FUNSTON

Bay Area Ferry

Parking Bands 3 - 5

Park Roads Bands 1 and 2

Resource Protection Hotspots

Park Roads Bands 3 - 5

Other Hotspots

NMT Trails Bands 1 and 2

Counties

NMT Trails Bands 3 - 5

Park Managed Area

Parking Bands 1 and 2

San Francisco Parks Date: 2/25/2015

» THEMES

Table 3-3 | Natural Resources Challenges

Site

Challenges

» Culverts undersized, block sediment transport (interim issue). » Sea level rise will impact highway. » Bolinas Fairfax Road/Hwy 1 intersection already has flooding. Consider restoration that would reconfigure intersection. Hwy 1, Bolinas Fairfax Rd to Stinson Beach

Move intersection north, convert to “T” intersection to avoid wetlands.

» Annual mowing, maintenance, and slide clean-up has leaves spoiling, spreading invasive species. » NPS boundaries overlap with other agencies along Bolinas Lagoon. » Cars parking along the roadside/lagoon cause sedimentation, active erosion, and pollutants into Bolinas Lagoon.

Stinson Beach Parking Lot

» Parking area experiences flooding from the Easkoot Creek. » Previously native willow/dunes providing protection are now artificial and are eroding. Dunes are not currently targeted for protection (as natural resources).

» Dirt parking lot available for near-term flood relief but modeling shows the lot will be the first flooded by sea level rise.

Hwy 1, Stinson Beach to Muir Beach Overlook

» Invasive plant species a concern in area, mowing practices and slide repairs pose recurring threat. » Energy dissipation is inadequate at the discharge points of some of the culverts. » Drainage at pullouts is a concern. » Highway slide repairs have resulted in a visual as well as natural resource impact. Revegetation, weeding and monitoring critical.

» The bridge over Redwood Creek is severely undersized and channelizes the creek. It affects creek geomorphology, Muir Beach Overlook and Pacific Way

fish migration, and sediment flows.

» The road floods upstream from Muir Beach parking area.

73 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

» Parking lots are former wetland – high groundwater level. » Parking areas are within the 100-yr floodplain. » Tidal overwash during storms at the north parking lot.

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Marin County

Table 3-3 | Natural Resources Challenges

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Site

Challenges

Panoramic Highway, Stinson Beach to Three Corners

» Sedimentation into the Redwood Creek watershed. » Muir Woods soundscape is impacted by vehicle noise along the highway. » Invasive plant species a concern in area.

Hwy 1, Muir Beach Overlook to Three Corners

» The Redwood Creek crossing (two box culverts) is undersized. » There is flooding at the SR 1 intersection with Muir Woods Road. » There is an extreme level of invasive plant species. » Sediment delivery is an issue. » Creek geomorphology is impacted by culverts and channelization from the road. » Culverts are undersized, which channelizes the creek, incises the creek banks, increases velocities,

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

74 Muir Woods Rd

Pacific Way Bridge

and inhibits fish migration.

» Culvert and road design should ensure flows do not concentrate, scour, and increase sedimentation. » There are invasive plant species in the corridor. » There have been multiple washouts on lower Muir Woods Road adding sediment load and reducing vegetation cover. » The Pacific Way Bridge is undersized, inhibiting natural creek processes and fish migration, and exacerbating flooding on Pacific Way.

Tennessee Valley Rd, Hwy 1 to Parking Area

» The road is not conducive for implementation of a bicycle trail, a potential proposal for this route.

US 101/ Hwy 1 to Golden Gate Bridge

» There is a high level of invasive species in the Fort Baker area. » The area along this road is Mission Blue Butterfly habitat » The one-way portion and some places very close to the top of the coastal bluff (near Hawk Hill) are

Conzelman Rd

Bunker Rd, McCullough Rd, and Mitchell Rd

vulnerable to coastal erosion and drainage/sediment delivery issues.

» Conzelman Road is a high frequency wildlife crossing area. » Invasive plant species a concern in area. » Frog crossings around the lagoon at the end of Simmonds Road. » Major issue regarding wildlife mortality due to vehicle speeds. » Roads may benefit from improved signage.

» THEMES

Table 3-3 | Natural Resources Challenges

Site

Challenges

US 101, Golden Gate Bridge to Marina Blvd

» Stormwater runoff from the highway is a concern.

Mason St

» Wetland habitat restoration impeded by road. » Culverts under the road would allow expansion of the marsh, but would incur extremely high costs and challenges, including major infrastructure under the road

» Due to sea level rise, these roads have exposure to storm waves from the ocean. » Drainage maintenance has potential negative impacts on wetlands and various habitats on inside edge.

Lincoln Boulevard

» Stormwater runoff and culvert design affecting Baker Beach. » Slope instability and associated erosion and sediment delivery. » Sedimentation into Baker Beach.

Baker Beach Parking Lot

» The storm water runoff funnels through the dunes, and storms overwash into the parking area.

Lands End Coastal Trail

» Serpentine habitat toxic to many plants. » Instability of Coastal Trail. » Upland runoff/erosion from the golf course and VA hospital. » High level of invasive plant species. » Climate adaptation - parking lot will need to be relocated or eliminated. » Seawall is historical. » Seawall does not keep out blowing sand. City owns wall and 50-ft seaward; they need permit to move sand off the beach.

Ocean Beach Parking Lot

» Sand management time is severely restricted due to snowy plover habitat. » Dunes are restricted. » Southern part of north lot is adjacent to Snowy Plover habitat. » Parking lot is actively eroding, contributing rubble to the beach.

Great Highway, Sloat Boulevard to Skyline Boulevard

» Maintenance of access to the zoo is important.

75 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Long Avenue and Marine Drive

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

San Francisco County

Table 3-3 | Natural Resources Challenges

Site GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Challenges

» The informal parking area near the maintenance road gate is causing erosion. » Impromptu parking along John Muir Drive east of the Battery Davis trailhead is causing erosion in that area. Fort Funston Parking Areas

Recommendation is to consolidate parking at the trailhead.

» There is modest erosion at the main parking lot. » At the main parking lot, the inefficient current layout does not direct people to proper areas. San Mateo County SR 1, North of Devils Slide

» SR 1 is a barrier between Mori Point and Sweeney Ridge – wetlands across SR 1. » SR 1 drainage is impacting migratory fish runs. » Invasive species are present. » South of Devil’s Slide, the design of SR 1 stream crossings and drainage of the ridges east of SR 1 impact

SR 1, South of Devils Slide

migratory fish runs.

» A 60-car parking area is planned for the Phleger Estate area, although it is to be located in a wetland. » The NPS is currently working on improving trailhead locations. » The road passes through designated critical habitat for California Red-legged Frog. Although undocumented,

Sneath Lane (Sweeney Ridge)

it is possible that there is habitat for San Francisco Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia – a federal and state endangered species) along this road as well. The average daily traffic of 18 vehicles per day has the potential to cause the loss of individuals of these threatened and endangered species due to animals being hit/run over by vehicles.

» Road not well maintained. » Multiple invasive species exist along entire route. Pedro Point Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015

» Critical habitat for California Red-legged Frogs should be considered with any proposed improvements.

» THEMES

Table 3-4 | Cultural Resources Challenges

Site

Challenges

Muir Woods

» A 0.13-mile portion of Muir Woods Road is eligible for listing in the NRHP. » The existing trail system includes many historic features to be considered. » The parking lot at the main entrance was an open space throughout the historic period of Muir Woods (1907-1947).

Golden Gate Dairy (Ranch M)

Marin Headlands

» Multi-use Dias Ridge Trail runs throughout the Golden Gate Dairy area. » There are several roads within the Marin Headlands that are listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP: » NRHP Listed: Bunker Road, Old Bunker Road, McCullough Road, East Road, Murray Circle, McReynolds Road, Seitler Road, Rosenstock Road, Simmonds Road, Mitchell Road. Old Bunker Road (multi-use trail section).

Other Areas

» Tennessee Valley Road, Tennessee Valley Trail, and Miwok Trail are potentially historic transportation assets that will need to be evaluated if improvements are proposed that may affect them. San Francisco County

Presidio

» Two roads within the Presidio are National Historic Landmarks: Battery East Road and Marine Drive. » Three roads within Fort Mason are listed in the NRHP: Franklin Street, MacArthur Avenue, and McDowell Avenue.

Fort Mason

» The ¼-mile McDowell Trail is listed in the NRHP. » Fort Mason includes several character-defining elements that may be impacted by transportation

improvements, including: cast concrete light poles, fire hydrants, manhole covers, redwood signs and pipe sign supports, and street signage.

Sutro Historic District Fort Miley

» The route of the Cliff House and Ferries Rail Line has local significance for its unique and daring siting. » The Fort Miley Military Reservation includes three unevaluated transportation assets that may be

potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP: Fort Miley East Access Road (0.22 miles long); Fort Miley West Access Road (0.12 miles long); and the Fort Miley West Parking Lot.

77 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

» NRHP Eligible: Conzelman Road, Swain Road, Sommerville Road, Kober Street,

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Marin County

Table 3-4 | Cultural Resources Challenges

Site GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Other Areas

Challenges

» Ocean Beach includes a number of cultural resources along its length, and any proposed improvements should consider their significance and potential impacts to them. San Mateo County

» The features at Milagra Ridge considered to retain sufficient integrity to be contributing elements to the proposed San Francisco Harbor Defenses National Historic Landmark District include:

Milagra Ridge

» Battery Construction #244, completed in 1944 and disarmed in 1950 » Battery Commander’s Station (BC B1S1), Battery #244, completed in 1944 » Tower pylons and operating room for SCR-296 No. 9, completed in 1944

Sweeney Launcher Site

» The Sweeney Launcher Site includes the historic Nike Radar Site » Transportation assets include Sneath Lane (road) and Sneath Lane Trail

San Francisco Bay Discovery Site

» Transportation assets include the Sweeney Ridge Trail » Transportation assets in proximity to and associated with the additional cultural

Other Areas

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015

resources include the following:

» Access road to Shelldance Nursery – off Coast (SR 1) Highway in Pacifica » Shelldance Parking Lot

» THEMES

3.2.3 Needs

Objective

Needs

» Transportation facilities should provide sufficient buffer in riparian areas. » Designs should minimize impervious surfaces, mitigate, and treat runoff. » Consider undercrossings and other features to reduce impact of roads and other transportation facilities on the connectivity of habitats.

reconstructing existing facilities.

» Reduce or remove transportation infrastructure where feasible. » Reduce social trails adjacent to parking areas. » Plan, design, and construct facilities using desired conditions in existing park plans and to minimize resource impacts.

» Communicate NPS policies on resource protection to NPS staff, partners and the public. » Improvements along Ocean Beach in San Francisco should be implemented with attention to the character-defining features of the resources and with cultural resources along the beach and in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

Restore the health of resources adversely affected by transportation within the park

» Measure and monitor the extent of wildlife, natural, and cultural resource damage from the existing park transportation system.

» Rehabilitate or restore natural and cultural resources negatively affected by transportation. » Eliminate or minimize threats to wildlife created by the transportation system.

79 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Manage visitation and the park transportation system to minimize resource impacts and achieve the desired conditions of park resources

» Prepare construction noise best management practices to ensure sensitive fauna are not impacted. » Minimize lighting on transportation facilities, particularly in areas of sensitive natural resources. » Eliminate informal and spillover parking . » Initiate no build management solutions before constructing new transportation facilities or

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

A number of needs are identified in this section that can help address the resource protection challenges. These needs are categorized by each LRTP objective.

Table 3-5 | Needs for Resource Protection

3.3 Environmental Excellence

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

»OBJECTIVE 1 Demonstrate environmental leadership through transportation initiatives that maximize energy-efficiency and minimize the GGNRA carbon footprint

GOAL: Inspire an environmental consciousness by demonstrating environmental excellence in transportation.

»OBJECTIVE 2 Provide sustainable and context sensitive solutions to promote energy and resource conservation

The intent of the Environmental Excellence theme is to showcase GGNRA’s leadership and commitment to supporting innovative transportation solutions that address critical environmental issues such as climate change. The park is dedicated to reducing its carbon footprint and welcomes the opportunity to host pilot transportation projects that demonstrate new energyefficient and low emission technologies. Inherent in Environmental Excellence is the concept of sustainability, which recognizes that human

civilization is an integral part of the natural world and that nature must be preserved and perpetuated if the human community is to survive. Sustainable design, context sensitive solutions, and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) design standards articulate this idea through projects that exemplify the principles of conservation and encourage the application of those principles in our daily lives. Although sustainability does not require a loss in the quality of life, it does require a change in mindset. These changes embrace global interdependence, environmental stewardship, social responsibility, and economic viability. The park is dedicated to raising awareness of how visitor transportation choices affect park lands and is also striving to become carbon neutral by maximizing energy-efficiency through renewable energy sources, clean fuels, land use practices, and carbon offsets. The park promotes “green” public transportation through clean

fuel shuttles at Muir Woods, and has adopted standards for employee travel that provides staff with the opportunity to serve as examples of carbon neutral travel through the park-sponsored bike program, use of clean fuel fleet vehicles, and other programs including the employee transit subsidy program, and “Green Team” sponsored events. GGNRA continues to strengthen its leadership position in environmental stewardship by expanding its network of community partners, developing new organizational partners, and by broadening the range of opportunities that visitors have to use green transportation, and experience handson, natural and cultural stewardship opportunities within the park.

» THEMES

3.3.1 Existing Conditions

Figure 3-19 | Solar PV on Alcatraz Island

3.3.1.1 GHG Inventory GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

as part of the GGNRA General Management Plan (GMP) efforts. The updated inventory is used as the baseline inventory for this LRTP, and summarized below in Table 3-6.

Source: GGNP

3.3.1.2 Current Efforts Table 3-6 | GGNRA 2008 GHG Inventory by Category

Stationary Combustion

Purchased Electricity

Mobile Combustion

Wastewater Treatment

Waste

Total Emissions (MTCO2e)

1,985

2,058

Marin County

523

385

1,047

263

332

2,551

Alcatraz

632

1,167

1,830

SF County

148

382

1,419

472

2,422

1,308

784

5,618

295

854

8,861

Park Area Muir Woods

Total Emissions (MTCO2e) Source: GGNRA, 2013

GGNRA already has many efforts in place to reduce GHG emissions generated by the park and its visitors. Strategies to reduce GHG emissions include:

»The first solar panels were installed at the Cavallo Point Lodge at Fort Baker, as part of the LEED Gold certified project. »The park headquarters at Fort Mason have solar photovoltaic systems in place.

