Get documents about "San Francisco Economy
Document Sample
San Francisco Economy
IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC POLICY
Report Prepared for
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING AND URBAN RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
BY
KENT SIMS
JULY 10, 2000
Section 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS 0-1
Section 1 Summary and Conclusions
1.1 Introduction 1-1
1.2 Economic Context 1-1
1.3 San Francisco Economy 1-2
1.3.1 Visitor Industry 1-3
1.3.2 Finance, Investment and Deal-Making 1-3
1.3.3 Communications and Media Content 1-4
1.4 Forecast 1-4
1.5 Economic Evolution 1-6
1.6 Public Policy 1-8
1.6.1 Land Use 1-9
1.6.2 Housing 1-9
1.6.2.1 Housing Supply 1 - 10
1.6.2.2 Housing Market Rigidity 1 - 11
1.6.2.3 SPUR’s Detailed Housing Recommendations 1 - 12
1.6.2.3.1 Sites and Density 1 - 12
1.6.2.3.2 Residential Entitlement Process 1 - 13
1.6.3 Transportation 1 - 13
1.6.3.1 City Transportation and Parking 1 - 14
1.6.3.2 Regional Transportation 1 - 16
1.6.3.3.1 Peninsula Corridor 1 - 17
1.6.3.3.2 Bay Bridge Corridor 1 - 18
1.6.3.3.3 Golden Gate Corridor 1 - 19
1.6.3.4 San Francisco International Airport 1 - 20
Section 2 Economic Context
2.1 National Economy 2-1
2.1.1 Productivity 2-1
2.1.2 Population 2-2
2.1.3 Households 2-2
2.1.4 Labor Force 2-3
2.1.5 Gross Domestic Product 2-4
2.1.6 Jobs 2-4
2.2 California and Bay Area 2-6
2.2.1 Population 2-6
2.2.2 Households 2 - 10
2.2.3 Employed Residents 2 - 11
2.2.4 Jobs 2 - 12
2.2.4 Cycle of Prosperity 2 - 13
2.2.5 Challenges of Success 2 - 14
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 0 Table of Contents 0-2
Section 3 San Francisco Economy
3.1 Economic Evolution 3-1
3.2 Economy Today 3-4
3.2.1 Employment 3-5
3.2.2 Economic Base 3-8
3.2.3 Defining San Francisco’s Economic Base 3-8
3.2.3.1 Visitor Industry 3-9
3.2.3.2 Finance, Investment and Deal-Making 3-9
3.2.3.3 Communications and Media Content 3-9
3.2.3.4 Government Administration 3-9
3.3 Visitor Industry 3 - 12
3.4 Finance, Investment and Deal-Making 3 - 17
3.4.1 Finance 3 - 18
3.4.2 Securities and Commodities Trading 3 - 19
3.4.3 Insurance 3 - 19
3.4.4 Real Estate 3 - 19
3.4.5 Holding and Other Investment Offices 3 - 20
3.4.6 Professional Services 3 - 20
3.4.7 Business Services 3 - 20
3.5 Communications and Media Content 3 - 23
3.5.1 Telecommunications 3 - 25
3.5.2 Printing and Publishing 3 - 25
3.5.3 Advertising 3 - 26
3.5.4 Communications Equipment 3 - 26
3.5.5 Services to the Communications Industry 3 - 26
3.5.6 Dot.coms 3 - 26
3.6 Public Sector 3 - 29
3.7 The Years Ahead 3 - 33
3.7.1 Public Policy 3 - 33
3.7.2 Shades of Difference 3 - 33
3.7.3 Report Projections 3 - 34
3.7.4 Housing and Transportation 3 - 35
Section 4 Transportation
4.1 Economic Evolution 4-1
4.2 Where We Live and Work 4-1
4.2.1 Access to Workers 4-1
4.2.2 Bay Bridge Corridor 4-2
4.2.3 Peninsula Corridor 4-3
4.2.4 Golden Gate Corridor 4-4
4.2.5 San Francisco Corridor 4-4
4.2.6 Corridor Summary and Conclusions 4-5
4.3 Trip Generation for San Francisco 4-7
4.3.1 Home-Based Work Trips 4-9
4.3.1.1 Intra City Home-Based Work Trips 4 - 10
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 0 Table of Contents 0-3
Section 4 Transportation Continued
4.3.2 Home-Based Social and Recreation Trips 4 - 11
4.3.3 Home-Based Shopping and Other Trips 4 - 12
4.3.4 Home-Based School Trips 4 - 13
4.3.5 Non-Home-Based Trips 4 - 14
4.3.6 Commercial Truck Trips 4 - 15
4.3.7 Trip Forecast Summary and Conclusions 4 - 16
4.4 Transportation Summary and Conclusions 4 - 18
4.4.1 City Transportation and Parking 4 - 18
4.4.2 Regional Transportation 4 - 21
4.4.2.1 Peninsula Corridor 4 - 21
4.4.2.2 Bay Bridge Corridor 4 - 22
4.4.2.3 Golden Gate Corridor 4 - 23
4.4.3 San Francisco International Airport 4 - 24
Section 5 Housing
5.1 Supply Problem 5-1
5.2 Bay Area Housing 5-1
5.3 San Francisco Housing 5-4
5.3.1 San Francisco Housing Characteristics 5-5
5.3.2 Housing Prices 5-7
5.3.3 Housing Market Regulation 5-8
5.3.4 Housing Recommendations 5 - 10
5.3.4.1 Sites and Density 5 - 10
5.3.4.2 Residential Parking Requirements 5 - 11
5.3.4.3 Residential Entitlement Processes 5 - 11
5.4 Conclusion 5 - 11
Index of Text Tables
Section 1 Summary and Conclusions TT-1
Section 2 Economic Context TT-1
Section 3 San Francisco Economy TT-1-3
Section 4 Transportation TT-3-4
Section 5 Housing TT-4
Appendix
Table 3.A San Francisco Industry Concentration Ratios Greater than 100 3-A-1 - 3
1998 Ratios by 3-Digit SIC Code
Table 3.B San Francisco Industry Concentration Ratios – All Industries 3-B-1 - 9
1998 Ratios by 3-digit SIC Code
Table 3.C Visitor Industry - 1998 3-B-1 - 2
Payroll, Employment & Percent of Industry by 4-Digit SIC Code
Table 3.D Finance, Investment and Deal-Making Industry -- 1998 3-D-1 - 2
Payroll, Employment & Percent of Industry by 4- Digit SIC Code
Table 3.E Communications & Media Content Industry -- 1998 3-E-1 - 2
Payroll, Employment & Percent of Industry by 4- Digit SIC Code
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 0 Table of Contents 0-4
Table 3.F.1 Federal Reporting Units -- 1998
Employment and Payroll by 4-Digit SIC Code
Table 3.F.2 State Government Reporting Units – 1998
Employment and Payroll by 4-Digit SIC Code
Table 3.F.3 Local Government Reporting Units – 1998
Employment and Payroll by 4-Digit SIC Code
Table 4.A Commuters to Jobs in San Francisco 1960 – 2020
Number, Percent Distribution, Percent Growth
Table 4.B S.F. Residents Commuting to Jobs In & Outside S.F. 1960-2020
Number, Percent Distribution, Percent Growth
Table 4.C Trips to San Francisco by Purpose & Origin of Trip 1960-2020 4-C-1 - 3
Number of Trips & Percent Distribution
Table 5.A.1 San Francisco Housing Market 1990-1999
Table 5.A.2 San Francisco Housing Market – Percent Growth 1990-1999
Table 5.A.3 San Francisco Housing Market – Percent Distribution 1990-1999
Table 5.B San Francisco Apartment Rents 1986-1999
About the Author
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1-1
1.1 -- INTRODUCTION
This report concludes that San Francisco is well positioned for continuing economic
success, and that the benefits of projected economic growth can be shared among workers
at all income levels. The report describes the effects of the city and region’s hugely
successful economic evolution on land use, housing and transportation, and identifies ill-
conceived public policy, and insufficient investment in housing and transportation as the
most significant challenges to continued economic prosperity. San Francisco Planning
and Urban Research Association (SPUR) recommendations for increasing the city’s
housing stock and improving transportation are related to the needs of the city’s economy.
The analysis of San Francisco’s current economy and future prospects draws on the
significant body of work previously published by the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG), Bay Area Council, Bay Area Economic Forum, and Center for
Continuing Study of the California Economy. The analysis is built around three basic
industry groups that leverage projected growth in similar industries in the State and
national economy to support economic growth in San Francisco.
The report is organized in five sections. Section 1 summarizes the material presented in
the body of the report, major conclusions, and policy recommendations. Section 2
provides economic context for San Francisco with brief descriptions of the national, State,
and Bay Area regional economies. Prospects for growth, especially in the primary
industries expected to drive growth in these larger economic venues, are identified.
Section 3 describes San Francisco’s economy, its economic base of primary growth
industries, and the main challenges to the city’s continued economic success. Section 4
explores one of the major challenges to continued growth – the quality and capacity of the
local and regional transportation system. Section 5 discusses a second major challenge to
growth – the price and availability of housing. An appendix presents more detailed data on
topics covered in the report, organized by report sections.
1.2 -- ECONOMIC CONTEXT
Opportunities for economic growth in San Francisco are generated primarily by growth in
the national, state and regional economy. The extent to which the city takes advantage of
these growth opportunities is determined by local factors, including local public policy.
The analysis of growth prospects for San Francisco in this report begins with a review of
developments in the national economy.
The current outlook for the American economy is for sustained growth for at least the next
ten years, due mainly to relatively high rates of productivity growth. American firms have
restructured and invested in new technology to compete in the global market. The advent
of the Internet and other digital communications has produced major efficiencies in the
nation’s increasingly knowledge-based industries. American workers have learned new
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 1 Summary and Conclusions 1-2
skills to participate in the rapidly changing economy. These four factors – technology
investments, corporate restructuring, the Internet, and rising skill levels – converged in
1995 to establish a new level of productivity for the nation. Projected growth in
population, households, labor force and productivity is expected to generate average
growth in real Gross Domestic Product of 2 % to 3 % a year over the next decade.
California and the Bay Area embody all of the reasons most observers are optimistic about
the long-run economic prospects for the nation. Population, labor force, labor participation
rates, skill levels, productivity, and personal income all are growing well here. Northern
California’s high technology companies and the burgeoning hospitality and entertainment
industries led California out of recession in the 1990s and are projected to exhibit strong
growth in the years ahead. In the first decade of the new millennium, California’s
economy is widely expected to outperform the nation, and within California, the San
Francisco Bay Area is expected to outperform California. The region’s economic base is
anchored by some of the fastest growing industries in the state and nation, including high
technology, foreign trade, tourism and entertainment, and professional services. The Bay
Area’s concentration of firms serving the rapidly growing digital media and Internet tools
market should fuel rapid growth in the region for many years to come.
1.3 -- SAN FRANCISCO ECONOMY
San Francisco is a densely developed, 47 square mile peninsula with a population of
nearly 800 thousand people living in 315 thousand households. One of the most ethnically
diverse places in the nation, San Francisco has no ethnic majority. The income range of
city residents includes extremes of wealth and poverty, but on average, San Franciscans
are richer than residents of most American cities. Average household income of $68,0001
is well above the national average, but below the Bay Area average of $76,000. City
residents also are better educated than most Americans, with 22% holding a Bachelor’s
degree, and 13% holding a graduate or professional degree.
San Francisco is unique among California counties in that nearly half (46%) of its labor
force is housed outside the city. The city’s housing stock of 340 thousand units is
relatively old, reflecting the age of the city and public policy that has restricted housing
production over the last 30 years. Some 56% percent of housing units was constructed
prior to 1940, and 81% prior to 1960. Single family units are less than one-third of the
city’s housing stock, compared with more than two-thirds in the metropolitan area outside
the city. Roughly one-third of city residents own their homes, compared with two-thirds of
metro area residents.
San Francisco’s economy is closely linked to regional, national and international markets.
Although many San Francisco jobs are in resident-serving businesses, the growth and
development of the city’s economy depends on industries oriented to external markets.
These export industries form the city’s economic base and drive growth in all segments of
the local economy, including resident-serving businesses. The rate of economic growth in
1
ABAG estimate in 1995 dollars.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 1 Summary and Conclusions 1-3
San Francisco depends on the rate of growth in larger economic venues, the number and
type of jobs they create, and the share of these new jobs the city can capture. The city has
no way to influence the rate of growth in the state or national economy. Its influence on
local economic growth arises exclusively from its determination of factors that affect the
location and expansion decisions of industries that form San Francisco’s economic base.
This report organizes the description of San Francisco’s economic base around the three
broad private industry groups identified below, and the city’s State and federal
government establishment. The city has a significant concentration of employment and
payroll (relative to the Bay Area metropolitan economy) in each basic industry group,
although not necessarily in each industry within a group. City-based State and federal
government activities are included in the city’s economic base because they have high
concentrations of employment and payroll like basic industries in the private sector, and
because the large State and federal administrative, judicial and regulatory presence in San
Francisco is one of the city’s competitive assets.
1.3.1 -- VISITOR INDUSTRY
The Visitor Industry encompasses much more economic activity than is implied by the
term “tourism”. Visitors are defined in this report as: 1) people from outside the Bay Area
who are in the city for a convention, business meeting, or leisure travel; 2) metro and
other nearby area residents who are in the city for purposes other than employment; and 3)
metro and other nearby area residents who work in the city. This is broader than the
Convention and Visitors Bureau’s definition of visitors which excludes the commuter
work force. The primary market for the Visitor Industry Group is the San Francisco
expenditures of nonresidents, although many Visitor Industry businesses serve residents as
well as visitors. Major elements of this industry group include:
• visitor transportation
• travel agents and tour operators
• hotels and other visitor lodging
• restaurants and drinking places
• retail trade
• arts, entertainment and amusements
• business and other services
1.3.2 -- FINANCE, INVESTMENT AND DEAL-MAKING
The Finance, Investment and Deal-Making Industry includes finance, investment,
insurance, and real estate; professional services supporting financial transactions, deal-
making and other investment decisions; and a wide range of other business and
professional services. The market for this industry group is wealth-creating and wealth-
preserving transactions. Major elements of this industry group include:
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 1 Summary and Conclusions 1-4
• depository and other credit-granting institutions
• security and commodity brokers, dealers and exchanges
• investment advisors
• insurance carriers, agents and brokers
• real estate developers, operators, lessors and agents
• holding companies, trusts and other investment offices
• professional services of lawyers, accountants, managers and consultants
• business services that support deal-making, finance and investment activities
1.3.3 -- COMMUNICATIONS AND MEDIA CONTENT
The Communications and Media Content Industry Group includes communications
media, such as telephone, broadcast, cable, Internet, and print. The group also
encompasses research, preparation and production of content for these media. Content
producers include reporters, advertising agencies, commercial artists, photographers,
graphic designers, motion picture and video producers, and the digital media “dot.coms”.
