Presidio Long Range Transportation 

Implementation Strategy (LoTIS)

Prepared for:

Presidio Trust

October 2021

SF20-1126

 
Table of Contents

01 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................. 2

LoTIS Purpose.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Planning Context ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

LoTIS Process........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

LoTIS Working Group ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Supporting Analysis........................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

LoTIS Outcomes....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

02 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................................. 6

Regional Context...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Transportation Network and Usage ..........................................................................................................................................................................7

Pedestrians..........................................................................................................................................................................................................7

Bicycles ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................7

PresidiGo ............................................................................................................................................................................................................7

Other Transit ......................................................................................................................................................................................................7

Vehicles .............................................................................................................................................................................................................14

Presidio Population Highlights & Travel Patterns .................................................................................................................................................. 17

Residential Demographics ................................................................................................................................................................................ 17

Resident and Employee Travel Patterns ...........................................................................................................................................................18

Presidio Visitors................................................................................................................................................................................................18

03 Needs Assessment ................................................................................................................................................. 22

Future Travel Demand ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 22

Presidio Land Use Changes ............................................................................................................................................................................. 22

Trust Policies ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26

External Forces ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 26

Travel Mode Needs Assessment............................................................................................................................................................................. 29
Pedestrians....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29

Bicycles ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 33

Transit...............................................................................................................................................................................................................37

Vehicles .............................................................................................................................................................................................................37

Parkwide Programs and Policies ............................................................................................................................................................................ 39

Pavement Management ................................................................................................................................................................................... 39

Transportation Demand Management .............................................................................................................................................................41

04 Implementation Strategy ...................................................................................................................................... 44

Modal Networks ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 44

Pedestrian ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 44

Bicycle .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 48

Transit.............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 48

Vehicles ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 48

Parkwide Programs and Policies ............................................................................................................................................................................ 50

Slow Streets...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 50

Pavement Management ................................................................................................................................................................................... 50

Pavement Right-Sizing .................................................................................................................................................................................... 50

Transportation Demand Management .............................................................................................................................................................51

Funding Sources......................................................................................................................................................................................................51

Federal Lands Planning Program .....................................................................................................................................................................51

Federal Lands Transportation Program ...........................................................................................................................................................51

Federal Lands Access Program ........................................................................................................................................................................ 52

Transportation Fund for Clean Air .................................................................................................................................................................. 52

Letterman Digital Arts Center ......................................................................................................................................................................... 52

Implementation Tools ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 52

LoTIS Webmap ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 52

Performance Metrics........................................................................................................................................................................................ 54

Next Steps .........................................................................................................................................................................................................55
Appendices (provided as a standalone document)

Appendix A: Planned Transportation Projects Adjacent to the Presidio

Appendix B: Presidio Population Demographics

Appendix C: Walkshed and Bikeshed Maps

Appendix D: Needs Assessment Scoring Criteria and Scores

Appendix E: Pavement Management Program

Appendix F: Parking Enforcement Update

Appendix G: Proposed Parking Policies

Appendix H: PresidiGo Service Evaluation

Appendix I: Slow Streets Selection

Appendix J: LoTIS Project List
List of Figures

Figure 2-1: Existing Pedestrian Facilities ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 2-2: Pedestrian Peak Hourly Weekday Volumes ................................................................................................................................................. 9

Figure 2-3: Pedestrian Peak Hourly Weekend Volumes............................................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 2-4: Existing Bicycle Facilities........................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 2-5: Bicycle Peak Hourly Weekday Volumes ..................................................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 2-6: Bicycle Peak Hourly Weekend Volumes..................................................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 2-7: Transit Service: Pre-COVID....................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 2-8: Transit Service: June 2021......................................................................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 2-9: Visitorship Pie Chart .................................................................................................................................................................................. 19

Figure 2-10: Visitorship Distribution ........................................................................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 3-1: Existing Trip Generation: Weekday PM Peak ............................................................................................................................................ 24

Figure 3-2: 2040 Growth in Trip Generation: Weekday PM Peak................................................................................................................................ 25

Figure 3-3: Existing Trip Generation: Weekend Midday.............................................................................................................................................. 27

Figure 3-4: Existing Trip Generation: Weekend Midday.............................................................................................................................................. 28

Figure 3-5: TrendLab+ Forecast Results ...................................................................................................................................................................... 29

Figure 3-6: Pedestrian Collisions.................................................................................................................................................................................. 31

Figure 3-7: Transit Center Walkshed............................................................................................................................................................................ 32

Figure 3-8: Bicycle Collisions........................................................................................................................................................................................ 34

Figure 3-9: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress..................................................................................................................................................................... 35

Figure 3-10: Transit Center Bikeshed........................................................................................................................................................................... 36

Figure 3-11: Vehicle Collisions ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 38

Figure 3-12: Pass-through Routes ................................................................................................................................................................................ 40

Figure 4-1: Transportation & LORIS Strategic Areas ................................................................................................................................................... 46

Figure 4-2: Primary Pedestrian Network...................................................................................................................................................................... 47

Figure 4-3: Primary Bicycle Network............................................................................................................................................................................ 49

Figure 4-4: Project Database – Project Type Overlaps ................................................................................................................................................. 53

Figure 4-5: Project Database – Near Term Project with Example................................................................................................................................ 56
List of Tables

Table 1: Presidio Trust Strategic Goals........................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Table 2: Work Location of Presidio Residents.............................................................................................................................................................. 18

Table 3: Home Location of Presidio Employees ........................................................................................................................................................... 18

Table 4: Current and Future VMT Estimates................................................................................................................................................................ 26

Table 5: TrendLab+ Forecast Results ........................................................................................................................................................................... 29

Table 6: Pavement Management Budget Scenarios...................................................................................................................................................... 39

Table 7: LoTIS Performance Metrics ............................................................................................................................................................................ 54
Introduction

1

01 Introduction
2 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

01INTRODUCTION

LOTIS PURPOSE

As the Trust plans for occupancy of the remaining buildings, program 

development, recreational facilities and park amenities, the demand 

for transportation services will increase. The Presidio Long Range 

Transportation Implementation Strategy (LoTIS) will guide the 

development and investment in the Presidio Trust’s transportation 

services over the next three decades. 

P l a n n i n g Co n t e x t

The LoTIS considers the context of Bay Area regional housing and 

transportation plans and reflects the Presidio Trust’s Strategic Goals. 

G o a l s a n d O b j e c t i v e s

The Presidio Trust has identified three Strategic Goals in support of 

its mission and vision. Transportation objectives were further 

identified in pursuit of each of the three goals, as outlined in Table 1. 

Table 1: Presidio Trust Strategic Goals

Goal Transportation Objectives

People

As a national park, the 

Presidio will be visited 

and loved by all 

• Make it convenient to get to the 

Presidio’s most popular destinations 

without a car.

• Enhance the experience of traveling by 

foot, bike, or transit within the park.

Planet

The Presidio Trust will be 

a model of environmental 

stewardship

• Reduce the GHG emissions from trips 

to/from and within the Presidio.

• Minimize environmental impact of 

transportation-related infrastructure.

Performance

The Presidio Trust will 

exemplify operational 

excellence in 

public service 

• Maintain the existing network and 

transit infrastructure in a state of 

good repair. 

• Eliminate serious injuries from road 

collisions and tripping hazards.

• Reduce net cost to Trust of 

transportation network and services.

C o m p a n i o n P l a n n i n g E f f o r t s

The LoTIS provides an in-depth look ahead at the transportation 

infrastructure required to meet the vision of the Presidio Long Range 

Implementation Strategy (LoRIS). The LoRIS prioritizes building 

rehabilitation and development and park infrastructure, including 

transportation and utility infrastructure. Similarly, the Long Range 

Utilities Implementation Strategy (LoUIS) provides a more detailed 

review of park utility infrastructure. 

C o v i d U n c e r t a i n t y

Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the LoTIS draws on an array 

of preexisting sources to establish a baseline for analysis. All 

references to existing conditions refer to pre-COVID conditions, 

unless otherwise noted. While future conditions remain uncertain, 

they reflect the best projections of post-COVID conditions, 

incorporating prior trends and assumptions and considering what the 

long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic may be. Some lessons 

learned during pandemic operations in the Presidio are incorporated 

into this document.

I m p l e m e n t a t i o n T i m i n g

This plan is intended to guide transportation investments over the 

next thirty years, divided into four planning horizons: within 5 years, 

5-10 years, 10-20 years, and 20-30 years. These timeframes align with 

the LORIS implementation scenarios and have the following 

associated themes:

• Stabilize first 5 years 

• Sustain 5-10 years,

• Aspire 10-20 years

• Dream 20-30 years
Introduction 3

LOTIS PROCESS

The LoTIS was developed over approximately a one-year timeframe 

between September 2020 and July 2021. The first stages of work 

involved data collection and organization, followed by a collection of 

technical studies, a series of discussions on priorities, and alignment 

with parallel studies. The final step was documenting, in this report 

and in an interactive webmap, the needs assessment outcomes and 

prioritized project list.

L o T I S W o r k i n g Gr o u p

A working group of Trust staff representing a handful of different 

departments was assembled after each major project milestone to 

review and provide guidance on next steps. The group met virtually for 

two hours for each of the five LoTIS Working Group sessions.