»Out-of-view rooftop photovoltaic and battery power system has been installed on Alcatraz Island. It will generate up to 60 percent of the annual power demand on Alcatraz and eliminate about 700,000 pounds of CO2 emissions per year. Alcatraz is unique in that there are no electrical or water lines that connect the island to the mainland. Water and diesel fuel for electric generators is ferried to the island.

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The NPS has a goal of reducing its contribution to global climate change through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. To begin tracking the results of their efforts, the GGNRA staff inventoried its emissions in 2006 using the Climate Leadership in Parks (CLIP) tool developed by the NPS and the Environmental Protection Agency and reported it in the GGNRA Climate Change Action Plan. The inventory was subsequently updated in 2008

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Alcatraz Ferry implemented a green-ferry boat in 2008 called the Hornblower Hybrid. The Hornblower is called a hybrid because it utilizes energy from solar, two tenfoot-tall twisted-Savonius wind turbines, grid electric, and Tier 2 diesel generators to power the vessel. It is the nations’ first hybrid ferry.

Instead of idling at the dock or burning diesel to keep the lights on (a standard practice in the industry) the Hornblower Hybrid switches from diesel power to battery mode to save fuel and reduce emissions.

»Marin Transit’s Route 66 Muir Woods Shuttle was introduced in 2005 as a demonstration

GGNRA’s adaptation strategies include: » Monitoring sea-level rise gauge at Crissy Field and other locations. The following website http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/ sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414290%20 San%20Francisco,%20CA provides up-to-date data on sea level trends in San Francisco.

» Participating with Our Coast Our Future http://data.

prbo.org/apps/ocof/index.php?page=our-project to develop local models for sea-level rise

» Preliminary overlays of sea-level rise onto park GIS maps to determine potential effects

» Reviewing past documentation and future estimates on changes in fog patterns

» Monitoring of invasive species and rare/endangered species

project to reduce traffic congestion and parking demand at the Muir Woods National Monument. It has become a regular Marin Transit seasonal route funded under a partnership between the NPS and Marin Transit. The Muir Woods Shuttle operates between Muir Woods and Marin City, Pohono Park and Ride and the Sausalito Park and Ride during May through the end of October. The peak season is from Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day weekend. The shoulder operating season includes May weekends prior to Memorial Day and September and October following Labor Day. During the peak season, service operates on 20 minute headways, decreasing to 30 minute headways during shoulder seasons.

3.3.2 Future Trends 3.3.2.1 GHG Forecasts As part of the GMP efforts, a future “no-action” inventory was estimated for each of the park areas. The GMP “no-action” alternative was roughly estimated for year 2023 conditions, based on an approximate 10 percent forecasted growth in visitors over the period between 2008 and 2023. For purposes of this study, a future year 2035 will be used to maintain consistency with future year traffic forecasts and analysis. To estimate a year 2035 inventory, the same annual rate of growth forecasted between years 2008 and 2023 was applied to forecast out to 2035. As with the GMP analysis for 2023 conditions (and 2008 baseline conditions), the 2035 inventory does not include emissions resulting from visitors to San Mateo County sites, or GGNRA employee commutes. Total emissions for GGNRA are forecasted to grow 12 percent from year 2008 to year 2035. The majority of the growth comes from visitors, along with increased electricity

consumption (due to Alcatraz converting from diesel fuel to electricity) Emissions estimates for 2035 are summarized in Table 3-7.

» THEMES

Table 3-7 | GGNRA 2035 GHG Estimate by Category (MTCO2e)

Purchased Electricity

Mobile Combustion

Wastewater Treatment

Waste

Total Emissions

2,332

2,416

541

398

1,172

299

343

2,753

572

1,396

2,005

SF County

156

401

1,614

545

2,717

Total Emissions

701

1,390

6,514

337

948

9,891

Muir Woods Marin County Alcatraz

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Stationary Combustion

Park Area

Source: GGNRA, Fehr & Peers, 2015

Transportation assets vulnerable to climate change include assets located in coastal areas which are at risk due to sea level rise (SLR) in future years. Transportation assets vulnerable to sea level rise include GGNRA facility buildings, parking lots, trails, and key access roads. For purposes of this study, assets are defined as park-owned facilities as well asl non-parkowned facilities that provide access to GGNRA sites. Vulnerable transportation

assets were analyzed for two horizon years:

»Year 2050 = Two feet SLR »Year 2100 = Five feet SLR The sea level rise estimates were obtained from guidance developed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). USACE developed a sea level change curve calculator which estimates sea level rise for future horizon years.

Key assets impacted by two feet sea level rise for the horizon year 2050 are summarized in Table 3-8 and Figure 3-20 and Figure 3-21. Additional key assets affected by five feet sea level rise for the horizon year 2100 are summarized in Table 3-9 and Figure 3-22, Figure 3-23, and Figure 3-24. Assets in San Mateo County would not be impacted based on the sea level rise projections.

2’ Sea Level Rise Year 2050

5’ Sea Level RiseYear 2100

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

3.3.2.2 Sea Level Rise

Table 3-8 | Year 2050 – Assets Affected by 2ft Sea Level Rise

Facility Type GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CRV1

Historic2

NPS vs. Non-NPS

43299 / 4100

$37,332

NPS

N/A

Non-NPS

Lime Point Fire Control Station (B111/20)

108211 / 4100

$476,210

NPS

Fort Baker – Pier Parking (RN974)

104006 / 1300

$131,552

NPS

Conzelman Road at Fort Baker (RN-109)

40734 / 1100

$4,000,000

NPS

U.S. 101 at Bridge Blvd

N/A

Non-NPS

U.S. 101 at SR 1

N/A

Non-NPS

SR 1 at U.S. 101

N/A

Non-NPS

43400 / 1100

$5,201,636

Non-NPS

SR 1 at Stinson Beach

N/A

Non-NPS

SR 1 at Audubon Fire Rd

N/A

Non-NPS

SR 1 at Stinson Beach North

N/A

Non-NPS

Kirby Cove Spur Trail 3

41954 / 2100

$1,573,205

NPS

Battery Yates Trail

237324 / 2100

$1,190,466

NPS

San Francisco Bay Trail (3 segments) (FOBA)

43297 / 2100

$2,288,749

NPS

Facility Name

Location/Asset # Marin County

Fort Baker - USGC Shed (FB-435) Buildings Parking

Roads

Trails

Lime Point Light House

Tennessee Valley Road (RN-410)

San Francisco County Buildings

Alcatraz - Restroom Pier (Restroom, Roadway / ALCATRAZ)

38390 / 4100

$370,963

NPS

Parking

Lower Fort Mason (RN-P917)

38291 / 1300

$5,934,133

NPS

» THEMES

Table 3-8 | Year 2050 – Assets Affected by 2ft Sea Level Rise

Facility Type

Facility Name

Location/Asset #

Historic2

NPS vs. Non-NPS

San Francisco County

Trails

Coastal Trail (Mori)

232004 / 2100

$1,490,832

NPS

Crissy Field Promenade

38209 / 2100

$1,115,502

NPS

East Beach Lagoon Trail

81976/ 2100

$663,446

NPS

San Francisco Bay Trail (FOBA)

43297 / 2100

$2,288,749

NPS

Agave Trail

38397 / 2100

$1,191,299

NPS

Total Cost to Replace Assets Affected by Sea Level Rise

$33,888,207

Table 3-9 | Year 2100 – Assets Affected by 5ft Sea Level Rise

CRV2

Historic3

NPS vs. Non-NPS

43428 / 1300

$441,687

NPS

N/A

Non-NPS

Muir Beach Trail

231880 / 2100

$4,378,069

NPS

Willow Camp Fire Road

84420 / 1100

$603,676

NPS

N/A

Non-NPS

Facility Name1

Location/Asset # Marin County

Parking

Muir Beach

Roads

Bridgeway Boulevard in Sausalito

Trails

San Francisco County Buildings

Alcatraz - Maintenance Office

N/A

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Notes: 1. CRV = current replacement value. Current replacement value assumes the entire asset is affected. 2. Historic includes National Historic Landmark, National Register Listed, and National Register Eligible. Source: GGNRA, 2013

Facility Type

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

CRV1

Table 3-9 | Year 2100 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Assets Affected by 5ft Sea Level Rise

Facility Type GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Parking

Roads

Trails

Location/Asset #

CRV2

Historic3

NPS vs. Non-NPS

Crissy Field - Old Coast Guard Station Lots (2)

80728 / 1300

$506,916

NPS

Crissy Field - Promenade (RN962) East Beach

38189 / 1300

$2,784,735

NPS

Crissy Field - Building 989 Lots (2)

38221 / 1300

$122,830

NPS

Crissy Field - West Bluff/Warming Hut (RN960)

38190 / 1300

$2,546,069

NPS

The Embarcadero at Fishermans Wharf

N/A

Non-NPS

Jefferson Street at The Embarcadero

N/A

Non-NPS

Marina Boulevard at Fillmore Street

N/A

Non-NPS

Marina Boulevard at Richardson Ave

N/A

Non-NPS

Mason Street (includes Marshall and Lundeen Streets)

N/A

Non-NPS

Old Mason Street

N/A

Non-NPS

Richardson Ave/U.S. 101

N/A

Non-NPS

Promenade Cut-off Trail

112226 / 2100

$128,844

NPS

East Beach Picnic Trail

38201 / 2100

$175,367

NPS

Mason Street Bike Path

112223 / 2100

$3,264,463

NPS

Airstrip Cut-off Trail #1

81974 / 2100

$64,113

NPS

Batteries to Bluffs Trail

112009 / 2130

$2,743,360

NPS

Amphitheater Trail

112218 / 2100

$122,018

NPS

N/A

Non-NPS

Facility Name1

Pedro Point

Notes: 1. The assets listed in this table are in addition to those that would be affected by two foot SLR, as listed in Table 3-8. 2. Current replacement value assumes the entire asset is affected. 3. Historic includes National Historic Landmark, National Register Listed, and National Register Eligible. Source: GGNRA, 2013

» THEMES

FigureFigure 3-203-3 | Marin County Vulnerable Transportation YearPlanning 2050 National (2 Ft.ParkSLR) Long Assets Range Transportation Service Marin County Vulnerable Transportation Assets Year 2050 (2 Ft. Sea Level Rise)

Golden Gate National Recreation Area California

U.S. Department of the Interior

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Marin

£ ¤ 580

SR 1

San Francisco Bay

STINSON BEACH

MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT SR 1

Tennessee Valley Rd.

US.101 MUIR BEACH

USCG Shed

MARIN HEADLANDS

FORT BAKER

Lime Point Fire Control Station Kirby Cove Spur Trail 3

£ ¤ 101

Lime Point Light House

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

TENNESSEE/ OAKWOOD VALLEYS Fort Baker Pier Parking Lot

GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE

San Francisco Bay Trail

Battery Yates Trail and San Francisco Bay Trail Conzelman Road CRISSY FIELD

Pacific Ocean BAKER BEACH LANDS END

OCEAN BEACH

San Francisco

Assets Affected by Sea Level Rise of 2 Feet

Transportation Network

Parking Lot

NPS LRTP Road Network

Building

Counties San Francisco Parks

Road

Park Managed Area

Trail

FORT FUNSTON

Sea Level Rise 0

0.5

2 Miles

Produced by DSC Planning Division

£ ¤ 280

April 2013

Source: Fehr & Peers

Legend

FigureFigure 3-213-4 | San Francisco Vulnerable Transportation Assets YearPlanning 2050National (2 Ft.ParkSLR) Service Long Range Transportation San Francisco Vulnerable Transportation Assets Year 2050 (2 Ft. Sea Level Rise)

Golden Gate National Recreation Area California

U.S. Department of the Interior

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

MARIN HEADLANDS FORT BAKER ALCATRAZ Restroom - Pier Agave Trail

101 £ ¤

GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE

Parking Lot Lower Fort Mason

FORT MASON

Pacific Ocean San Francisco Bay Trail BAKER BEACH

East Beach Lagoon and Crissy Field Promenade Trails

San Francisco Bay

LANDS END

§ ¦ ¨ 80

San Francisco

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

OCEAN BEACH 101 £ ¤

Coastal Trail

FORT FUNSTON

Legend Transportation Network

Assets Affected by Sea Level Rise of 2 Feet

NPS LRTP Road Network

Parking Lot

Counties

Building

San Francisco Parks

Trail

Park Managed Area

0.375

0.75

Sea Level Rise

1.5 Miles

Produced by DSC Planning Division

Á April 2013

Sources: Fehr & Peers, GGNP

280 £ ¤

» THEMES

Figure 3-223-5| Marin County Vulnerable Transportation Assets YearPlanning 2100National (5 Ft. Figure Long Range Transportation Park SLR) Service Marin County Vulnerable Transportation Assets Year 2100 (5 Ft. Sea Level Rise)

Golden Gate National Recreation Area California

U.S. Department of the Interior

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Marin

£ ¤ 580

SR 1

San Francisco Bay

Willow Camp Fire Road STINSON BEACH

MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT SR 1

Tennessee Valley Rd. MUIR BEACH

Bridgeway Blvd.

