District 2 Safety Study

The District 2 Safety Study was completed at the request of former Transportation Authority Board Member Catherine Stefani (District 2) and funded through the San Francisco Transportation Authority’s Neighborhood Program. Transportation Authority staff collaborated with the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) on this study.

The study focused on addressing safety challenges and barriers to access to locations that attract children, seniors, and other vulnerable road users, including parks, schools, hospitals, and recreational destinations. The goal of the study was to identify short-term, quick-build improvements near these locations that could be implemented with remaining Neighborhood Transportation Program funds from Prop K. To identify areas within the District with a high concentration of these destinations, the study team analyzed land use and transportation data and conducted a first round of community engagement to understand resident travel patterns and challenges. Using this information, the team developed a toolkit for safety improvements around select land uses, aligning specific safety treatments to different types of land uses. The study team recommends quick-build safety treatments at six locations throughout the District, with input from the second round of community engagement. These treatments are summarized below:

The study team used land use and transportation data to understand the existing transportation access and safety conditions and identify areas within District 2 that have a high concentration of locations that draw vulnerable road users (i.e., children, seniors, and people with disabilities). This approach built off of the methodology behind a 2017 map produced by the San Francisco Department of Public Health which aimed to address safety for seniors and people with disabilities by visualizing priority areas where they live and travel and injury segments where pedestrian injuries to these populations are concentrated. For more information on the methodology, please see the Technical Appendix.

The study team identified locations that attract vulnerable road users, including schools, parks, hospitals, senior homes, libraries, and places of worship. These locations were overlaid with transportation features such as public transit routes, the local bike network, frequent paratransit pickup and drop off locations, and the High Injury Network (HIN), and Equity Priority Community (EPC) boundaries. Based on this initial map, the study team identified five clusters within District 2, with each cluster containing a combination of: 1) major destinations drawing vulnerable road users; 2) proximity to bike network and transit network connections; and 3) opportunities to support recent or planned transportation improvements for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders. Clusters were also selected to be spread throughout the district.

The study team conducted site visits to each of the clusters to further narrow down and identify specific study areas (shown in Figure 2-1 below). Community engagement efforts were focused on these five study areas to understand the travel patterns and safety and access challenges of residents and visitors.

To understand how District 2 residents travel around the study areas and the safety and access challenges they experience, the study team conducted community engagement in summer 2024 through both online and in-person events. Engagement included an online survey distributed through social media and newsletters, a virtual town hall with Spanish and Mandarin translation, pop up events, and presentations at community meetings. The survey was open from May to July 2024 and received 139 responses.

The survey asked respondents general questions about their priorities for safety and access in the District and types of places that most need safety and access improvements for vulnerable road users. The survey then asked respondents to provide feedback for one or more specific study areas. For each study area, respondents were asked about their general travel patterns, safety and access challenges, and preference for safety treatments. The safety treatments were drawn from the SFMTA’s Vision Zero Quick-Build Toolkit, shown below.

The study team held one pop up in each study area to get feedback from residents of the area or community members who travel to or within the area. Pop ups were organized near key land uses in the area. The study team held four pop up events from May to June 2024 at Marina Middle School (Marina study area), CPMC Pacific Heights (Pacific Heights study area), St. Cyprian’s Episcopal Church (Anza Vista study area), and the Presidio Branch Library (near Presidio Heights study area).

3.1 Survey Demographics

The survey received 139 responses and 138 of these responses provided home zip codes, which allowed for an approximate determination of home location of respondents in relation to district boundaries. Most respondents live in zip codes near the Marina, Pacific Heights, and Anza Vista study areas (69% of respondents), which corresponds to a higher number of survey responses providing feedback for these study areas. In comparison, fewer respondents live near the Presidio Heights and Cathedral Hill study areas (9% in each study area). There were also a small number of respondents who live outside of District 2 (less than 5%).

The study team compared the race/ethnicity, income, and age of survey respondents to the 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) Five-Year Estimates for District 2. Figure 3-10 shows a slight underrepresentation of Hispanic/Latino and Asian survey respondents and overrepresentation of Caucasian/white, Black / African American, and Native American respondents.

Note: chart excludes 14% of respondents who selected "Prefer not to say"

Download chart data (CSV)

Figure 3-11 below shows that survey respondents were also older than D2 residents. There were also fewer survey respondents with children (30% of survey respondents compared to 41% of D2 residents from the 2023 ACS).

Note: chart excludes 10% of respondents who selected "Prefer not to say"

Download chart data (CSV)

Almost half of respondents did not respond to the survey question about household income. For those who did respond, Figure 3-12 shows that households with an annual income less than $100,000 were underrepresented compared to D2 residents.

Note: chart excludes 46% of respondents who selected "Prefer not to say"

Download chart data (CSV)

3.2 Pop Up and Town Hall Findings

In pop up events and the virtual town hall, participants emphasized the need for more traffic enforcement. Participants stated that, as pedestrians, they noticed that many drivers are distracted and not stopping at stop signs. Speeding was also a major issue in the District and participants stated that effective treatments were needed to slow down vehicle speeds.

3.3 Travel Patterns and Mode Share

For each study area, respondents were asked to select all transportation modes they used to get around. These responses are combined across all study areas in Figure 3-13 to show how District 2 residents generally use transportation to, from, and within the study areas.

Download chart data (CSV)

Active transportation mode share was high among survey respondents. Walking was the most common transportation mode, with 80% of survey respondents saying that they walk in District 2, and 28% of survey respondents bike. More than half (53%) of respondents said they use Muni and 43% drive in District 2.