S u p p o r t i n g A n a l y s i s

LoTIS planning was completed in three phases: Existing Conditions, 

Needs Assessment, and Implementation. This report is organized in 

the same manner. Existing conditions laid the foundation for the 

study, Needs Assessment used a variety of mode-specific metrics to 

compare existing conditions to ideal transportation conditions, and 

Implementation identified and documented projects to fill the 

discrepancy between exiting and ideal conditions. Multiple deep-dive 

technical studies were completed as part of the planning process. 

These studies are preserved as appendices to this report and include 

the following:

• Transit Service Alternatives Assessment: explores 

alternative service delivery methods to a fixed route shuttle 

service such as PresidiGo.

• PresidiGo Service Evaluation: identifies opportunities 

for service improvements to existing PresidiGo service.

• Slow Streets Selection: The Presidio Trust introduced a 

slow street program in 2020 in response to COVID-19 

demands for outdoor activity space. The goal of the Presidio 

Slow Streets Selection process is to zoom out from the 

current Slow Streets program and more holistically evaluate 

appropriate slow street locations and treatments. The result 

is a list of vetted slow street candidates to aid the Trust with 

future slow street decisions.

• Parking Policy Review: evaluates existing parking 

management policies and recommends adjustments to help 

the Trust meet its Strategic Goals.

• Pavement Management Analysis: surveys existing 

pavement conditions and outlines alternative strategies for 

cost-effectively improving the condition of roadway and 

parking area pavement.

LOTIS OUTCOMES

The legacy of the LoTIS planning process is a “living” project list that 

tentatively divides projects between four implementation time 

horizons: next 5 years, 5-10 years, 10-20 years, and 20-30 years. The 

project list is a culmination of the needs assessment analyses and 

multiple rounds of feedback from the LoTIS Working Group and Trust 

Planning staff. The list reflects the priorities at this moment in time 

and is meant to be revisited as priorities and external forces change 

overtime.

W e b m a p I n t e r f a c e

The project list is stored in a database that can be viewed through a 

webmap. This allows projects to be viewed spatially and potentially 

overlaid with other parkwide efforts such as utility or landscaping 

improvements to identify opportunities for coordination. 

I m p l e m e n t a t i o n N e x t S t e p s

The LoTIS is a living strategy, and the project database is intended to 

perpetuate the cycle shown on the following page.
4 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

The webmap, project database, and technical studies will aid in the 

planning and prioritizing stages, funding strategies and technical 

studies will help with implementation, and the performance measures 

will help track progress. 

 

Plan

Implement

Measure

Re-Prioritize

Advisory bicycle lane pilot on Graham Street in the Main Post
Existing Conditions

5

02 Existing Conditions
6 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

02 EXISTING CONDITIONS

The Existing Conditions section outlines the state of transportation in 

the Presidio and the surrounding region, including existing 

transportation infrastructure, population characteristics, and 

travel patterns.

Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the LoTIS draws on an array 

of preexisting sources to establish a baseline for analysis. All 

references to existing conditions refer to pre-COVID conditions, 

unless otherwise noted. While future conditions remain uncertain, 

they reflect the best projections of post-COVID conditions, 

incorporating prior trends and assumptions and considering what the 

long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic may be.

Sources of data for LoTIS existing conditions include:

• Prior or ongoing studies, such as the Northwest Presidio 

Congestion Study (2019) and Crissy Field Next

• Ongoing projects and plans, such as the PresidiGo Capital 

Plan and Presidio Tunnel Tops project

• Prior surveys and reports, such as the 2018 

Employee/Resident Survey and the 2018 Visitation Report

• US Park Police collision data

• American Community Survey (ACS) Census data

• Assorted data from the Presidio Trust’s operations, including 

vehicle speed, vehicle counts, and transit ridership

REGIONAL CONTEXT

The Presidio exists within a broad and ever-changing land use and 

transportation landscape in the Bay Area. 

Land use throughout the Bay Area is driven by Plan Bay Area, put 

together by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). One aspect of Plan 

Bay Area is Priority Development Areas (PDAs), locations targeted for 

focused growth. While no PDAs cover the Presidio itself, adjacent 

neighborhoods like the Richmond District and Marina District/Cow 

Hollow are identified as PDAs in Plan Bay Area 2050. Increased 

housing and jobs in these areas may influence local travel patterns, 

including for Presidio residents and employees. Plan Bay Area 2050 

also identifies the network of coastal trails on the western edge of the 

Presidio as Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs), regionally significant 

open space intended for long-term protection. While this designation 

does not change their management or visitation directly, it reflects 

their importance to the region both ecologically and culturally.

In addition to PDAs, housing growth in the Bay Area is driven by the 

Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), administered by 

ABAG, which dictates the amount by which local jurisdictions must 

increase their housing supply to keep up with demand. Under the most 

recent draft of RHNA, San Francisco is expected to add over 80,000 

households by 2050. Even if these households are primarily in other 

parts of the city, such an increase will impact Presidio employees 

and visitors.

The Bay Area is also considering several long-range transportation 

projects that will influence regional mobility. Ferry service is already 

starting to expand to new destinations like Richmond, Berkeley, 

Treasure Island, and Mission Bay. The electrification of Caltrain and

improvements anticipating California’s High-Speed Rail (HSR)

project are underway. Megaprojects like the Downtown Extension of 

Caltrain and HSR to Salesforce Transit Center and a second Transbay

rail tube promise to significantly improve regional 

transit connectivity. 

At a more local level, the City of San Francisco is pursuing transit and 

roadway programs to improve travel in the city. Chief among these is 

the completion and later extension of the Central Subway, which 
Existing Conditions 7

would bring Muni Metro service closer to the Presidio. For more 

details of City projects in the vicinity, see Appendix A.

Regional policy shifts may also impact the future of Bay Area 

transportation. The San Francisco County Transportation Authority

(SFCTA) continues to explore congestion pricing in downtown San 

Francisco. Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, MTC was working 

on guidance for increased teleworking. COVID itself may result in 

significant shifts in regional travel patterns.

TRANSPORTATION NETWORK 

AND USAGE

P e d e s t r i a n s

The Presidio’s existing pedestrian network comprises trails, 

sidewalks, and roadway crossings, as shown in Figure 2-1. The 

Presidio’s unique combination of residential and commercial areas 

within a national park site means that this network serves both visitors 

recreating and residents and employees accessing jobs and services. 

Figure 2-2 displays pedestrian peak hourly weekday activity, which 

is highest in the denser northeast corner of the Presidio, near the Main 

Post, Letterman District, and Crissy Field. Pedestrian peak hourly 

weekend activity is show on Figure 2-3. 

B i c y c l e s

Bicyclists use the Presidio bicycle network for both commute and 

recreational purposes. The Presidio contains a diverse array of 

bicycle facilities:

• Class I off-street bike paths, such as the Mountain Lake Trail 

and the Battery East Trail

• Class II on-street bike lanes, such as on Washington 

Boulevard and Mason Street

• Class III on-street shared bike routes, such as on Gorgas 

Avenue

• Class IV separated bike lanes, such as on Lincoln Boulevard

at the southwest entrance to the park

• Advisory bike lanes, such as on Graham Street

For a map of existing bicycle facilities, see Figure 2-4.

The Presidio provides a total of 772 bike racks, concentrated in its 

denser and more heavily used northeastern corner. Other parts of the 

Presidio, including most of the residential areas, have a sparse 

distribution of bike racks insufficient for broad use.

Bay Wheels, San Francisco’s primary bikeshare provider, has recently 

begun operating within the Presidio with its dockless e-bikes. 

Bikeshare users can now park an e-bike in most of the developed areas 

of the Presidio. The availability of e-bikes is critical to bikeshare’s 

success in the Presidio due to its steep grades. 

Peak hourly bicycle weekday and weekend volumes are shown on 

Figure 2-5 and Figure 2-6, respectively. 

P r e s i d i Go

The PresidiGo shuttle is a free service for residents, employees, and 

visitors to the Presidio. In 2019, PresidiGo operated three routes: 

• Downtown, connecting the Presidio Transit Center and 

Letterman District to Downtown San Francisco and the 

Salesforce Transit Center

• Presidio Hills, a loop connecting the southern half of the 

Presidio and Baker Beach to the Presidio Transit Center

• Crissy Field, a loop connecting the northern half of the 

Presidio and the Golden Gate Bridge to the Presidio 

Transit Center

Nearly all Presidio residents lived within a five-to-ten-minute walk of 

a bus stop. Notable exceptions include the East Housing neighborhood 

along MacArthur Ave, Portola St, and Liggett Ave, as well as portions 

of Infantry Terrace and Simonds Loop.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has forced significant service 

reductions, including elimination of the Crissy Field route, 2019 

ridership indicates a very successful and cost-effective service with 

productivity comparable to some Muni routes. For more information, 

please see Appendix H, the PresidiGo Service Evaluation.

Ot h e r T r a n s i t

Muni and Golden Gate Transit supplement PresidiGo service. In 2019, 

service was as follows.