TENNESSEE/ OAKWOOD VALLEYS Fort Baker Pier Parking Lot

USCG Shed and Office

MARIN HEADLANDS

FORT BAKER

Lime Point Fire Control Station Kirby Cove Spur Trail 3

Lime Point Light House and Lime Point Control Station

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Muir Beach Trail

US.101

Parking Lot, Muir Beach

£ ¤ 101

GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE

San Francisco Bay Trail

Battery Yates Trail and San Francisco Bay Trail Conzelman Road CRISSY FIELD

Pacific Ocean BAKER BEACH LANDS END

San Francisco

Assets Affected by Sea Level Rise of 5 Feet

Legend Transportation Network

Parking Lot

NPS LRTP Road Network

Building

Counties San Francisco Parks

Road

Park Managed Area

Trail

FORT FUNSTON

Sea Level 0

0.5

2 Miles

Produced by DSC Planning Division

£ ¤ 280

April 2013

Sources: Fehr & Peers, GGNP

OCEAN BEACH

National Park Service FigureFigure 3-233-6 | San Francisco County Vulnerable Transportation 2100 (5 Ft. SLR) Long Range TransportaAssets tion Pla nningYear

San Francisco V ulnerable Tra nsportation A ssets Year 2100 (5 Ft. Sea Level Rise)

Golden Gate Nationa l Recreation A rea Ca lifornia

U.S. Depa rtment of the Interior

San Francisco Bay

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

M A R IN HE A D LA ND S FO RT BAK ER A LCATR A Z

£ ¤

101 G O LD E N G A TE B R ID G E

Pacific O cean

BAK ER B E A CH

San Francisco

LA N DS E N D

80 § ¦ ¨

See Inset Figure 3-24

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

O CE A N B E A CH

£ ¤ 1 01

Coastal Trail

Pedro Point Trail

FO RT FU N S TO N

£ ¤ 2 80

A ssets A ff ected by Sea Level Rise of 5 Feet

Tra nspo rtation N etw o rk

Building

NPS LRTP Road Network

Parking Lot

Counties San Francisco Parks

Road

Park M anaged A rea

Trail Sea Level

0.375

0.75

1.5 Miles

Produced by DSC Planning Division

Á April 2013

Source: Fehr & Peers

Legend

» THEMES

Figure 3-24 | Figure 3-7 National Park Service Long Range Transportation Planning San Francisco County Vulnerable Transportation Assets Year 2100 (5 Ft. SLR) Inset Figure Golden Gate National Recreation Area U.S. Department of the Interior San Francisco Vulnerable Transportation Assets California

Year 2100 (5 Ft. Sea Level Rise), Inset Figure

FORT BAKER ALCATRAZ Maintenance Office and Pier Restroom

San Francisco Bay

£ ¤

Agave Trail

101

GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE Parking Lots, Building 989

Crissy Field Old Coast Guard Station Parking Lots

Crissy Field Promenade Parking East Beach

SAN San Francisco Bay Trail FRANCISCO MARITIME

The Embarcadero

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Pacific Ocean

West Bluff/Warming Hut Parking

East Beach Lagoon Trail East Beach Picnic Trail Promenade Cut-off Trail Crissy Field Promenade

Jefferson St

Mason Street Bike Path Airstrip Cut-off Trail #1 Crissy Field Promenade and Amphitheater Trail

Batteries to Bluffs Trail

Mason Street Bike Path

Marina Blvd US 101

Richardson Ave

Mason St

BAKER BEACH

V U 1

§ ¦ ¨ 80

San Francisco

Assets Affected by Sea Level Rise of 5 Feet

Legend Transportation Network

Building

NPS LRTP Road Network

Parking Lot

Counties San Francisco Parks

Road

Park Managed Area

Trail Sea Level

0.2

0.4

0.8 Miles

Produced by DSC Planning Division

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

A number of needs are identified in this section that can tackle environmental excellence issues. These needs are categorized by each LRTP objective.

San Francisco Bay

Kirby Cove

3.3.3 Needs

£ ¤ 101

Á April 2013

Table 3-10 | Needs for Environmental Excellence

Objective GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Needs

» To reduce greenhouse gases, develop strategies to reduce vehicle miles traveled, reduce trips, increase average vehicle occupancy, and increase mode split.

» Measure and monitor GGNRA’s carbon footprint. » Provide GGNRA staff with clean vehicle choices, car pooling, transit only days, alternative work Demonstrate environmental leadership through transportation initiatives that maximize energyefficiency and minimize the GGNRA carbon footprint

schedules, telecommuting, bike parking and showers, and state of the art options to reduce energy consumption.

» In the construction and maintenance of transportation infrastructure and facilities, reduce the consumption of non-renewable construction materials, promote their efficient use and reuse, and reduce other environmental impacts.

» Replace GSA leased gasoline-operated vehicles with hybrid vehicles. » Promote employee Bike Share program. » Encourage employee participation in annual Bike to Work Day event. » Promote car free days. » Utilize park’s Green Purchasing Program for transportation. » Create partnerships with environmental leaders to host pilot transportation projects that demonstrate leading edge technologies.

» THEMES

Table 3-10 | Needs for Environmental Excellence

Objective

Needs

transportation assets.

» Represent true costs of transportation choices to visitors and provide information and assistance in making better choices.

» Increase volunteer, stewardship, and outreach programs, i.e., Community Trailheads, Urban Trailblazers, and Teens on Trails.

» Engage children, partners, communities, and visitors in shared environmental stewardship by

showcasing exemplary environmental practices and increasing awareness of how the practices apply to their daily lives.

» Communicate GGNRA’s efforts to use clean fuel vehicles, promote nonmotorized transportation, and reduce the parks’ carbon footprint through media including newsletters, signage, press releases, labeling of facilities.

» Promote benefits of context sensitive solutions, LEED, and other sustainable practices » Develop ranger-led activities that demonstrate best practices in reducing transportation impacts on natural and cultural resources.

» Evaluate and enhance existing cultural and natural inventory and monitoring programs to address climate change and establish new programs as needed.

» Monitor, evaluate, and report the status and trends of park resources to facilitate adaptation planning.

» Develop and implement guidance on adapting the location, structure, or function of park facilities in anticipation of climate change, including severe weather impacts.

93 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Provide sustainable and context sensitive solutions to promote energy and resource conservation

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

» Adaptation measures should be designed to not sacrifice natural resources to protect

3.4 Financial Sustainability

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

GOAL: Optimize management of the park transportation system

OBJECTIVE 2 Establish a system management and maintenance program OBJECTIVE 3 Optimize transportation Investments to minimize costs and maximize visitor and resource benefit

Transportation operations brings together the resources required to manage the park’s transportation system – from asset management, planning and programming, project development, partnerships, funding, and performance measurement to communication of GGNRA’s transportation needs and accomplishments. A safe, efficient, and reliable transportation system requires more than just infrastructure. It demands coordinated management and operations

to improve system efficiency, reliability, and safety. Transportation operations is an integrated approach to optimizing the performance of existing infrastructure through implementing multimodal, intermodal, and often crossjurisdictional systems, services, and projects. Communication, coordination, and partnerships among internal park divisions as well as external transportation partners, such as federal and state agencies, local governments, transportation providers, and the private sector can make more effective use of resources in developing, operating, and maintaining the park’s transportation system. GGNRA’s transportation planning and investment decision-making processes need to ensure that short and mid-term strategies and investments are consistent with, and advance long term goals. This decision-making process begins internally in cooperation with other departments, such as planning, resource management, law enforcement, and

maintenance. Similarly, effectively communicating GGNRA transportation needs outside park boundaries requires continuing and improving the park’s planning and institutional relationships among partners, stakeholders, private transportation providers, and the public. System integration is necessary at many levels, and partnerships are essential for sharing information and developing inventive solutions to remove barriers and share

Source(s): Fehr & Peers, GGNP

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

OBJECTIVE 1 Transportation planning and programming at the park should be consistent with LRTP and associated, relevant policies (i.e. GMP, CIS, etc.)

» THEMES

3.4.1 Existing Conditions

»Financial Sustainability »Visitor Use »Resource Protection »Health and Safety In order to track and prioritize limited funding for asset management, the NPS has developed a number of indices to describe the importance and quality of assets. The Asset Priority Index (API) reflects the importance of an asset to the National Park Service. The API is measured on a scale from 0 - 100 with 100 being the score for the most mission critical, irreplaceable assets. The Facility Condition Index (FCI)

Assets in these priority bands are characterized by the following: PRIORITY BAND 1: Highest Priority Assets. Assets are highly important to park mission, have high visitor use, and/or are critical systems. PRIORITY BAND 2: High Priority Assets. Assets are important to the park mission. PRIORITY BAND 3: Medium Priority Assets. Assets where only some essential operations are important. PRIORITY BAND 4: Low Priority Assets. Assets are important but not critical to park operations or do not require much maintenance funding. PRIORITY BAND 5: Lowest Priority Assets. These assets may not be required for the operations and mission of a park.

Figure 3-25 | Optimizer Band Metric

95 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Maintaining the transportation assets of GGNRA is a critical goal. The NPS has adopted a system of assessing and prioritizing its assets called the Capital Investment Strategy (CIS). The CIS framework brings life-cycle cost considerations and NPS mission-related benefits into the investment decision-making. The four key elements, strategic goals, and anticipated activities that will result from implementation of the CIS include the following:

is a numeric value between 0 and 1, and is equal to an asset’s deferred maintenance (DM) divided by its Current Replacement Value (CRV). As the FCI approaches 1, the cost of repairing the asset to high quality begins to approach the cost of fully replacing the asset. The API and FCI concepts are used servicewide for prioritization of assets. The NPS has developed “optimizer bands” to relate the overall API and FCI (i.e., the importance and condition of an asset, respectively) into an overall priority for investment. The optimizer band metric is illustrated in Figure 3-25. All assets are classified in one of five priority band categories.

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Key to effective decisionmaking is collecting and maintaining data on the transportation system to inform park decision-making processes on the appropriate allocation of resources. This includes developing and implementing management systems for transportation assets and promoting new technologies and strategies that improve the way assets are maintained. Ongoing public involvement and participation from transportation providers and users is also integral to understanding how transportation needs can most effectively be met, and, in some cases, special efforts may be needed to involve traditionally underserved populations.

3.4.1.1 Asset Management

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

risks to improve the delivery of transportation to and within park sites.

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Consistent with the NPS Capital Investment Strategy, the LRTP focuses on these guiding principles in the maintenance of its transportation assets:

» Maintain high priority assets (optimizer band 1 and 2) at a facility condition index of 0.2 or better. » Invest in capital improvements (component renewal or new construction) only on assets with sustainable life-cycle funding at high priority level. » Reduce deferred maintenance on high priority assets over life of plan. » Broaden park-partner

support of operations and maintenance of transportation assets.

GGNRA has a significant transportation asset portfolio that it must operate and maintain while balancing the needs of other park assets, which include buildings, recreational trails, and fortifications, among others. The following

section addresses the park’s transportation assets as a subset of the overall asset management program. The data included in this section is derived from multiple sources, including from the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Road Inventory Program (RIP), and Highway Pavement Management Application (HPMA), draft 2009 Park Asset Management Plan, and recent updates to the park’s asset optimization and budgeting process (reoptimization). It includes all transportation assets (roads, bridges, tunnels, parking lots) with the exception of the non-motorized transportation routes (NMTR) and watertransportation infrastructure. The water-transportation infrastructure is not included in this report because there are no transportation services served by those assets at this time (piers, sheds). However, these will be added in the scenario planning phase when future water transportation services are considered. GGNRA does not currently own any significant transit or shuttle assets.

Table 3-11 is a summary of GGNRA’s transportation asset portfolio. The park has approximately $371 Million in road transportation assets, with approximately $54 Million in deferred maintenance and an annual operational and maintenance need of $1.46 Million. The park re-optimized its assets in March 2013 to reflect the most recent

funding, asset conditions, and priority ratings, which is reflected in this report. There is an anticipated $1.085 Million funding shortfall under baseline assumptions from cyclic and base funding. It also indicates that the park’s transportation asset banding is consistent with the CIS with respect to API and FCI.

Table 3-11 | GGNRA Transportation Asset Portfolio – Operations & Maintenance

Paved Assets Optimizer Band

API

2013 PCR

Total O&M Need

CRV

Existing DM

89.02

$289,709

$109,397,000

$6,453,833

62.04

$100,009

$42,798,000

$7,253,790

65.07

$285,608

$63,308,000

$16,151,879

71.09

$197,327

$35,796,000

$6,289,734

49.10

$381,339

$95,504,000

$17,769,836

Totals

63.99

0.24

$1,253,992

$346,803,000

$53,919,071

Non-Paved Assets 1

89.02

$289,709

$109,397,000

$6,453,833

62.04

$100,009

$42,798,000

$7,253,790

Notes: API = asset priority index, FCI = facility condition index, CRV = current replacement value, O&M = operations and maintenance, DM = deferred maintenance Source: NPS, 2013

» THEMES

3.4.2 Needs

Table 3-11 | Needs for Financial Sustainability

A number of needs are identified in this section that can address financial sustainability needs. These needs are categorized by each LRTP objective.

Objective

Needs

» Develop policies and procedures for updating the LRTP. » Establish mechanisms to monitor, measure, and report on the success of programs, projects, and services.

» Create systems for collecting and maintaining data on the transportation system, i.e., traffic congestion, collisions, trail conflicts, ridership on park-sponsored transit, etc.

Funding:

» Continue to develop and coordinate with all levels of the park service policies for allocation of resources, such as percent of funding toward deferred maintenance vs. new projects.

Partnerships:

» Continue to strengthen relationships with local and regional transportation agencies and transit providers to communicate the importance of recreational travel and:

» Ensure GGNRA needs are articulated and understood. » Ensure the park is included in regional transportation planning decisions. » Maintain, expand, and provide tools to encourage partnerships that improve efficiency of

transportation facilities and services benefiting the park transportation system and park visitors.

» Take advantage of opportunities to participate in innovative approaches to efficient delivery of transportation projects while managing risks, protecting the public interest, and carrying out projects and programs consistent with the LRTP and other park plans.

97 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Transportation planning and programming at the park should be consistent with LRTP and associated, relevant policies (i.e. GMP, CIS, etc.)

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Planning and Programming:

Table 3-11 | Needs for Financial Sustainability

Objective GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Needs

» Collaborate with the Chief of Maintenance to create and implement a transportation operations and maintenance plan that better coordinates transportation planning and operations and maintenance.

» Complete the inventory of all existing transportation assets and input into the Facilities Management Software System (FMSS).

Establish a system management and maintenance program

» Assign an Asset Priority Index (API) to all transportation assets. » Determine the condition of all transportation assets and assign a Facility Condition Index (FCI) rating.

» Establish a deferred maintenance program to address transportation maintenance backlog. » Determine which, if any, transportation assets can be removed or transferred to another entity for ongoing operation and maintenance.

» Maintain the transportation system to keep it operating safely. » Manage transportation assets to minimize life-cycle costs. » Continue to use and enhance existing pavement and bridge maintenance management systems.

» THEMES

Table 3-11 | Needs for Financial Sustainability

Objective

Needs communities, and others where appropriate.

» Examine transportation functions of partner agencies and providers to make the delivery of transportation services and facilities more efficient.

» Create a transportation funding structure that will support a viable transportation system to achieve park goals today and in the future.