The market for this industry group is business and personal information, advertising,
entertainment, education, and content for non-store retailers, such as catalogs, mail order
houses, television retail sales channels, and e-commerce. Major elements of this industry
group include:
• telephone communications, wired, wireless, voice and data
• non-voice telecommunications, such as e-mail, fax, teletype, telex, telegraph
• radio and television broadcast
• cable and other pay television
• printing and publishing
• advertising
• communications equipment
• services to the communications industry
1.4 -- FORECAST
San Francisco is positioned for significant economic growth over the next 10 years
because its economic base is comprised of some of the fastest growing industries in the
State and national economy. The city could create as many as 66,000 new jobs, raising
total city-based employment to 695,000 jobs by 2010. The projected distribution of this
10.5% growth in employment by major industry group is summarized in Table 1.a.
2000 – 2010
Projected Job Growth in San Francisco by Basic Industry Group
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 1 Summary and Conclusions 1-5
T – 1.a Jobs (000) Percent Distribution Percent
2000 2010 2000 2010 Growth
Total Employment 629 695 100% 100% 10.5%
All Private Sector Jobs 541 605 86% 87% 11.7%
Basic Industries 247 290 39% 42% 17.3%
Visitor Industry 76 87 12% 13% 14.8%
Finance, Investment, Deal-Making 133 155 21% 22% 16.4%
Communications & Media Content 38 48 6% 7% 25.8%
Other Private Sector Jobs 294 314 47% 45% 7.0%
Public Sector Jobs 88 90 14% 13% 3.0%
The number of jobs in basic industries is projected to rise much faster than other private
sector jobs (17% verses 7%) or than public sector employment (3%). Finance, Investment
and Deal-Making is projected to create the most jobs (22 thousand), and Communications
and Media Content will have the highest percent growth (26%). Realization of this
forecast would increase the share of basic industry jobs in the overall economy from an
estimated 39% in 2000 to a projected 42% in 2010.
The share of city-based jobs held by city residents is projected to decrease from the
current 54% to 52%, and be reflected in about 46,000 additional inbound commuters. The
percent of employed city residents working outside the city is projected to rise to 21%,
and a much more substantial increase in the number of employed residents will add 14
thousand reverse commuters. Reverse commuters are expected to total more than 92
thousand by 2010, compared with 278 thousand inbound commuters. Notwithstanding
housing recommendations elsewhere in this report, the rate of housing production in San
Francisco likely will continue to be the principal constraint on the share of city-based jobs
held by City residents.
Assumptions underlying this report’s forecast include rates of growth in the larger
economic venues that generate opportunities for growth in the city’s economy, and local
public policies that influence the degree to which San Francisco benefits from these
opportunities. Local public policy assumptions include:
• The city’s land use decisions will accommodate growth in industries whose growth is
projected in the forecast.
• The city will permit enough housing to be built to accommodate projected household
growth.
• The city and regional transportation system will provide access to the city and metro
area labor force implicit in the forecasts.
• The city’s relatively favorable political climate for economic growth in the late 1990s
will continue.
1.5 -- ECONOMIC EVOLUTION
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 1 Summary and Conclusions 1-6
San Francisco was the only major city in the Western United States for nearly a century --
the manufacturing, distribution, and trade center of the West, as well as the seat of
government administration, services, and cultural activities. Growth and development of
the metropolitan Bay Area after World War II brought profound changes and considerable
specialization in the Bay Area regional economy. In the process, San Francisco lost its
manufacturing, distribution and maritime industries. High tech manufacturing
concentrated in Santa Clara County and the I-680 Corridor, containerized shipping at the
Port of Oakland, warehouse and distribution facilities in less congested locations in
Alameda, Stanislaus and Yolo Counties, and back office operations in business parks in
eastern and central Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Unlike many cities confronting
similar circumstances in what came to be called the rust belt, San Francisco moved
quickly to create a new economy and build the infrastructure needed to support the new
economy. This was not a small change.
In a single generation -- from the 1960’s to the early 1980s -- San Francisco shifted its
economic base from manufacturing and distribution to services, replaced its capital stock
of low rise factories and warehouses with high rise office buildings, and transformed its
labor force from blue collar to white collar. Massive capital investments were required to
permit the concentration of employment required by the new economy. Downtown high
rise buildings were constructed to provide office space. BART and Muni Metro were built
to access the labor force and move people under Market Street to the office core. Moscone
Center and new downtown hotels transformed tourism into a basic industry employing
14% of the city’s private sector labor force. A quantum expansion of SFO addressed city
and regional needs in an increasingly global marketplace. This infrastructure and the
entrepreneurs and labor force it attracted are the foundation of the city’s current economy,
and represent much of the competitive advantage leveraged by the city’s basic industries.
The economic transformation of the city and region was a resounding success, but the
speed of change, and resulting pressure on housing and transportation, sparked a sharp
reaction played out in measures to curb economic growth. A successful grassroots
initiative to stop Caltrans’ ill-conceived plan to scar everyone’s favorite city with double
deck freeways throughout the city froze highway capacity at the 1964 level. Fearful that
more residents would change the character of the city’s neighborhoods, the neighborhoods
were downzoned in 1978. The following year the city adopted rent controls to deal with
the predictable consequences of restricting housing supply. A growing thicket of housing
market regulations confronted anyone proposing additions to the city housing stock. In
1986 the city adopted Proposition M and, subsequently, the South of Market Plan to
curtail construction of high rise buildings.
San Francisco developed an increasingly hostile attitude toward business, reflected in the
rising cost of doing business in the city and in the nation’s most stringent controls on
business development. At the same time, globalization of business spurred American
corporations to cut costs to compete in the global market. In the ensuing wave of
corporate restructuring, San Francisco lost nearly half its Fortune 500 corporation
headquarters. Many other major employers reduced their presence in the city, often by
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 1 Summary and Conclusions 1-7
relocating business activities that did not need to be in the concentrated urban core. It was
these developments that terminated the building boom in the mid-1980s.
San Francisco slid into recession, along with the rest of the region and State in the early
1990s. Inflation adjusted growth in city tax revenues slowed, then turned negative.
Property values fell, and the city was forced to curtail expenditures. The Municipal
Railway deteriorated, social services were reduced, and maintenance of public facilities
like the parks was noticeably deficient.
The return of significant economic growth to the State and region in 1995 revived San
Francisco’s economy and restarted the process of economic evolution. Mergers,
acquisitions, and new business ventures began reshaping the financial sector; explosive
growth in world-wide use of the Internet opened a new chapter in the communications
industry; and tourism and entertainment, among the fastest growing industries in the
national economy, flourished in San Francisco.
Growth of the digital communications industry in San Francisco merits a closer look,
since San Francisco’s success in capturing a significant share of this industry has
rekindled growth control issues.
Digital media initially were seen as extensions of Silicon Valley high tech businesses, and
most hardware and software developers for the industry were drawn to the South Bay.
However, as the industry developed, content producers for the Internet – the dot.coms –
increasingly were drawn to San Francisco. The city had well established businesses in
print, broadcast, telecommunications, advertising, journalism, commercial art,
photography, and graphic design that provided the pool of creative talent the dot.coms
needed. San Francisco State University established a multimedia training program on its
downtown campus in 1992 and began training people with leading edge digital media
skills. The trade press serving the digital media industry, firms like Ziff Davis, Red
Herring, Wired, MacWorld, PC World, and Industry Standard, moved to the city.
Moreover, San Francisco had plenty of office space available during the recession, while
space was in short supply on the Peninsula and in the South Bay.
As the digital media revolution began to resonate throughout the economy, San
Francisco’s concentration of businesses offered a ready market for Internet tools and
content dot.coms. Brokerage giant Charles Schwab’s online transactions account for more
than half of the company’s trades in a customer base of 6.3 million active accounts,
representing $595 billion in customer assets. A relatively new company, Epoch Partners,
provides 5.3 million individual investors, selected from the combined customer bases of
Charles Schwab, Ameritrade and TD Waterhouse, with access to the IPOs of companies
going public. Nearly all commercial banks offer customers the option of on-line
transactions, as do most large retailers. Newspapers, and radio and TV broadcast stations
invite their patrons to log on for features, news and weather. The economic potential was
enormous in a city that had become the favored location for Internet content producers.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 1 Summary and Conclusions 1-8
The dot.coms are a nearly perfect fit with San Francisco. Their operations are compact
and fit into land-efficient office space. They draw many of their employees from the same
labor pool as other communications and media content producers. The dense, urban
environment, diversity of people and life styles, and rich array of contemporary culture is
a magnet for many industry participants. Moreover, the dot.coms can tolerate the high cost
of a city location because generally they do not have to compete on price.
The dot.coms initially settled in the South of Market area where space was available for
start-ups at relatively moderate rents in low-rise buildings that were vacant or occupied by
low intensity uses. The eclectic mix of business tenants, cultural institutions, night clubs,
and generally informal atmosphere appealed to the mostly young dot.com crowd. The
3,370 live/work units added to the city’s housing stock between 1987 and 1999, many
South of Market and in the Mission, also attracted digital industry participants. However,
the success of the industry, and the ease with which new firms could enter the industry,
put pressure on available space and rents in the area. Older buildings were rehabilitated,
some new construction occurred, and more was proposed. Unfortunately, creating
adequate space for the dot.coms and other knowledge-based industries to grow South of
Market ran headlong into the city’s backward-looking South of Market Plan.
Digital media firms began to appear in many parts of the city as their further expansion
was blocked South of Market. Many expanded to high rise offices downtown, and to older
buildings in the Mission and mid-Market area. Underutilized land and buildings in
southeast industrial areas also attracted digital media firms. However, in 1999 the city
adopted interim zoning controls (Industrial Protection Zones) precluding construction of
housing, including live-work units, generally reserving these areas for light industrial uses
judged unable to compete for space with uses in greater demand in today’s economy.
Economic success enables firms in growing industries, such as digital media, to offer
higher rents than firms whose products and services generate less demand. Restrictions,
such as the Industrial Protection Zones, that penalize successful industries to reward less
successful ones effectively tax growing industries to subsidize industries in decline.
Needless to say, it is well beyond the capacity of land use plans to micromanage San
Francisco’s economy in this fashion.
1.6 – PUBLIC POLICY
As noted earlier in this summary, prospects for economic growth in San Francisco are
generated primarily by growth in the regional, state, and national economy. The city has
no way to influence growth in these larger economic venues. Its influence on local
economic growth arises exclusively from its influence on the location and expansion
decisions of industries that form San Francisco’s economic base. The most powerful tools
the city has for influencing industry location decisions are its control of land use and
infrastructure.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 1 Summary and Conclusions 1-9
1.6.1 – LAND USE
Land use decisions in densely developed San Francisco have an enormous impact on
business and residential development. The city’s past land use decisions, and the
entitlement process that accompanies them, have been major contributors to the high cost
of housing and business development in the city. It is important for business and political
leadership to address the following land use issues:
• South of Market is the only area adjacent to the downtown office core where expansion of
high rise office buildings reasonably can occur, yet the current South of Market Plan largely
prevents such expansion. To maintain a compact downtown and avoid the ad hoc
disbursement of office uses to the neighborhoods, the city needs to revisit the South of
Market Plan to accommodate a reasonable amount of high rise office growth. South of
Market is, and should continue to be a mixed use area. For example, the city chose the top of
its convention center as the site for major facilities oriented to the needs of children. High
rise buildings will change urban design South of Market, but the area can and should
continue to be a place for cultural institutions, night life, and high density housing, including
housing for low income people.
• Reuse of Industrial Land: Much of the available land for business and residential growth in
San Francisco is in underutilized industrial areas in the southeast quadrant of the city. Reuse
of this land for the city’s new economy and for major additions to the city’s housing stock, is
a key underpinning of economic growth projected by most forecasts, including this report.
However, the city has adopted interim zoning (Industrial Protection Zones or IPZs) that
excludes housing, and reserves much of this land for low intensity, low paying, low growth
industries that are not part of San Francisco’s economic base. The interim controls are
intended to become permanent later this year.
Planning for the southeast quadrant must address the needs of the city’s present and future
economy, rather than attempting to preserve remnants of the city’s former economy.
Industrial services firms frequently need protection from complaints about the noise and
truck traffic associated with their operations, and many need to become more land efficient
to be competitive, but they do not need protection from market rents. If their services are
valuable to the economy and a city location is essential to provide their services, they will be
able to pay competitive rents and recover the cost from their customers.
• Entitlement Process: The city’s entitlement process for new development is contentious and
protracted. Statutory exactions drive up the cost of everything built in the city, constraining
housing construction and business development. Pervasive use of discretionary reviews
narrows the focus of land use decisions to the immediate vicinity of proposed projects,
enhances the influence of special interest groups, and diminishes consideration of city-wide
interests. Rationalizing the entitlement process is an essential component of rationalizing land
use decisions.
• Proposition M: This summer San Francisco office development reached the annual 950,000
square foot cap imposed by Proposition M in 1986. This has stopped the processing of all
private development proposals for commercial office space at precisely the moment when the
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 1 Summary and Conclusions 1 - 10
need for additional office space is most urgent. Unless modified, the current Prop M
moratorium on private office development may continue for several years because government
buildings in the development pipeline are being counted against the Prop M cap, most notably
the new federal building and replacement of the Letterman Hospital building complex at the
Presidio. Unless the Prop M cap is loosened to permit development of more private office
space, competition for existing space will intensify the current office rent spiral and will affect
nearly every business in the city. Initial pressure has fallen most heavily on nonprofits and
other price-sensitive, resident-serving businesses. However, the cap shortly will put businesses
that are the foundation of the city’s current prosperity at risk.