To understand overall priorities for safety and access in District 2, survey respondents were asked to select up to three types of places that most need safety and access improvements for vulnerable road users. The top two responses were parks or open spaces (51% of respondents selected) and schools, daycares, and nurseries (47% of respondents selected), followed by senior centers and eldercare facilities (34%) and hospitals and other healthcare services (32%). Libraries (19%) and churches, synagogues and other places of worship (4%) were not selected by as many respondents.

The survey asked respondents to provide feedback on transportation challenges and preferences for safety treatments for as many of the study areas as they would like. Across all study areas, speeding and traffic violations (e.g., violating no right turn on red, ignoring stop signs, etc.) and lack of traffic enforcement were identified as major safety challenges. Each of the study areas also had unique safety challenges and preferences, which are summarized in the next sections. Specific locations with safety challenges were identified through open-ended comments in the survey, stickers placed on a map of the study area at pop up events, and verbal comments from attendees. These locations and challenges are summarized in a table for each study area.

3.4 Marina Study Area Feedback

The Marina study area, shown in Figure 3-14, is located in the northern part of the district and includes Marina Middle School, the Marina Branch Library, and the Moscone park area. The study area also includes a segment of Lombard Avenue that has been identified as part of the High Injury Network by the San Francisco Department of Public Health. There are some wider streets (e.g., Bay Street, Lombard Street) that have medians for traffic calming.

In the survey, 61 respondents gave feedback for the Marina study area. Transportation Authority staff held one pop up event at Marina Middle School on May 17, 2024 during school drop-off to engage with students and parents. The top responses for key survey questions are outlined below, along with a summary of main feedback received at in-person events.

What are some of the main reasons you travel to this area?

• Social or recreational trips (82%)
• General shopping (79%)
• Grocery shopping (62%)

How do you usually get to this area?

• Walk (80%)
• Muni (49%)
• Drive (36%)

What are some of the safety and access challenges you experience in this area?

• Cars drive too fast (72%)
• Poor visibility at crosswalks (41%)
• Hard to find parking (36%)
• Poor sidewalk conditions (34%)

Other public comments mentioned the lack of traffic enforcement for double parking and drivers not stopping at stop signs. Bikes, scooters, and delivery drivers using the sidewalk was also a major concern in the Chestnut Street commercial area.

What types of safety treatments would you like to see in this area?

• Traffic calming measures (61%)
• Painted pedestrian safety zones (51%)
• Sidewalk improvements (49%)

Attendees of the pop-up event also preferred traffic signal improvements and bike improvements.

Locations with Safety and Access Challenges

Survey respondents and attendees of in-person events identified specific locations in the Marina study area that have safety and access challenges. Table 3-1 summarizes these locations, nearby land uses that attract vulnerable road users, and safety and access challenges.

For many locations in this study area, respondents stated that poor lighting conditions and narrow sidewalks were main challenges. These are issues that cannot be addressed with the quick-build toolkit, but can be addressed through alternate funding sources in longer term work.

3.5 Pacific Heights Study Area Feedback

The Pacific Heights study area, shown in Figure 3-17, contains two parks (Alta Plaza and Lafayette Park), a medical center (the CPMC Pacific Heights campus), and a number of schools, daycares, and places of worship. The study area is fairly hilly, and both Alta Plaza and the CPMC Pacific Heights campus are located at the top of streets with a steep grade. A portion of Clay Street south of Alta Plaza is part of the SFMTA Slow Streets Program, which aims to expand the active transportation network through low vehicle volume and speed streets that are safe and comfortable for biking, walking, and rolling.

In the survey, 45 respondents gave feedback for the Pacific Heights study area. Transportation Authority staff also held one pop up event outside of the CPMC Pacific Heights campus on June 27, 2024 to engage with CPMC patients, workers, and community members. The top responses for key survey questions are outlined below, along with a summary of main feedback received at in-person events.

What are some of the main reasons you travel to this area?

• Social, recreational, and general shopping (82%)
• Healthcare (56%)
• Grocery shopping (49%)

How do you usually get to this area?

• Walk (82%)
• Muni (53%)
• Drive (38%)

What are some of the safety and access challenges you experience in this area?

• Cars drive too fast (62%)
• Poor visibility at crosswalks (47%)
• Poor sidewalk conditions (38%)

Other comments mentioned dangerous driver behavior and lack of traffic enforcement as major issues. Comments also mentioned a lack of safe bike infrastructure in the study area. With about a quarter of survey respondents in Pacific Heights saying that they bike in the area, these comments highlight the demand for improvements to existing bike infrastructure in Pacific Heights.

What types of safety treatments would you like to see in this area?

• Traffic calming measures (64%)
• Crosswalk improvements (64%)
• Sidewalk improvements (60%)

Locations with Safety and Access Challenges

During the outreach process, survey respondents and attendees of in-person events identified specific locations in the Pacific Heights study area that have safety and access challenges. Table 3-2 summarizes the locations, nearby land uses that attract vulnerable road users, and the safety and access challenges that residents or visitors experience at these locations.

3.6 Presidio Heights Study Area Feedback

The Presidio Heights study area contains two elementary schools, a pediatric urgent care facility, and a Sutter Health CPMC location. The CPMC campus is now closed and will be developed into housing. The proposed development will include nearly 500 residential units, as well as additional units for assisted living and memory care. A portion of Clay Street on the eastern side of the study area is part of the SFMTA Slow Streets Program. This study area has some traffic calming measures, such as concrete bollards to enforce daylighting at certain corners.