Optimize transportation investments to minimize costs and maximize visitor and resource benefit

» Explore and develop innovative financing mechanisms for: » Staff and operations of the park transportation program. » Operating and maintaining the existing transportation system and reducing deferred maintenance. in perpetuity.

» Programs, projects, and services to improve delivery of transportation to employees and visitors.

» Leveraging funds from existing sources.

99 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

» Establishing an endowment fund for operating and maintaining the system

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

» Plan for system improvements in a regional context – involve local governments, MPOs, gateway

3.5 Safety

OBJECTIVE 2 Reduce traffic congestion on park roadways, entrances, and at parking lots to improve safety

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Safety is of paramount importance for GGNRA in its transportation decision making. GGNRA seeks to maintain safety as a high priority by creating new procedures for documenting and reporting safety issues, and by reducing traffic congestion in relevant areas. Safe and welcoming transportation systems are prioritized in both the latest Federal transportation funding bill and in GGNRAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s commitment to creating a positive visitor experience. Overall, GGNRA seeks to reduce the number

of transportation-related safety incidents, monitor its progress towards a safe and comfortable transportation system, and generally minimize danger, risk, and injury in the development, use, operation, and maintenance of transportation facilities.

3.5.1 Existing Conditions The GGNRA and National Park Service (NPS) do not have a detailed database with collision statistics; therefore, detailed analysis was not possible to determine the top safety concerns in the park. Instead, GGNRA staff worked with Park Police to determine the top safety-related concerns in the system based on their collective experience. Based on these interviews, 13 locations within the GGNRA have been identified as areas of concern with specific safety challenges for travel to, from, and within GGNRA sites. Table 3-12 lists the location of the area of concern, identifies whether

it is located within a GGNRA facility, and summarizes the key safety deficiencies or concerns at each location. The areas of concern are also shown on Figure 3-26. The parkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s transportation safety areas of concern are primarily associated with steep grades, conflicts between vehicles, and parking constraints that lead to spillover parking in nondesignated spots along the roadway.

Source(s): Fehr & Peers, GGNP

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

100

GOAL: Ensure safety is a high priority for the park

OBJECTIVE 1 Establish procedures for documenting transportation safety issues, identifying hot spots, and ensuring issues are being addressed

» THEMES

Table 3-12 | Safety Areas of Concern Field Reviews

Area of Concern

Jurisdiction

Safety Deficiencies1

1. SR 1 / Pacific Way, Muir Beach

Crossing at Pacific Way, where Pelican Inn is located, is informal and un-controlled.

2. Muir Woods Road, west of Redwood Creek Bridge

Due to limited parking in the Muir Woods lot, cars frequently park on Muir Woods Road from the western boundary of the park to Kent Canyon. Visitors must walk in the road from their car to the entrance, causing safety concerns. Numerous vehicles attempting to park have flipped into creek.

3. Four-Corners2 Intersection

Intersection has non-standard design and poor sight distance.

4. Three-Corners3 Intersection

Intersection has non-standard design and poor sight distance.

Lot - GGNRA

Increasing visitation and bicycle/pedestrian traffic with no path or shoulder along the road is creating safety concerns as visitors tend to walk in the road. Also, the parking lot becomes very congested and was not designed for the capacity it currently supports.

6. Alexander Ave. between Conzelman and Sausalito city limits

County

High bicycle volumes (including inexperienced riders) with very narrow to no shoulders creates conflicts with cars. Traffic tends to be higher speed along this section. Ramp intersections at US 101 interchange are not designed to current best practices for accommodating bicycles and pedestrians at freeway ramps.

7. Barry-Baker Tunnel – Bike Lanes

GGNRA

Poor visibility in tunnel due to lightning. Without regular and frequent sweeping and maintenance, bike lanes can become slippery.

8. Conzelman Road b/w Hawk Hill and bottom of Downhill grade.

GGNRA

Steep and circuitous downhill grade on a narrow, winding road encourages very fast bicycling and creates conflicts between bicycles and cars. San Francisco County

9. West Crissy-Fort Point (Mason/Marine Dr. between traffic circle and Fort Point)

GGNRA

This area is essentially a parking lot, but has very high bike and pedestrian traffic with no dedicated facilities for these modes. The multi-use path on Mason Street ends at the entry of West Bluff Parking Lot (east side). Although some alternative parallel facilities are present, the wayfinding from this point is very poor.

101 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

5. Tennessee Valley Road Parking Lot

Road – No

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Marin County

Table 3-12 | Safety Areas of Concern Field Reviews

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Area of Concern

Jurisdiction

Safety Deficiencies1

10. SF Bay Trail “The Squeeze” at the corner of Laguna Street and Marina Blvd. is particularly narrow

GGNRA

The facility has seen ~10% annual increases in non-motorized traffic over the past 6 years. The increasing volumes are creating bicycle/pedestrian conflicts. The western boundary of Fort Mason narrows to 7 feet at the base of a downhill grade and blind curve. Combined with very high bicycle and pedestrian volumes, the location is a significant safety challenge. There have been modest improvements to correct the conditions at this location is recent years; however, further study on future improvements needs to be made.

11. McDowell Road (between hostel and Muni Pier)

GGNRA

The grade on this section of the Bay Trail is extremely steep. Cyclists traveling in the downhill direction reach excessive speeds, creating conflicts with pedestrians and other cyclists.

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

102

San Mateo County 12. SR 1/Shelldance Nursery, Pacifica

Caltrans

There is currently poor sight distance and lack of channelization on SR 1 approaching the entry to Shelldance. Improvements are planned by Caltrans.

13. SR 1 – San Mateo County

Caltrans

Access to GGNRA sites from SR 1 in San Mateo County is poor. SR 1 Mobility Study identified a series of channelization, signage, and other improvements to improve access and safety, but none of these improvements have been implemented.

Notes: Information 1 collected from interviews with GGNRA staff and not based on detailed collision analysis. Four 2-Corners refers to the intersection of Panoramic Highway and Muir Woods Road in Marin County. Three 3-Corners refers to the intersection of Panoramic Highway and SR 1 in Marin County Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015

» THEMES

Figure 3-263-1: | Safety Areas of Concern Figure

Long Range Transportation Planning Golden Gate National Recreation Area California

Safety Areas of Concern

Marin

£ ¤

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

2. Muir Woods Rd. STINSON BEACH

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

580

3. Four Corners Intersection 4. Three Corners Intersection 5. Tennessee Valley Rd. Parking Lot

1. SR 1 / Pacific Way

6. Alexander Ave. 7. Baker Barry Tunnel Bike Lanes FORT BAKER

8. Conzelman Rd.

£ ¤

GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE

101

CRISSY FIELD

BAKER BEACH

ALCATRAZ FORT MASON

11. McDowell Rd.

LANDS END

980

£ ¤ 580

£ ¤ 880

§ ¦ ¨ 80

San Francisco Pacific Ocean

£ ¤

10. "The Squeeze" 9. West Crissy / Fort Point

103

£ ¤ 101

OCEAN BEACH

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

FORT FUNSTON

£ ¤ 280

MUSSEL ROCK

San Francisco Bay MILGARA RIDGE

12. SR 1 / Shelldance Nursery MORI POINT SWEENEY RIDGE

13. SR 1 - San Mateo County

£ ¤ 280

PEDRO POINT

San Mateo

Legend

Safety Areas of Concern

San Francisco Parks

Safety Areas of Concern Road Segments

Park Managed Area

NPS LRTP Road Network

Counties

4 Miles

Produced by DSC Planning Division

PHLEGER ESTATE

Á March 2013

Source: Fehr & Peers

CORRAL DE TIERRA

3.5.2 Future Trends GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

As discussed in Section 3.1.2.1, the population of the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay Area will rise from 7.2 million in 2010 to 9.3 million in 2040, an increase of 2.1 million residents or 30% â&#x20AC;&#x201C; approximately 1% population growth per year. Increasing

3.5.3 Needs tourism will also contribute to higher visitation levels at GGNRA, and thus represent increased demand placed on the parkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s transportation system. This increase in visitor demand will increase visitor exposure to safety issues.

A number of needs are identified in this section that can address safety concerns. These needs are categorized by each LRTP objective.

Source: Fehr & Peers

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

104

» THEMES

Table 3-13 | Needs for Safety

Objective

Needs

crash rates.

» Increase law enforcement ranger presence to direct traffic and advise visitors. » Identify high crash locations on park roads and implement treatments to reduce the frequency Establish procedures for documenting transportation safety issues, identifying hot spots, and ensuring issues are being addressed

of collisions.

» Identify conflict points on multi-use trails and implement treatments to reduce conflicts between bicyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians.

» Stripe multi-use trails and create/post speed limits in identified areas of conflict. » Collaborate with bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian organizations to educate trail users on rules of the trail.

pedestrian signals, traffic calming measures, improved lighting, restricted shoulder parking, improved intersection design, etc.

» Post signage in key locations reminding users of all transportation modes to be aware of other users.

Reduce traffic congestion on park roadways, entrances, and at parking lots to improve safety

» Establish off-street paths or sidewalks in areas with a high degree of road-side parking. » Formalize, reconfigure, and/or delineate parking areas that are often congested and/or over capacity.

» Provide clear pedestrian path across parking lot, and post signage identifying the path so that it is clearly visible by drivers.

» Optimize visibility of trail crossings and other areas in which visitors would likely cross the road,

such as by adding crosswalks and signage or by rerouting the trail to cross a straight segment of the road.

» Reduce parking demand and spillover parking with parking, transit, and bike/ped access strategies.

105 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

» Implement design measures to increase safety, including: crosswalks, sidewalks, traffic signals,

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

» Evaluate speed limits and consider reducing speeds in certain areas with higher than average

Golden Gate Bridge Source: GGNPS

Âť INVESTMENT

Chapter 4

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Investment Strategy for the long range transportation plan

STATS

annual shortfall in O&M need

88M

expected federal funding through 2035

45%

of total funding covered by federal funds

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The previous chapter highlighted a varied set of transportation challenges. These include repairing a large backlog of deferred maintenance for roads, bridges, trails, and other assets; addressing safety deficiencies; improving the visitor experience by improving access through reduced congestion and better multi-modal connections (transit, bicycling, and walking); protecting and preserving resources; and establishing a transportation program to better manage the planning, operations, and maintenance of the GGNRA transportation system. None of these needs can be ignored. Since there are insufficient resources to address all of these needs, it is critical to prioritize which challenges are addressed. In addition, investments made must be consistent with, and advance the transportation goals of the park. This plan attempts to balance investments in all of these critical needs in order to maintain the most important assets while also making essential improvements in a maturing and evolving park.

107

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

108

The LRTP is required to be financially-constrained, meaning the strategies identified in this chapter are limited to what can be reasonably expected to be funded through anticipated financial resources. The park will not be able to meet all of the needs of the transportation system; the need to operate and maintain all assets, as well as pay down existing deferred maintenance, could absorb all of the GGNRA’s transportation funding and more. Managing our transportation assets in a fiscally responsible way ensures that funding is available for a wide range of transportation solutions. These solutions include non-capital, cost-effective strategies such as travel demand management, ITS, and partnerships with other agencies. With federal sources of funding (Title 16 and Title 23) forecast to be more constrained than in the past, it will be increasingly important to prioritize investments and ensure they contribute toward the longer term vision of the park’s transportation system. In

addition, it will be important to continue and expand the use of innovative financing strategies to implement transportation projects and programs. These will include increased emphasis on pursuit of grant funding, more closely coordinating and collaborating with partners (non-profit, local, state, regional governments, private), and using fees (parking, shuttle, entrance), rather than base funding, to support operations.. All of these strategies require an even greater investment in collaboration with partners, in order to reach a consensus on goals and priorities.

The investment strategy of the long-range transportation plan is to fund transportation projects that address the following areas: Mobility, access, connectivity, and visitor experience Resource protection Environmental excellence Financial sustainability, and Safety In addition to ensuring these goals are addressed, the preferred scenario of transportation projects is also intended to:

Balance the maintenance of existing assets with addressing critical gaps and deficiencies;

Balance funding amongst travel modes; and

Account for increased maintenance costs associated with new infrastructure in financial planning

The preferred scenario is thus designed to best utilize funding to maintain existing assets and enhance access to the GGNRA for all types of people, while also working toward the LRTP goals.

Âť INVESTMENT

4.1 Preferred Scenario Figure 4-1 | Preferred Scenario Spending by Optimizer Band

In Figure 4-3, the sum of spending totals more than the actual spending in the

109 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The preferred scenario strategically targets each of the five LRTP goals. Figure 4-3 illustrates spending on projects addressing each goal; overall, the LRTP focuses on improving and maintaining transportation operations in a safe way, while protecting the resources held within the GGNRA.

plan due to some double counting because some projects address more than one category. Each individual project may have a focus on the primary goal of mobility, or financial sustainability; however, they each may also help GGNRA meet its goals of safety, resource protection, and environmental excellence.

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Figure 4-2 | Preferred Scenario Spending by Transportation Category

The following section describes the preferred scenario, expected results, and financial forecasts that are anticipated under the scenario. A summary of spending under the preferred scenario is shown in Figure 4-1 through Figure 4-5. This generally shows not only where investments are proposed whether they are capital after or operations/ maintenance. During the scenario planning phase of the planning process, all needs were identified and evaluated based on the process and criteria described below. The full list of projects and programs included in the first five years of the preferred scenario is further discussed in section 5.2.

Figure 4-3 | Spending on Projects Addressing Each Goal

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

110

Figure 4-4 | Spending by Location

Figure 4-5 | Spending and Anticipated Funding by Year

» INVESTMENT

Figure 4-6 | Mobility, Access, Connectivity, and Visitor Experience Deficiencies Addressed by Preferred Scenario Transportation Mobility Hotspots and Deficiencies

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

Long Range Transportation Planning Golden Gate National Recreation Area California

Marin and San Francisco Counties

4.1.1 Mobility, Access, Connectivity, and Visitor Experience

£ ¤ 580

San Francisco Bay

Marin MUIR WOODS STINSON BEACH

MUIR BEACH TENNESSEE/ OAKWOOD VALLEYS FORT BAKER

MARIN HEADLANDS

£ ¤

111 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

ALCATRAZ

Pacific Ocean

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

The primary goal of the LRTP is to address the deficiencies found parkwide with regards to mobility, access, connectivity, and the way those issues relate to the overall visitor experience. This includes implementing best management practices with regards to active transportation infrastructure, shuttle systems, and parking management to enhance the experience of all park-goers, no matter how they may arrive.