1.6.2 -- HOUSING
Increased housing is essential to maintain San Francisco as a vital and diverse community.
The city’s economy is structured to draw its labor force from throughout the Bay Area,
and the city and region have created transportation infrastructure to permit this type of
economic organization. However, there is a growing margin of demand for city-based
housing that is not met due to the city’s tight restrictions on housing construction, and that
unmet demand is driving the current upward spiral in city housing costs.
Public policies have forced housing production well below the margin of regional housing
demand that wants to be met in the city, and well below the city’s’ capacity to create new
housing to meet current demand. Each of the constraints on housing production in San
Francisco was proposed for some meritorious purpose, but collectively they have placed a
stranglehold on housing production that negatively affects every household in the city.
San Francisco has abundant opportunities to increase its housing stock and relieve the
current crisis. However, to make substantial progress the goal must be housing production,
not micromanaging the housing market to address social or economic ills in the city.
Significant growth in the housing stock is the most powerful tool for assuring housing is
more affordable for all San Franciscans.
Solving the housing crisis can improve the amenities and livability of San Francisco
neighborhoods, and would increase the material well-being of most San Franciscans.
Failure to resolve the housing problem threatens the viability of the city’s economy and
ultimately, therefore, the livability of neighborhoods.
1.6.2.1 – HOUSING SUPPLY
The high cost of San Francisco housing is among the most important factors driving the
high cost of doing business in San Francisco because housing costs put continual upward
pressure on wages. ABAG forecasts only 10,500 housing units will be added to the City’s
housing stock over the next ten years, a forecast the City Planning Department
characterizes as “optimistic”. This amount of housing would accommodate only 18% of
the city-based job growth ABAG forecasts over the next 10 years, and only 16 % of job
growth forecast in this report. Both ABAG and City Planning acknowledge housing
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 1 Summary and Conclusions 1 - 11
potential under present restrictive zoning is at least five times the 10-year forecast. Much
of this potential is in existing residential neighborhoods where City Planning says housing
production is constrained by “community desires” and not by the zoned potential.
• Housing Target: To make headway on the housing problem, the city needs to set an
ambitious goal and pursue it aggressively. San Francisco’s housing production target for the
next 10 years should be a minimum of 20,000 to 25,000 units.
• Density: When land is in short supply and hence relatively costly, the market generates
demand for higher density to compensate for the high cost of land. Even when zoning and the
entitlement process prevent legal density from rising, the gray market produces some (usually
less desirable) increase in density. Housing supply throughout the Bay Area must increase to
accommodate population growth, and increasing supply by increasing density, especially
along transit lines, is the main option for increasing housing supply in the inner ring of
development around the Bay. The urban design of San Francisco, with dense development,
major transit infrastructure, and generous amounts of public open space is especially well
suited to high density housing development.
• Redeveloping Industrial Land: The city should target major additions to the housing stock
in the underutilized Southeast quadrant of the city. Land along the planned Third Street light
rail project is a particularly important opportunity for high density housing as has been
endorsed by SPUR and the Mayor of San Francisco.
• Transit Oriented Development: Major transit lines offer the best sites for high density
development, including high density housing. That is why BART and Muni metro were built
under Market Street simultaneously with construction of the downtown office core. There are
significant opportunities for high density housing development along transit lines throughout
the city. Transit oriented mixed use development in commercial districts, similar to that along
Van Ness Avenue, is a good model, if scaled appropriately for different neighborhoods.
• High Rise Housing: While low-rise housing (up to 50 feet) blends best with the character of
most San Francisco neighborhoods, high-rise housing is appropriate for areas like downtown
and South of Market. Rents have reached the level (about $2,100 per unit) that can produce a
reasonable return on high rise residential buildings, and the city should entitle more high-rise
residential developments in these areas.
1.6.2.2 – HOUSING MARKET RIGIDITY
In addition to restricting new housing construction, San Francisco public policy has
created rigidity in the market for existing housing that makes it difficult to upgrade the
city’s aging housing stock and correct imbalances between supply and demand. These
measures come on top of the market rigidity created by Proposition 13 and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The primary goal of the city’s housing policies is to assure a supply of rental housing
affordable to lower income people. To this end the city adopted the Residential Rent
Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance in 1979 to limit rent increases. This was followed
in the next ten years by a series of housing market regulations – Residential Hotel Unit
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 1 Summary and Conclusions 1 - 12
Conversion and Demolition Ordinance, Apartment Unit Conversion Ordinance, Time
Share Conversion Ordinance, and the Condominium Conversion Ordinance – adopted to
prevent the market from altering the composition of the housing stock. More recently the
city has considered measures to block tenants from pooling their resources to buy their
buildings as “tenants in common” and become owners of the units they currently rent.
Measures to regulate San Francisco’s housing market have restrained rents for some
people, but they have had many other consequences as well:
• Rents for people who have occupied the same unit for many years are as unreasonably low
as rents in unregulated units that must bear the brunt of restricted housing supply are
unreasonably high.
• Some of the existing rental housing stock has deteriorated because owners are unable to
recover their investments in maintenance and upgrades with higher rents, at least not
without going through a protracted and uncertain application process at the Rent Board.
• The number of vacant units has risen to 25,400 – two and one-half times the entire addition
to San Francisco’s housing stock ABAG projects for the next 10 years, and a rate of vacant
units that is 60% higher than in the metro area outside San Francisco. This anomaly is
attributed to San Francisco housing regulations that make holding rental units vacant about
the only way owners can regain control of their property.
• Upward pressure on rents for the entire market has been concentrated on unregulated
units.
San Francisco need not abandon its commitment to housing its most vulnerable residents
to expand housing supply and lower housing prices for other San Franciscans because
housing is not the zero sum game current housing policy appears to assume. Just as
economic growth is the most powerful tool for reducing poverty and raising the incomes
of the whole population, significant growth in the housing stock is the most powerful tool
for assuring housing is more affordable for all San Franciscans.
1.6.2.3 – SPUR DETAILED HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS
SPUR proposes the following detailed changes in public policy to stimulate greater
housing production.
1.6.2.3.1 – SITES, DENSITY AND PARKING
Identifying sites and providing for greater density are two keys to greater housing
production. SPUR recommends the follow steps in these areas:
• Rezone underutilized land currently zoned for industrial and commercial uses for moderate to
high density housing.
• Provide density bonuses city-wide for projects that provide affordable units.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 1 Summary and Conclusions 1 - 13
• Increase heights and densities along neighborhood commercial corridors and major transit
routes.
• Revise height and bulk limits in certain residentially zoned districts to better synchronize them
with Building Code height restrictions and building envelopes that are feasible to construct.
• Permit Planned Unit Development approvals for residential and mixed use developments on
lots smaller than _ acre and within the downtown area.
• Increase the housing density permitted on downtown lots without the need to acquire
transferable development rights (TDRs).
• Reduce minimum parking requirements in certain locations and for certain
populations. San Francisco prides itself on being an intimate, accessible city, with
public transit never more than three blocks away from any location. People don’t need
automobiles for many trips, and many people don’t own automobiles. SPUR
recommends residential parking requirements be reduced for places well served by
transit and resident-serving businesses, and for housing serving populations with very
low rates of automobile ownership.
1.6.2.3.2 – RESIDENTIAL ENTITLEMENT PROCESSES
Regulatory processes for housing construction in San Francisco add to the cost of all
dwelling units constructed in the city. Residents value the city’s efforts to assure that
homes are safe, well constructed, and not blighted by their surroundings, but they would
like these services to be delivered more efficiently. SPUR has the following suggestions
for the Department of City Planning:
• Produce neighborhood plans with program environmental impact reports that relieve
individual projects of the requirement for further environmental review so long as the project
conforms to the approved neighborhood plan. This proposal currently is being pursued in three
neighborhoods: the Central Waterfront, Balboa Park, and Hayes Valley. SPUR urges the city
Planning Department to continue this program as an ongoing part of its work with other
neighborhoods.
• Link inclusionary affordable housing requirements to density bonuses, either on site or
elsewhere, so that inclusionary zoning results in more housing.
• Remove the automatic conditional use requirement for projects over 40 feet in height in
residential zoning districts.
• Establish enforceable timelines for review of residential projects.
1.6.3 – TRANSPORTATION
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 1 Summary and Conclusions 1 - 14
The transportation section of this report analyzes traffic to and within San Francisco over
the next 10 years. It suggests three broad areas the city needs to address to assure
transportation needs are met.
• Congestion within the city.
• Access to the metro area labor force through the regional transportation system to
support projected economic growth in San Francisco.
• Flight delays at San Francisco International Airport.
SPUR recognizes San Francisco’s competitive advantage arises from infrastructure that
permits the city to concentrate employment in the urban core, and that future economic
growth depends on bringing additional workers into the urban core. Congestion from too
many automobiles is the principal threat to the city’s ability to access the labor force its
economy requires. The goal of transportation planning, therefore, must be to make the
urban core more accessible by transit, and less attractive to private automobiles.
Automobiles can continue to be a major source of transportation for short-term, transient
uses such as business meetings, shopping and entertainment, but the workforce – San
Francisco residents and metro area commuters – must make much greater use of transit to
assure the city’s continued economic success. Massive investments in transit infrastructure
were required to create the city’s present economy, and similar investments are vital to
preserve the economy.
1.6.3.1 – CITY TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) estimates that approximately 2.7
million trips for all purposes will occur in San Francisco each business day this year, and
that 71% of these trips will originate in the city. This number is projected to increase 9%
over the next 10 years, with 72% of the increase originating in San Francisco. Studies by
the San Francisco County Transportation Authority indicate the number of automobiles in
the city on a typical business day currently exceeds practical capacity for traffic
circulation. Moreover, San Francisco’s capacity to accommodate additional automobiles
in the most congested parts of the city cannot be increased without demolishing buildings,
narrowing sidewalks, and/or double decking the streets – options unlikely to appeal to
very many San Franciscans.
As the most densely developed part of the region, San Francisco has both a greater
opportunity and a greater need to make it easier for more people to complete trips in the
city by transit, taxi, bicycle, or on foot. Keys to making the city more accessible to the
largest number of people are aggressively to encourage use of the full range of
transportation modes, accommodate a more limited number of automobiles and their
parking requirements, and increase the amount and quality of transit service. This is not
just about making San Francisco a more livable city. It is what is required to enable the
city’s economy to continue to thrive and grow.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 1 Summary and Conclusions 1 - 15
SPUR has developed an extensive set of recommendations to address current congestion
and make the city more accessible to residents and the large number of visitors who are a
mainstay of San Francisco’s economy.
• Core Muni Lines: Improving transit service in San Francisco doesn’t necessarily
mean new routes on more streets. Muni already provides a bus stop within three
blocks of almost every home and business in city, which is excellent coverage by any
standard. Rather, the focus should be on improving Muni’s core service – the
workhorse lines used by the greatest number of patrons. The challenge is to make
these Muni lines the preferred alternative for people who can choose their mode of
transportation. Meaningful improvements would include shorter travel times, greater
frequency and reliability, easier transfers, greater comfort, and better customer service.
• Muni Metro Expansion: The city has adopted a “Four Corridor Rail Plan,” but to
date only the Third Street Light Rail Corridor is funded. The other three elements of
the plan, all as yet unfunded, are the “Central Subway” to extend the Third Street line
underground through Chinatown to Northbeach; the Geary line, with by far the
greatest potential for riders; and the Van Ness line. Each of these projects promises
major improvements in comfort and travel times, and the efficiency of an expanded
network of electric light rail in the city. The city needs to secure funding for these
important projects.
• Express Service: Muni should significantly expand its Express and Limited Stop
services to shorten travel times, and attract more riders from neighborhoods farther
from downtown.
• SOMA Service: Transit service has yet to catch up with rapid business and residential
development South of Market. Consequently the level of congestion South of Market
is approaching the level of congestion in the downtown high rise office core. Muni
has requested funding in the 2001 Budget for expanding South of Market service, and
implementing better service is a priority.
• Parking Priorities: The concentration of employment in downtown San Francisco is
based on a transit-intensive model, but it never was intended that very much of the
work force would come to the Financial District by private automobile. In addition to
the massive private investment in high rise buildings, there was a massive public
investment in BART and Muni Metro to move workers under Market Street to the
high rise office core. Parking in downtown San Francisco primarily is for short term
use – business meetings, shopping, entertainment – and was not intended to
accommodate more than the relatively small portion of the work force that requires
use of a personal automobile to do the work. This is the parking model most likely to
make downtown San Francisco accessible to everyone who needs to be there in the
course of the business day.
• New Parking: New commercial parking within the city should be located in
neighborhood commercial districts to relieve long standing parking deficits in these
districts, and south of US 101/Bay Bridge to avoid bringing more automobiles into the
office core. Existing downtown parking should be oriented to short term use.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 1 Summary and Conclusions 1 - 16
• Parking Price: The market is the most powerful tool for accomplishing many
objectives, and it has an important role in restoring accessibility downtown. Parking
rates should favor transient parking and penalize all-day parking. City-owned garages
and many private operators already use this pricing model.
• Pedestrian: Walking is the only way most people who work downtown and in many
other parts of the city would consider taking lunch or shopping trips during the day.
Indeed, walking for purpose and pleasure is a leading pastime in the City. The city
should develop a pedestrian-enhancement plan for the city to promote this frequent
choice for mobility.
• Harmonize Modes of Transportation: Many modes of transportation share San
Francisco streets. The city should promote street designs that harmonize automobiles
with other modes of travel. Every street in San Francisco needs to accommodate
automobile traffic, but every street also is a pedestrian street. Boulevards that separate
fast-moving traffic from slower traffic, and traffic calming techniques that modulate
traffic flows, are excellent solutions for San Francisco.
• Delivery Vehicles: Through routing, signs, control over curb space, and control over
the timing of deliveries, the city has the tools to ensure deliveries are facilitated in
ways that mesh well with the rest of the activities on San Francisco streets. However,
this is unlikely to happen without a plan. The city, in collaboration with San Francisco
businesses, should create a plan for delivery vehicles.
• Transit Revenue from Parking: The Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) has
the authority to increase revenue for Muni through parking enforcement and parking
charges, and DPT should use that authority to assist Muni and improve accessibility.