Twenty-seven survey respondents gave feedback for the Presidio Heights study area. Transportation Authority staff held a pop up event at the Presidio Branch Library on May 30, 2024, a few blocks east of the study area, to engage with residents and visitors in the neighborhood. The top responses for key survey questions are outlined below, along with a summary of main feedback received at in-person events.

What are some of the main reasons you travel to this area?

• General shopping (74%)
• Grocery shopping (70%)
• Social or recreational trips (67%)

How do you usually get to this area?

• Walk (70%)
• Drive (52%)
• Muni (41%)
• Bike (41%)

Compared to other study areas, Presidio Heights had a higher driving and bike mode share.

What are some of the safety and access challenges you experience in this area?

• Cars drive too fast (67%)
• Poor visibility at crosswalks (37%)
• Hard to find parking (22%)
• Hard to find bike parking (22%)

Similar to other study areas, many survey comments mentioned dangerous and aggressive driver behavior and lack of traffic enforcement (e.g., running red lights or stop signs, speeding) as major issues.

What types of safety treatments would you like to see in this area?

• Traffic calming measures (64%)
• Crosswalk improvements (64%)
• Sidewalk improvements (60%)

Locations with Safety and Access Challenges

During the outreach process, survey respondents and attendees of in-person events identified specific locations in Presidio Heights that have safety and access challenges. Table 3-3 summarizes the locations, nearby land uses that attract vulnerable road users, and the safety and access challenges that residents or visitors experience at these locations.

Other responses in the survey mentioned that sidewalks on Baker Street (east of the study area) have uneven pavement, resulting in many seniors tripping. Respondents also stated that crossing times near schools were too short for pedestrians traveling with strollers and bags.

3.7 Anza Vista Study Area Feedback

The Anza Vista study area contains the Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center, Sagebrook Senior Living, San Francisco Day School, and a number of places of worship. There are two designated Slow Streets in the southern half of the study area (Golden Gate Avenue and Lyon Street). The eastern edge of the study area overlaps with EPCs in Japantown and Western Addition.

The Anza Vista study area received 40 survey responses. Transportation Authority staff held a pop up event at St. Cyprian’s Episcopal Church on Saturday, June 22, 2024 to engage with residents and visitors in the neighborhood. The top responses for key survey questions are outlined below, along with a summary of main feedback received at in-person events.

What are some of the main reasons you travel to this area?

• Grocery shopping (83%)
• General shopping (68%)
• Social or recreational trips (50%)

Grocery shopping was the top trip purpose in this area. There are two large grocery stores (Trader Joe’s and Lucky), and a Target in the study area.

How do you usually get to this area?

• Walk (73%)
• Drive (50%)
• Muni (40%)

Compared to other study areas, Anza Vista had a higher driving mode share. Although biking was not in the top three modes used, the mode share was still higher relative to other study areas (33% of respondents bike in this area).

What are some of the safety and access challenges you experience in this area?

• Cars drive too fast (73%)
• Poor visibility at crosswalks (43%)
• Poor sidewalk conditions (30%)

Other survey comments mentioned aggressive drivers and challenges for cyclists (e.g., insufficient bike infrastructure, feeling unsafe while biking).

What types of safety treatments would you like to see in this area?

• Traffic calming measures (64%)
• Crosswalk improvements (64%)
• Sidewalk improvements (60%)

Locations with Safety and Access Challenges

During the outreach process, survey respondents and attendees of in-person events identified specific locations in Anza Vista that have safety and access challenges. Table 3-4 summarizes the locations, nearby land uses that attract vulnerable road users, and the safety and access challenges that residents or visitors experience at these locations.

Most of the comment responses in the survey referred to the area near the intersection of Masonic Ave and Geary Blvd. Although location #7 (the residential area of Anza Vista) was not in the original study area, the location received multiple survey comments regarding speeding and pedestrian safety issues. For this reason, the study team decided to include the location in the list of potential places to receive safety treatments.

3.8 Cathedral Hill Study Area Feedback

The Cathedral Hill study area contains the CPMC Van Ness campus, some large places of worship, including the Cathedral of Saint Mary of the Assumption, a preschool and a Montessori school. This study area overlaps with EPCs in Japantown and Western Addition.

Twenty respondents gave feedback for the Cathedral Hill study area. The top responses for key survey questions are outlined below.

What are some of the main reasons you travel to this area?

• General shopping (50%)
• Social or recreational trips (45%)
• Grocery shopping (40%)

How do you usually get to this area?

• Muni (60%)
• Bike (60%)
• Walk (50%)

Cathedral Hill had the highest bike mode share of all the study areas. This is also the only study area where driving was not one of the top three modes used.

What are some of the safety and access challenges you experience in this area?

• Cars drive too fast (70%)
• Hard to find bike parking (45%)
• Poor sidewalk conditions (40%)

Other survey comments mentioned aggressive drivers and lack of bike infrastructure.

What types of safety treatments would you like to see in this area?

• Bike improvements (70%)
• Traffic calming measures (65%)
• Crosswalk improvements (55%)

Locations with Safety and Access Challenges

During the outreach process, survey respondents identified specific locations in Cathedral Hill that have safety and access challenges. Table 3-5 summarizes the locations, nearby land uses that attract vulnerable road users, and the safety and access challenges that residents or visitors experience at these locations.

Compared to other study areas, Cathedral Hill did not receive as many survey responses and there were fewer specific locations identified that needed safety treatments. One of the safety challenges, the narrow sidewalk on Franklin Street, cannot be addressed using the quick-build toolkit.