101

FORT MASON

CRISSY FIELD

V U 1

LANDS END

§ ¦ ¨ 80

San Francisco

£ ¤ Legend

Transportation Mobility Deficiencies

Bay Area Ferry

Deficiency Addressed by Project

Park Roads Bands 1 and 2 Park Roads Bands 3 - 5

Deficiency Partially Addressed by Project Deficiency not Addressed by Project

NMT Trails Bands 1 and 2

Transportation Mobility Hotspots

NMT Trails Bands 3 - 5

Other Hotspots

Parking Bands 1 and 2

Counties

Parking Bands 3 - 5

Park Managed Area

FORT FUNSTON

£ ¤ 280

San Francisco Parks Produced by: DSC Planning Division GIS

MUSSEL ROCK

0.5

Miles

S a n M a tDate:e2/26/2015 o

Source(s): Fehr & Peers, GGNP

101

Table 4-1 | Mobility, Access, Connectivity, and Visitor Experience Deficiencies Addressed by Preferred Scenario

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

112

Deficiency ID

Location

Deficiency

How the Preferred Scenario Addresses the Deficiency

M14M01

Fort Baker

Fort Baker has no public transit access.

Expand and upgrade transit facilities and service during peak periods.

SF11M02

Presidio

Wayfinding and gap closures needed for bike/ped facilities in Presidio.

Make improvements to Presidio Coastal Trail.

SF08M01

Crissy Field

Insufficient public transit service to Crissy Field and Fort Point.

Extend Muni service to Presidio Main Post. Expand PresidiGo service to Crissy Field, promote and expand Muni, PresidiGo and GG Transit service to GG Bridge Pavilion.

M13M01

Marin Headlands

Headlands has limited transit access.

Implement shuttle service between Headlands and Fort Baker. Expand Muni 76 service days and frequencies. Increase employee TDM measures (vanpools, car sharing, telecommute, etc.).

SF02M01

Golden Gate Bridge

Constrained parking near GG bridge.

Extend Muni service to area, improve wayfinding and parking allocation.

M11M02

Muir Beach

Poor access to site via active transportation and public transit.

Partially addressed by widening existing bridge, closing trail gap, and providing new pedestrian crossing across Highway 1.

M15M01

Alexander Avenue @ US 101

No bicycle facilities through interchange area.

Partially addressed by expanding bicycle facilities while improving existing vehicle facilities. Undercrossing unaddressed.

M16M03

Tennessee Valley

Poor pedestrian access to Tennessee Valley trailhead.

Partially addressed by implementing pilot shuttle or other TDM measures; improving trailhead parking lot.

M08M01

Muir Woods

Muir Woods shuttle does not provide access during all peak periods.

Shuttle will be expanded and improvements to on-site facilities will improve shuttle efficiency and capacity.

M16M01

Tennessee Valley

No public transit service or bike access to Tennessee Valley.

Partially addressed by implementing Tennessee Valley shuttle service.

M13M02

Marin Headlands

Incomplete pedestrian facilities between sites lead to groups walking in roadway and parking illegally.

Partially addressed by expanding Marin Headlands Shuttle service and Muni 76 service to provide additional non-automotive means of access.

Note: All deficiencies in red/italicized are partially addressed.

Âť INVESTMENT

Table 4-1 | Mobility, Access, Connectivity, and Visitor Experience Deficiencies Addressed by Preferred Scenario

Deficiency

How the Preferred Scenario Addresses the Deficiency

SM11M01

San Mateo County

San Mateo County facilities generally lack convenient and well-maintained access.

Expand infrastructure in San Mateo County facilities, including new non-motorized access and trailhead parking lots.

SM11VE01

San Mateo County

Trails are difficult to access and have little wayfinding.

General trail and wayfinding improvements throughout the County.

M08VE01

Muir Woods

Overcrowding at Muir Woods.

Implementation of transportation reservation system, improvements to shuttle program, upgrades to on-site facilities, and expanded ITS.

SM11VE02

General - all of County

Trailheads and parking areas are disbursed and poorly located.

Improve trailhead parking at Mori Point and Sweeney Ridge trailheads.

M16VE01

Tennessee Valley

Tennessee Valley sees very heavy use, parking overutilized, lack of public transit.

Trailhead parking improvements and shuttle implementation.

M24VE01

Bunker Rd, McCullough Rd, and Mitchell Rd

Need for improved wayfinding signage, transit facilities.

New benches, signs, and transit shelter at Headlands.

SF24VE01

Fort Mason

Fort Mason sees heavy use, and experiences overcrowding on pathways.

Implement trail improvements to expand capacity, reduce conflict areas.

SF08VE01

Crissy Field

Crissy Field needs additional directional signage and non-motorized connections to accommodate heavy use.

Rehabilitation of active transportation facilities.

SF11VE01

Presidio

The Presidioâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s extensive network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities have several gaps that need to be filled, and also require additional wayfinding.

Improvements to trail network (Presidio Coastal Trail, SF Bay Trail, Crissy Field Ave conversion) and improved signage.

SM03VE01

Milagra Ridge

Limited wayfinding and informational signage.

Increased signage to help visitors find sites of interest.

SM07VE01

Mori Point

Limited wayfinding and informational signage.

Increased signage to help visitors find sites of interest.

SM09VE01

Sweeney Ridge Trail (Bay Discovery Site)

Limited wayfinding and informational signage.

Increased signage to help visitors find sites of interest.

Note: All deficiencies in red/italicized are partially addressed.

113 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Location

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Deficiency ID

Figure 4-7 | Resource Protection Deficiencies Addressed by Preferred Scenario Resource Protection Hotspots and Deficiencies

Na tiona l Pa rk Serv ice U.S. Department of the Interior

Long Range Transportation Pla nning Golden Ga te Nationa l Recreation A rea California

M arin and San Francisco Counties

4.1.2 Resource Protection

Resource Protection is one of the Park Service’s primary goals, and the LRTP seeks to address it by using transportation infrastructure to protect sensitive landscape, manage culverts and creeks, and also provide a sensitive way to acknowledge historical and cultural resources.

£ ¤ 580

M U IR W O O D S STIN SO N BEA CH

M U IR B EA CH TEN N ESSE E/ O A K W O O D VA LLEY S

114

FO RT BA K ER

M A R IN H EA DLA N DS

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

A LCATR A Z

Pacific O cean

£ ¤ 101

FO RT M A SO N

CR ISSY FIELD

V U 1

LA N DS E N D

§ ¦ ¨ 80

S a n Fr a n c i s c o

£ ¤ 101

Legend ! ! ! ! !

Resource Protection Def iciencies

Bay Area Ferry

Deficiency Addressed by Project

Park Roads Bands 1 and 2

Deficiency Partially Addressed by Project

Park Roads Bands 3 - 5

Deficiency not Addressed by Project

NMT Trails Bands 1 and 2

Resource Protection Hotspots

NMT Trails Bands 3 - 5

Other Hotspots

Parking Bands 1 and 2

Counties

Parking Bands 3 - 5

Park M anaged Area

FO RT FU N STO N

£ ¤ 280

San Francisco Parks Produced by: DSC Planning Division GIS

M U S S EL R O CK

0.5

Miles

S a n M a Date: t e2/26/2015 o

Source(s): Fehr & Peers, GGNP

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

San Francisco B ay

M a rin

» INVESTMENT

Table 4-2 | Resource Protection Deficiencies Addressed by Preferred Scenario

M09RP01

Muir Woods Rd

Implementation of a transportation reservation system, improved Overflow parking at specific locations on Muir shuttle program, and upgraded parking lots will manage vehicle Woods Road is near areas where erosion is present. trips and parking demand.

M09RP05

Muir Woods Rd

Washouts have destroyed vegetation due to sediment.

Bridges and culverts in watershed have been recommended to be improved to increase hydrologic capacity, reduce scour, and improve fish migration.

M03RP01

Stinson Beach Parking Lot

Parking lot is on former wetlands leading to flooding and preservation concerns.

Infrastructure improvements to prevent flooding while preserving wetlands.

M01RP01

Hwy 1, Bolinas Fairfax Rd to Stinson Beach

Overflow parking is leading to extra sediment in Bolinas Lagoon.

West Marin stagecoach extension to reduce drive & park trips.

M08RP01

Muir Woods

Need to preserve historic assets along Muir Woods trail system.

Dipsea Bridge replacement will align on historic route.

M09RP04

Muir Woods Rd

Culverts affecting state of creek by altering drainage, sedimentation, and other properties.

Road planned to be improved by Marin County to improve condition, improve BMP’s and hydrologic capacity.

M05RP01

Muir Beach Overlook and Pacific Way

Existing bridge over Redwood Creek alters creek’s natural state; causes parking lot to flood.

Project to replace Pacific Way Bridge and improve hydrologic capacity has been proposed by the County.

M09RP03

Muir Woods

Section of road next to visitor center is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

M06RP01

Panoramic Highway, Stinson Beach to Three Corners

Roadway sediment collects in the Redwood Creek watershed.

Partially addressed by County-proposed project to replace Pacific Way Bridge.

Note: All deficiencies in red/italicized are partially addressed.

How the Preferred Scenario Addresses the Deficiency

115 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Deficiency

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Deficiency ID Location

Figure 4-8 | Environmental Excellence Deficiencies Addressed by Preferred Scenario Figure 3-3 M arin County Vulnerable Transportation A ssets Year 2050 (2 Ft. Sea Level Rise)

Long Range Transportation Planning Golden Gate Na tional Recreation A rea Ca lifornia

National Pa rk Service U.S. Department of the Interior

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

M arin

4.1.3 Environmental Excellence

£ ¤ 580

SR 1

San Francisco Bay

ST IN S O N B E A CH

M U IR W O O D S N ATI O N A L M O N U M E N T

The primary deficiencies included under environmental excellence are cases where future sea level rise may threaten park assets. Overall, the preferred scenario strives to address future sea level rise in all projects located near potentially affected areas; the below projects are simply two that directly address the issue.

SR 1

Tennessee Valley Rd.

116

US.101 M U IR B E A CH

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Table 4 -3 | Environmental Deficiencies Addressed

TE N N E SS E E/ O A K W O O D VA LL EY S Fort Baker Pier Parking Lot M A R IN H EA D LA N D S

FO R T B A K ER

Lime Point Fire Control Station Kirby Cove Spur Trail 3

£ ¤ 101

Lime Point Light House

by Preferred Scenario

USCG Shed

G O L D EN G AT E B R ID G E

San Francisco Bay Trail

Battery Yates Trail and San Francisco Bay Trail

Location

M03EE01

Parking lot Stinson susceptible Beach to sea level Parking Lot rise and flooding.

Infrastructure improvements to protect against sea level rise; long-term planning parkwide to deal with consequences of sea level rise.

SF32EE01

Parking lot and other Ocean assets Beach susceptible Parking Lot to sea level rise.

City/County of SF, NPS, and other partners working to collaborate on improvements to manage retreat from coast, improve resources, enhance trails and access, and share parking facilities.

CR IS S Y FIE LD

Pacific O cean B A K ER B EA CH

O CE A N B EA CH

Tran spo rtation N etw or k

Parking Lot

NPS LRTP Road Network

Building

Counties San Francisco Parks

Road

Park M anaged Area

Trail

0.5

2 Miles

Produced by DSC Planning Division

FO R T FU N S TO N

Sea Level Rise

Deficiency Addressed by Project

San Fra ncisco

A ssets A ffected by Sea Level Rise of 2 Feet

Legend

Deficiency

Conzelman Road

LA N D S E N D

£ ¤ 280

April 2013

How the Preferred Scenario Addresses the Deficiency

Deficiency ID

» INVESTMENT

4.1.4 Financial Sustainability park transportation assets. The data included in this section is derived from multiple sources, including from the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Road Inventory Program (RIP) and Highway Pavement Management Application (HPMA), and the NPS’s Facility Management Software System (FMSS).

The LRTP considers the following as part of the park’s transportation asset portfolio.

» Paved Roads » All parking lots » Road Bridges and tunnels » Water Transportation Structures (piers and wharves) » Non-motorized Transportation Routes (multi-use paths) » Transit rolling stock

Optimizer Band

CRV

Existing DM

DM Buydown

RM not Performed

2030 DM

$109,397,000

$6,453,833

$42,798,000

$7,253,790

$63,308,000

$16,151,879

$1,500,000

$510,074

$15,161,000

$35,796,000

$6,289,734

$729,212

$7,018,000

$95,504,000

$17,769,836

$1,034,374

$18,804,000

Totals

$346,803,000

$53,919,071

$15,207,623

$2,273,66

40,984,000

Notes: CRV = current replacement value, DM = deferred maintenance, RM = recurring maintenance” NPS, 2015

Paved Transportation Assets (paved roads, parking lots, bridges, tunnels) Component Renewal Table 4-4 shows the results of the preferred scenario on the deferred maintenance (DM) of GGNRA’s paved asset portfolio. It is forecast that paved assets in optimizer bands 1 and 2 will have little to no deferred maintenance in 2030, resulting from paying down almost $14 Million is existing DM into and fully funding recurring maintenance requirements. Bands 3-5 will all see increased

DM due to lack of investments into component renewal and further accumulation of DM due to insufficient funds to address on-going recurring maintenance.