1.6.3.2 – REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
More intensive use of public transportation is needed to improve access and reduce
congestion throughout the Bay Area. San Francisco is unique among Bay Area counties in
the high percentage of its labor force that lives outside the city, and consequently, it relies
on efficient regional transportation. MTC estimates that 786 thousand daily trips to San
Francisco will originate outside the city this year. These travelers will enter the city
through three transportation corridors – the Peninsula (46%), Bay Bridge (38%) and
Golden Gate (16%). The 9% growth over 10 years MTC projects for trips to San
Francisco generated outside the city will be distributed similarly among the three corridors
– Peninsula (44%), Bay Bridge (30%) and Golden Gate (26%).
The city should support the following regional transportation initiatives.
• Congestion Pricing: The market is a powerful tool for managing congestion. SPUR
supports the use of congestion pricing of bridge tolls, parking and transit fares.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 1 Summary and Conclusions 1 - 17
• Park and Ride: Outside San Francisco, Bay Area patterns of urbanization frequently
require use of an automobile to access transit, which generates the need for parking at
transit stations. San Francisco’s commitment to transit for its metro area work force
needs to begin with removing the practical obstacles to transit use that motivate people
to drive to San Francisco. Inadequate parking at regional transit stations is one of the
most important of these obstacles.
• Regional Ferry System: This July a new State-chartered commission will begin
exploring the feasibility of creating a regional ferry network to augment the regional
transportation system. It is too early to tell whether ferries can be a major addition to
regional transit service, but SPUR supports a thorough investigation of this promising
idea.
• Non-Muni Buses in the City: A key objective of transit planning for San Francisco
should be to promote transit use, and to this end SPUR recommends Golden Gate
Transit and Samtrans be allowed to pick up, discharge, and carry passengers at all
stops in San Francisco
1.6.3.3.1 -- PENINSULA CORRIDOR
Although the Bay Bridge Corridor carries 57% more commuters than the Peninsula
Corridor, the Peninsula Corridor (US 101, I-280, BART, Samtrans, Caltrain) generates
more trips to San Francisco because of the influence of the Airport, close integration of
city streets in northern San Mateo County with San Francisco, traffic crossing the city en
route to the Bay Bridge and Golden Gate Bridge, and connections between the high tech
companies in Silicon Valley and a variety of San Francisco businesses. The Peninsula also
is the part of the inner ring of development around the Bay with the least well developed
public transit service, which encourages excessive reliance on automobiles. The airport
alone is enough to make the Peninsula a crucial gateway to San Francisco. High priority
projects in the Peninsula Corridor include the following:
• BART: Growing congestion in the Peninsula Corridor, especially between the Airport
and San Francisco, is a major concern for the many San Francisco industries that
depend on the airport, most notably the Visitor Industry. Completion of the BART
extension to SFO, which will provide the first rapid transit link between the airport,
downtown San Francisco and Eastbay cities served by BART, is the most important
near term transit project in the Peninsula Corridor.
• Caltrain Rapid Rails: The proposed Caltrain Rapid Rails Project involves
electrification of the entire 72-mile line from San Francisco to Gilroy with a BART-
Caltrain interface in Milbrae. While the Peninsula Corridor between San Francisco
and San Jose is one of the fastest growing travel markets in the Bay Area, it is the least
well served by Transit. The Rapid Rails Project will significantly upgrade transit
service in this most heavily used gateway to San Francisco, and should be the second
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 1 Summary and Conclusions 1 - 18
highest transit priority in the Peninsula Corridor after completion of BART to SFO-
Milbrae.
• Caltrain Downtown Extension: The gap between the Caltrain station at Fourth and
Townsend and the BART-Muni nexus under Market Street has long been recognized
as a significant barrier to increasing the use of Caltrain by travelers in the Peninsula
Corridor. SPUR supports the extension of Caltrain to close this gap.
• Caltrain Park and Ride Facilities: Most current Caltrain commuters are not
concentrated near Peninsula and South Bay Caltrain stations necessitating use of
private automobiles to access Caltrain service. Lack of parking at or within easy
walking distance of Caltrain stations is a major issue for prospective Caltrain riders.
SPUR believes this issue should be addressed with pay-for-use surface lots and
parking garages at or near Caltrain stations. It is in San Francisco’s interest to
participate in these largely self-amortizing projects to expedite their construction.
• Third Street Light Rail Extension: The current project to extend Muni Metro along
Third Street will terminate the service within San Francisco. This does not recognize
the high degree of economic integration between the city and northern San Mateo
County. SPUR recommends the city engage San Mateo County in a discussion of the
possibility of extending the Third Street Muni Metro line into northern San Mateo
County.
1.6.3.3.2 -- BAY BRIDGE CORRIDOR
The Bay Bridge Corridor (Bridge, BART, AC Transit and Ferries) carries the largest
number of commuters to San Francisco (138 thousand) and is projected to have the largest
increase in commuters in the next decade (5,600). This corridor is the second largest
generator of trips for all purposes to San Francisco (300 thousand daily), and also will
have the second largest increase in trips over the next 10 years (21 thousand daily). High
priority projects in the Bay Bridge Corridor include the following:
• BART Extensions: The fixed lane capacity of the Bay Bridge makes transit
improvements, especially BART, vital to enable the corridor to carry projected
increases in commuter and other trips. These projects include planned East and
Southbay extensions of BART, and increased bus feeder service to BART lines.
• Highway Projects: Highway projects planned or underway will not increase the
number of lanes in the corridor, but should improve the flow of traffic. These projects
include rebuilding or retrofitting the east span of the Bay Bridge, completing the
rebuild and seismic retrofit of the I-80, I-580, I-880 and I-980 interchange commonly
known as the Bay Bridge Maze, and rebuilding the western approach to the bridge in
San Francisco (terminal separation structure). Rebuilding the western approach
presents major challenges in the areas of replacement parking and traffic management.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 1 Summary and Conclusions 1 - 19
Careful planning and extraordinary measures will be needed during the period of
construction to avoid major disruptions of both surface transit lines and auto traffic.
• Ferries: Ferries once were the only transit in the Bay Bridge Corridor, but they were
prohibited from competing with other forms of transportation once the bridge was
constructed. As travel demand grows in the Bay Bridge Corridor, ferries may offer an
attractive means of bringing more people without automobiles into the city, and
extending the life of current transportation infrastructure in the Corridor. SPUR
supports the initiative proposed by the Bay Area Council to determine the feasibility of
substantially expanding ferry service on the Bay.
• Other Major Initiatives: As other major projects to add capacity to transportation in
the Bay Bridge Corridor are proposed, SPUR believes a fundamental criterion for
evaluating these projects should be their ability efficiently to move large numbers of
people in the Corridor without increasing the number of automobiles in San Francisco.
1.6.3.3.3 -- GOLDEN GATE CORRIDOR
The Golden Gate Corridor (Bridge, Buses, Ferries) is in much better shape than either the
Peninsula or Bay Bridge Corridors. The number of commuters using the corridor actually
declined during the last decade (from 42 thousand to 37 thousand a day) and growth in the
number of commuters in the next decade is not projected to raise the total to the 1990
level before the year 2010. Trip generation is another matter. Although the Golden Gate
Corridor generates the smallest total number of daily trips among the three corridors (124
thousand), its growth in trip generation over the next 10 years will nearly match that of the
Peninsula Corridor (18 thousand daily trips). It is the only one of the three corridors with
significant projected growth in non-work-related trips (6 thousand daily). High priority
projects in the Golden Gate Corridor include the following:
• Doyle Drive: The proposed rebuilding of Doyle Drive and associated feeder streets
will substantially improve safety and traffic flows to and from the Southern approach
to the Bridge. It also will dramatically reduce the visual impact of the roadway on the
Presidio National Park. This project should receive the highest priority among
proposals to improve transportation in the Golden Gate Corridor.
• Fastrak E-Toll: When implemented in July of this year, the much delayed Fastrak E-
Toll system will permit electronic toll collection on the Golden Gate Bridge, and is
expected to significantly improve the southbound flow of traffic in the morning
commute for Golden Gate Transit Buses as well as automobiles. SPUR supports this
initiative as well as companion systems being readied for other Bay Area bridges.
• U.S. 101 HOV Lane: Caltrans abandoned the segment of the high occupancy vehicle
(HOV) lane on US 101 from the Richardson Bay Bridge south across the Golden Gate
Bridge because it believed the lane in this portion of the Golden Gate Corridor was not
justified by high occupancy vehicle use. SPUR believes Caltrans should revisit this
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 1 Summary and Conclusions 1 - 20
decision in light of growing traffic in the Corridor and the need to encourage more
commuters to use transit.
• Ferries: Ferry service from Larkspur and Sausalito in Marin County to San Francisco
has operated since 1970. However ferries never have attracted enough patrons to be
economically viable without substantial subsidies from Golden Gate Bridge tolls. The
Golden Gate Bridge District’s ongoing program of replacing current ferries with high
speed catamarans has the potential to draw more traffic off the Bridge to this mode of
transportation, and SPUR supports this program.
Private Blue and Gold Fleet ferries from Tiburon to San Francisco operate without
subsidy at peak commute hours with four round trips in the morning and evening. This
popular service would attract even more riders if Blue and Gold were to add at least
one mid-day round trip to serve non-commute travelers.
• Rail Transportation: The Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District,
owns the right-of-way of the former Northwest Pacific Railroad from Larkspur to
Sonoma. Marin and Sonoma Counties, and the Bridge District have long term plans to
implement passenger service on this abandoned rail line to relieve congestion in the
U.S. 101 Corridor north of San Rafael, and to provide a feeder service from Northbay
counties to Bridge District ferries and buses at the Larkspur Ferry Terminal for the
final leg of the journey to San Francisco. SPUR supports this plan to bring commuters
to San Francisco from fast growing Northbay counties without their automobiles.
1.6.3.4 -- SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
It is difficult to overstate the value of San Francisco International Airport (SFO) for the
city and region. The airport carries 65% of all airline passengers entering and leaving the
Bay Area, 93% of international passengers, and more than half the value of goods
exported from the region.
Currently SFO experiences more and longer delays than any other major international
airport in the nation, a situation related to weather and the configuration of SFO’s
runways. Delays and congestion are not expected to diminish until new runways are built,
a project that involves Bay fill. SFO has responded to the concerns of environmentalists
by committing to mitigate the environmental effects of the Bay fill. Other critics of the
project include residents of adjacent communities who fear increased aircraft noise and
increased highway congestion in and around the airport.
SFO is such a vital asset to the city and region, San Francisco’s Mayor has pledged the
authority of his office and his considerable political acumen to secure approval. Most
business and government leaders throughout the region are solidly behind the expeditious
approval and completion of SFO’s runway reconfiguration project. SPUR believes it is
critically important to solve the delay problem at SFO expeditiously and to mitigate any
adverse effects on the Bay, aircraft noise, and surface transportation.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 2 ECONOMIC CONTEXT 2-1
Prospects for economic growth in San Francisco are inextricably linked to growth in the
regional, state and national economies. Local growth in production and employment
depends primarily on the number and type of jobs created in larger economic venues, and
the share of new jobs San Francisco can capture. The city’s potential share of new jobs is
heavily influenced by the types of industries in which job growth will occur in the State
and national economies, with the best prospects arising from growth in industries already
present in the city’s economy, or in industries in the process of becoming a significant
part of the city’s economic base. Economic growth is important because it is the most
powerful tool for reducing poverty and providing opportunities for upward mobility to all
income groups.
2.1 – NATIONAL ECONOMY
The most important driver of growth in the national economy is real (inflation adjusted)
income growth, and the main determinate of growth in real income is growth in
productivity. Rising productivity enables the economy to produce more goods and
services per hour of work, and increases real wages and the standard of living. Without
productivity growth, numeric increases in gross product and income do not translate into
higher standards of living. Recent gains in the average productivity of American workers
have permitted the U.S. economy to sustain the present economic expansion without
significant inflation and have provided rapidly expanding markets to fuel the growth of
San Francisco.
2.1.1 -- PRODUCTIVITY
The fundamental importance of productivity is illustrated by the nation’s record of
productivity gains over the last half century. The productivity of American workers rose
at the brisk pace of 3% a year from the early 1950s to the early 1970s, permitting the
standard of living to double in a single generation (23 years). The rate of productivity
gains declined sharply after 1973 and averaged only about 0.8% a year over the next 20
years. Productivity growing at only 0.8% per year meant that it would take roughly four
generations (87 years) to double the standard of living.
Productivity gains began accelerating in 1995 and have averaged 2.5% a year over the
last five years. The turnaround in American productivity growth owes much to global
competition that forced American firms to innovate and lower costs. These goals were
pursued by investing in new technology, and by corporate downsizing and restructuring.
The advent of the Internet and other digital communications produced an efficiency
bonanza in our increasingly knowledge-based economy. As American workers learned
the skills needed to participate in the new economy, the average skill level of the nation’s
labor force rose. These four factors – technology investments, corporate restructuring, the
Internet, and rising skill levels – converged in 1995 to establish a new level for America’s
productivity growth.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 2 ECONOMIC CONTEXT 2-2
Long term projections published by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) last fall1
suggest the nation could enjoy relatively high rates of productivity growth for at least the
next 10 years. United States leadership in developing and applying new technologies
confers a competitive advantage in knowledge-based industries, and the opportunity to
widen that advantage through innovation. Although globalization has involved important
issues other than productivity -- human rights, labor rights, environmental concerns –
there is little doubt that global competition and markets are important catalysts in the
process that is lifting American standards of living after two decades of stagnation.
2.1.2 -- POPULATION
People are the foundation of the economy and the reason to care about its performance.
The US population is projected to grow at a compound annual rate of 0.86% over the
next decade, adding about 24.6 million people to the nation’s current population of 274
million.2 This is comparable to the number added in each of the last four decades. The
average age of Americans will increase rapidly in the next 10 years as shown by the
projected growth in population cohorts in Table 2.a.
2000 - 2010
Projected U.S. Population Growth by Age Cohort
T- 2.a
Age 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Growth 4.6% 1.1% -6.1% 6.4% 11.3% 4.7%
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
People 55–64 years old are the fastest growing population cohort, followed by the 45–54
year age group, and people 65 years and older. The number of people 35–44 years old
actually will decline, and the number 25–34 years old will increase by only 1.1%. A
larger proportion of the population is moving into age brackets where participation in the
labor force typically declines. Fortunately, historic labor participation rates for older men
and women appear to be rising in response to abundant employment opportunities. In
addition, more than a third (36%) of US population growth in the decade ahead will come
from immigration, and will help compensate for the relatively low fertility rate and aging
population in the United States.