The study team used the safety and access challenges identified in the survey combined with feedback on preferred treatment types to make a proposal for locations that most need safety and access improvements for further detailed design and implementation. The study team developed a set of proposed quick-build treatments that could be implemented in the near-term with the budget of $430,000 in remaining NTP capital funds. For some locations, the study team also identified a pipeline of additional improvements and community ideas for other projects that could be implemented in the future with more funding.

The study team was also interested in whether there was any relationship between types of land uses (e.g., parks, schools, medical centers, etc.) and respondents’ preference for safety treatments, across the district as a whole. In general, there was no correlation since respondents’ preferred treatments were similar throughout the district. For example, speeding was a major issue raised by respondents in every study area and traffic calming measures such as speed humps were the most popular safety treatment to address speeding.

However, the study team did find some interesting patterns that could be explored in other districts in San Francisco:

• The type of existing transportation infrastructure around the land use had an impact on the preferred safety treatment. For example, the Pacific Heights and Anza Vista study areas have more existing bike infrastructure so many survey comments were related to bike improvements.
• The modes that people use to access land uses also had an impact on preferred safety treatment. For example, medical centers have more pick up/drop off and driving trips. The preferred treatments were traffic calming and traffic signal improvements. Meanwhile, schools and parks have more pedestrian and cyclist trips, so preferred treatments were traffic calming, sidewalk and crosswalk improvements, and bike improvements.

The project team selected priority locations for safety and access improvements based community interest and feedback, feasibility of addressing challenges with the quick-build toolkit, and the safety priorities identified by survey respondents. These proposals are summarized in Table 4-1 below. Near-term treatments will be implemented as a next phase of this project. Medium- and long-term treatments are not in the quick-build toolkit and will require additional study and funding.

While the residential area of Anza Vista was not in one of the original five study areas, there were many survey comments about speeding being a major issue in this neighborhood, so this location was added to the list of proposed locations and treatments.

4.1 Marina: Pedestrian Visibility Improvements at Laguna Street/Bay Street

The Laguna Street/Bay Street intersection in the Marina study area provides access to Marina Middle School and Moscone Park. The main safety challenge identified through community engagement was that drivers frequently violate the “no right on red” sign turning from westbound Bay Street to northbound Laguna Street. This affects pedestrians crossing Laguna Street on the north side of the intersection.

The study team’s near-term proposals for the Laguna Street/Bay Street intersection build on SFMTA’s ongoing Vision Zero program improvements to the High-Injury Network and other nearby projects. Elsewhere in the Marina neighborhood, there are seven intersections on the high-injury network that are receiving improvements as part of SFMTA’s Vision Zero Quick-Build Toolkit program. This includes six intersections along Greenwich Street from Broderick Street to Fillmore Street, and at the intersection of Broderick Street and Lombard Street. In October 2024, SFMTA activated a new pedestrian signal head at Bay Street and Laguna Street and added Lead Pedestrian Intervals at signals on Bay Street from Laguna Street to Stockton Street as part of the Vision Zero Signal Retiming Project. There is also a bulb-out planned at the southeast corner of the intersection as part of a redevelopment project.

The study team’s near-term proposal is to increase the visibility of pedestrians and cyclists at this crossing. A blank out LED “No Right Turn” sign is recommended to increase compliance with the no right on red restriction for drivers turning from westbound Bay Street onto northbound Laguna Street. Blank out signs use LEDs to make signs more noticeable to drivers and are more visible in any light or weather conditions. Other near-term recommendations include adding pedestrian warning signs, adding crosswalk closure signage on the southeast corner to clarify the existing prohibited crosswalk at the northeast corner of the intersection, and double yellow striping on the south side of the intersection to help with turning movements onto Laguna Street.

The study team identified several potential long-term cyclist and pedestrian improvements. Through video observations, the study team found that cyclists were traveling on westbound Bay Street, where there is no bike path, and parallel to an existing bike path in Fort Mason Park. A potential long-term improvement could add sharrow markings on Bay Street to increase cyclist visibility and add a mid-block bike ramp connecting Bay Street to the existing bike path in Fort Mason. This can help cyclists more easily access the existing bike path. Another potential long-term improvement is reconstructing the median island on the crosswalk on the north side of Laguna Street with a wider opening, aligned with the width of the crosswalk, which could allow cyclists to more easily use the crosswalk to connect between the Fort Mason bike path and the bike lane on the west side of the intersection.

The study team also observed that the existing protected eastbound bike lane on Bay Street could be extended until the intersection to reduce conflicts between cyclists and vehicles turning right from Bay Street onto Laguna Street. This recommendation could be combined with reconstructing the median island and realigning the eastbound Bay Street traffic lanes to provide more space for the bike lane and for turning vehicles.

In the long-term, the study team recommends studying a full intersection redesign with SFMTA which could include reallocating or realigning travel lanes, bikeway and signal upgrades, new crosswalks, and pedestrian refuge islands. Nearby segments of Bay Street (from Octavia to the Embarcadero) are on the Vision Zero High Injury Network. Laguna Street from Bay Street to Francisco Street is included in the North Star Network of SFMTA’s Biking and Rolling Plan, with the recommendation to upgrade the existing facility to a fully traffic calmed, shared street. The intersection study can be coordinated with a parallel effort evaluating the feasibility of a new bikeway through Fort Mason to improve access and safety. This bikeway concept is part of a broader National Park Service-led study. The proposed alignment would connect cyclists between the Bay/Laguna intersection and the Bay/Van Ness intersection. The long-term Bay/Laguna intersection study could incorporate design measures to improve bicycle movements through the intersection and strengthen connections to the proposed Fort Mason bikeway.