117 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Transportations Assets

Table 4-4 | GGNRA Paved Transportation Asset Portfolio – Component Renewal GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

In addition to balancing needs between maintaining and operating assets with making improvements to access, visitor experience, safety, and impacts to park resources, the park must also balance the needs of other park nontransportation assets, such as buildings, recreational trails, and fortifications, among others. The following section identifies how the investment strategy addresses the needs of

Operations and Maintenance

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

118

Table 4-5 shows the results of the preferred scenario on the pavement condition rating (PCR) of the park’s paved assets (roads and parking lots). It is forecast that the condition of paved assets in optimizer bands 1 and 2 will improve between 2013 and 2030. This is due to investing in the buydown of DM on those assets as well as fully funding the operational and maintenance needs. Band 3 will nearly maintain its condition rating by modestly investing in DM, while providing over half the asset’s effective O&M need. The condition rating for Bands 4 and 5 are forecast to significantly deteriorate over the plan’s horizon. Many of the Band 5 assets are currently under parkpartner management and are being maintained through agreement. One of the recommended actions of the LRTP is to identify actions that would put the assets forecast to deteriorate over time on a

more sustainable path. There approaches could include increase partner contributions, establishment of a sustainable endowment dedicated to maintaining the park, or other innovative financing approach. It is also possible that the federal budget forecast could improve over the coming decade, though this plan does not make that assumption. Table 4 -5 | GGNRA Paved Transportation Asset Portfolio – Operations & Maintenance

Optimizer Band

API

2013 PCR

Total O&M Need

Anticipated Funding

Annual Shortfall

% of Need

2030 PCR

89.02

$289,709

100

92.21

62.04

$100,009

100

93.13

65.07

$285,608

$150,000

$135,608

63.53

71.09

$197,327

$27,258

$169,904

45.80

49.10

$381,339

$465

$380,623

24.58

Totals

63.99

0.24

$1,253,992

$567,441

$1,085,144

Â» INVESTMENT

Figure 4-9 | Pavement Condition Rating 2014, Marin County

Figure 4-10 | Pavement Condition Rating 2014, San Francisco & San Mateo Counties Fort Point

Fort Mason

580

Presidio

Lands End

PACIFIC OCEAN

MARIN

Stinson Beach

101

SAN FRANCISCO

Muir Woods

280

Ocean Beach 131

119

South Coastal Bluffs

Muir Beach Tennessee/Oakwood Valleys

Fort Funston

101

PACIFIC OCEAN

Milgara Ridge

Marin Headlands

Pavement Condition Rating (2014) 0 - 20

Pavement Condition Rating (2014)

Fort Baker

21 - 40

41 - 60

61 - 80

81 - 100

0.5

SAN MATEO

Mussel Rock 280

0 - 20

21 - 40

2 Mile

PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING 2014

South Coastal Bluffs

Managed Boundary 0

Lands_End_Sutro_Ft_MileyPresidio Area A - Lobos_Creek_25thAv Golden Gate National Recreation Area LRTP

Mori Point 82

81 - 100

Fort Point

Managed Boundary

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Homestead Valley

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Stinson Beach North

0.5

2 Mile

To Mori Point

Sweeney Ridge

Cattle Hill

101

1 35

PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING 2014

Golden Gate National Recreation Area LRTP

Figure 4-11 | Pavement Condition Rating 2022, Marin County

Figure 4-12 | Pavement Condition Rating 2022, San Francisco & San Mateo Counties Fort Point

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Stinson Beach North

Fort Mason

580

Presidio

Lands End

MARIN

Stinson Beach

101

PACIFIC OCEAN SAN FRANCISCO

Muir Woods

120

280

Ocean Beach 131

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Homestead Valley

South Coastal Bluffs

Muir Beach Tennessee/Oakwood Valleys

Fort Funston

101

PACIFIC OCEAN

Milgara Ridge

Marin Headlands

Pavement Condition Rating (2022) 0 - 20

Pavement Condition Rating (2022)

Fort Baker

21 - 40

41 - 60

61 - 80

81 - 100

2 Mile

Managed Boundary 0

PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING 2022

Lands_End_Sutro_Ft_MileyPresidio Area A - Lobos_Creek_25thAv Golden Gate National Recreation Area LRTP

South Coastal Bluffs

81 - 100

Fort Point

Managed Boundary 1

Mori Point 82

41 - 60

61 - 80

0.5

280

0 - 20

21 - 40

SAN MATEO

Mussel Rock

0.5

2 Mile

To Mori Point

Sweeney Ridge

Cattle Hill

101

1 35

PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING 2022

Golden Gate National Recreation Area LRTP

Â» INVESTMENT

Figure 4-14 | Pavement Condition Rating 2030, San Francisco & San Mateo Counties

Figure 4-13 | Pavement Condition Rating 2030, Marin County

Fort Point

Fort Mason

580

Presidio

Lands End

MARIN

Stinson Beach

101

PACIFIC OCEAN SAN FRANCISCO

Muir Woods

280

Ocean Beach 131

121

Muir Beach Tennessee/Oakwood Valleys

South Coastal Bluffs

Fort Funston

101

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Homestead Valley

1 35

PACIFIC OCEAN

Milgara Ridge

Marin Headlands

Pavement Condition Rating (2030) 0 - 20

Pavement Condition Rating (2030)

Fort Baker

21 - 40

41 - 60

61 - 80

0.5

280

Mori Point 82

South Coastal Bluffs

81 - 100

Fort Point

Managed Boundary 0

2 Mile

PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING 2030

Golden Gate National Recreation Area LRTP

Lands_End_Sutro_Ft_MileyPresidio Area A - Lobos_Creek_25thAv

SAN MATEO

Mussel Rock

0 - 20

21 - 40

Managed Boundary

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Stinson Beach North

0.5

2 Mile

To Mori Point

Sweeney Ridge

Cattle Hill

101

1 35

PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING 2030

Golden Gate National Recreation Area LRTP

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

122

Table 4-6 and 4-7 show the results of the preferred scenario on the deferred maintenance of GGNRA’s non-paved asset portfolio. Table 4-6 shows results of the non-motorized transportation network, while Table 4-7 includes trails as well as water transportation assets such as piers and wharves. GGNRA owns two 32 foot shuttles. Both are currently being maintained and operated by Marin Transit through agreement, and used on the Muir Woods Shuttle (Route 66/66F). The vast majority of rolling stock used to support public transportation access to the park is owned and operated by local transit agencies (Marin Transit, SFMTA, GGT, PresidiGo, SamTrans).

Table 4-6 | GGNRA Non-Paved Transportation Asset Portfolio Component Renewal (Multi-Use Trails)

Optimizer Band

CRV

Existing DM

DM Buydown

RM not Performed

2030 DM

$102,360,576

$13,300,000

$7,900,000

$4,540,000

$9,940,000

$36,360,000

$310,000

$1,440,000

Totals

$13,610,000

$9,340,000

$4,540,000

9,940,000

Table 4-7 | GGNRA Non-Paved Transportation Asset Portfolio Component Renewal (Multi-Use Trails + Piers & Wharves)

Optimizer Band

CRV

Existing DM

DM Buydown

RM not Performed

2030 DM

$102,360,576

$13,300,000

$15,700,000

$4,540,000

$9,940,000

$36,360,000

$3,4000,000

$3,700,000

$2,730,000

$3,030,000

3-5

$250,000,000

$45,000,000

$15,100,000

$5,330,000

$16,430,000

Totals

$388,720,576

$61,700,000

$26,700,000

$9,872,730

$29,400,000

Table 4-8 | GGNRA Transportation Asset Portfolio – Rolling Stock

Optimizer Band

CRV

Existing O&M Need

Anticipated Funding

Replacement Date

$600,000

» INVESTMENT

Figure 4-15 | O&M Spending by Site

Figure 4-17 shows the general spending division between O&M and Capital spending by geographic area and parkwide. Parkwide spending is focused on O&M because the majority of deferred maintenance and cyclic maintenance in all areas falls within that category.

Generally, areas with higher operations costs see more transit service, which requires ongoing funding.

123 Figure 4-17 | Capital and O&M Spending by Location

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The preferred scenario strives to balance new improvements with asset management and continued maintenance of existing infrastructure. Figure 4-15 shows where most operations and maintenance (O&M) spending is concentrated throughout the GGNRA. The large portion designated parkwide is intended for deferred maintenance and cyclic maintenance, especially on assets in optimizer bands 1 and 2. The increased spending in Muir Woods and the Presidio, however, includes some deferred maintenance, but also includes the costs of operating new or improved transit service to the sites. Figure 4-16 shows capital spending, also by site. Spending is concentrated at the GGNRA’s highest profile sites, which also tend to see higher numbers of visitors; these sites are where concentrated capital investments can best help meet the LRTP’s goals.

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Figure 4-16 | Capital Investments by Site

4.1.4.1 Capital and O&M Spending

4.1.4.2 Optimizer Band Spending GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

124

The optimizer band system was also used to prioritize projects for inclusion in the preferred scenario. Figure 4-18 shows spending by optimizer band, as well as spending on projects with no optimizer band assigned. Of projects with an optimizer band Figure 4-18 | Preferred Scenario Spending by Optimizer Band and Location

assigned, the majority of spending occurs on assets assigned to high-priority assets (OB1). Projects included without an optimizer band (shown as ‘N/A’ in Figure 4-18) include all operations spending, as well as any capital projects that would add a new asset to the Park System’s asset portfolio. Because the OB system is designed for the maintenance of existing assets, it cannot assign a band to projects adding new assets to the GGNRA. The highest priority asset maintenance projects (OB1) are primarily parkwide projects, especially those addressing deferred maintenance of high priority assets. Muir Woods also contains a large number of projects investing in OB1 assets. Muir Woods sees a very high number of visitors, and is currently experiencing overcrowded and unsafe parking conditions

that hurt both the visitor experience and the park’s resource management goals; accordingly, capital improvements are prioritized for that location. The large level of funding to projects not assigned an optimizer band (“N/A” in Figure 4-18) represents projects that are primarily funded by local and state sources. This might include projects that are a priority of local jurisdictions, or it may reflect a need to build new assets as the best way to meet GGNRA’s goals.

» INVESTMENT

FigureSaf4-19 | Map of Safety Deficiencies Addressed by Preferred Scenario ety Hotspots/Deficiencies

Na tiona l Pa rk Serv ice U.S. Department of the Interior

Long Range Transportation Pla nning Golden Ga te Nationa l Recreation A rea California

M arin and San Francisco Counties

4.1.5 Safety

580

San Francisco B ay

M a rin M U IR W O O D S STIN SO N BEA CH

M U IR B EA CH

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

As a transportation goal, safety requires addressing the safety of transportation infrastructure for all users. This includes capital improvements to reduce blind corners, dangerous conditions, and a lack of sidewalks, but also includes providing safety improvements as a part of routine maintenance and other roadway projects.

£ ¤

TEN N ESSE E/ O A K W O O D VA LLEY S

125

FO RT BA K ER

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

M A R IN H EA DLA N DS

A LCATR A Z

Pacific O cean

£ ¤ 101

FO RT M A SO N

CR ISSY FIELD

V U 1

LA N DS E N D

§ ¦ ¨ 80

S a n Fr a n c i s c o

£ ¤ 101

Bay Area Ferry

Saf ety Def iciencies Deficiency Addressed by Project

Park Roads Bands 1 and 2

Deficiency Partially Addressed by Project

Park Roads Bands 3 - 5

Deficiency not Addressed by Project

NMT Trails Bands 1 and 2

Other Hotspots

NMT Trails Bands 3 - 5

Counties

Parking Bands 1 and 2

Park M anaged Area

Parking Bands 3 - 5

San Francisco Parks

Produced by: DSC Planning Division GIS

FO RT FU N STO N

£ ¤ 280

M U S S EL R O CK

0.5

Miles

San M ateo

Date: 2/26/2015

Source: GGNP

Legend

Table 4-9 | Safety Deficiencies Addressed by the Preferred Scenario

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

126

Deficiency ID

Location

Deficiency

How the Preferred Scenario Addresses the Deficiency

SF08S01

Crissy Field

Poor wayfinding for active transport users.

New dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities at and around Crissy Field, the Marina, and Fort Point.

SF08S02

Crissy Field

SF Bay Trail at Laguna St (“The Squeeze”) - non-standard bicycle/ pedestrian right-of-way width curve with high volumes of bicycle and pedestrian traffic.

Improvements to several areas of Fort Mason trail system to better accommodate heavy volumes, multiple user types, and to address/mitigate nonstandard facilities.

SM10S01

Shelldance Nursery

Poor sight distance creates at intersection of Highway 1.

Driveway sight distance and channelization improvements.

M09S01

Muir Woods Rd

Due to overcrowding, visitors sometimes walk in the roadway.

Access improvements to Muir Woods include a transportation reservation system to manage demand, as well as parking and pedestrian access improvements, and expanded shuttle service.

M16S01

Tennessee Valley

Increased visitation and heavy bicycle/ pedestrian traffic lead to visitors walking in road.

Create multi-use walkway to expand park access.

M27S01

Barry-Baker Tunnel

Bike lanes in specific areas can get slippery and have debris. Low lighting can also pose visibility problems.

Project to tunnel structure will improve some of these issues. Other mitigation likely through warning signs, precautions.

M15S01

Alexander Avenue @ US 101

Roadway segment sees heavy bicycle usage but has very narrow to no shoulders.

Partially address through general roadway improvements. Addition of Vista Point Trail will reduce trips on Alexander.

M23S01

Conzelman Rd

Near Hawk Hill, a steep and circuitous non-standard downhill grade creates bicycle challenges.

Partially address through pavement treatments, signs, and other mitigation measures.

SF35S01

McDowell Road A steep non-standard downhill grade (between hostel and creates bicycle challenges. Muni Pier)

Partially address through pavement treatments, signs, and other mitigation measures.

Note: All deficiencies in red/italicized are partially addressed.

Âť INVESTMENT

4.2 Financial Plan 4.2.1 Funding Strategies This plan offers direction so that GGNRA can make the most of new transportation investments. This section identifies strategies so that GGNRA can leverage investments, both public and private, for use in new transportation projects to get the best return on taxpayer transportation dollars. The following strategies are proposed:

Source: Fehr & Peers

Prioritize Transportation Programs and Projects to Maximize Benefits from Limited Revenues In setting priorities, GGNRA will need to continue to balance projects and programs from all categories to maximize the public benefit from limited transportation revenues. Further, the park will need to focus on addressing those challenges that are most pressing and advance its long term goals. To accomplish this, the park will need to use all of the available tool and policies to refine what it focuses on. The CIS will serve as a baseline approach to measuring

projects on how they accomplish goals, however, there is often a broader perspective that needs to be accounted for in that decisionmaking process. Over the next several years, GGNRA may face declining funding sources. That means painful decisions deciding what programs and projects to reduce or cut as well as determining how to spread limited resources over those that will receive funding. In this austere environment, careful prioritization becomes even more critical (and difficult) than in times when funding is plentiful. Maximize Available Funding Resources Historically, GGNRA has aggressively pursued funding from all federal resources. These funding sources become especially important as a means to leverage partner funds. GGNRA should continue to partner with local, regional, and state agencies to pursue funding for priority projects. To improve competitiveness of park priorities, the park should advance projects through

environmental compliance and design so soft costs can be minimized for grant funds and implemented quickly when funding opportunities arise; significant benefits to project competitiveness in most ranking processes. However, it is important to not advance or pursue funds for projects that are lower priority. The park should also continue its practice of working closely with partner agencies on jointly developing projects of joint interest. The park has ongoing working relationships to jointly advance projects with many adjoining jurisdictions including the Presidio Trust, Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District, and the counties of Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo, among others. By jointly advancing projects and sharing project costs, partners can leverage each otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s resources and staff skillsets, as well as mitigate project risks.