2.1.3 -- HOUSEHOLDS
The number of US households is projected to increase faster than population between
2000 and 2010, adding 11.6 million households to the 103.2 million households that exist
in 2000. This is good news for the economy, since the number of households is a more
important determinant of growth in consumer demand than the size of the population.
1
Monthly Labor Review, BLS, November 1999
2
U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Projections of the Total Resident Population as of July 1: Middle Series,
released February 14, 2000.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 2 ECONOMIC CONTEXT 2-3
Non-family households, currently 31% of all households, are projected to increase nearly
twice as fast (1.58% a year) as family households (0.84%), reflecting the desire and
financial ability of more individuals to establish their own household (Table 2.b)
US Households
Millions, 10-Year Change and Annual Compound Rate of Change
T – 2.b Annual
Change Change
1995 2000 2005 2010 2000-10 2000-10
All Households 97.7 103.2 108.8 114.8 11.2% 1.07%
Family Households 68.4 71.7 74.7 77.9 8.7% 0.84%
Non-Family Households 29.3 31.6 34.1 36.9 17.0% 1.58%
Source: US Census Bureau
1995 - 2010
Average US Household Size and Family Size
T – 2.c 1995 2000 2005 2010
Persons per Households 2.62 2.59 2.57 2.53
Persons per Family 3.15 3.11 3.09 3.05
Source: US Census Bureau
The average size of US households and the average size of US families both are projected
to continue shrinking over the 10-year forecast period (Table 2.c). However, the decrease
in the average size of households should be reflected in a higher rate of household
formation.
2.1.4 -- LABOR FORCE
BLS expects the American labor force to grow by 16.9 million workers and to reach
154.6 million in 2008, the final year of BLS’ 10-year projection. As show in Table 2.d,
this would be slightly lower labor force growth than occurred in the previous decade.
Given current demographic forecasts, the projected 1.16% compound annual rate of labor
force growth assumes the labor force participation rates of older workers continue to rise
as they have in recent years.
1988 -- 2008
Projected Total U.S Labor Force
T-2.d Compound
Labor Force (000,000) Percent Change Annual Change
1988 1998 2008 1988-98 1998-08 1988-98 1998-08
121.7 137.7 154.6 13.1% 12.3% 1.24% 1.16%
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
If the participation rates of older workers do not increase as projected, there are several
possible outcomes. A labor shortage could drive up wages, ignite inflation, and dampen
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 2 ECONOMIC CONTEXT 2-4
real economic growth. A labor shortage that encourages higher wage demands also could
encourage innovations that increase the productivity of the available pool of workers. A
labor shortage also could stimulate higher rates of immigration to provide the additional
workers the economy requires. The actual response of the economy is likely to involve a
combination of these reactions.
2.1.5 -- GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT
Projected growth in population, households, labor force, and productivity could generate
steady growth in real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 2.0% to 3.0% a year over the
next 10 years, compared to average real GDP growth of 4.0% a year in the second half of
the 1990s. This is a relatively optimistic forecast, but there are good reasons to be
optimistic: renewed growth in productivity has permitted an unprecedented 9-year,
inflation-free expansion of the US economy; America has a widening comparative
advantage in high technology products enjoying explosive growth in world markets; and
notwithstanding some nasty regional conflicts, the world’s major powers are at peace.
These are good fundamentals for sustained growth.
A strong, long-term position will not prevent short-term dips in the economy, although
strong fundamentals will tend to limit their depth and duration. In any case, “short-term
happens”. The Fed cools the economy to keep inflation in check; “over exuberance” in
the stock market causes retrenchment; investor jitters about the break up of Microsoft
drag down the values of high tech companies; OPEC missteps bump prices up a notch;
drops in consumer confidence stack up inventories; and really, really bad weather can
take a bite out of the whole economy. After recovery from these and other transitory
events the economy typically returns to its long term growth trend.
2.1.6 -- JOBS
BLS projects that the U.S. economy will generate 20.2 million new jobs in the decade
between 1988 and 2008, or about the same number the economy generated in the
previous decade. The projected 1.36% compound annual rate of job growth in this period
is higher than the rate of growth projected for the labor force, suggesting a further
increase in the number of workers who hold more than one job (Table 2.e).
1998 – 2008
U.S. Population, Labor Force and Jobs
Compound Annual Rates of Growth
T-2.e
Population Labor Force Jobs
0.86% 1.16% 1.36%
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Table 2.f summarizes job growth projected for each major sector of the U.S. Economy.
Services are expected to continue to be the fastest growing sector and to add the largest
number of jobs. The economy will generate 11.8 million new service jobs which will
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 2 ECONOMIC CONTEXT 2-5
represent 58% of total job creation in this period. Another 3.6 million jobs will be added
in Trade, and about 1.0 million each in Transportation and Public Utilities, and in
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate. Together these four sectors are expected to represent
85% of US job growth between 1998 and 2008.
1988 - 2008
United States Jobs by Major Industrial Groups
Number of Jobs, Percent Change & Compound Annual Rate of Change
T – 2.f Compound
Number of Jobs (000) Percent Change Annual Change
1988 1998 2008 1988-98 1998-08 1988-98 1998-08
Agriculture 3,355 3,576 3,526 6.2% -1.4% 0.64% -0.14%
Mining 713 590 475 -20.8% -24.2% -1.88% -2.14%
Construction 5,098 5,985 6,535 14.8% 8.4% 1.62% 0.88%
Manufacturing 19,314 18,772 18,684 -2.9% -0.5% -0.28% -0.05%
Transp. & Utilities 5,512 6,600 7,541 16.5% 12.5% 1.82% 1.34%
Trade 25,053 29,127 32,693 14.0% 10.9% 1.52% 1.16%
FIRE 6,629 7,408 8,367 10.5% 11.5% 1.12% 1.22%
Services 26,019 37,548 49,302 30.7% 23.8% 3.74% 2.76%
Government 17,386 19,819 21,688 12.3% 8.6% 1.32% 0.91%
Self Employed 9,884 9,991 10,684 1.1% 6.5% 0.11% 0.67%
Secondary Jobs 2,201 2,060 2,059 -6.8% 0.0% -0.66% 0.00%
TOTAL JOBS 120,010 140,514 160,795 14.6% 12.6% 1.59% 1.36%
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Manufacturing jobs are expected to remain constant at about 18.7 million, with the mix
continuing to shift away from traditional manufacturing to high technology products.
Although computer equipment manufacturing is projected to have the largest gains in
output among manufacturing industries (14.5%), it doesn’t rate particularly high in job
growth. The reason is that very high rates of productivity growth in most high tech
manufacturing permits substantial gains in output without many additional workers.
Most of the fastest growing industries in major economic sectors are projected to be in
computer services, other professional services, health care, social services and
entertainment. Rapid growth in these broad categories augers well for the growth of
California and Bay Area industries
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 2 ECONOMIC CONTEXT 2-6
2.2 – CALIFORNIA AND BAY AREA
California and the Bay Area personify the reasons most observers are optimistic about the
long-run economic prospects for the nation. Population, labor force, labor participation
rates, skill levels, productivity, and personal income all are growing well in California.
The long, deep recession in the first half of the 1990s proved to be a transitory event
inflicted mainly by a slow down in the national economy; the short, but devastating
effects of defense downsizing; and poor economic times in California’s two largest
trading partners, Japan and Mexico. The national economy got on a fast track in the
second half of the 1990s, pulling California with it. The recovery was lead by high
technology companies in Northern California, and by the State’s burgeoning hospitality
and entertainment industries.
The San Francisco Bay Area has 6.8 million people and 3.7 million jobs, making it the
nation’s fifth largest metropolitan market. With per capita income nearly 40% above the
national average, and household income nearly 50% above the national average, the nine-
county Bay Area is the wealthiest market of comparable size in the world.
In the first decade of the new millennium California’s economy is widely expected to
outperform the national economy, and within California, the San Francisco Bay Area is
expected to outperform California. The region’s economic base is anchored by some of
the fastest growing industries in the state and nation, including high technology, foreign
trade, tourism and entertainment, and professional services. The Bay Area’s
concentration of firms serving the rapidly growing digital media and Internet tools market
should fuel rapid growth in the region for many years to come.
2.2.1 -- POPULATION
California’s population growth slowed in first half of the 1990s in response to the deep
recession. The three sources of such growth -- natural increase from births exceeding
deaths, immigration from abroad, and net domestic migration from other states -- are
detailed in Table 2.g. Natural increase is the largest source of population growth,
typically contributing 55% to 65% of new Californians, followed by immigration that
contributes 35% to 40%. Domestic migration is a swing factor that responds to economic
conditions in the State, especially opportunities for employment.
The demographic composition of California’s population caused growth from natural
increase to drift downward throughout the 1990s, from 397 thousand in 1991, to 297
thousand in 1999. Foreign immigration contributed 220 thousand to 240 thousand new
residents annually, except for a bulge between 1992 and 1995 when immigration reached
289 thousand in 1994. The slowing of population growth in the depths of the recession
would have been even more dramatic had the immigration bulge not corresponded with
an equally dramatic rise in domestic migration out of California.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 2 ECONOMIC CONTEXT 2-7
1990 - 1999
Net Components of Change in California’s Population
(000)
T – 2.g Natural Foreign Domestic
July 1 Population Change Increase Immigration Migration
1990 29,944.
1991 30,565. 621. 397. 219. 5.
1992 31,188. 623. 397. 274. -49.
1993 31,517. 329. 372. 286. -329.
1994 31,790. 273. 356. 289. -371.
1995 32,063. 273. 337. 244. -308.
1996 32,383. 320. 319. 201. -200.
1997 32,957. 574. 309. 237. 28.
1998 33,494. 537. 296. 226. 15.
1999 34,036. 542. 297. 229. 15.
Total 4,092. 3,080. 2,205. -1,193.
Average 455. 342. 245. -133.
Source: California Department of Finance
Immigration is expected to contribute more than 40% of the increase in California’s
population in the next 10 years, compared with about a third of US population growth in
the same period. Table 2.h summarizes California Department of Finance’s (DOF)
population projections for California and its major economic regions.
1990 – 2010
California Population Projections by Region
(000,000)
T –2.h Percent Change Comp An Change
1990 2000 2010 1990-00 2000-10 1990-00 2000-10
California 29.9 34.7 40.0 16% 15% 1.47% 1.43%
Bay Area 6.1 6.9 7.7 15% 11% 1.38% 1.08%
Los Angeles Basin 14.7 16.9 19.2 15% 14% 1.37% 1.27%
San Diego 2.5 2.9 3.4 17% 17% 1.60% 1.58%
Inland California 6.6 7.9 9.6 19% 22% 1.73% 2.01%
Source: California Department of Finance
Scarce land and high housing prices in the major economic centers on the California
coast are diverting increasing amounts of the State’s economic and population growth to
inland areas from Redding to Bakersfield. Population is projected to grow fastest in
Inland California (2% a year), and slowest in the San Francisco Bay Area (1% a year).
San Diego falls roughly in the middle of this range, with population growth in Los
Angles, like the Bay Area, toward the lower end.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 2 ECONOMIC CONTEXT 2-8
Overall, the State expects 5.3 million new residents in the next ten years bringing the
total population to 40 million by 2010. The projected 15% growth in California’s
population will be two-thirds higher than the 9% growth projected for the US population,
and California will represent nearly 22% of the nation’s total population growth by the
end of this period. California’s relatively high rate of population growth reflects the
State’s expected high rate of job growth and also will help to drive that growth.
The DOF projects population of the 9-county Bay Area to increase 11% in the next 10
years, adding another 787 thousand residents (Table 2.i). This is faster than population
growth projected for the nation as a whole (8.9%), but considerably slower than growth
projected for the State (15%), or than the region itself experienced in the 1990s (15%).
The 9-country Bay Area population forecast is an incomplete picture of participants in
the regional economy. Much more rapid population growth is projected for counties
adjacent to the Bay Area than for the nine counties that touch the Bay. Projected rates of
population growth in these counties range from about 19% in Monterey, Santa Cruz, and
Sacramento Counties, to 29% in Merced, 25% in San Joaquin, and 27% in San Luis
Obispo. There are major implications for the regional transportation system as the Bay
Area’s labor force moves farther away from job centers in the inner ring of development
around the Bay.
1990 – 2010
Bay Area Population Projections
(000,000)
T – 2.i Percent Change Comp An Change
1990 2000 2010 1990-00 2000-10 1990-00 2000-10
Bay Area3 6.1 6.9 7.7 15% 11% 1.38% 1.08%
West Bay 1.6 1.8 1.9 11% 4% 1.05% 0.38%
East Bay 2.1 2.4 2.7 15% 12% 1.39% 1.10%
North Bay 0.8 1.0 1.2 17% 18% 1.55% 1.70%
South Bay 1.5 1.8 2.0 17% 15% 1.60% 1.38%
San Francisco 0.73 0.79 0.78 9% -1% 0.85% -0.12%
Source: California Department of Finance
The DOF projects the largest absolute increase in the region’s population in the East Bay
(278 thousand) and South Bay (258 thousand). The highest rate of growth in the 9-
county region is projected for the North Bay (18%) where 181 thousand new residents are
expected over the next 10 years. The 4% projected net growth in West Bay population is
concentrated in San Mateo County (69 thousand), with the 10 thousand increase
projected for Marin off setting the 10 thousand decrease DOF projects for San Francisco.
3
West Bay includes San Francisco, San Mateo and Marin. East Bay includes Alameda and Contra Costa.
North Bay includes Napa, Solano and Sonoma. South Bay included Santa Clara.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 2 ECONOMIC CONTEXT 2-9
Not everyone agrees on the course of population growth, especially for progressively
smaller geographic areas where small differences in forecast assumptions can make
relatively large differences in forecast values. Table 2.j presents population forecasts for
San Francisco and the Bay Area prepared by the Center for Continuing Study of the
California Economy (CCSCE), the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and
the California Department of Finance (DOF).