4.2 Pacific Heights: Traffic Calming

Two locations in the Pacific Heights study area were identified as locations with high traffic speeds: the Clay Street/Webster Street intersection, which provides access to the CPMC Pacific Heights campus, and the segment of Washington Street west of Lafayette Park. Community members also noted pedestrian conflicts for those crossing Webster Street to get from the parking garage to the medical center. Site observations by the study team showed that double parking contributed to pedestrian visibility challenges. SFMTA has implemented recent improvements at this intersection, including repainting crosswalks and new concrete bulb-outs.

The study team’s near-term recommendation is to install traffic calming devices on Webster Street from Sacramento Street to Washington Street, and on Washington Street from Buchanan Street to Laguna Street. To address double parking issues, the SFMTA will study and implement color curb changes to better balance space for goods and passenger loading near the Clay/Webster intersection.

* The exact type and number of traffic calming devices will be determined in the detailed design phase.

4.3 Anza Vista: Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety at Masonic Ave/Geary Blvd

Masonic Ave/Geary Blvd is a major intersection with a mixture of car, pedestrian, and cyclist traffic, in addition to the 38, 38R, and 43 Muni lines. Nearby attractions include grocery stores (Trader Joe’s and Target), the Kaiser Permanente San Francisco campus, and the University of San Francisco campus. The study team heard feedback about pedestrian and cyclist visibility challenges and cyclist wayfinding challenges near this intersection. In particular, cyclists had difficulty navigating to the bike lane entrance on Masonic Ave on the south side of the intersection, and completing the left turn from Masonic Ave onto Anza St.

Near-term recommendations include: 1) No Turn on Red signage to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and turning vehicles; 2) rounding the concrete island nose at Geary Blvd to improve visibility and access to the Masonic bikeway; 3) additional pavement markings on Geary Blvd to enhance visibility for people who bike and roll; 4) a bike box at Masonic/O’Farrell for those traveling westbound onto Anza; and 5) Lead Pedestrian Intervals at all remaining crosswalks to enhance pedestrian visibility.

4.4 Anza Vista: Traffic Calming in Anza Vista residential area

This residential area of Anza Vista has access to shopping and schools. The study team received comments about high vehicle speeds and cut-through traffic on several streets in this area. SFMTA recently implemented a road diet on O’Farrell Street from Masonic Avenue to St. Joseph’s Avenue using pavement markings and striping. To further address speeding, the study team’s near-term recommendation is to install traffic calming measures on Anzavista Avenue, Barcelona Avenue, Encanto Avenue, Fortuna Avenue, Terra Vista Avenue, and O’Farrell Street.

4.5 Presidio Heights: Secure Bike Parking Locations

Feedback from the Presidio Heights study area, where there is a high bike mode share, showed a strong community desire for bike improvements and bike parking. Prior outreach efforts in the city have found that bike theft is a concern and lack of secure bike parking locations is a barrier to bike use. In Presidio Heights, the study team is recommending bike parking locations to support planned improvements to bike infrastructure on Arguello Boulevard through the SFMTA-led Arguello Safety Project. The Arguello Safety Project may also implement other quick-build safety improvements to address issues of active transportation safety.

In the medium-term, the study team recommends exploring locations for short- and long-term secure bike parking. Bike parking could be located at daylighting sites, taking advantage of free curb space and helping reinforce parking restrictions near crosswalks to improve the visibility of people crossing the street.

4.6 Cathedral Hill: Pedestrian Visibility Improvements

To improve pedestrian visibility at crosswalks, the study team is recommending a combination of daylighting and painted pedestrian safety zones where feasible at multiple intersections across Cathedral Hill and Presidio Heights. Intersections for painted safety zones were prioritized based on the number of recent collisions and proximity to land uses that draw vulnerable road users. Daylighting near crosswalks can be paired with installing bike parking to help reinforce parking restrictions.

The second round of community engagement aimed to gauge the level of support for and gather feedback on recommended safety treatments in the study areas. The study team conducted community engagement in fall 2025 through both online and in-person events. In-person events included three pop-up events and five presentations to merchant and neighborhood associations. The study team also distributed an online survey through social media, newsletters, emails, and mailers. The survey was open from October to November 2025 and received 92 responses. The majority of respondents (about 70%) were new to the study, and had not participated in the first phase of outreach in summer 2024, which asked participants about the safety and access challenges faced when traveling in District 2.

5.1 Survey Demographics

The survey received the most responses from the Pacific Heights, Western Addition, Japantown area, which includes both the Pacific Heights and Anza Vista study areas. The survey also received many responses from the Marina neighborhood, but fewer respondents in the Presidio Heights and Cathedral Hill study areas. There were also a small number of respondents who live outside of District 2. Compared to the first round of outreach, a higher percentage of respondents were residents in the Pacific Heights/ Western Addition/ Presidio Heights/ Japantown neighborhood (55% in round 2 vs. 39% of respondents in round 1). There were slightly fewer respondents from the Marina/ Cow Hollow neighborhood (28% in round 2 vs. 30% in round 1).

The study team compared the race/ ethnicity, income, and age of survey respondents to the 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) Five-Year Estimates for District 2. Figure 5-1 shows an underrepresentation of Hispanic/ Latino respondents and overrepresentation of Caucasian/ white, Black/ African American and Asian respondents. In comparison to the first round, the second round of outreach engaged with a slightly more diverse population, with a higher percentage of Asian respondents. However, these findings may not represent all survey respondents, as 29% of respondents skipped the demographics questions and 15% selected “Prefer not to say” for their race/ethnicity.