127 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The five-year prioritized program of projects in the PTIP includes a project, or

an identified phase of a project, when full funding can reasonably be anticipated to be available for the project within the time-period contemplated for completion of the project. Appendix B of the LRTP includes, for illustrative purposes, additional projects that can be included in the PTIP if or when additional resources beyond those identified in the financial plan become available.

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

The GGNRA PTIP includes a financial plan that demonstrates how the program of projects can be implemented, indicating resources from public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be made available, operation and maintenance projections, the relationship to asset management, and effect on deferred maintenance.

Continue to Look for Means to Improve Efficiencies and Cost Effectiveness GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Making improvements to efficiencies and cost effectiveness save money and help GGNRA stretch transportation dollars further. GGNRA always makes an effort to identify means to improve efficiencies and cost effectiveness and will continue these efforts in the future (e.g., extending the pavement management system, implementing the ITS, protective coating bridges). Using low-cost, cost-effective approaches to addressing transportation challenges should be considered among the highest priorities in programming decisions. Examples include:

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

128

» Improved wayfinding and other

signage to better distribute visitation and vehicles

» ITS (changeable message signs,

on-line trip planning, promoting public transportation, reservation systems)

» Transportation demand management

Source(s): Fehr & Peers, GGNP

(peak-period shuttles, paid parking at overutilized sites, etc.)

» Funding preventative and recurring

maintenance on high priority assets to reduce life cycle costs

» Partnerships and cost sharing

Develop New Funding Resources GGNRA must explore opportunities for new funding sources to address forecasted funding shortfalls. The ability to fund shuttles, maintenance of lower banded assets, and other needs will depend on identifying supplemental and innovative funding approaches. Examples include:

» Transportation fees (including parking fees and transit fares)

» Partner maintenance agreements » Endowments

Âť INVESTMENT

4.3 Preferred Funding Plan

Federal Sources

Other Sources

Total

Title 16

$22,000,000

Title 16 Fee

$28,256,074

Title 23

$38,000,000

Concession Funded

$21,600,000

Local/State Funded

$61,400,000

Partner/Other Funded

$22,000,000 $193,256,074

Following development of the funding projections shown in Table 4-10, the GGNRA developed the preferred scenario to fall within these funding restrictions. Projected spending on capital and O&M projects in the preferred scenario is shown in Figure 4 20, with the projected funding until 2034 shown above. The spending expected in the preferred scenario tracks closely to the projected funding.

ONLY

129 Unlike in years past, federal funding for park transportation projects will comprise only 45% of total funding, with partnerships, concessions, and non-federal government revenues providing funding for the remainder of the program.

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Table 4-10 | Projected GGNRA LRTP Funding, 2013 - 2034

transportation projects will comprise only 45% of total funding, with partnerships, concessions, and non-federal government revenues providing funding for the remainder of the program.

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

The preferred scenario is based on federal and local funding projections outlined in Table 4-10 and charted in Figure 4-20. Over the span of the LRTP, approximately $88 million of federal funding (Title 16, 16 fee, and Title 23) is expected. The GGNRA also projects that park concessions, local and state funding, and partner funding can be acquired for specific projects, totaling approximately $105 million in revenue. Unlike in years past, federal funding for park

Figure 4-20 | Preferred Scenario Costs & Predicted Funding Over Time

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

130 Figure 4-21 | Portion Of Total Need Funded, by Optimizer Band

However, while the preferred scenario seeks to achieve the GGNRA’s goals within its funding constraints, NPS cannot fully fund all identified projects. Figure 4-21 shows the portion of the total identified asset maintenance and proposed capital improvements that the preferred scenario funds. This need was obtained through identifying the cost to maintain all existing assets categorized under the optimizer band system. To prioritize among these projects, GGNRA staff emphasized maintaining OB1 assets in a state of good repair and providing only basic maintenance to other park assets. The large level of funding to projects not assigned an optimizer band (“N/A” in Figure 4-21) represents projects that are primarily funded by local and state sources. This might include projects that are a priority of local jurisdictions, or it may reflect a need to build new assets as the best way to meet GGNRA’s goals. .

» INVESTMENT

4.4 Partnership Strategies

Source: GGNP

facilities from which programs are provided. In some cases, partnerships are a source of direct revenue to the park as well. For all these reasons, Golden Gate National Recreation Area works to facilitate and maintain partnership opportunities by incorporating partnership development into every aspect of the organization. This includes specifically recruiting and training for partnering skills, organizing staff in a way that facilitates partnerships, and seeking partners in the search for solutions to park issues. Park management is continuously evolving the partnership concept and exploring partnership practices from around the globe to gather innovative ideas and best practices. The park aspires to maintain its role as a learning laboratory in developing programmatically diverse, powerful, and successful partnerships in a national park setting and would embrace and promote partnership development with the following guiding principles.

Partnership Development Principles: Identify Partnership Opportunities: Partnership solutions would be actively considered when undertaking park management issues. The decision to establish a specific partnership would be guided by a defined need related to the park’s mission, purpose, and/or strategic goals, and under circumstances in which the need may be best fulfilled or significantly strengthened with a park partner. The park will seek partners most qualified and capable of meeting the specific objectives at hand. Be Innovative in Crafting Partnerships: The park is committed to a broad partnership vision and culture that includes taking reasonable risks in partnerships within the parameters of policy as well as a willingness to share control in realizing the vision for the park. Develop Win-Win Partnerships: All parties to a partnership need to have a clear understanding of mutual benefits. With this in mind, the park would continue to select and maintain partnerships in which the objectives are directly linked to a partner’s organizational mission and goals. The park would strive to share resources, benefits, and recognition of successes of partnerships. Share the Vision: The park and its partners would jointly develop and continually refine a shared vision of the work to be accomplished, in order to ensure joint ownership and buy-in.

131 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

and variety of channels through which a diverse community can experience the park. These partnerships not only strengthen public ties to the national park system and help fulfill the park’s mission and goals, but they also enhance Golden Gate National Recreation Area’s overall financial sustainability. Park partners fund and manage programs and services for new segments of the visiting public and they contribute significantly to the preservation of historic NPS

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Partnerships are called out separately because they are applicable to all goals & objectives of the LRTP. When people experience Golden Gate National Recreation Area through participation in either a park or park partner program, they make an emotional connection to the park. This connection often results in an appreciation and support for public lands and resources. Golden Gate National Recreation Area has effectively established and maintained an array of partnerships that have increased the number

View from Batteries to Bluffs Trail Source: Fehr & Peers

» I M P L E M E N TAT I O N

Chapter 5

and park transportation improvement program

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Implementation Plan

Using the principles outlined in the GGNRA Investment Strategy, staff evaluated a list of potential projects to create a preferred Park Transportation Improvement Program (PTIP). This Program was designed to consider the priorities outlined in this report in the context of the park’s financial and human resources constraints. Once individual improvements for each study area were identified and scored according to optimizer band, cost, and potential to meet GGNRA’s goals, they were formed into a phased program that corresponds with expected federal and local funding streams. This section specifically addresses individual projects intended for development in the first five years of the program (i.e., all projects with programmed funding in 2020 or earlier), with a more general overview of the projects implemented over a longer term.

STATS

projects in the PTIP

years - length of PTIP

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

133

5.1 Phasing

This phasing strategy allows

Source: GGNP

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

In addition to phasing projects throughout the park, staff also proposes a phasing plan for each area. The general breakdown of spending by phase and by county is illustrated in to the right.

for key projects to begin work throughout the GGNRA, based on the priorities for each location detailed in Chapter 5.2. Similarly, Figure 5-1 illustrates how the phasing strategy affects projects addressing each of the GGNRA’s goals. While projects may address multiple goals, a project’s “primary” goal is defined as the goal where it received the highest score during the scenario analysis process. Some projects received comparably high scores in many different areas; these projects are categorized as “contributing to four or more goals.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

134

Due to financial constraints, planning needs, and funding flows, not all projects identified in the preferred scenario can begin implementation immediately. The following provides a general outline for the park’s phasing approach and priorities it intends to focus on in the short, mid and long term.

General Phasing: Years FY 15-20

» Identify supplemental funding for O&M

budget to ensure Optimizer Bands 1-3 are funded at levels consistent to meet goals in preferred scenario.

» Identify and implement mitigation measures at highest priority safety concern areas.

» Complete Muir Woods transportation

improvements consistent with GMP and project-specific environmental review(s). Imropvements, would include changes to transportation facilities, institution of a transportation reservation system, and shuttle expansion.

» Complete Intelligent Transportation

System (including changeable message signs at key locations, and on-line trip planning system) to support parkwide transportation demand management and visitor information, particularly during peak visitation periods and emergencies.

» Begin transportation improvements

in San Mateo parklands, including wayfinding, trailheads at high priority sites, and public transportation connections.

» Make improvements to San Francisco

non-motorized transportation network (Presidio Coastal Trail, San Francisco Bay Trail, Fort Mason), including physical gaps, wayfinding improvements, and safety concern areas.

» Improve public transportation to Presidio (Crissy Field, Golden Gate Bridge area)

Years FY 20-25

» Complete improvements to Fort Mason Trail system

» Complete Tennessee Valley Trailhead Improvements

» Implement Pilot Tennessee Valley shuttle service

» Redesign and Construct Stinson Beach

Parking lots to address flooding, sea level rise, and natural resource deficiencies

» Expand Marin Headlands public transit access

» I M P L E M E N TAT I O N

Figure 5-1 | Phasing by Primary Goal

to improving financial sustainability (including maintaining existing transportation assets) and to developing projects and programs that help the NPS meet multiple goals.

5.2 Implementation Plan and Phasing by County

135 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The following section details the general goals and objectives served by the implementation plan for each county. It serves to illustrate the phased implementation of the LRTP, and which goals each county or location has focused on. It also provides a brief list of projects in each county scheduled to receive funding in the first 5 – 6 years of the program (2014 – 2020). These project lists are not comprehensive, and are intended to provide a general illustration of projects that could see implementation in the short run. For a comprehensive list of projects considered for inclusion in the Park Transportation Improvement Program, see Appendix B.

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

As Figure 5-1 illustrates, GGNRA has prioritized early investments in enhancing mobility and improving the visitor experience, with ongoing commitments to environmental excellence and safety. Ongoing investments spanning the entire LRTP period are primarily devoted

5.2.1 Marin County GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

136

Marin County sees its primary investment in the goal of safety,visitor experience, and resource protection. This includes addressing crowding and access issues around popular sites and parking lots, Figure 5-2: Spending by Year and Primary Project Goal, Marin County

and providing safe routes from visitorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; cars to their destination. It also focuses on improving bridges, roads, culverts, and other structures to improve habitat and water quality for aquatic migratory species.

formalizing parking and creating accessible pathways) and to protect natural resources (by encouraging visitors to stay on formal pathways and providing facilities that integrate into the natural environment).

In the immediate future, much of the focus in the county will be to address the persistent transportation challenges at Muir Woods National Monument. The park has initiated a project to improve access through improved designs of transportation infrastructure (parking, shuttle, bus, pedestrian facilities) as well as the creation of a transportation reservation system. These projects are designed to alleviate the multiple issues caused by traffic congestion and parking demand at the existing over-utilized parking lot. This includes rearranging parking lots to allow large buses to have priority, while also implementing a shuttle reservation system to increase usage of public transit to the site. These improvements represent ways to both improve visitor safety (by

In addition, the county will continue to see enhancement to public transportation to reduce vehicle trips, safety improvements at key locations, and completion of the network of changeable message signs. These projects are designed to not only address safety and congestion concerns, but to improve the long term goal of reducing the impacts of access on natural resources by providing visitors with the means to access parks, through less impactful means. A detailed list of projects selected to help achieve these goals is presented in Table 5-1, along with which of the LRTP goals they help achieve. Projects are arranged in rough chronological order, based on when funding is scheduled to begin.

» I M P L E M E N TAT I O N

ITS Phase III

✓

2015

Barry- Baker Tunnel

2015

Access Improvements at MUWO (Constr)

2015

Access Improvements at MUWO (Design)

✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓

Muir Woods Transportation Reservation System and Shuttle Program

✓

2016

Phase II Bus Stop Amenities (Const)

2016

Vista Point and Lower Conzelman Multi-use Connections (Const)

2016

ITS Operations

2017

Tennessee Valley Trailhead Parking Imps. (C&D)

2017

Dias Ridge-Redwood Creek Trail Connector (Impl)

2017

Alexander Ave. Bus Stops

2017

Pacific Way Bridge

2017

Access Improvements at MUWO (Constr)

2018

Alexander Ave. Rehabilitation

2019

West Marin Stagecoach Expansion

2019

SR 1 Crossing (Dias-Pacific Way Trail)

2020

Tennessee Valley Trailhead Parking Imps. (Impl.)

2020

Tennessee Valley Shuttle

✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓

✓

137 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

✓

✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Financial sustainability

Safety

2014

Environmental Excellence

Project Title

Mobility, Access, Connectivity, & Visitor Experience

ID #

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Funding Start

Resource Protection

Table 5-1 | Projects Funded Until 2020, Marin County

5.2.2 San Francisco County GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

138

Figure 5-3 | Spending by Year and Primary Project Goal, San Francisco

The projects listed in Table 5-2 address each of the LRTPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s transportation goals; however, San Francisco sees a particular focus on environmental excellence. This reflects that San Franciscoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s portion of the improvement program involves promoting and improving non-automotive

access to the GGNRA. San Francisco landmarks such as Fort Mason, Crissy Field, and the Presidio see regular recreational visits from both locals and visitors, many of whom utilize public transportation or active transportation. This shift away from private automobiles can help the park meet its sustainability and resource protection goals.