2010
Alternative Forecasts of Populations
San Francisco and Bay Area
(000)
T – 2.j
Bay Area San Francisco
CCSCE Forecast 7,826 CCSCE Forecast 833
ABAG Forecast 7,631 ABAG Forecast 819
DOF Forecast 7,726 DOF Forecast 783
This report generally uses the DOF forecast for consistency in comparisons among
California’s various regions. However, the CCSCE forecast that distributes shares of
projected State growth among California regions and counties, and the ABAG forecast,
which incorporates the most local information, probably are more accurate local area
population projections than the DOF forecast.
San Francisco was hit hard by California’s deep recession in the first half of the 1990s,
and ABAG’s 1996 forecast was not optimistic about the prospects for population growth
in the City. In 1996 ABAG projected a San Francisco population of 780 thousand in
2000, peaking at 800 thousand in 2010. This view seriously underestimated San
Francisco’s ability to re-invent its economic base, and to create the housing required for
continued growth. ABAG’s most recent forecast estimates the city’s population at just
under 800 thousand in the year 2000, and expects growth to 819 thousand by 2010. There
are physical limits to the amount of housing, and hence the amount of population, that
can be accommodated in San Francisco. However, the view of this report, as explained in
succeeding chapters, is that the city is nowhere near those limits.
San Francisco currently houses only a little over half of its labor force in the city.
Although the price of housing is a deterrent for some, the city’s extremely low vacancy
rate suggests the many more people would choose to live in the city even at current
prices, if more housing were available. Moreover, if more housing were available, the
price of existing and new housing would be lower. In Projections 2000 AGAB estimates
the potential number of housing units that could be constructed under San Francisco’s
present zoning is two and a half times the number of units ABAG projects actually will
be constructed in the next 20 years. Politics, rather than the city’s capacity to
accommodate more housing is the operative constraint on the amount of housing
constructed. Politics could change, if San Franciscans realize they are not powerless to
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 2 ECONOMIC CONTEXT 2 - 10
increase the supply and reduce the high cost of city housing. Were this to happen, even
the upwardly revised population forecasts for San Francisco would be short of the mark.
Geographic forecasts of population growth in the Bay Area and adjacent counties,
transportation corridor studies discussed in the transportation section of this report, and
the industry forecasts in the economic section of the report, shed some light on what the
city needs to do to access the labor force required to sustain economic prosperity.
2.2.2 -- HOUSEHOLDS
Californians formed about 100,000 new households a year during the 1990s, down
sharply from the approximately 200,000 new households a year formed in the State
during the 1980s. The lower rate of household formation is attributed to demographics
and the severity of the recession. Nearly 43% of the State’s population was under 20
years old during the 1990s, too young for most to form separate households. More than
94% of the growth in the adult (over 20) population occurred among Asians and
Hispanics, ethnic groups with the State’s lowest rates of household formation. Finally,
the recession may have encouraged many to defer forming a separate household until
they felt financially more secure.
While the high rate of projected job growth in California in the next 10 years will support
a high rate of population growth, whether this leads to significantly higher rates of
household formation is an open question. More than a half million people will be added
to the 20-34 year age group who are leading candidates to form new household. Asians
and Hispanics, who statistically have the lowest propensity for household formation
among all ethnic groups, will be a majority of the projected increase in the 35-54 age
peak family formation cohort. It is unclear whether these residents, and residents in the
20-34 year cohort still living with others, will form their own households at higher rates
than they have in the past as they reach age 35. Finally, the largest population growth will
be among the 45-54 and 55-65 age groups. Separation and divorce are the most frequent
reasons people in these age groups form new households.
In order for separate households to be formed, there must be a separate place for them to
reside. Public policy in the Bay Area and much of California has driven housing prices
beyond the reach of many new households. By making it difficult to build enough new
housing to keep pace with job growth, local housing and land use decisions have
contributed to the current low rate of household formation. It is unclear whether, or how
fast local governments will address high housing costs and lengthening commutes that
constrain household formation and threaten the economic vitality of the State and region.
Considering all these factors, it appears the State could average between 200 thousand
and 250 thousand new households a year in decade ahead.
ABAG forecasts a slight increase in the rate of household formulation in San Francisco
and the Bay Area over the next 10 years, compared with the 1990s. Household size is
projected to decline in San Francisco from 2.46 to 2.44 persons per household. Bay Area
household size is projected to rise slightly from 2.78 to 2.79 persons per household.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 2 ECONOMIC CONTEXT 2 - 11
Although Bay Area population growth will be higher than that in the nation as a whole
(11% verses 8.9%) the rate of household formation will be lower (9% verses 11.2%). The
difference reflects the age distribution of the Bay Area population, the lower propensity
for household formation among some of the regions large ethnic populations, and higher
housing costs. Realization of these projections would reduce San Francisco’s share of
Bay Area households from 13% in 2000 to 12.3% in 2010 (Table 2.k).
1990 – 2010
Number of San Francisco and Bay Area Households
(000)
T – 2.k Compound Annual
Percent Change Rate of Change
1990 2000 2010 1990-00 2000-10 1990-00 2000-10
Bay Area Households 2,246 2,438 2,657 8.9% 9.0% 0.82% 0.86%
San Francisco Households 306 316 326 3.3% 3.3% 0.32% 0.33%
SF % of BA 13.6% 13.0% 12.3% 5.2% 4.6% na na
Source: ABAG
2.2.3 – EMPLOYED RESIDENTS
ABAG projects the number of employed residents in the Bay Area will increase a little
faster in the decade ahead (1.28% compound annual rate) than in the 1990s (1.16%),
adding another 480 thousand employed people, compared to the 386 thousand increase in
the 1990s (Table 2.l).
The lower rate of growth in the number of employed San Francisco residents ABAG
projects for the next decade reflects ABAG’s lower population projections for this period.
If realized, the increase in the number of employed city residents in the next decade (32
thousand) then would be about the same as ABAG’s estimate of the increase in employed
residents during the 1990s (31 thousand).
These changes would reduce San Francisco’s share of employed Bay Area residents from
11.9% estimated for the year 2000 to 11.3% in 2010. San Franciscans would represent
6.7% of the increase in Bay Area employed residents in the next decade, compared with
8.0% in the 1990s.
1990 – 2010
Bay Area and San Francisco Employed Residents
(000)
T – 2.l Compound Annual
Percent Change Rate of Change
990 2000 2010 1990-00 2000-10 1990-00 2000-10
Bay Area 3,152 3,538 4,018 12.2% 13.6% 1.16% 1.28%
San Francisco 391 422 454 7.9% 7.6% 0.76% 0.73%
SF % of BA 12.4% 11.9% 11.3% 8.0% 6.7% na na
Source: ABAG
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 2 ECONOMIC CONTEXT 2 - 12
2.2.4 -- JOBS
ABAG projects the number of jobs in the Bay Area and San Francisco will increase in the
next decade by substantially more than the increase in the number of employed residents,
which also was true in the 1990s (Tables 2.l & 2.m). The difference in San Francisco
primarily reflects an increase in the share of San Francisco jobs held by metro area
residents. The difference throughout the Bay Area reflects an increase in the number of
jobs held by residents of counties surrounding the Bay Area whose population is growing
much faster than the population in any of the nine counties bordering the Bay. (See
Section 2.2.1 for a discussion of these rates of population growth.) Higher rates of job
growth than growth of employed residents also reflects a nation-wide trend of people
holding more than one job in the current tight labor market.
1990 – 2010
Number of San Francisco and Bay Area Jobs
(000)
T – 2.m Compound Annual
Percent Change Rate of Change
1990 2000 2010 1990-00 2000-10 1990-00 2000-10
Bay Area 3,206 3,689 4,228 15.0% 14.6% 1.41% 1.37%
San Francisco 579 629 687 8.6% 9.3% 0.83% 0.89%
SF % of BA 18% 17% 16% 10.3% 10.9% na na
Source: ABAG
The Bay Area is projected to generate 539 thousand additional jobs in the next decade
(14.6% increase), or 56 thousand more than the 483 thousand added in the 1990s. ABAG
expects the city to generate 59 thousand additional jobs in the next decade (9.3%
increase), or about 9 thousand more than the 50 thousand jobs added in the 1990s. A
result of the slower job growth projected for San Francisco on its much smaller job base
would be a one percent decline in the city’s share of Bay Area jobs, from 17% in 2000 to
16% in 2010.
The compound annual rate of job growth in San Francisco implicit in ABAG’s forecast
(0.89%) is about two-thirds of the rate of job growth projected for the Bay Area as a
whole (1.37%).
Table 2.n details ABAG’s projection of Bay Area employment by major industrial sector.
The highest rates of job growth forecast for the next decade, all 19% to 21%, are in
Services; Wholesale Trade; and Transportation, Communications and Utilities. The
number of jobs created in each industry is the product of the rate of job growth and the
size of the job base to which the rate of growth is applied. The largest increase in jobs
will be generated by Services (270 thousand jobs), Trade (96 thousand) and
Manufacturing (73 thousand). Services will represent 50% of the 539 thousand jobs
ABAG expects the Bay Area to generate over the next 10 years. Trade will represent
18%, Manufacturing 14%, and Transportation, Communications and Utilities 8%.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 2 ECONOMIC CONTEXT 2 - 13
1990 – 2010
Bay Area Employment by Industrial Sector
(000)
T – 2.n Percent Change Increment
1990 2000 2010 1990-00 2000-10 1990-00 2000-10
Agriculture, Mining 37 38 38 2.2% 0.9% 1 0
Construction 148 186 206 25.2% 11.1% 37 21
Manufacturing 517 559 632 8.1% 13.0% 42 73
High Technology Mfg 274 303 328 10.6% 8.2% 29 25
Other Manufacturing 243 256 304 5.2% 18.7% 13 48
Transps, Comm, Utilities 189 224 266 18.0% 19.1% 34 43
Trade 727 780 876 7.2% 12.3% 53 96
Wholesale Trade 192 200 241 4.0% 20.9% 8 42
Retail Trade 535 580 634 8.4% 9.4% 45 54
FIRE 228 241 260 5.4% 7.9% 12 19
Services 1,067 1,391 1,661 30.3% 19.4% 323 270
Business Services 371 541 654 46.0% 20.8% 171 113
All Other Services 697 850 1,007 21.9% 18.6% 153 158
Government 292 272 289 -6.9% 6.4% -20 17
TOTAL JOBS 3,206 3,689 4,228 15.0% 14.6% 483 539
Source: ABAG
2.2.4 – CYCLE OF PROSPERITY
The San Francisco Bay Area is the richest and one of the fastest growing regions in the
nation with an economic base that includes the nation’s most productive and fastest
growing industries. McKinsey & Company prepared a study for the Bay Area Council
(BAC) and Bay Area Economic Forum (BAEF) in 19994 documenting the Bay Area’s
remarkable economic success relative to other U.S. metropolitan areas. Highlights of
McKinsey’s findings include:
• The Bay Area has completed the transition from an industrial and defense-
based economy, to an economy based on knowledge-intensive industries.
• The region has an absolute productivity advantage, and more rapid
productivity growth in telecommunications, computers and electronics,
bioscience, multimedia, and environmental technology.
• The region also has the highest productivity in some more traditional
industries, such as retail trade, wholesale trade, and business services. Its
productivity in banking and finance is second only to New York in the United
States.
4
Bay Area Economic Forum, Bay Area Council, The Bay area: Winning in the New Global
Economy, 1999.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 2 ECONOMIC CONTEXT 2 - 14
• Bay Area companies led those in all other U.S. metropolitan regions in the
growth of shareholder returns in each of the three years preceding publication
of the report in 1999. The region also had more fast-growing private
companies, and attracted more than 35% of this nation’s invested venture
capital.
• The Bay Area has the highest per capita income of any major metropolitan
area in the nation, and the income and wealth of its households are more
evenly distributed than in other metropolitan areas or in the nation as a whole.
Consequently, a smaller percentage of Bay Area residents fall below the
poverty line than residents of other metro areas.
The McKinsey report attributes the Bay Area’s phenomenal economic success to a
“reinforcing cycle of economic prosperity”. The cycle is “reinforcing” because over time
it widens the region’s comparative advantage.
Wealth-creating infrastructure
• outstanding universities and research institutions
• high private investment,
• educated work force
supports outstanding business performance
• high employment growth
• high shareholder returns
• large venture capital flows
• major productivity advantage over competitor regions
which yields high quality of life
• high per capita income
• more favorable distribution of income
• high level of public services
• low crime rate
• vibrant culture
which reinforces wealth-creating infrastructure.
2.2.5 – CHALLENGES OF SUCCESS
Economic success poses major challenges to the Bay Area in housing, transportation,
land use decisions, environmental quality, and regional cooperation.
• Environmental Quality: The Bay Area’s legendary natural environment and
quality of life are the region’s great competitive assets. Maintaining
environmental quality while under going significant economic growth is an
on-going challenge.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 2 ECONOMIC CONTEXT 2 - 15
• Land Use: The urban boundary in the inner ring of development around the
Bay is set largely by the Bay and more than 700,000 acres of public open
space. Making wise decisions about the use, re-use, and intensity of use of this
relatively fixed amount of land is an on-going challenge. Farther from the
urban core, the challenge includes establishing an urban boundary that will
preserve the natural environment within an increasingly urban setting.
• Housing: The region has good information about the number of people it
needs to house and the price consequences of not creating enough housing for
its expanding work force. In parts of the Bay Area with a relatively fixed
urban boundary, the main issues are density and adaptive re-use of land
already developed. The challenge is to muster the political will to address this
exceptionally well defined problem.
• Transportation: As with housing, major elements of the transportation
problem are well defined. Whether within the city or the region, projected
economic growth assumes a much higher percentage of trips will use public
transportation. Most of the infrastructure investments, improvements in
operating efficiency, and tighter regional coordination of operating units
required for more intensive use of public transit have been identified. Nearly
everyone understands that failure to take these transit-enabling steps will
degrade the environment, diminish quality of life, and make it difficult to
access the labor force the economy requires. Again, the challenge is to muster
the political will to fund solutions to a well defined problem.