Figure 2-4: Existing Bicycle Facilites Legend

Source: Presidio Trust, 2019

Class I- Paved

Class I- Unpaved

Class II- Bike Lane

Class III- Bike Route

Bicycle Facility Class

Advisory Bike Lane

Class II- Bike Lane Uphill/ Class III- Bike Route Downhill

Protected Bike Lane


14 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

SF Muni Routes

• 28 19th Avenue, serving the Golden Gate Bridge and 

Richardson Avenue

• 29 Sunset, serving the Baker Beach area

• 30 Stockton, serving the Marina District just east of 

the Presidio

• 43 Masonic, serving the Presidio Blvd, Main Post, and 

Letterman areas

• 41 Union and 45 Union-Stockton, stopping just outside of 

the eastern entrance of the Presidio

• 76X Marin Headlands Express, stopping at the Golden Gate 

Bridge and Richardson Avenue on weekends only

Golden Gate Transit Routes

• Twenty-four routes stopped at the Golden Gate Bridge Toll 

Plaza and on Richardson Avenue with service to downtown 

San Francisco and various points in Marin and 

Sonoma Counties

Service Changes Due to COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in substantial changes to travel 

behavior, the extent and duration of which remain unknown. In March 

2020, PresidiGo service was cut by 18% through service reductions 

during the commute periods. A month later, PresidiGo suspended the 

Crissy Field Route and decreased Downtown weekend service. In 

November 2020, weekend service on both the Downtown and Presidio 

Hills routes was suspended temporarily. 

In forming its Core Service Plan, Muni suspended the 41 Union and 

the portions of the 28 19th Avenue and 43 Masonic serving the 

Presidio. However, in September 2020, Muni extended the 30 

Stockton from its terminus in the Marina District into the Presidio 

along Mason Street, terminating in the mid-Crissy area, adjacent to 

Tunnel Tops. While it is likely that Muni will continue supporting the 

extension of the 30 Stockton, the return of other routes is uncertain. 

Golden Gate Transit reduced service through the Golden Gate Bridge 

toll plaza to only six routes, serving only the largest cities of Marin and 

Sonoma Counties. In April 2020, Golden Gate Transit began allowing 

rides between any San Francisco stops to augment reduced Muni 

service. Previously, it had only allowed travel to downtown San 

Francisco from the Golden Gate Toll Plaza and Richardson 

Avenue stops.

Transit services to the Presidio before and during the COVID-19 

pandemic are shown in Figure 2-7 and Figure 2-8. 

V e h i c le s

The Presidio has a sparse road network of mainly small, residential 

streets that is tied together by a few key arterials. Lincoln Boulevard 

runs through the whole Presidio, connecting Baker Beach, Golden 

Gate Bridge, and Main Post. Mason Street runs along the northern 

edge of the Presidio and connects to the Marina District. Lombard 

Street and Girard Road connect the Main Post and Letterman Districts 

to the Marina/Cow Hollow District, while Arguello Boulevard and 

Presidio Boulevard connect them to the neighborhoods to the south. 

Washington Boulevard provides an important east-west route through 

the Presidio, but its residential character makes it undesirable as 

an arterial.

These arterials are not only used by residents, employees, and visitors 

to the Presidio, but also by drivers using them to access other 

destinations outside of the Presidio. These are called cut-through 

trips, and they vary by time of day, day of week, and traffic conditions. 

One common cut-through pattern is accessing the Golden Gate Bridge

along Lincoln Boulevard and avoiding traffic on Richardson Avenue 

via Gorgas Avenue instead of taking the main highways, US Route 101,

and CA Highway 1. Another common cut-through is traveling between 

the Richmond and the Marina and Cow Hollow neighborhoods on

Presidio Boulevard, Lombard Street, and Girard Road as opposed to 

going around the Presidio via Divisadero Street. Presidio cut-through 

routes are shown in Figure 3-12.
Figure 2-7: Transit Service: Pre-COVID Legend

Source: Presidio Trust, 2019

Downtown

Presidio Hills

Golden Gate Transit

SFMTA

PresidiGo Routes

Crissy Field Bus Stop

Location

Other Transit Services
Figure 2-8: Transit Service: June 2021 Legend

Source: Presidio Trust, 2019

Other Transit Services

Downtown

Presidio Hills

Golden Gate Transit

SFMTA

PresidiGo Routes

Bus Stop

Location
Existing Conditions 17

P a r k i n g

Regulating parking in the Presidio is a critical element of the Trust’s 

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. By 

accommodating vehicles, but regulating and charging for parking, this 

strategy enhances the park user experience by minimizing vehicle 

trips generated by park uses, minimizing the Presidio’s carbon 

footprint, reducing the amount of park area devoted to parking spaces, 

and generating revenue to fund ongoing operation and maintenance 

of the Presidio’s transportation infrastructure, including roads, trails, 

parking lots, sidewalks, and transit system. The Presidio has 

approximately 7,500 parking spaces, which are classified in one of

three ways:

• Residential Parking: with a few exceptions, one 

designated, exclusive-use parking space is included with 

each residential lease, free of charge. Permits for additional 

spaces are available for purchase.

• Paid Public Parking: Day-use, hourly, and monthly

permits can be purchased from one of the Pay-and-Display 

stations or from the Presidio parking office. Rates vary by 

neighborhood and by time of day based on demand.

• Free Public Parking: Free parking is available in areas 

directly adjacent to free NPS parking lots (such as Bowley 

Street near Baker Beach), at some trailheads and overlooks, 

and in areas that have upcoming construction projects.

C u r b M a n a g e m e n t a n d L o a d i n g

With widespread adoption of ride-hail services like Uber and Lyft, the 

demand for loading zone space has grown. Ride-hail use is lower in 

the Presidio than in other parts of the city but still an important and 

growing access mode. The busiest locations are at the Golden Gate 

Bridge, the Main Post, and the eastern edge of the Presidio. Ride-hail

usage is greatest during special events. Saturday is the busiest day for 

1 At the time of analysis, these areas were known as “Communities of Concern” 

(CoCs) and represented the most disadvantaged and underserved 

communities in the area. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission 

determined CoCs by the concentration of multiple metrics: minority 

residents, low income (< 200% federal poverty level), limited English 

proficiency, zero-vehicle households, residents over age 75, people with a 

disability, single-parent households, and cost-burdened renters.

pick-ups and drop-offs. The Presidio has very few designated 

loading zones. 

PRESIDIO POPULATION HIGHLIGHTS & 

TRAVEL PATTERNS

R e s i d e n t i a l De m o g r a p h i c s

The existing conditions analysis draws on Presidio Trust data and 

American Community Survey (ACS) census data to compare the 

Presidio’s residential population with that of adjacent zip codes and 

San Francisco Equity Priority Communities.

1 The Presidio currently 

has 3,100 residents or 1,320 residents/square mile, significantly lower 

than nearby districts that have densities of over 20,000 

residents/square mile.

The average Presidio household is larger, younger, and whiter than 

adjacent neighborhoods or San Francisco Equity Priority 

Communities. The average household size is 3, compared to 2.2 in 

nearby areas. While only one in ten residents is over 55, a full third are 

under 25; the median age of Presidio residents is 30. The Presidio also 

has more married couples with children than nearby zip codes. 

Roughly 77% of the population identifies as White, while only 7% 

identify as Asian, much lower than in surrounding neighborhoods. 

Nearly all residents are above the poverty line and have strong 

English proficiency. 

Vehicle ownership is high in the Presidio; 96-99%2 of households own 

at least one vehicle and 34% own three or more. Presidio residents are 

also more likely to work from home (13% of workers) than residents 

of adjacent neighborhoods.

For more information on residential demographics, see Appendix B.

2 There is some disagreement between data sources on the percent of 

households without any vehicles. This confusion may come from multifamily/roommate households and differing interpretations of “household.”
18 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

R e s i d e n t a n d E m p l o y e e T r a v e l P a t t e r n s

The introduction of the PresidiGo shuttle significantly increased 

transit usage over the last twenty years. In the same timeframe, autobased trips declined significantly, though the arrival of services like 

Uber and Lyft in recent years has slowed this trend. 

The Presidio’s 2018 Employee and Resident Transportation Survey 

provides a high-quality snapshot of the travel patterns of these two 

populations. As shown in Table 2, roughly 85% of Presidio residents 

work in San Francisco, including 15% who work in the Presidio itself, 

including working from home. Most residents leave for work around 

8:00 AM and return around 6:30 PM. A large proportion of Presidio 

residents (36%) use the PresidiGo shuttle to commute, with another 

7% using other transit services. Nearly 32% of residents drive alone 

and another 9% carpool. The bicycle mode share is a healthy 7% 

(compared to 4% citywide in SF), but the walk mode share is only 5% 

(compared to 11% citywide in SF)3. While commute mode share does 

not change dramatically in different parts of the Presidio, transit 

ridership is focused in the eastern and southwestern areas. 

Table 2: Work Location of Presidio Residents

Region Percent of Presidio Residents

Presidio 15%1

Downtown San Francisco 41%

Other Neighborhoods of San 

Francisco 29%

San Mateo & Santa Clara Counties 7%

Marin County 4%

Alameda & Contra Costa Counties 4%

Sonoma & Napa Counties 1%

Source: 2018 Employee and Resident Transportation Survey

1 Includes Presidio residents working from home

The Presidio currently has approximately 4,000 employees, not 

including those working from home. While only 6% live in the 

Presidio, 51% live in other parts of San Francisco, as seen in Table 3. 

The rest primarily live in the East Bay or Marin County. Most 

3 SF 2018 Resident Commute Mode Shares from MTC Vital Signs, 

https://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/commute-mode-choice. 

employees arrive in the Presidio around 9:00 AM and leave between 

5:00 and 6:30 PM. Nearly half of all employees drive alone, with even 

higher drive-alone rates for those from the North and South Bay. The 

East Bay has the largest transit mode share (66%). Within San 

Francisco, transit mode share ranges from 20% to 40%, while driving 

alone remained dominant in most parts of the city, ranging from 30% 

to over 60%. 