Note: chart excludes 14% of respondents who selected "Prefer not to say"

Download chart data (CSV)

The age of survey respondents skewed older than that of the district as a whole. About 80% of respondents were 35 or older, compared to 55% of District 2 residents.

Note: chart excludes 10% of respondents who selected "Prefer not to say"

Download chart data (CSV)

In general, survey respondents had similar income levels compared to District 2 overall. However, about 29% of survey respondents skipped demographics questions, and another 26% of respondents selected “Prefer not to say” for the household income question.

Note: chart excludes 46% of respondents who selected "Prefer not to say"

Download chart data (CSV)

5.2 Main Findings

The survey asked respondents to provide feedback on proposed quick-build measures in one or more study areas. The findings show that, in general, community members support the proposed recommendations. Specific feedback for each of the recommendations is summarized in the following sections.

Marina: Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

The proposal for the Bay/Laguna intersection in the Marina received 48 survey responses. The majority of survey respondents supported two of the proposed quick-build changes: installing an LED “No Right Turn on Red” sign (75% support) and adding double yellow striping to the south side of the intersection (71% support). Fewer respondents supported adding a crosswalk closure sign to the east side of the intersection, but there were still more respondents who supported the proposal than those who did not (42% support, 35% do not support, and 23% neutral).

Community members who attended pop-up events and neighborhood association meetings were also generally supportive of the quick-build recommendations, with the exception of the crosswalk closure sign. Community members questioned whether it would make more sense to add a crosswalk to the east side of the intersection, where there is currently no crosswalk, rather than installing a crosswalk closure sign, which was seen as restrictive to pedestrian movement. However, the project team shared that the current intersection configuration does not allow for a crosswalk to be added, due to the double channelized right turn lane from westbound Bay Street onto northbound Laguna Street. Instead, this idea could be explored as part of an intersection redesign, which was proposed as a medium- to long-term recommendation.

A medium-term recommendation to study a full intersection redesign at Bay/Laguna would study reconfiguring the intersection to allow movements like a more traditional intersection. Adding a crosswalk on the east side of the intersection, as mentioned by community members in outreach, is an option that could be explored as part of this study. About 70% of survey respondents supported the recommendation to study a full intersection redesign. Capital work to implement the future intersection redesign study recommendations would happen in the long-term.

Outside of the proposed recommendations, community members also shared feedback on other issues at the Bay/Laguna intersection. Community members pointed out gaps in the bike network, such as the lack of a bike lane on the east side of Bay Street and limited connectivity between the Presidio and the Embarcadero through this area of District 2. Survey respondents also suggested increasing the pedestrian crossing time at the intersection and adding a northbound left turn arrow for cars on Laguna Street.

Pacific Heights: Traffic Calming

The proposal for the Clay/Webster intersection in Pacific Heights received 42 survey respondents, with the majority of respondents supporting the proposals to install traffic calming on Webster Street and Washington Street (64% of respondents), and to evaluate the balance of white and yellow curb space at Clay/Webster (63% of respondents).

At in-person outreach events, more attendees were opposed to the proposal to add traffic calming on Webster Street. Many community members shared that they had not observed high traffic speeds to be an issue on Webster Street, and that instead, traffic was often congested due to the high incidence of double parking. The congestion on Webster Street has led to cars making illegal u-turns on the street to avoid congestion, which causes further pedestrian/ vehicle conflicts. Community members suggested that the study team consider traffic calming at the intersection of Laguna/Sacramento or Laguna/Clay instead. Another major issue that community members identified was the number of scooters using sidewalks and causing conflicts with pedestrians.

In response to outreach feedback, the study team decided to shift the traffic calming proposal on Webster Street to Laguna Street from Sacramento Street to Clay Street instead. This would help slow traffic speeds near Lafayette Park.

Anza Vista: Traffic Calming

The proposal for traffic calming in the Anza Vista residential neighborhood received 46 survey responses. The study team proposed traffic calming on six streets in this neighborhood. Five of the six streets had the majority of respondents supporting the proposal. The streets with the highest share of respondent support were: O’Farrell Street (78%), Terra Vista Avenue (75%), and Anzavista Avenue (66%). Barcelona Avenue and Fortuna Avenue had 51% of survey respondents supporting traffic calming proposals and Encanto Avenue had 49% support. Findings were similar at the pop-up event held in the Anza Vista neighborhood, with O’Farrell Street, Terra Vista Avenue, and Anzavista Avenue receiving the most support for traffic calming. At the pop-up event, community members shared that Barcelona, Fortuna, and Encanto Avenues were “smaller” streets with less traffic, and therefore may require fewer traffic calming interventions.

At the neighborhood pop-up event, community members also shared other suggestions, including adding crosswalks to improve pedestrian visibility and stop signs to slow down vehicle speeds. Community members specifically identified the following intersections as places that could benefit from a stop sign: O’Farrell and Lyon, Terra Vista and Baker, and Terra Vista and Anzavista. Community members had also observed non-compliance with the road diet on O’Farrell Street, which reduced the number of traffic lanes from two to one using painted markings. Many vehicles were still using O’Farrell as a two-lane street, even after the road diet was implemented. The City Center parking lot exit was also raised as an issue, as community members had observed vehicles exiting the parking lot and the electric vehicle charging station driving the wrong way on O’Farrell to get to Anzavista Avenue.