• K – 12 Education: Analysis of the region’s poorly performing K – 12
education system is beyond the scope of this report, but it is a key challenge to
sustaining the region’s economic prosperity that deserves inclusion in any
recitation of issues facing the city and region.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 3 SAN FRANCISCO ECONOMY 3-1
3.1 -- ECONOMIC EVOLUTION
San Francisco is the only truly old city in the western United States and for more than
100 years it was the only significant city in the West. As such, it was the center of
manufacturing, distribution, and trade, as well as the seat of government administration,
services, and cultural activities. Prior to World War II the city’s economy was anchored
by large goods-producing and distribution industries, thriving among agribusiness, trade,
natural resources, engineering, and financial industries developed over the city’s long
history. The world changed rapidly in the post-war years as the base of the US economy
began its epic migration from heavy industry to high technology and services. The San
Francisco Bay Area was in the vanguard of this development. Quantum expansion of the
regional economy encouraged specialization of economic roles within the region:
• new high technology manufacturing concentrated in Santa Clara County and the I-
680 corridor
• containerized cargo replaced traditional break bulk methods of maritime shipping and
Oakland became the dominant Bay Area seaport
• trade in high-valued, high technology products grew rapidly and the value of goods
shipped by San Francisco International Airport surpassed the combined value of
goods shipped by all Bay Area seaports
• warehouse and other distribution facilities gravitated to less congested parts of the
region in Alameda, Stanislaus and Yolo Counties
• many back office processing operations shifted to communities in eastern Contra
Costa and Alameda Counties
• San Francisco emerged as the communications, cultural, financial and visitor services
center for the Bay Area metropolis
San Francisco’s rapid transition from a post World War II economy based on heavy
industry and distribution, to a new economy based on services, spared the city the
economic stagnation that afflicted many older, “rust belt” cities. In a single generation,
from the 1960s to the early 1980s, San Francisco shifted its economic base from
manufacturing and distribution to services; replaced its capital stock of low rise factories
and warehouses with high-rise office buildings; and transformed its labor force from blue
collar to white collar.
Massive capital investments were required to permit the concentration of employment
required by the new economy. Downtown high-rise buildings were constructed to
provide office space. BART and Muni Metro were built to access the labor force and
move people under Market Street to the office core. Moscone Center and new downtown
hotels transformed tourism into a basic industry employing 14% of the city’s private
sector labor force. A quantum expansion of SFO addressed city and regional needs in an
increasingly global marketplace. This infrastructure and the entrepreneurs and labor force
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3-2
it attracted are the foundation of the city’s current economy, and represent much of the
competitive advantage leveraged by the city’s basic industries.
The number of San Francisco-based jobs in the new economy increased from 444,000 in
1960 to an estimated 568,000 in 2000, and the proportion of the city’s labor force drawn
from the metro area rose from 27% to 46%. The city permitted no increase in the capacity
of highways entering San Francisco after completion of I-280 in 1964. Access to the
growing portion of San Francisco’s work force living outside the city was achieved by
public transit, especially BART which opened for service in the early 1970s, and by
rising levels of congestion in the three transportation corridors leading into the city.
The most visible manifestation of the fundamental changes occurring in the city’s
economy in the 1970s and early ‘80s was the downtown building boom that created
office space required by the new economy. Office construction was opposed by a series
of growth control measures beginning with Proposition T in 1971 and culminating in
passage of Proposition M by a slim 5,311 vote margin in 1986. Advocates of the initial
growth control measures framed office construction as an aesthetic issue, the building of
high-rise buildings in what previously had been a low-rise city. Advocates of the latter
measures recognized the city’s economic success had a major impact on housing,
transportation, education and social services. Limited understanding of San Francisco’s
economic evolution was manifest in an increasingly hostile attitude toward business and
was reflected in the rising cost of doing business in the city and in the nation’s most
stringent controls on business development.
At the same time, globalization of business spurred American corporations to cut costs to
compete in the global market. In the ensuing wave of corporate restructuring San
Francisco lost nearly half its Fortune 500 corporation headquarters. Many other major
employers reduced their presence in the city, often by moving business activities that did
not need the advantages of a San Francisco location. It was these developments that
terminated the building boom in the mid-1980s.
San Francisco slid into recession, along with the rest of the region and State in the early
1990s. Inflation adjusted growth in city tax revenues slowed, then turned negative.
Business Tax collections dropped for three successive years, and Property Tax collections
fell in four successive years. The Redevelopment Agency stopped selling tax increment
bonds to fund redevelopment because falling property values reduced the flow of tax
increment to a trickle. The fiscal crisis generated by anemic economic growth forced both
Mayor Agnos and Mayor Jordan to curtail city services. The Municipal Railway
deteriorated, social services were reduced, and maintenance of public facilities like the
parks was noticeably deficient.
Initiatives to curb economic growth in the 1980s didn’t cause the wave of corporate
restructuring that robbed San Francisco of many of its major employers, or the deep
recession that flattened the State’s economy in the first half of the 1990s. Short-sighted
public policy did, however, leave the city vulnerable to the crippling effects of these
external events. The perception that the city already had lost much of its momentum was
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3-3
repeated in leading business journals and seemed borne out by ABAG’s biennial reports
on the Bay Area economy.
The return of significant economic growth to the State and region in 1995 revived San
Francisco’s economy and re-started the process of economic evolution. Mergers,
acquisitions, and new business ventures began reshaping the financial sector; explosive
growth in world-wide use of the Internet opened a new chapter in the communications
industry; and tourism and entertainment, among the fastest growing industries in the
national economy, flourished in San Francisco.
The Internet story in many ways is worth a careful look because San Francisco’s success
in capturing a large share of the content producers for the Internet has rekindled the
growth control issues of the 1970s and 80s. Digital media initially were seen as
extensions of Silicon Valley high tech businesses and most hardware and software
developers were drawn to the South Bay. However, as the industry developed, content
producers for the Internet – the dot.coms – increasingly were drawn to San Francisco.
The city had well established businesses in print, broadcast, telecommunications,
advertising, journalism, commercial art, photography and graphic design. San Francisco
State University established a multimedia training program on its downtown campus in
1992 and began turning workers with leading edge digital media skills. The trade press
serving the digital media industry, firms like Ziff Davis, Red Herring, Wired, MacWorld,
PC World, and Industry Standard, moved to the city. Moreover, San Francisco had plenty
of office space available during the recession while space was in short supply on the
Peninsula and in the South Bay.
As the digital media revolution began to resonate throughout the economy, San
Francisco’s concentration of businesses offered a ready market for internet tools and
content dot.coms. Brokerage giant Charles Schwab’s online transactions account for
more than one half the company’s trades for a customer base of 6.3 million active
accounts. Epoch Partners, a relatively new company, provides 5.3 million investors on-
line access to IPOs. Nearly all commercial banks offer customers the option of online
transactions as do most major retailers. Newspapers and broadcast media invite their
patrons to log on for features, news, and weather. The economic potential of the Internet
is enormous, and San Francisco has become the favored location for Internet content
producers.
The dot.coms initially settled in the South of Market area. Space was available for start-
ups at relatively moderate rents in low-rise buildings that were vacant or occupied by low
intensity uses. The eclectic mix of business tenants, cultural institutions, nightclubs, and
generally informal atmosphere appealed to the mostly young dot.com crowd. However,
the success of the industry, and the ease with which new firms could enter the industry,
put pressure on available space and rents in the area. Older buildings were rehabilitated,
some new construction occurred, and more was proposed. Unfortunately, creating
adequate space for the dot.coms and other knowledge-based industries to grow South of
Market ran headlong into the city’s backward-looking South of Market Plan.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3-4
The South of Market Plan was drafted to prevent significant amounts of new
development in the only area adjacent to the central business district where such
development conceivably could occur. Its long run effects potentially are much more
restrictive than Proposition M. Tall buildings are not going to march north into North
Beach, west into the Tenderloin, or east into the Bay. The curious assumption underlying
the South of Market Plan is that the city’s best interests are served by restricting use of
the uniquely situated South of Market area to low employment, low paying, low intensity
uses with few prospects for growth.
The South of Market Plan was joined by a second growth control measure in 1999.
Interim zoning controls were adopted to prevent housing construction in many older
industrial areas while permanent zoning to prevent such encroachment was developed.
These “Industrial Protection Zones” were proposed to preserve and protect remnants of
the city’s former economy that can not compete effectively on price with housing and
other uses in greater demand in today’s economy.
The proliferation of live-work units in the city has become a rallying point for no growth
advocates. Original promoters of the measure to exempt live-work units from industrial
zoning provisions that preclude housing intended live-work units to be low-cost housing
for artists and artisans. However, the attributes that attract artists to live-work units also
attracted a host of other types of small business, especially those in the digital media
industry. Indeed, the 3,370 live-work units added to the city’s housing stock between
1987 and the fall of 1999 were a major factor fueling growth of the digital media industry
in San Francisco. Among the many lessons from this experience is that zoning is a blunt
instrument for providing public subsidies to occupations the city wishes to encourage.
As the good times roll in the year 2000, those challenged by the continuing evolution of
the city’s economy again are calling for measures to curb economic growth and
development. The strategy is similar to the 1980s -- demand the city “preserve and
protect” anything that might be changed to accommodate new economic activity, and
blame nearly all the city’s problems on economic success. The public memory is said to
be short, but hopefully it’s not that short.
3.2 -- ECONOMY TODAY
San Francisco is a densely developed, 47 square mile peninsula with a population of
nearly 800 thousand people living in about 315 thousand households. The average
household size of 2.46 people has increased steadily over the last 20 years. One of the
most ethnically diverse places in the nation, San Franciscans take pride in the fact their
city has no ethnic majority. Forty percent of the population is white, 33% Asian or
Pacific Islander, 16% Hispanic and 10% African American. More than 50 different
languages are spoken at home by children enrolled in San Francisco schools.
The income range of city residents includes extremes of wealth and poverty, but on
average, San Franciscans are richer than residents of most America cities. The US
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3-5
Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates San Francisco’s 1997
per capita personal income was $40,357, compared with the State-wide average of
$26,314 and the national average of $25,288. Within California, only Marin County had
higher per capita personal income. ABAG estimates current average household income in
the city is $68,600 (1995 dollars), high in comparison to the national average, but below
the $76,400 Bay Area average for household income.
On average San Franciscan are better educated than the general population in either the
State or nation as a whole. Among people 25 years or older, 22% of San Francisco
residents have earned a Bachelor’s degree, verses 15% of all California residents, and
13% of U.S. residents. Again among people 25 years or older, a Graduate or professional
degree is held by 13% of City residents, 8% of all California residents, and 7% of US
residents.
San Francisco is unique among California counties in that nearly half (46%) of its labor
force is housed outside the city. The city’s own housing stock stood at 340 thousand units
at the end of 1999, with single family dwellings representing a little over 31% of the
total. About a third of the city’s households are homeowners and two-thirds are renters,
the reverse of the proportion of owners and renters in the metropolitan area.
San Francisco has 891 thousand miles of publicly maintained roads, 850 thousand of
which are city streets. In 1998, fee-paid vehicle registrations included 351 thousand
automobiles, 61 thousand trucks and 15 thousand motor cycles.
3.2.1 -- EMPLOYMENT
ABAG estimates the San Francisco economy will generate 587 thousand jobs in the
current year, with the largest concentrations of jobs being in Services (44%); Retail Trade
(13%); and the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate group (12%). Manufacturing, and the
Transportation, Communications and Public Utilities group each account for about 7% of
the city’s jobs. Business Services, which is the largest component of the Services group,
account for 19% of all jobs in San Francisco. Table 3.a details the current and projected
distribution of jobs among industrial sectors.
ABAG projects the city will add about 58 thousand new jobs over the next 10 years, or
about 8 thousand more than it added in the last decade. This 9.3% increase in jobs
represents less than a one percent compound annual rate of job growth (0.89%). Two
thirds of all new jobs are expected to be in the Services sector (38.5 thousand), with a
little over half of these in Business Services. Most of the rest are spread 3-4 thousands
jobs each across Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (5.5% 10-year growth); Retail Trade
(4.2%); Transportation, Communications and Utilities (8.3%); and Manufacturing
(7.3%).
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3-6
1990 – 2010
San Francisco Jobs by Type of Industry
Number (000) & Projected Change
T- 3.a Percent Change
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1990- 00 2000-10
Agriculture, Mining 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 0.0% -0.9%
Construction 16.4 15.8 19.8 21.0 21.6 20.8% 9.4%
Manufacturing 39.8 40.4 41.8 44.1 44.9 5.1% 7.3%
High Technology Mfg 3.7 4.9 4.4 5.6 5.8 18.1% 32.7%
Other Manufacturing 36.1 35.6 37.4 38.6 39.1 3.7% 4.4%
Transps, Comm, Utilities 40.3 39.8 44.2 45.9 47.9 9.7% 8.3%
Trade 110.7 99.9 106.5 110.9 112.5 -3.8% 5.7%
Wholesale Trade 30.6 24.0 25.2 27.6 27.7 -17.7% 10.3%
Retail Trade 80.1 75.9 81.3 83.4 84.8 1.5% 4.2%
FIRE 75.4 71.4 75.8 78.6 80.0 0.6% 5.5%
Services 229.5 231.2 277.7 296.2 316.2 21.0% 13.9%
Business Services 103.4 97.4 116.6 124.4 137.2 12.8% 17.7%
All Other Services 126.0 133.8 161.1 171.8 179.0 27.8% 11.1%
Government 64.9 58.6 60.8 61.6 62.1 -6.3% 2.0%
TOTAL JOBS 579.2 559.3 628.9 660.6 687.4 8.6% 9.3%
Source: ABAG
The Association of Bay Area Governments by law must prepare an economic forecast of
the nine Bay Area counties every two years. Table 3.b summarizes the six forecasts of the
year 2000 amount of San Francisco population, households, jobs and employed residents
ABAG has prepared over the last decade.