Table 3: Home Location of Presidio Employees

Region Percent of Presidio Employees

Presidio Residents 6%1

Rest of San Francisco 51%

Alameda & Contra Costa Counties 20%

Marin County 13%

San Mateo & Santa Clara Counties 7%

Sonoma, Napa, & Solano Counties 3%

Source: 2018 Employee and Resident Transportation Survey

1 Does not include Presidio residents working from home

The 2018 transportation survey also asked residents and employees 

about their preferences for transportation demand management 

(TDM) improvements. Both groups indicated strong support for 

improved public transit service in and to the Presidio. Employees also 

noted that financial incentives and more flexible work schedules 

would encourage them to use modes other than driving alone. 

P r e s i d i o V i s i t o r s

In 2018, nearly 10 million people visited the Presidio. A 2018 survey 

of visitors found that 21% of visitors came from within San Francisco 

and another 23% from the rest of the Bay Area, as seen in Figure 2-9. 

Relative to a similar 2008 survey, visitation from other states (30%) 

and other countries (16%) had grown, as Figure 2-10 shows. Among 

visitors surveyed, 43% drove a personal car to the park, while only 10% 

used public transit. Among visitors surveyed at Presidio sites, 46% 

walked for at least part of their journey to the park, 11% bicycled, 30% 
Existing Conditions 19

drove a personal vehicle, 10% used public transit, and 6% used a 

ride-hail or taxi service.

Visitors are increasingly representative of the Bay Area’s racial and 

income diversity. When surveyed, they reported appreciating escape 

from the city with open space, hiking and biking trails, and free 

programs. However, visitors noted barriers that included poor public 

transit access, poor signage and wayfinding, and poor accessibility of 

PresidiGo for persons with disabilities. Some visitors also commented 

on lack of diversity in Presidio staff and fellow visitors, and a 

perception of elitism and exclusivity.

Figure 2-9: Visitorship Pie Chart

Figure 2-10: Visitorship Distribution

Visitors

• In 2018, nearly 10 million people 

visited the Presidio

• Visitors to the Presidio are primarily 

local, but visitors are increasingly 

coming from farther away*

2018 Visitors to 

GGB Visitor Center

Percent of Visitors

* Relative to 2008 Visitor Survey

Source: 2018 Visitor Survey

Source: 2018 Northwest Presidio Congestion Study

MTC Community 

of Concern

25

Visitors

• In 2018, nearly 10 million people 

visited the Presidio

• Visitors to the Presidio are primarily 

local, but visitors are increasingly 

coming from farther away*

2018 Visitors to 

GGB Visitor Center

Percent of Visitors

* Relative to 2008 Visitor Survey

Source: 2018 Visitor Survey

Source: 2018 Northwest Presidio Congestion Study

MTC Community 

of Concern

25
20 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

This page intentionally left blank.
Needs Assessment 21

03 Needs Assessment
22 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

03 NEEDS ASSESSMENT

The Needs Assessment section examines projected trends in Presidio 

travel demand and transportation gaps over the next thirty years. Like 

the Existing Conditions section, the Needs Assessment draws on 

preexisting sources to establish a baseline for analysis. All references 

to existing conditions refer to pre-COVID conditions, unless otherwise 

noted. While future conditions remain uncertain, they reflect the best 

projections of post-COVID conditions, incorporating prior trends and 

assumptions and considering what the long-term impacts of the 

COVID-19 pandemic may be. 

FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND

The Presidio contains an array of residential, commercial, and 

recreational land uses that generate trips at different rates and 

different times of day. Understanding current and future travel 

demand is important to determining improvements to the 

transportation network. Travel demand is influenced by land use 

changes in the Presidio, Presidio Trust policies and services, and 

external forces, including both planning and policy changes. 

P r e s i d i o L a n d U s e Ch a n g e s

The travel demand analysis uses 2019 land use data and 2040 land use 

projections provided by the Presidio Trust. The primary trends are 

noted below.

As of August 2019, 13% of the Presidio’s building area was vacant, 

including many industrial and former military uses. Vacant uses are 

concentrated in Fort Winfield Scott, Crissy Corridor (Mason Street), 

and north of the Main Post and Letterman District. As the 2040 land 

use projections assume all buildings are in use, these areas are also key 

locations for future land use growth. 

Residential Land Use

Currently, residential land uses exist throughout the Presidio, but they 

have their highest density at the Baker Beach Apartments, the 

Letterman Apartments, and the neighborhoods in the southeast 

corner of the Presidio. By 2040, residential land uses are expected to 

grow in the vicinity of the Letterman District and Fort Winfield Scott

where there is significant vacant building area.

Office Land Use

Currently, office land uses are concentrated in the Main Post, 

Letterman District, and, to a lesser extent, Fort Winfield Scott. These 

locations will continue to have significant office space in 2040, 

especially the northern half of the Main Post and Letterman District

where there is significant vacant building area.

Non-Office Commercial Land Uses

Non-office commercial land uses include industrial, retail, restaurant, 

conference, recreational, and educational land uses. These land uses 

are concentrated in the Main Post, Letterman District, and Crissy 

Corridor, and, to a lesser extent, in Fort Winfield Scott and the Public 

Health District. The largest increases in non-office commercial land 

uses by 2040 are expected in the Letterman District, Crissy Corridor, 

and Fort Winfield Scott where there is significant vacant building area.

P r e si d i o T r i p G e n e r a t i o n

Trip generation rates determine the average number of trips generated 

(ins and outs) in a given period of time, be it a single hour or a full 24-

hour period. The travel demand analysis relies on custom trip 

generation rates from a variety of sources, including:

• 2010 Main Post Update to the Presidio Trust 

Management Plan

• 2014 Crissy Corridor Traffic and Parking Study

• 2019 San Francisco Transportation Impact 

Analysis Guidelines

• Individual project studies (e.g., Sports Basement, Palace of 

Fine Arts Theatre, etc.)

These rates determine the likely impact of future land use changes on 

travel demand in the Presidio. The travel demand analysis focuses on 

the weekday PM peak and weekend midday periods for assessing 

travel demand. Due to the dispersed nature of open space throughout 

the Presidio, the travel demand analysis did not consider open space 

as a trip-generating land use, with the exception of the forthcoming 

Tunnel Tops project at the north edge of the Main Post.
Needs Assessment 23

Weekday PM Peak Travel Demand

Existing travel demand in the weekday PM peak period is 

concentrated in the office- and commercial-heavy northeast corner of 

the Presidio, including the Main Post, Letterman District, and Crissy 

Corridor. As shown in Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2, the growth in travel 

demand by 2040 is concentrated on the northern half of the park, 

especially Fort Winfield Scott and portions of the Main Post, 

Letterman District, and Crissy Corridor. Many locations see growth as 

a result of filling currently vacant building area.

Immigrant Point Overlook on Washington Boulevard


26 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Weekend Midday Travel Demand

Like in the weekday PM peak period, existing weekend midday travel 

demand is concentrated in the Main Post, Letterman District, and 

Crissy Corridor, as well as the Baker Beach Apartments. As shown in 

Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4, the growth in travel demand by 2040 is 

similar to weekday PM peak, concentrated in Fort Winfield Scott, the 

Crissy Corridor, and portions of the Main Post and Letterman District.

Many locations see growth as a result of filling currently vacant 

building area.

V M T B e n c h m a r k

Fehr & Peers analyzed regional Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 

benchmarks using SF-CHAMP, the City of San Francisco’s regional 

travel demand model. VMT metrics typically compare VMT to the size 

of the population generating that VMT. Standard VMT metrics include 

Work VMT per Employee and Residential VMT per Resident. 

Based on a model run simulating current (year 2020) conditions, 

Presidio VMT per capita is higher than the San Francisco citywide 

average, but lower than the nine-county regionwide average. Table 4

shows that this dynamic holds true for a model run forecasting year 

2050 conditions. The following table shows VMT metrics for San 

Francisco, the Presidio, and the region for both 2020 and 2050.

Table 4: Current and Future VMT Estimates

Geography

2020 2050

Work 

VMT per 

Employee

Residential 

VMT per 

Resident

Work 

VMT per 

Employee

Residential 

VMT per 

Resident

San Francisco 14.1 8.6 12.6 8.5

Presidio 22.5 10.9 21.5 11.5

Region 25.7 18.6 23.8 17.1

The VMT forecasts indicate that the Presidio is generally trending in 

the same direction as the region and San Francisco, with work VMT 

4 Presidio residential VMT sees a small increase between 2020 and 2050. 

Travel models are inherently imprecise as they attempt to approximate 

large-scale changes over long periods of time and can be highly sensitive to 

slight changes in inputs. Therefore, this increase is not a source of concern. 

decreasing as more housing is added to the core counties and 

residential VMT staying steady or changing only slightly.4

T r u s t P o l i c ie s

Land use trip generation rates are based on the existing or anticipated 

policy context, but significant policy changes have the potential to 

increase or decrease trips as well as shift trips between modes. As an 

example, the Trust made policy shifts in response to COVID-19 such 

as reductions in PresidiGo service levels and implementation of Slow 

Streets. Continuing these policies into the future make certain modes 

of travel more or less attractive to different Presidio users in ways that 

influence their travel behavior. Parking management and work-fromhome guidelines for employees are two other policy areas that can 

have dramatic effects on travel behavior. Parking management 

policies are explored in more detail in Appendix G. 