Finally, community members were concerned about the new T&T supermarket, expected to open in winter 2026 at 2675 Geary Boulevard near the intersection of Geary Boulevard and Masonic Avenue, which could increase traffic to the area and worsen existing issues with cut-through traffic and congestion. The T&T supermarket may also increase the amount of commercial traffic using the streets in the neighborhood, which community members said was an existing issue because of the Target and Kaiser facility that both receive a large amount of deliveries.

In response to outreach feedback, the SFMTA will implement traffic calming measures at O’Farrell Street, and Terra Vista, Anzavista, Barcelona, Fortuna, and Encanto Avenues. Regarding the suggestion for a stop sign at the O’Farrell/Lyon intersection, there is no crash pattern at this intersection and it is unlikely that a stop sign would be recommended. Furthermore, Lyon Street already has a stop sign and stop bar. The crosswalks on this street will also be updated to high-visibility crosswalks after repaving is complete. SFMTA will also review the community suggestions for stop signs at the Terra Vista/Anzavista intersections, and other measures to address safety conflicts in the neighborhood such as crosswalks and reinforcing the existing road diet on O’Farrell. The Terra Vista/Baker location has already been evaluated by the SFMTA Operations division and found that the collision history at this intersection did not warrant a full stop sign. However, daylighting has been recommended by SFMTA at this intersection and will be implemented by the Operations division.

Anza Vista: Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

The proposals for pedestrian and cyclist safety at the Geary/Masonic intersection received 48 survey responses. Overall, a majority of respondents support the proposals, with the highest support for Lead Pedestrian Intervals (78%), cyclist wayfinding with pavement markings through the intersection (76%), and No Turn on Red signage (72%). Installing a bike box at the intersection of Masonic Avenue and O’Farrell Street and rounding the concrete island nose at the bike lane entrance both received support from 58% of respondents.

Lead Pedestrian Intervals were also the most popular proposal among attendees at pop-up events, along with cyclist wayfinding with pavement markings. Other comments from community members included improving wayfinding and signage for cars navigating the Geary/Masonic intersection.

Turk Boulevard was also often mentioned in outreach as a location with high vehicle speeds, particularly between Masonic Avenue and Divisadero Street. Turk Boulevard from Arguello Boulevard to Masonic Avenue was previously identified as an area with opportunity for further improvements in the Transportation Authority’s District 1 Multimodal Transportation Study. Safety analysis of Turk Boulevard in District 1 found several intersections with comparatively high pedestrian and bicyclist crash severity scores. The District 1 Multimodal Transportation Study considers a concept to improve bicycle connectivity and safe access to transit, including separated bike lanes, curb extensions, and bus boarding platforms. In the future, a study of Turk Boulevard from Arguello Boulevard to Divisadero Street could address these issues more comprehensively.

Presidio Heights: Secure Bike Parking

The study team asked community members about priority locations for short-term and long-term secure bike parking in the Presidio Heights neighborhood. This question received 30 responses in the survey. The most popular locations for bike parking were along Arguello Boulevard and near Claire Lilienthal Elementary School. About one-third of respondents stated that they did not want more bike parking in the neighborhood.

In community meetings, community members shared that adding more simple bike parking was sufficient, rather than more complex bike lockers or bike hangars. This bike parking could be combined with daylighting to reinforce parking restrictions near crosswalks. In addition, larger e-bikes take up more space at bike racks, and as the number of e-bikes continues to grow in San Francisco, this should be taken into account when allocating bike parking.

Cathedral Hill: Pedestrian Visibility Improvements

In Cathedral Hill, the study team proposed traffic safety measures, such as painted safety zones, at five intersections with a high number of recent turn-based collisions and asked respondents to select priority locations. This question received 29 responses in the survey. The top three priority locations to receive traffic safety measures based on survey responses were: Post Street and Franklin Street (79% of respondents), O’Farrell Street and Franklin Street (76%), and Eddy Street and Franklin Street (62%).

Attendees at pop-up events were also supportive of proposed pedestrian visibility improvements in Cathedral Hill. One attendee shared that there are many assisted living facilities in Cathedral Hill, so there are many seniors and people with mobility challenges using the sidewalks and crossing the street who would benefit from these improvements.

The project team developed planning level cost estimates for the design and implementation of near-term quick-build recommendations, and cost estimates for design or further study of medium- and long-term recommendations. The near-term quick-build recommendations can be funded with $430,000 of previously allocated sales tax funds from the Neighborhood Transportation Program, which are reserved in the Transportation Authority’s Prop K transportation sales tax program, pending completion of this plan. The Transportation Authority Board may release these funds for the scope of work proposed below and following the adoption of this final report. For the medium- and long-term recommendations, the project team has identified potential funding sources, summarized below.

The cost estimates for near-term, quick-build recommendations are summarized in the table below. Recommendations were finalized and prioritized based on findings from the second round of community engagement.

The table below summarizes the estimated cost and funding sources for design and further study of medium- and long-term study recommendations.

6.1 Local Sources

Proposition L Half-cent Sales Tax

In 2022, San Francisco voters approved Proposition L (Prop L), the Sales Tax for Transportation, which directs half-cent sales tax funds to a 30-year Expenditure Plan that identifies projects and programs to be funded by the sales tax. The Expenditure Plan describes the types of projects eligible for funds under each of its 28 programs. This project’s recommendations, which are focused on pedestrian and cyclist safety, may be eligible under the following Prop L program:

• Safer and Complete Streets: This program funds improvements to the transportation system to make it safer for all users.