» I M P L E M E N TAT I O N

Safety

SF Bay Trail Connection- (Long Ave. - Fort Point)

✓

2013

Presidio Coastal Trail Phase IV

✓

2014

Construct New Floats/Ramps Piers

✓

2016

MUNI Route 43 Extension

2016

Presidio Coastal Trail Phase III

2017

Muni 29 Route Extension

2018

Presidio Coastal Trail Phase V

✓

2018

SF Bay Trail Connection (Air Field-Long Ave)

✓

2019

Marine Drive Safety Improvements

✓

2019

Long Ave. Improvements

✓

✓ ✓

✓

Financial sustainability

Environmental Excellence

Resource Protection

2013

Project Title

✓

✓ ✓

✓

✓ ✓

✓

139 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

ID #

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Funding Start

Mobility, Access, Connectivity, & Visitor Experience

Table 5-2 | Projects Funded Until 2020, San Francisco

5.2.3 San Mateo County GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

140

Figure 5-4 | Spending by Year and Primary Project Goal, San Mateo County

The projects programmed for San Mateo County address only one of the LRTP goals: improving mobility, access, connectivity, and the visitor experience. This goal is prioritized in San Mateo County because it has previously seen less investment and fewer visitors

than sites in Marin County and San Francisco. The goal for the San Mateo County sites for the next twenty years is to improve trailheads, publicize sites, and provide a positive visitor experience. Part of this includes increasing access to existing sites, while part of it includes new trailheads and planning for future growth.

» I M P L E M E N TAT I O N

✓

2015

Milagra Battery Trail, Connemara (Impl)

✓

2015

Rancho Corral de Tierra Long-Range Trail Plan (Plan)

✓

2015

Coastal Trail at Pedro Point & EA (Plan)

✓

2016

Sweeney Ridge, Shelldance Trailhead Parking (Impl)

2016

Mori Point Trailhead Parking

✓

2016

Rancho Corral de Tierra Long-Range Trail Plan (Impl of Transp Trails only)

✓

2016

South Trailhead at Rancho Corral de Tierra (Impl)

2016

Coastal Trail at Pedro Point (Impl)

2016

Skyline Ridge Trail at Phleger (Impl.)

✓

2017

North Trailhead at Rancho Corral de Tierra (Impl)

✓

Financial sustainability

Phleger Estate Trail Plan

Safety

Environmental Excellence

Mobility, Access, Connectivity, & Visitor Experience

2014

Project Title

✓

✓ ✓

✓

✓ ✓

✓

141 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

ID #

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Funding Start

Resource Protection

Table 5-3 | Projects Funded Until 2020, San Mateo County

5.2.4 Parkwide GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

142

The parkwide improvement program focuses on maintaining financial sustainability, keeping facilities in working order, and creating a transportation system that protects natural and cultural Figure 5-5 | Spending by Year and Primary Project Goal, Parkwide

resources. Funding will be prioritized among assets in optimizer bands one and two, meaning that deferred maintenance will be planned parkwide on the basis of need and importance.

» I M P L E M E N TAT I O N

Mobility, Access, Connectivity, & Visitor Experience

Environmental Excellence

Safety

Financial sustainability

2013

Road and Parking Maintenance (O&M) (OB1) ($290k/yr)

✓

2013

Road and Parking Maintenance (O&M) (OB2) ($100k/yr)

✓

2013

Road and Parking Maintenance (O&M) (OB3) ($300k/yr)

✓

2013

NMTR O&M (OB1) ($360k/yr)

✓

2013

NMTR O&M (OB2) ($103k/yr)

✓

2013

NMTR CR (OB1) ($220k/yr)

✓

2013

NMTR CR (OB2) ($200k/yr)

✓

2013

Road and Parking Maintenance (Cyclic Maintenance) (OB1) ($190k/yr avg)

✓

2013

Road and Parking Maintenance (Cyclic Maintenance) (OB2)

✓

2013

Road and Parking Maintenance (Cyclic Maintenance) (OB1)

✓

Project Title

143 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

ID #

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Funding Start

Resource Protection

Table 5-4 | Projects Funded until 2020, Parkwide

Marin Headlands Source: GGNPS

Âť M O N I TO R I N G

Chapter 6

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Monitoring Plan

for the long range transportation plan

STATS

vehicle count stations

on-board transit survey routes

non-motorized count locations

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

145

6.1 Transportation Geodatabase GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

As a part of the LRTP process, a comprehensive transportation geodatabase was created that includes extensive data on all facets of the GGNRA transportation system, both internal to the park and on roads, trails, and transit systems that extend into the park. By bringing together existing datasets used for monitoring and decision-making (i.e. FCI, API, DM, vehicle counts, etc.) with additional information (i.e. bicycle/pedestrian counts, transit ridership/utilization, safety incidents, etc.) into one

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

146

The components of the program include: » Transportation geodatabase » FMSS » Permanent motorized vehicle count stations » Permanent non-motorized count stations » Supplemental counts/studies » Shuttle and public transit counts

database, we will enhance our ability to analyze changes over time and have a more comprehensive picture of overall park needs. The functionality of the database will be improved so it can link directly to existing NPS sources of data (FMSS, PMIS, FBMS, etc.) and to track data over time. Transportation and visitor data is managed by the Denver Service Center which collects data and provides it via website to the park and public. This baseline data provides valuable aggregate data for visitation statistics and overall visitation trends. This level of data is sufficient for many park sites that do not require active management or do not have challenges that require finer grain data. There are a number of improvements that should be made to improve the data that is collected by the park to provide data that is specific enough to form plans and make management decisions.

6.2 Facility Management Software System (FMSS) FMSS includes valuable data about all park assets including their condition, priority, operational and maintenance needs, and capital needs, among others. The system is a critical tool for managing assets and assessing needs of park assets, but does not include many pieces of data needed to evaluate the transportation system such as transit, non-motorized, non-park access, etc. The transportation database will pull data from FMSS and combine it with other nonasset related data to provide a more complete picture.

» M O N I TO R I N G

6.3 Permanent Count Stations motorized) to prepare a plan with reasonable and replicable transportation thresholds that can be monitored by GGNRA staff over time to gauge the status and performance of the LRTP.

6.3.1 Motorized Vehicle Counts Table 6 -1 | Motorized Vehicle Counts

Annual Crissy Field – East Beach Parking

Crissy Field – West Bluff Parking Lot

Fort Baker – Bunker Road

Fort Baker – East Road

Marin Headlands – Bunker Road at McCullough

Marin Headlands – Conzelman Road

Fort Funston – Fort Funston Road

Lower Fort Mason – Parking Lot

Land’s End - Merrie Way Parking Lot

Tennessee Valley – Tennessee Valley Road

Muir Beach – Parking Lot

Muir Beach Overlook – Parking Lot

Stinson Beach – Parking Lot

Ocean Beach – Balboa Street

Ocean Beach – Fulton Street

Ocean Beach – Second Overlook

Ocean Beach – Sloat Blvd

Upper Fort Mason – Franklin Hourly Upper Muir Woods Road

Source: GGNP

Bolded locations are proposed

Lower Muir Woods Road

147 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Baker Beach – Gibson Road

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

The Park Service has in place a set of permanent count stations used to maintain visitor use information about all park sites in the NPS. This set of count locations will form the foundation of the count program, but will be supplemented with another set of count locations (motorized and non-

6.3.2 Non-Motorized Vehicle Counts GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

The park has been installing counters on non-motorized trails as these facilities have grown in visitation and are having a greater need for management action and improvements for safety and visitor experience reasons.

Table 6-2 | Non-Motorized Count Locations

The counters that have been installed are able to count at 15 minute intervals and can differentiate between pedestrians and bicycles. The following locations are planned to be installed to complete the system of counters.

Bike/Pedestrian Bay Trail East Loop – GG Bridge Pavilion

Pacific Coastal Trail – West of Lincoln

Mason Street Bike Path at East Beach

Crissy Field Promenade

Muir Beach - Dias Ridge Trail

Fort Mason - Great Meadow Path

Marin Headlands - Hawk Hill Trail

Land’s End – Coastal Trail

Mori Point – Old Mori Road

Ranch Corral De Tierra - Spine Trail Pedestrian

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

148

Milagra Ridge Trail

Mori Point – North Entrance

Ranch Corral De Tierra – three trails

Muir Woods – Dipsea Trail

Marin Headlands – Fox Trail

Source: Fehr & Peers

Bolded locations are proposed

Âť M O N I TO R I N G

6.4 Public Transportation of access to each site, usage of these systems by visitors of the park, and visitor satisfaction. The first and second areas are relatively easy to monitor, while the third is more challenging. There is a need at some sites to understand at a very high level of detail, while others need little detail.

Table 6-3 | Public Transportation

Access/Availability The following stop-by-stop on board surveys will be taken a minimum of 4 days per year. Data collected will include boarding/alighting for every stop, ridership, utilization rates, and on-time performance. Muir Woods Shuttle (Marin Transit Routes 66/66F)

MTA Route 76

Marin Transit Route 61

Marin Headlands/Fort Baker Shuttle (Pilot)

MTA Route 28

MTA Route 30

MTA Route 38

GGT

PresidiGo (all routes)

GGT

The following visitor survey will be taken bi-annually. Data collected will include site visited, mode of travel, satisfaction with service, and other questions to evaluate service and potential improvements. Parkwide Transportation Survey (on-site)

Source: Fehr & Peers

Bolded locations are proposed

Parkwide Transportation Survey (on-line)

149 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Visitor Satisfaction Survey

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Monitoring access of transit lines operated by local transit operators is important in having a clear understanding of transit access to parks and in achieving the goals of reducing vehicle trips. There are three facets to monitoring public transportation access to parks; supply and availability

6.5 Safety GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

The park currently does not actively maintain a database with geocoded safety incidents in a similar manner that state and local jurisdictions do through the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). Creating and maintaining a database with safety incidents, either through

use of SWITRS or a park-based system, would enable the park to inform decision making in addressing safetyrelated transportation problems. The system would also provide documentation of safety problems in applying for funding, both internally, and to other federal application sources.

6.6 Annual Transportation Report

Source(s): Fehr & Peers, GGNP

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

150

The park will produce an annual report detailing the status of the transportation system, beginning in 2016. It will use the performance measures in the GMP and LRTP to track progress. The document will be publically released and will serve as a primary communication strategy on transportation issues and developments, which are among the more requested pieces of information from the park. By having a progress report with standard measures relating back to final plans, the park can provide transportation information within the context and authority of the GMP.

» M O N I TO R I N G

Table 6-4 | LRTP Performance Measures

Goal

Objectives

Performance Measure

1. Improve transit serving the park sites (expand routes, expand hours, improve headways) 2. Increase in bike access to and within the park sites 1. Mobility – Improve multimodal options to reduce reliance on cars and reduce congestion 2. Access – Ensure that the park is available and accessible to the broadest diversity of visitors including those whose access was limited in the past 3. Connectivity – Improve intermodal connections to and within the park 4. Improve traveler information, wayfinding, and orientation for all modes of travel 5. Integrate interpretation, education, and stewardship into the transportation experience

4. Decrease in peak parking demand at locations with parking shortfalls or high incidences of informal and spillover parking 5. Improve accessibility of the park to underserved populations (disabled, low-income, school children) 6. Increase in percent of population within 60-minute transit trip 7. Improve wayfinding where appropriate, improve traveler information both at-site and online, encourage greater use of park website, or/and support new technologies for transportation (e.g. mobile app that provides travel info) 8. Provide interpretative, educational, or stewardship material (either physically or electronically) at transportation locations such as buses, bus stops, parking lots, trail heads, etc. 9. Growth in park visitors during off-peak periods relative to regional growth or better distribution of visitors across park sites.

151 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Create equitable and convenient multimodal transportation options which are enjoyable and welcoming experiences for all visitors

3. Increase in pedestrian access to and within the park sites

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Theme: Mobility Access, Connectivity, and Visitor Experience

Table 6-4 | LRTP Performance Measures

Goal

Objectives

Performance Measure

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Theme: Resource Protection Preserve and protect park resources by minimizing transportation impacts

1. Manage visitation and the park transportation system to minimize resource impacts and achieve the desired conditions of park resources

1. Decrease in peak parking demand at locations with parking shortfalls or high incidences of informal and spillover parking

2. Restore the health of resources adversely affected by transportation within the park

3. Reduction in motorized transportation network coverage (in acres)

2. Reduction in wildlife-vehicle collisions 4. Provides opportunity to reduce impacts to sensitive and natural resources 5. Provides opportunity to reduce impacts to cultural resources

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

152

6. Affords the opportunity to improve natural resources (i.e. adding culverts) Theme: Environmental Excellence Inspire an environmental consciousness by demonstrating environmental excellence in transportation

1. Reduction in total transportation-related energy consumption 2. Project is a climate adaptation strategy for at risk transportation assets.

Âť M O N I TO R I N G

Table 6-4 | LRTP Performance Measures

Goal

Objectives

Performance Measure

Optimize management of the park transportation system

1. Optimize transportation investments to minimize costs and maximize visitor and resource benefit

1. Cost/rider on shuttle systems supported with NPS funding

2. High priority (OB 1-2) assets should receive priority over lower priority ones

3. FCI/PCR of transportation assets (by optimizer band)

3. Maintain high priority assets to a minimum 0.15 Facility Condition Index (FCI) 4. New assets should only be constructed if they will be maintained as high priority assets

Ensure safety is a high priority for the park

Source: NPS, 2014

153 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Theme: Safety

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Theme: Financial Sustainability

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

154

GGNRA will strive to provide a major update of this plan every four to five years and issue an Annual Transportation Report that describes progress towards implementation, results of evaluations, and document any recommendations for changes proposed to the contents of the plan. Instituting this progress tracking system will verify to partners and the public that the park is actually implementing the LRTP rather than filing it on the shelf to eventually be forgotten.

Â» APPENDIX A

Appendix A

technical reports

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Â» APPENDIX A

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Â» APPENDIX A

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Â» APPENDIX B

Appendix B

projects considered for park transportation improvement program GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Â» APPENDIX B

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Â» APPENDIX B

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Â» APPENDIX B

Appendix C placement for title here

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Â» APPENDIX C

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Â» APPENDIX C

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Golden Gate National Recreation Area Photographs provided by the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Fehr & Peers Design and Layout by Fehr & Peers 332 Pine Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 941014