E x t e r n a l F o r c e s

Travel patterns and travel demand in the Presidio are changing over 

time in response to both internal and external forces. External forces 

include broader societal trends that may affect the amount of 

vehicular and non-vehicular travel taking place in the Bay Area, as well 

as regional land use changes that could increase the number of cutthrough trips (vehicle trips that start outside the Presidio, travel on 

surface streets through the Presidio, then end outside the Presidio). 


Needs Assessment 29

T r e n d L a b +

The LoTIS Working Group (LWG) used TrendLab+, a web-based 

forecasting tool, to explore how trends, including some associated 

with the COVID-19 pandemic and its impacts on the economy, may 

affect short- and long-term travel behavior, traffic levels, and transit 

use. 

LWG members were surveyed on what each respondent thought was 

most likely to occur in the short, medium, and longer term, on factors 

ranging from regional unemployment levels to the prevalence of workfrom-home and distance education. The 22 survey responses were 

combined into a set of forecast scenarios whose aggregate effect on 

VMT per capita and transit ridership per capita is shown in Figure 

3-5 and Table 5 below.

Figure 3-5: TrendLab+ Forecast Results

Table 5: TrendLab+ Forecast Results

Metric 2020 2021 2025 2030

VMT per capita 45% 71% 83% 84%

Transit trips per capita 27% 37% 63% 81%

All values shown as percent of 2019 levels. 

TrendLab+ is a high-level tool, and its outputs (like any future 

forecasts) are subject to substantial variation and uncertainty. 

Nevertheless, the TrendLab+ results suggest that VMT per capita may 

not return to 2019 levels for several years to come, and in the absence 

of significant investment or policy changes, transit ridership in and 

around the Presidio may struggle to return to pre-pandemic levels.

TRAVEL MODE NEEDS ASSESSMENT

The needs assessment process examined each travel mode or project 

type from various perspectives, including demand, safety, and 

network quality, to help identify the most pressing projects for 

each mode.

P e d e s t r i a n s

The Presidio’s pedestrian network serves pedestrians with many 

different abilities, trip purposes and levels of familiarity with 

the Presidio. 

The existing pedestrian network suffers from four key shortcomings:

• Pedestrian Gaps—many walking routes are effective for 

travel within a particular district, but they do not provide 

safe and comfortable routes to other districts or adjacent San 

Francisco neighborhoods

• Direct Connections—even where continuous pedestrian 

routes exist, they may not be the most direct or efficient, 

requiring lengthy detours or unnecessary road crossings

• Lighting—many of the Presidio’s walking routes do not have 

sufficient pedestrian-scale lighting that balances pedestrian 

safety with the preservation of dark areas for wildlife

• Accessibility—much of the Presidio’s pedestrian network 

needs to be upgraded to meet modern accessibility standards 

for all ages and abilities

The needs assessment for the pedestrian mode approached these 

deficiencies through three metrics.

1) Pedestrian activity

Drawing on Presidio Trust count data and local knowledge of the area, 

the project team identified the following areas of high pedestrian 

traffic (as shown in the pedestrian counts map in Existing Conditions):

• Main Post

• Letterman District

• Crissy Field

• Battery East and the Golden Gate Bridge
30 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

• Lincoln Boulevard and the coastal bluffs

• Park Boulevard and Park Trail

• West Pacific Avenue

• Arguello Boulevard

• Lovers’ Lane

As a result of the land use changes identified above, pedestrian activity 

is expected to increase in the Main Post, Letterman District, Crissy 

Corridor, and Fort Winfield Scott.

2) Pedestrian safety

United States Park Police (USPP) data from 2014-2019 identified key 

pedestrian collision and injury hot spots, such as the Main Post, the 

Letterman District, and the intersection of Lincoln Boulevard and

Pershing Drive, shown in Figure 3-6. Most injuries were minor and

occurred when a vehicle struck a pedestrian crossing the road. The 

USPP dataset also categorizes as pedestrian any crashes involving 

micromobility modes such as scooters or skateboards. These modes 

experienced a higher rate of severe crashes, but all incidents involved 

a user falling off a scooter or skateboard without a vehicle present.

3) Pedestrian network access gaps

While all pedestrian gaps are locations of potential need, this analysis 

explored the ways in which these gaps impact the ability of pedestrians 

to access major destinations and transit options. A geospatial network 

analysis, or “walkshed” map, based around nine “activity centers” was 

used to compare the area reachable within a ten-minute walk with and 

without the identified network gaps. An example walkshed map is 

shown in Figure 3-7; the rest can be found in Appendix C. This 

analysis determined the pedestrian network gaps that most impede 

pedestrian movement in the Presidio, including Pershing/Bowley at 

Lincoln, Washington at Arguello, and Kobbe between Lincoln 

and Upton.

A c c e ssi b il i t y

In 2020, the Presidio Trust completed an inventory of facilities within 

the public right-of-way, including sidewalks, curb ramps, street 

crossings, parking spaces, bus stops, and stairways. Barriers were 

identified as well as treatments to remedy these issues.

Accessibility Project Prioritization

Generally, the priorities assigned for barrier removal focus on the 

most significant barriers to accessibility (such as the provision of curb 

ramps where a pedestrian route crosses existing vertical curbs with no 

curb cut). The barrier removal implementation plan prioritizes 

facilities based on the services, programs, and activities served by the 

facility. Implementation of barrier remediation would generally follow 

this order of prioritization: transportation points of arrival, sidewalks 

and curb ramps, walkways and ramps serving particular buildings or 

sites, and street crossings, stairways, and traffic signals. Parking 

spaces, bus stops, sidewalks, and curb ramps (Priorities 1 and 2) 

serving government offices and facilities that serve the public would 

be top priority, followed by Priority 1 and 2 facilities serving 

businesses and then residential areas. 


Needs Assessment 33

B i c y c l e s

The Presidio’s bicycle network is popular with residents, employees, 

and visitors as a way to access jobs and services and enjoy the 

Presidio’s natural beauty. However, the Presidio’s bicycle facilities 

remain fragmented and incomplete in many areas. The needs 

assessment for the bicycle mode focused on the following four key 

aspects of need.

1) Bicycle Activity

Drawing on Presidio Trust count data and local knowledge of the area, 

the project team identified the following areas of high bicycle traffic

(as shown in the bicycle counts map in Existing Conditions):

• Lincoln Boulevard, for its entire route through the Presidio

• Crissy Field

• Battery East and the Golden Gate Bridge

• Fort Winfield Scott

• Washington Boulevard

• Arguello Boulevard

2) Bicycle Safety

United States Park Police (USPP) data from 2014-2019 reveals key

bicycle collision and injury hot spots, such as Mason Street, Letterman 

Drive, Washington Boulevard and Kobbe Avenue, Lincoln Boulevard 

and Storey Avenue, and Lincoln Boulevard and Pershing Drive. These 

hot spots are shown in Figure 3-8. Most injuries were minor and 

involved a vehicle hitting a bicycle as part of a turn or sideswipe.

3) Bicycle LTS

Level of traffic stress (LTS) is a method of assessing the stress imposed 

on bicyclists by road design and traffic patterns. Factors that influence 

the score include bicycle infrastructure type, number of vehicle travel 

lanes, speed limits, and other roadway characteristics, such as whether 

the facility is a one-way street, a two-way street, or a trail. High LTS 

locations indicate stressful or potentially unsafe conditions for 

bicyclists, even in the absence of reported collisions, that may deter 

bicycle use. Over 80% of the Presidio’s road network has an LTS of 1 

or 2, indicating safe and low-traffic stress roadways. However, some 

key connections, including portions of Lincoln Boulevard, Arguello 

Boulevard, Presidio Boulevard, McDowell Avenue, Halleck Street, 

West Pacific Avenue, Montgomery Street and Girard Road, have an 

LTS of 3 or even 4, indicating roadways that have high traffic stress 

and would deter use by the average cyclist. Figure 3-9 displays a 

complete map of LTS in the Presidio as of Fall 2020.

4) Bicycle Network and Access Gaps

Road segments with a high LTS and steep grades affect the ability of 

bicyclists to access major destinations. A geospatial network analysis, 

or “bikeshed” map, based around nine “activity centers” was used to 

compare the area reachable within a ten-minute bike ride with and 

without high stress road segments. This analysis also considered 

which areas were reachable when biking toward and away from 

activity centers, in order to capture the impacts of steep grades. This 

analysis determined the bicycle network gaps which most impede 

bicycle movement in the Presidio.

An example bikeshed map is shown in Figure 3-10; the rest can be 

found in Appendix C.



Needs Assessment 37

T r a n s i t

PresidiGo is a well-liked service that is among the most productive and 

cost-effective transit operations in the Bay Area. Prior to the 

pandemic, PresidiGo was the most commonly used mode for residents 

to commute to work. A robust and effective PresidiGo system provides 

an essential alternative to driving for Presidio residents, employees, 

and visitors, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving 

accessibility for those who are unable to drive. Furthermore, as a costefficient, productive service, PresidiGo reduces the expense of 

transportation in the Presidio for both its riders and the 

Presidio Trust.

While most core transit needs are met, there exist a few opportunities 

for near- and long-term improvement:

• Crissy Field Route redundancy with Muni and GGT routes

• More frequent midday service to downtown

• Improved connections and reliability downtown

• Desire for a transit connection to the Inner Richmond

• Market demand for a one-seat ride between downtown and 

Baker Beach/ Building 1750

Recommendations to address these needs are explored in more detail 

in Appendix H, the PresidiGo Service Evaluation. 