Proposition D Traffic Congestion Mitigation Tax (TNC Tax)

The Proposition D Traffic Congestion Mitigation Tax (TNC Tax) was passed by San Francisco voters in 2019. The TNC Tax charges a 1.5% tax on shared TNC rides and 3.25% for all other TNC rides. The Transportation Authority’s share of 50% of TNC Tax revenues are available for street safety projects including pedestrian or bicycle safety projects, traffic calming, and traffic signal upgrades and re-timing.

Proposition AA Vehicle Registration Fee

Proposition AA is a voter-approved $10 annual vehicle registration fee that funds local street repair and reconstruction, pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements, and transit reliability and mobility improvements throughout San Francisco. Given its small size — less than $5 million in revenue per year — Prop AA is used to support small, high-impact projects that provide tangible benefits to the public in the short term, and only funds design and construction phases of projects.

Prop AA projects are split into three categories:

• Street Repair and Reconstruction (50% of Prop AA funds)
• Pedestrian Safety (25%)
• Transit Reliability and Mobility Improvements (25%)

Prop AA could fund the design and construction phases for projects that include pedestrian improvements.

General Fund

Some discretionary funding may be available within the General Fund budgeting process for the types of recommendations included in this plan.

The following regional, state, and federal funding sources are also available to implement pedestrian safety recommendations. These funding sources are intended to fund larger projects, and may not be appropriate for the relatively lower cost ($200,000 to $250,000) long-term bike improvement recommendation at Bay Street / Laguna Street. However, the programs listed below are possible sources for the implementation of recommendations from a future study. Some additional recommendations for future study are also listed below

6.2 Regional, State, and Federal Sources

Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) Sustainable Communities Planning Grants

California Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) was signed into law on April 28, 2017. SB 1 provides $5.4 billion annually toward transportation in California, funding a wide variety of transportation projects through many different grant programs. Among those, SB 1 provides approximately $25 million in funds for Sustainable Communities Grants each grant cycle, which are intended to support strategies to achieve the state’s greenhouse gas reduction target of 40 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 2050, respectively.

Active Transportation Program

The state Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provides grants to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation. This highly competitive program could fund the bike and pedestrian safety infrastructure recommendations that stem from future studies but the program emphasizes projects that benefit disadvantaged communities and measurably increase walking and biking. Only projects requesting more than $250,000 are eligible. Therefore, ATP is an unlikely funding source for the project recommendations but could fund implementation of recommendations from future studies for the Bay Street/Laguna Street intersection.

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Grant

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is one of the core federal-aid programs to states. The purpose of the HSIP program is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-State-owned public roads and roads on tribal land. Example safety projects include but are not limited to crosswalk markings, rapid flashing beacons, curb extensions, speed feedback signs, median islands, and other pavement markings. In California, HSIP prioritizes projects based on a benefit-to-cost ratio. Projects along roadways with a relatively high crash history (e.g., Lombard Street) may be able to achieve a competitive benefit-to-cost ratio and be funded through HSIP.

Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Grant Program

Through the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act, USDOT provides funding for several types of projects, including funding for active transportation projects and programs. One program, the Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Grant Program, can fund bike safety improvements.

6.3 Additional Recommendations

In addition to these specific medium- and long-term projects, the study team heard community feedback about broader issues in the district such as speeding, double parking, and scooter use on sidewalks. Below is a list of recommendations for these issues that could be addressed with further funding.

• Support SFMTA efforts to increase street safety, which could include future expansion of the Speed Safety Camera program. The Speed Safety Camera program launched in 2025 at 33 locations across the city and has already demonstrated that automated speed enforcement cameras can help slow traffic speeds on city streets. The pilot is expected to last for five years.
• Support recommendations in the Street Safety Act, which articulates the next generation of traffic safety strategies for San Francisco.
• Advance recommendations from the Biking and Rolling Plan, such as bike facility upgrades on Arguello Blvd and Presidio Ave.
• Conduct comprehensive parking and curb studies along commercial corridors (e.g., Chestnut Street and Fillmore StreetSFMTA is currently conducting the Fillmore Street Transit and Safety Project to improve Muni reliability, travel times, capacity, accessibility, and safety on the corridor.) and near locations with a high volume of passenger pick up and drop off.
• Leverage insights on parking inventory from SFMTA’s digital curb program to better manage limited curb space.

Finally, there were some streets, including Turk Boulevard and Lombard Street, that were often mentioned in outreach as needing safety improvements. Recommendations for these streets are summarized below.

• Conduct a comprehensive study of Turk Boulevard from Arguello Boulevard to Divisadero Street, including recommendations to slow vehicle speeds and increase pedestrian safety. This study would build off the concepts initially identified in the District 1 Multimodal Transportation Study approved by the Transportation Authority in 2024.
• Conduct a corridor-level placemaking project on Lombard Street with education around driver behavior to encourage drivers to slow down when using the street. Implement additional safety measures, such as No Turn on Red regulations, adding high visibility backplates to improve signal visibility, and a double fine zone for speeding.

The District 2 Safety Study was funded through the San Francisco County Transportation Authority’s Neighborhood Program at the request of former Commissioner Catherine Stefani. The Neighborhood Program was established to fund community-based efforts in San Francisco neighborhoods, especially in underserved neighborhoods and areas with vulnerable populations (e.g., seniors, children, and/or people with disabilities). The Neighborhood Program is made possible with San Francisco’s half-cent sales tax for transportation funds.

Project Team

San Francisco County Transportation Authority

• Rachel Hiatt, Deputy Director of Planning
• Alexandra Pan, Transportation Planner
• Brittany Chan, Communications Specialist

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency

• Damon Curtis, Traffic Calming Program Manager
• Jennifer Molina, Senior Transportation Planner