When compared to alternative mobility services such as on-demand 

shuttles, TNC subsidies, or Muni subsidies, PresidiGo is the best 

option to serve the high volume of peak period riders and wide 

diversity of rider needs in the Presidio. As the Presidio’s daytime 

population grows over the next 30 years, transit demand will grow as 

well. The best way to meet this demand and reduce Presidio-generated 

vehicle traffic is by continuing to invest in the fleet and increasing 

service frequencies as needed.

5 One such collision involved a motorcycle hitting a parked car on Graham

Street. The other involved a motorcycle losing control and running off the 

road on Washington Boulevard. 

V e h i c le s

While increasing the convenience and desirability of pedestrian, 

bicycle, and transit options is essential for the future of the Presidio, 

maintaining a safe roadway network is important for the residents, 

employees, and visitors who must use a private vehicle. The needs 

assessment for the vehicle mode focused on three key aspects of need.

1) Vehicle Activity

Vehicle activity is concentrated at gateways and on the arterial 

roadway network: Girard Road, Lincoln Boulevard, Presidio 

Boulevard, Lombard Street, Arguello Boulevard, and Mason Street.

2) Vehicle Safety

United States Park Police (USPP) data from 2014-2019 showed that 

the vast majority of vehicle-only collisions only involved damage to 

property, with no injuries. Of the collisions with injuries, the data 

showed that rear end and sideswipe collisions were the most common 

and that injuries were largely spread throughout the Presidio with few 

defined hot spots. The data showed only two severe injury collisions, 

both involving motorcyclists and no other moving vehicle.5 These 

trends indicate that the Presidio is largely quite safe for vehicles.

Injury collision hot spots are shown in Figure 3-11.

Presidio Trust vehicle speed data was also used to identify locations 

with high vehicle speeds. While speed data in the Presidio is sparse, 

the available data indicates speeding hot spots in the Main Post and 

on Washington Boulevard, Presidio Boulevard, Mason Street, and 

Lincoln Boulevard near Baker Beach. 

Needs Assessment 39

3) Cut-through Traffic

Cut-through vehicle traffic has been a concern in the Presidio for many 

years. As early as 2009, license plate surveys indicated that cutthrough trips constituted one third or more of vehicle traffic at several 

Presidio gateways; more recently, a 2019 Presidio Trust analysis of 

StreetLight Data identified several pairs of gateways with particularly 

high volumes of cut-through traffic: Gorgas Avenue (East and West), 

Presidio Boulevard, Lombard Street, and Girard Road, shown in 

Figure 3-12.

As of 2019, about half of the vehicle trips passing through Presidio 

gateways were making a cut-through trip (51% of weekday PM peak 

trips and 46% of weekend midday trips). Based on CHAMP regional 

travel forecasts, that dynamic is likely to persist or worsen in the 

future, unless the Trust takes action to deter cut-through trips. The 

busiest cut-through routes were identified for vehicle treatments that 

prioritize local travel and deter convenience-focused 

cut-through trips.

PARKWIDE PROGRAMS AND POLICIES

In addition to a location-specific assessment of travel modes needs, 

the analysis team compiled information on parkwide programmatic 

improvement opportunities. The performance evaluation of these 

programs and policies is described below.

P a v e m e n t M a n a g e m e n t

The Presidio’s pavement network consists of 32 centerline miles of 

streets and trails and 135 parking lots, which represents a substantial 

investment valued at approximately $94 million. In December 2020 

and January 2021, the Presidio collected pavement condition data 

MTC’s survey protocols. Survey data were entered into the 

StreetSaver® database, which the Presidio uses as a decision-support 

tool. 

The pavement condition index is a numerical index between 0 and 

100, which is used to indicate the general condition of a pavement 

section.Overall, the Presidio’s pavement network is currently in “Fair” 

condition with an average pavement condition index (PCI) of 66. 

Approximately 42.1 percent of the network is in “Good” condition and 

22.6 percent is in “Poor” or “Failed” condition. The Presidio is 

currently in the middle of a large maintenance and rehabilitation 

construction project, which when completed in mid-fall 2021 is 

expected to increase the network PCI to 71. 

The pavement management budget needs analysis indicated that the 

Presidio needs to spend approximately $40.5 million over the next 

twenty years to bring every segment of the network to a good condition 

that can be maintained with on-going preventive maintenance. Even 

if every segment is not brought to good condition, substantial 

improvements can be made. Four budget scenarios were performed to 

illustrate the pavement condition impacts of different funding levels

in the next five years, shown in Table 6. The table lists each scenario 

with its corresponding twenty-year budgets, PCI and deferred 

maintenance at the end of the analysis period. The average annual cost 

to maintain the network in years 6-20 is the same in each scenario

($1.7 million per year), but spending a modest additional amount in 

early years has a significant impact on the long-term condition of the 

pavement network.

Table 6: Pavement Management Budget Scenarios

Scenario

Budget ($M)

Avg. 

2040 PCI

2040 Deferred 

Maintenance 

($M)

Total

20-

Years

Average

Years 1-

5

Average

Years 6-

20

1: Reduce 

Deferred 

Maintenance 

by 50%

35.6 2.1 1.7 74 6.8

2: Average 

Budget of 

$1.7M/year

33.9 1.7 1.7 72 9.1

3: Maintain 

PCI at 70 31.5 1.2 1.7 70 15.5

4: Maintain 

PCI at 66 28.9 0.7 1.7 66 20.3

Source: Nichols Consulting Engineering, 2021

For more details on this analysis, see Appendix E.

Needs Assessment 41

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n De m a n d M a n a g e m e n t

The Trust’s 2001 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 

Program holds up well and serves as an umbrella policy for LoTIS

implementation. In addition to a few tweaks mentioned in the 

Implementation Chapter, the key TDM strategy updates are changes 

to Parking Management policies. 

P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t

The Trust identified opportunities for parking management policies 

and practices to better achieve the Trust’s overall goals and take 

advantage of new parking management technologies, such as license 

plate recognition (LPR). A thorough review of parking policies and 

practices revealed four areas for improvement:

1. Effectiveness of Paid Parking 

a. Some parking is free and unrestricted, which limits 

demand management

b. Some rates incentivize driving

c. There are too many zones, which is confusing to visitors

2. Demand-Based Rate Adjustments

a. Rates should be used to influence occupancy targets

b. Current parking data is insufficient to set effective rates

c. Rates could be adjusted more frequently

d. Some spaces use both time limits and pricing, which is 

confusing to visitors

3. Communication and User Experience

a. Parking information is not always easy to find, and all 

communication tools require hands-on update protocols

b. Parking management policies are not available to 

the public

c. Mobile payment options are not available

4. Enforcement of Paid Parking

a. Parking enforcement is slow and manual and is done 

only when United States Park Police are available

b. Consequence for not paying parking tickets is unknown

to users, and citation revenue is not collected by the 

Trust

c. Enforcement is not data-driven or performance-based

More details on the shift to LPR enforcement are included in 

Appendix F. Lincoln Boulevard and Presidio Promenade trail
42 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

This page intentionally left blank.
Implementation Strategy 43

04 Implementation Strategy
44 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

04 IMPLEMENTATION 

STRATEGY

The legacy of the LoTIS planning process is a “living” project database

that tentatively divides projects between four implementation time 

horizons: next 5 years, 5-10 years, 10-20 years, and 20-30 years. The 

project list is a culmination of the needs assessment analyses and 

multiple rounds of feedback from the LoTIS Working Group and Trust 

Planning staff. 

The criteria used to determine implementation timing is consistent 

with the LORIS scoring criteria and includes:

• Leveraging opportunities

• Financial impact (revenue generation, cost savings, or 

outside funding)

• Impacts of system failure

• Alignment with Trust strategic goals

This approach allows transportation projects to be integrated into the 

LORIS list and objectively prioritized relative to building, utility and 

other types of projects. LoTIS implementation will roughly align with 

the timing for strategic zones identified in the LORIS as shown in

Figure 4-1. 

This section presents the implementation tools that Presidio Trust 

staff will use to access, re-assess, and act on the project list

recommendations. Implementation highlights are presented for each 

of the modal networks and parkwide programs and policies. 

MODAL NETWORKS

Project improvements were identified for the pedestrian, bicycle, 

transit, and vehicle networks based on the mode-specific needs 

assessment analyses. Each project was assigned a needs score based 

on the results of these analyses. These scores offer, at a glance, a review

of the project’s benefits with respect to facility usage, safety, 

connectivity, and comfort. A complete record of needs scores is

available in Appendix D. 

P e d e s t r i a n

A list of long-range pedestrian network improvements was developed 

to provide adequate capacity in high volume areas, address locations 

with a history of pedestrian collisions, and close pedestrian gaps, 

especially those that greatly inhibit the walkshed to activity centers

and transit services.

P r i m a r y P e d e str i a n N e t w o r k

Analysis of pedestrian activity and existing pedestrian facilities 

informed the creation of a Primary Pedestrian Network that envisions 

a cohesive network of pedestrian routes (including sidewalks, paved 

trails, and crosswalks) connecting residential, commercial, and 

recreational opportunities around the Presidio. 

Routes on the Primary Pedestrian Network will have at minimum:

• Sufficient facilities to promote the safety and comfort of 

pedestrians of all ages and abilities

• Adequate, context-sensitive pedestrian-scale lighting

• Clear pedestrian-oriented wayfinding

Many of the designated routes already meet these criteria. Key gaps 

include portions of Washington Boulevard, Kobbe Avenue, and Storey 

Avenue.

Projects on the Primary Pedestrian Network, shown in in Figure 4-2,

receive an extra point towards their needs assessment score.
Implementation Strategy 45

A c c e ssi b il i t y E n h a n c e m e n t s

The Trust’s 2020 Accessibility Study developed a list of projects that 

will improve mobility for people walking. Types of projects include 

new or updated curb ramps, rebuilding sections of sidewalk, 

addressing tripping hazards, and removal of obstructions. These 

projects may be grouped and completed with other bundle projects or 

completed independently.

Figure 4-2: Primary Pedestrian Network Legend

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021

Primary Pedestrian Network

! ! ! ! Pedestrian Network Gaps
48 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

B i c y c l e

A list of long-range bicycle network improvements was developed to 

provide adequate capacity in high volume areas, address locations 

with a history of bicycle collisions, eliminate LTS 3 and 4 sections in 

the Presidio, and close low-stress gaps, especially those that greatly 

inhibit the bikeshed to activity centers and regional bike routes. 

P r i m a r y B i c y c l e N e tw o r k

Analysis of bicycle activity and existing bicycle facilities also informed 

the creation of a Primary Bicycle Network that envisions a cohesive 

network of bicycle routes connecting residential, commercial, and 

recreational opportunities around the Presidio. 

Routes on the Primary Bicycle Network will have at minimum:

• Sufficient facilities to promote the safety and comfort of 

cyclists of all ages and abilities

• Adequate, context-sensitive bike-scale lighting

• Clear bike-oriented wayfinding

The Projects on the Primary Bicycle Network, shown in Figure 4-3,

receive an extra point towards their needs assessment score.

T r a n s i t

PresidiGo service goals were developed as part of the service 

evaluation. To support the Trust’s Strategic Goals, the PresidiGo

system should aim to:

• Provide convenient access to jobs and services for residents 

and employees

• Maximize ridership through efficient operations

• Encourage the shift away from private vehicles by providing 

a convenient and competitive service

• Remain cost-effective 

P r e si d iG o S e r v i c e I m p r o v e m e n t s

Appendix H provides details on the following recommended service 

modifications:

• Increase midday frequency on the Downtown Route to 

support non-traditional commutes, access for visitors and 

access to services for Presidio residents

• Modify stop locations on the Downtown Route to improve 

connections to the Salesforce Transit Center and the Central 

Subway

• Provide a new Arguello Route connecting the Main Post and 

Letterman District to services and high-capacity transit 

routes like the 28R in the Inner Richmond

• Implement a stop improvement program within the Presidio 

to upgrade and standardize stop amenities, including 

shelters and signage, and assure accessibility for all

• Explore a future combination of the Downtown and Presidio 

Hills Routes into a one-seat ride between Baker Beach and 

Downtown San Francisco

V e h i c le s

A list of long-range vehicle network improvements was developed to 

provide adequate capacity for high volumes vehicle corridors, address 

locations with a history of vehicle collisions, enhance safety and 

comfort for all users, and reduce cut-through trips. Vehicle projects 

are not necessarily those which benefit vehicles but those which will 

have a notable impact on vehicles. Most vehicle projects overlap with 

bicycle and pedestrian projects.

P a r k w i d e S p e e d L i m i ts

In addition to location-specific improvements, a two-phase speed 

limit program is recommended to reduce vehicle speeds throughout 

the Presidio. The first phase will add speed limit signs to currently 

unsigned sections, and the second phase will re-evaluate speed limits 

and make reductions where safety issues or speeding continue to be 

an issue.
Figure 4-3: Primary Bicycle Network Legend

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021

Primary Bicycle Network

! ! ! ! High Stress Routes
50 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

C u t- t h r o u g h M i t i g a t i o n s

Mitigation measures for cut-through traffic aim to make common cutthrough routes less desirable or accessible to through traffic. 

Major Cut-Through Mitigations: turning restrictions, roadway 

closures, traffic calming, speed limit adjustments

Minor Cut-Through Mitigations: traffic calming, Slow Streets 

designation, wayfinding signage, speed limit adjustments

Some mitigation measures can be implemented on a major vehicle 

route, such as the western portion of Lincoln Boulevard, while others 

are more appropriate on a more minor route, such as Letterman Drive.

With any potential treatment, it is important to balance the upsides of 

deterring cut-through trips with the potential of inconveniencing 

Presidio-based trips.

PARKWIDE PROGRAMS AND POLICIES

The following parkwide programs and policies are also catalogued in 

the project database, although only some are spatial in nature. These 

efforts help the Trust implement the Strategic Goals and 

transportation objectives shared in the Introduction of this report.

S l o w S t r e e t s

As part of LoTIS planning, the Trust completed a slow streets selection 

process to evaluate and identify appropriate slow street locations and 

treatments. Slow street suitability was evaluated based on roadway 

classification, surrounding land uses, slope, potential to close gaps in 

the Primary Pedestrian Network and Primary Bicycle Network, and 

access to trails. The result is a list of vetted slow street candidates to 

aid the Presidio Trust with future slow street decisions. Slow streets 

are not appropriate everywhere in the Presidio, but, as the program 

evolves beyond the quick-build incarnations tested during the Covid19 pandemic, they may become a useful tool to reduce cut-through 

trips and expand low-stress bicycle and priority pedestrian access.

Details on the slow streets selection process and recommendations are

available in Appendix I.

P a v e m e n t M a n a g e m e n t

The Presidio will pursue pavement management Scenario 1 described 

in the Needs Assessment Chapter, which will reduce the network 

deferred maintenance by 50 percent in the first five years and then 

maintain it at the reduced level. This will require a total of $35.6 

million over 20 years and will result in the average PCI increasing and 

being maintained at 75 (±1 PCI point). The portion of the network in 

“Good” pavement condition will more than double by 2040.

P a v e m e n t R i g h t - S iz i n g

One of the Trust’s strategic transportation objectives is to minimize

the environmental impact of transportation-related infrastructure.

One strategy to meet this objective is to remove pavement where it is 

unnecessary, making way for stormwater management enhancements

and new space to support biodiversity. This includes opportunities on 

wide roadways and at oversized intersections, as well as in 

underutilized parking lots. 

R o a d w a y s

A handful of roadways and intersections with excess capacity were 

identified, and those that overlap with stormwater management 

priority areas are prioritized in the LoTIS project database. These 

projects are grouped into bundles like all other spatial projects and can 

be efficiently implemented alongside overlapping pavement 

management treatments. 

P a r k i n g

Most parking in the northern half of the Presidio is in high demand 

today and will only become more desirable as Tunnel Tops opens and 

employment and residential intensity increases in those 

neighborhoods over the coming decades. The southern half of the 

Presidio, including the southeastern neighborhoods, the Arguello 

corridor, and the Public Health District, may have excess parking

based on a review of existing parking supply and projected demand in 

the future. These lots may present opportunities for pavement and 

parking removal.
Implementation Strategy 51

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n De m a n d M a n a g e m e n t

The following updates are recommended for the Trust’s existing 

TDM Policy:

• Initiate regular tenant surveys and offer regular Employee 

Transportation Coordinator Trainings on new programs and 

policies.

• Implement aggressive telecommute goals for Trust staff who 

do not need to be in the park every day to complete their job

• Require employers to offer corporate carshare and bikeshare 

memberships and arrange for bikeshare and carshare 

options in employment hubs

• Implement tiered parking pricing in residential 

neighborhoods

• Provide high-speed internet in residential neighborhoods to 

incentive work-from-home as an attractive option for tenants

The two most impactful TDM adjustments recommended as part of 

the LoTIS are the parking management strategies discussed below and 

the PresidiGo service improvements discussed above and in 

Appendix H.

P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t

Parking management adjustments are relatively low-cost with 

potentially significant mode shift and revenue outcomes. All parkingrelated projects are programmed in the “short-term” list of projects in 

the LoTIS. 

To address the four areas of improvement identified in the Needs 

Assessment chapter, the Trust developed a set of proposed parking 

policy updates. All parking-related projects will be included in the 

“short-term” list of projects in the LoTIS. The full list of proposed 

policies can be seen in Appendix G. 

Although most parking management adjustments are policy and 

communication changes, in the very near-term the Trust is switching 

to a pay-by-plate system and implementing a mobile payment option, 

which allows for more effective enforcement via license plate 

recognition (LPR). To realize the full benefit of pay-by-plate and 

6 Federal Lands Planning Program (FLPP) | FHWA (dot.gov)

mobile payment options, the Trust must invest in LPR technologies, 

either handheld or vehicle-mounted, to conduct enforcement.

A detailed study of enforcement options is included in Appendix F.

FUNDING SOURCES

Full implementation of the LoTIS project list requires significant 

funding beyond the Presidio’s own internal budget. The following 

funding sources present the largest opportunities for LoTIS 

implementation.

F e d e r a l L a n d s P l a n n i n g P r o g r a m

The Federal Lands Transportation Planning Program (FLPP) was 

established in Title 23 U.S.C. to implement transportation planning 

for Federal lands and Tribal transportation facilities that are 

consistent with the Statewide and Metropolitan transportation 

planning procedures under Title 23 U.S.C. Sections 134 and 135. The 

funding of the FLPP is capped at 5% for each fiscal year of the funds 

authorized under 23 U.S.C. Sections 203 and 204 (Federal Lands 

Transportation and Federal Lands Access programs). Activities under 

the Federal Lands Planning Program include long range 

transportation plans; performance management activities -- including 

the development and implementation of safety, bridge, pavement, and 

congestion management systems; road and bridge inventory; and 

development and updating of the Transportation 

Improvement Program.6

F e d e r a l L a n d s T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P r o g r a m

The Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) was established in 

Title 23 U.S.C. 203 to improve the transportation infrastructure 

owned and maintained by Federal Land Management 

Agencies (FLMA). 

The Trust currently receives approximately $2,000,000 per year in 

FLTP funds, which are used on a variety of transportation 

infrastructure projects, including pavement rehabilitation, bicycle and 

pedestrian improvements, accessibility improvements, and the 

purchase of battery electric buses.7 

7 Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) | FHWA (dot.gov)
52 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

F e d e r a l L a n d s A c ce s s P r o g r a m

The Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) was established in Title 23 

U.S.C. 204 to improve transportation facilities that provide access to, 

are adjacent to, or are located within Federal lands. The FLAP

supplements State and local resources for public roads, transit 

systems, and other transportation facilities, with an emphasis on highuse recreation sites and economic generators.

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n F u n d f o r Cl e a n A ir

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) allocates a 

portion of vehicle registration fees to its Transportation Fund for 

Clean Air (TFCA) program to fund eligible projects. The Presidio Trust 

currently receives $120,000 in TFCA regional funds annually to 

support Downtown Shuttle route operations. In the near term, the 

Trust is confident that it is well positioned to continue receiving 

funding based on the cost effectiveness of PresidiGo. Around-the-Park 

routes are not eligible for BAAQMD funding because the project must 

support residents or workers of multiple counties. 

L e t t e r m a n Di g i t a l A r t s Ce n t e r

The Trust receives tenant contributions of $192,000 annually from the 

Letterman Digital Arts Center (LDAC) to support PresidiGo service for 

LDAC employees per the terms of the service agreement.

IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS

Two tools will be critical in implementing the LoTIS project list: the 

interactive webmap and a set of performance metrics. Both will allow 

the Trust to be responsive and agile as priorities and external 

pressures shift.

L o T I S W e b m a p

The project list is stored in a database that can be viewed through a 

webmap. This allows projects to be viewed spatially and potentially 

overlaid with other parkwide efforts such as utility or landscaping 

improvements. Appendix J contains a full list of LoTIS Projects.

Webmap features include:

Point-and-Click: click on a roadway segment or parking lot to view 

the list of the projects in that localized area.

Spatial Filter: Narrow the list of projects displayed on the map by 

using one or more filters, including cost, project type, and 

implementation timing. 

Database Query: Return a subset of projects based on pre-set or 

custom queries. Browse the list in the map viewer or export to CSV.

P r o j e c t B u n d l e s

Projects are grouped into spatial bundles that correspond with 

pavement management study segments. As an example, Storey 

Avenue is comprised of three bundles, and each bundle contains a 

subset of projects (listed by type below):

• Lincoln Blvd (west) to Ralston Ave

◦ Bicycle, multi-modal, pedestrian, paving removal, 

pavement management, and accessibility

• Ralston Ave to Ruckman Ave

◦ Bicycle, pedestrian, pavement management, and 

accessibility

• Ruckman Ave to Lincoln Blvd (east)

◦ Bicycle, pavement management, and accessibility

Every bundle has pavement management projects, and most bundles 

have accessibility projects, while other project types are more sparsely 

distributed throughout the park in response to the needs 

identified above. 

Bundles are an organizational tool to help the Trust find construction 

and cost efficiencies under the dig-once principle. Rather than plan a 

repaving project, curb ramp project and crosswalk project in three 

consecutive years on the same stretch of road, the Trust can see these 

overlaps in the map bundles and implement these projects 

simultaneously. Figure 4-4 shows how this might occur within a few 

Presidio parking lots. Due to funding availability and construction 

timelines, combining projects will not always be the right course of 

action, but the bundle organization ensures that these opportunities 

will be obvious to planners and decision-makers.
Figure 4-4: Project Database - Project Type Overlaps

Source: Presidio Trust, 2021

Location Accessibility Pav/Storm Paving Pedestrian Grand 

Total

Building 1299 $26 $160 $274 $460

Building 1750 $265 $602 $867 

Building 300 $270 $184 $119 $573

Hardie Avenue $95 $58 $153 

Grand Total $656 $160 $1,118 $119 $2,053

Building

1750 

Parking

Building

300

Parking

Hardie 

Avenue

Parking

Building

1299

Parking
54 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

P r o j e c t A t t r i b u t e s t o T r a c k a n d A d j u st

The following attributes are available and editable for all projects in 

the database. As projects progress and priorities change, the Trust can 

update these attributes and add new projects. 

• Project Name

• Project Description

• Project Type

• Project Location (if spatial)

• Bundle Assignment

• Timing

• Design Cost, Bucket (simplifies cost into one of four cost 

ranges for display on the webmap)

• Design Cost, Detail

• Construction Cost Bucket (simplifies cost into one of four 

cost ranges for display on the webmap)

• Construction Cost, Detail

• Implementation Status

• Collaboration Opportunity Notes (to be used for gateway or 

access projects that offer collaboration opportunities with 

partner agencies) 

Figure 4-5 shows all projects provisionally planned between 2020 

and 2025 and highlights one example project.

P e r f o r m a n c e M e t r ic s

To assess progress toward strategic goals and ensure that 

implementation priorities remain in the right order, it is important to 

track transportation performance data over time. For a monitoring 

plan to be effective, it must be feasible (e.g., reasonable resources and 

staffing for counts and program management), and the data collected 

must relate to established performance measures. The performance 

measures in Table 7 meet these criteria and should be collected 

annually or more frequently to track progress.

Given the disruption and uncertainty created by Covid-19, many of the 

performance targets are unspecified (i.e., X%) with the intention that 

the Trust Transportation Team will set targets after a couple years of 

post-Covid monitoring. These targets should be achievable and push 

the Presidio closer to its Strategic Goals.

A few metrics require periodic surveys of PresidiGo riders, employees, 

and residents. Questions about PresidiGo satisfaction and mode share

should be incorporated into regular Trust surveys of residents and 

visitors. The Trust should also request that employers incorporate 

these questions into their regular employee TDM surveys. 

Table 7: LoTIS Performance Metrics

METRIC TRUST 

GOAL

METRICS 

PURPOSE

PERFORMANC

E TARGET (% 

target to be set 

each year based 

on market 

conditions)

PresidiGo 

Ridership

People + 

Planet

Track trend in 

ridership on all 

routes.

X% annual 

increase

PresidiGo OnTime 

Performance

People + 

Planet

Measure reliability of 

PresidiGo service.

X% of scheduled 

runs

PresidiGo 

Travel Time

People + 

Planet

Maintain PresidiGo 

competitive edge by 

tracking travel time 

between downtown SF 

& Presidio by 

PresidiGo vs. car

PresidiGo travel 

time is <=5 

minutes longer 

than car

PresidiGo 

Service Cost Performance

To ensure Trust 

resources are being 

used in a way that 

maximizes benefit.

<$X.XX

PresidiGo 

Passenger 

Satisfaction

People

Ensure continued 

success of PresidiGo

service and identify 

any areas of 

improvement.

>=8 out of 10 

average survey 

score

Injuries from 

Crashes or 

Tripping

Performance

Ensure the Presidio is 

a safe environment for 

visitors, residents, and 

employees.

Fewer than the 

previous year, with 

a long-term goal of 

zero.

Bike Share 

Use

People + 

Planet

Track trend in 

number of bike trips 

over time.

2,000 rides/month
Implementation Strategy 55

METRIC TRUST 

GOAL

METRICS 

PURPOSE

PERFORMANC

E TARGET (% 

target to be set 

each year based 

on market 

conditions)

Parking 

Revenue Performance

Support Presidio 

Trust operations, 

including the 

PresidiGo shuttle.

>$X/year

Travel mode 

share (auto, 

carpool, 

private bike, 

bikeshare 

walk, 

PresidiGo, 

other transit)

People + 

Planet

Track trends in 

mode choice 

and compare mode 

share to PTMP goals.

Less than 50% 

external trips by 

auto; less than 

35% internal trips 

by auto

N e x t S t e p s

The LoTIS is a living strategy, and these tools are intended to create a 

cycle that moves from Plan to Implement to Measure to Re-Prioritize 

and back to the beginning again. The LoTIS process was thorough in 

assessing transportation needs and possibilities, and yet the 

implementation priorities are flexible and expected to change over

time. Priorities may change in the wake of Covid-19 and then change 

yet again in the wake of a return to “normal.” This report, the 

appendices, and the implementation tools provide a roadmap and a 

decision-making framework to guide the Trust through these and 

future changes.

 

Looking toward Fort Scott Tennis Courts from Kobbe Avenue
Figure 4-5: Project Database - Near Term Projects with Example 

Source: Presidio Trust, 2021

WASHINGTON BLVD FROM DEEMS TO ARGUELLO

Project Location Washington (S side) between Nauman and Arguello

Description Close pedestrian gap; consider ped-scale lighting

Timing 2020-2025

Type Pedestrian

Construction Costt Greater than $500K

Design Cost $50K-$250K