Successive ABAG Biennial Projections of the San Francisco Economy in 2000
Jobs, Population, Households and Employed Residents
(000)
T – 3.b Proj 90 Proj 92 Proj 94 Proj 96 Proj 98 Proj 2000
Construction 29.4 23.7 22.2 17.7 15.6 19.8
High Tech Mfg 7.3 5.1 5.1 4.7 4.6 4.4
All Other Mfg 38.3 40.4 38.9 36.0 35.1 37.4
Transp, Com & Utilities 57.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 40.7 44.2
Wholesale Trade 17.9 28.4 28.4 25.1 24.1 25.2
Retail Trade 95.1 83.9 81.9 75.2 78.1 81.3
FIRE 93.1 73.5 68.5 68.2 69.2 75.8
Business Services 105.5 135.5 115.9 105.4 114.0 116.6
All Other Services 140.9 132.3 131.8 134.6 146.3 161.1
TOTAL JOBS 642.8 626.8 595.4 567.9 587.0 628.9
Population 767.8 766.1 784.4 780.4 785.9 799.0
Households 328.3 319.2 323.4 317.7 318.0 315.6
Employed Residents 413.7 411.8 416.9 397.2 403.7 422.1
Source: ABAG
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3-7
The shaded areas of the table indicate years in which ABAG’s forecast of the value of the
item in the year 2000 was lower than ABAG’s most recent previous forecast of the same
item. It is striking how much of the table is shaded. The progression of forecasts portrays
a pessimistic view of the prospects for the city’s economy until Projections 2000.
Obviously, something very significant happened in San Francisco as it emerged from
recession in the first half of the decade, and the new development was not reflected in the
data until near the end of the decade.
As by now nearly everyone knows, the new development was the digital media industry.
The part of the industry most attracted to San Francisco is the dot.coms, the content
producers for the Internet. In the ‘70s and ‘80s hardware and many software developers
gravitated to the high tech businesses in the South Bay. Similarly, content producers for
the Internet were drawn to other media content producers in San Francisco. The
Peninsula also attracted a large concentration of digital media companies with its location
near the airport and venture capitalists on Sand Hill Road, and between the high tech
resources in Silicon Valley and the creative resources in San Francisco. However, the
Peninsula has a shortage of office space, and the most limited transit service in the inner
ring of development around the Bay. San Francisco had available space after the
recession, and the city is at the hub of the regional transit system.
The first concentration of new dot.com companies occurred South of Market, particularly
in the area around South Park. However, the industry quickly spread to other areas of the
city. The dot.coms are a nearly perfect fit with San Francisco. They draw many of their
employees from the same labor pool that supports long established communications and
media content businesses. Their operations are compact and fit into land-efficient office
space. The dense, urban environment, diversity of people and life styles, and rich array
of contemporary culture is a magnet for many industry participants. Moreover, the
dot.coms can tolerate the high cost of a city location because generally they do not have
to compete on price.
The dot.coms are closely aligned with the profile of a “basic industry” discussed in the
Economic Base section of this report. They export their product. They have large
multiplier effects. And they enjoy excellent growth prospects. The effects of growing
digital media businesses in San Francisco are reflected in ABAG’s forecast of a rise in
High Technology Manufacturing in the city, after a decade of forecasts projecting decline
in this industry. Digital media has increased the productivity and expanded product for
all of the city’s communications businesses. Wealth brought to the city by the rapid
growth of digital media activities has boosted the retail, entertainment and hospitality
industries as well.
The digital media revolution resonates throughout San Francisco’s economy. Brokerage
giant Charles Schwab’s online transactions account for more than half of the company’s
trades in a customer base of 6.3 million active accounts, representing $595 billion in
customer assets. A relatively new company, Epoch Partners, provides 5.3 million
individual investors, selected from the combined customer bases of Charles Schwab,
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3-8
Ameritrade and TD Waterhouse, access to the IPOs of companies going public. Nearly
all commercial banks offer customers the option of on-line transactions, as do most large
retailers. Newspapers, and radio and TV broadcast stations invite their patrons to log on
for features, news and weather. The economic potential is enormous for a city that has
become the favored location for Internet content producers.
3.2.2 -- ECONOMIC BASE
San Francisco’s economy is closely linked to regional, national and international markets.
Although many San Francisco jobs are in resident-serving businesses, the growth and
development of the city’s economy, as in every other city’s economy, depends primarily
on industries oriented to external markets. These export industries form the city’s
economic base and drive growth in all segments of the local economy, including resident-
serving businesses. Basic industries differ among geographic units because industries that
are resident-serving at the state or regional level may be export-oriented at the local level.
Basic industries have significantly higher concentrations of employment relative to the
size of the total labor force than is typical for similar or higher level geographic units.
Familiar examples in San Francisco include telecommunications, finance, hospitality,
business services, and State and federal government.
Expansion of basic industries affects the economy in three ways: direct effects in the form
of increased wages and profits; indirect effects in the form of increased orders for inputs
to production; and induced effects from consumers spending the increased income and
profits that result from direct and indirect effects (consumption multiplier). The chain of
effects generated by expansion of basic industries explains why adding jobs in these
industries causes a much larger increase in the number of jobs in the economy as a whole.
The entire process also works in reverse, so that contraction of basic industries causes
much larger job losses in the economy as a whole.
Economic base industries, unlike the corner grocery store, are not tied to the local market.
They can choose where to locate. Indeed, a hallmark of basic industries is that various
locations compete for these powerful drivers of the economy.
3.2.3 -- DEFINING SAN FRANCISCO’S ECONOMIC BASE
The description of San Francisco’s economic base in this report is organized around three
groups of private industries and the city’s state and federal government establishment.
The city has a significant concentration of payroll and employment (relative to the Bay
Area metropolitan economy) in each basic industry group, although not necessarily in
each industry within a group.1 This report includes Government Administration in San
Francisco’s economic base because State and federal government activities in the city
1
Industry concentration is measured by the ratio of the percent of San Francisco employees or payroll in a
particular industry to the percent of employees or payroll in the same industry in the Bay Area excluding
San Francisco. A concentration exists, if the ratio is greater than 100. Appendix Table 3.A presents a list of
all San Francisco SIC Codes with either employment or payroll concentration ratios greater than 100.
Appendix Table 3.B presents concentration ratios for all San Francisco industries.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3-9
have high employment and payroll concentration ratios like basic industries in the private
sector, and because the large State and federal judicial and regulatory presence in San
Francisco is one of the city’s competitive assets.
3.2.3.1 -- VISITOR INDUSTRY: The Visitor Industry encompasses much more economic
activity than is implied by the term “tourism”. Visitors are defined in this report as: 1)
people from outside the Bay Area who are in the city for a convention, business meeting,
or leisure travel; 2) Metro and other nearby area residents who are in the city for purposes
other than employment; and 3) Metro and other nearby area residents who work in the
city. This is a broader definition of visitors than the one used by the Convention and
Visitors Bureau, which excludes the commuter work force.
The primary market for the Visitor Industry Group is the San Francisco expenditures of
nonresidents, although many Visitor Industry businesses serve residents as well as
visitors. The Group includes visitor transportation (except inter-regional commuting),
hospitality, goods and services supporting visitor-oriented business, and a significant
portion of the entertainment and retail trade industries. Appendix Table 3.C identifies the
members of this group of industries by 4-digit SIC Code and the percent of each industry
assigned to the Visitor Industry Group. Visitor-driven businesses provide employment for
14% of the city’s private sector labor force.
3.2.3.2 -- FINANCE, INVESTMENT AND D EAL-MAKING: The Finance, Investment and
Deal-Making group includes finance, insurance and real estate; the professional services
of attorneys, accountants, management companies, and consultants who support financial
transactions, deal-making, and other investment decisions; and a wide range of other
business and professional services. The market for this industry group is wealth-creating
and wealth-preserving transactions. Appendix Table 3.D identifies the members of this
group of industries by 4-digit SIC Code and the percent of each industry assigned to the
industry group. This industry group provides employment for 25% of the city’s private
sector labor force.
3.2.3.3 -- COMMUNICATIONS AND M EDIA CONTENT: The Communications and Media
Content Industry Group includes communication media, such as telephone, broadcast,
cable, Internet, and print. The group also encompasses research, preparation and
production of content for these media. Content producers include reporters, advertising
agencies, commercial artists, photographers, graphic designers, motion picture and video
producers, and the digital media “dot.coms”. The market for the group is business and
personal information, advertising, entertainment, education, and content for non-store
retailers, such as catalogs, mail order houses, television retail sales channels, and e-
commerce. Appendix Table 3.E identifies the members of this groups of industries by 4-
digit SIC Code and the percent of each industry assigned to the industry group. This
industry group provides employment for 7% of the city’s private sector labor force.
3.2.3.4 -- GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION: Government Administration includes the
executive, judicial and regulatory offices of federal, state and local government. Appendix
Tables 3.F.1, 3.F.2 and 3.F.3 identify various government functions by 4-digit SIC Code.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 10
All government functions are included, although it is recognized that some functions are
more relevant than others to the analysis in this report. Government employment is about
14% of all jobs in San Francisco.
Table 3.c summarizes the gross distribution of employees and payroll among private
sector basic industries in San Francisco. These industries collectively represent 46% of
private sector employment and 57% of private sector payroll. The difference between the
percent of employees and the percent of payroll reflects relative salary levels among
basic industries, and between basic industries and the average for other private sector
employment. These differences suggest that, on average, employees in basic industries
earn higher salaries than the average for resident-serving industries. The Visitor Industry
(14% of employment, 9% of payroll) provides most of the low-skilled, low-paying jobs
among basic industries, while the Finance, Investment and Deal-Making Industry (25%
of employees, 39% of payroll), and the Communications and Media Content Industry
(7% of employees, 9% of payroll) provide more of the high-skilled, high-paying jobs.
1998
Employment & Payroll in Basic Industry Groups
Employees (000), Payroll ($000,000), Percent Distribution
T – 3.c Employees Payroll Employees Payroll
All Private Sector Employment 512 6,116 100% 100%
BASIC INDUSTRY GROUPS 234 3,516 46% 57%
Visitor Industry 72 548 14% 9%
Finance, Investment & Deal-Making 126 2,389 25% 39%
Communications & Media Content 36 579 7% 9%
All Other Private Industries 278 2,600 54% 43%
Source: EDD
Table 3.d summarizes the distribution of employees and payroll among the three levels of
government in San Francisco and compares these data with employment and payroll in
the city’s overall economy. The public sector provides 14% of both employees and
payroll in San Francisco, suggesting that government salaries track the average of all jobs
in the city. San Francisco local government represents a little over half of all public sector
employees in the city, and a little less that half the total public sector payroll.
1998
Public Sector Employment & Payroll
Employees (000), Payroll ($000,000), Percent Distribution
T – 3.d Employees Payroll Employees Payroll
Public & Private Employment 595 7,128 100% 100%
PUBLIC SECTOR 83 1,012 14% 14%
Federal Government 20 251 3.3% 3.5%
State Government 24 282 4.0% 4.0%
Local Government 39 478 6.6% 6.7%
Source: EDD
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 11
The analysis of San Francisco’s basic industries that follows discusses
employment and payroll concentration ratios. Employment concentration ratios
are the percent of San Francisco’s labor force employed by a particular industry
in the city divided by the percent of the metro area labor force employed in the
same industry in the metro area. The ratio value is multiplied by 100. Therefore,
a ratio value of 100 indicates the city and metro area have the same percent of
their respective labor force engaged in this industry. Ratios significantly greater
than 100 indicate a concentration of employment.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 12
3.3 -- VISITOR INDUSTRY
San Francisco is indeed “everyone’s favorite city”, consistently ranking among the top
two or three most alluring destinations in the world. In travel surveys it tops all other
North American destinations for scenic beauty and restaurants, and ranks exceptionally
high in terms of its uniqueness, variety of things to see and do, and accessibility via
public transportation. Its climate and close proximity to other interesting places also rate
high among American Cities. The industry includes:
• visitor transportation
• travel agents and tour operators
• hotels and other visitor lodging
• restaurants and drinking places
• retail trade
• arts, entertainment and amusements
• business and other services
The success of the San Francisco Visitor Industry is built on outstanding product and
effective marketing. The product is unique in North America:
• Environment: A magnificent natural environment and mild Mediterranean climate
• Urban Environment: A walkable, dense urban center with abundant street life, and
rich array of arts, culture and other leisure activities
• International City: The ethnic diversity of San Francisco makes a truly international
city that attracts international visitors – 2.6 million in 1998. Family ties throughout
the world reinforce the urge to come to San Francisco for business, pleasure and to be
with family.
• Airport: A premier international airport
• Retail: One of the nation’s three leading retail shopping districts
• Convention Center: Moscone Center, with 442,000 sq ft of exhibition space, and
138,000 sq ft of meeting space, including banquet seating for 4,600 people in the
Esplanade Ballroom – undergoing expansion to 900,000 sq ft of exhibition and
meeting space.
• Hotels: 62 major downtown hotels with 21,924 guest rooms and additional meeting
room and exhibition space. Tourist hotels add another 9,177 guest rooms for a City-
wide total of 31,101. Some 80 other conference centers, exhibition halls, pavilions,
and auditoriums complete the inventory of meeting facilities.
• Restaurants: 2,600 restaurants and more than 300 drinking places, some of which
are rated among the best in the nation.
• Labor Force: The Visitor Industry offers a substantial number of relatively low-
skilled, low-paying jobs.
• Proximity: Close proximity to other leading visitor destinations in the West – the
Napa Valley, Monterey Peninsula, Big Sur, and Lake Tahoe
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 13
The San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau markets San Francisco as a visitor
destination in partnership with its 2,200 members throughout Northern California, and
major nationwide travel-related businesses.
The Bureau estimates that 16.6 million people (excluding daily commuters) visited San
Francisco during 1998, collectively spending about $6.5 billion in the city. This report
estimates visitors of all types generate direct employment for 72 thousand people and a
payroll of $548 million. Direct sales to visitors involve overnight accommodations, food
and beverages, retail goods and services, entertainment, sightseeing, and transportation.
Sales to industry participants include a wide range of other products and services.
The Bureau attributes a little over half of visitor spending to the 4.2 million people who
stay in San Francisco hotels, with the market split fairly evenly between business
travelers (52%) and leisure travelers (48%). Conventioneers spend the most per visit
($1,650), followed by visitors with an individual business purpose ($1,402), and leisure
travelers ($1,107). The higher levels of spending by business travelers mainly reflects the
fact that they spend roughly twice as much as leisure travelers for hotel accommodations.
The Bureau’s most recent survey of San Francisco hotel guests found the average guest is
43 years old with a household income of $96,200. More than half are men, although the
number of female guests is growing faster than the number of male guests. One in five
guests is from overseas and more than a third used the Internet to plan their trip. San
Francisco visitors tend to be richer, better educated, and more likely to work in
managerial or professional occupations than the average U.S. traveler.
Table 3.e summarizes the employment and payroll of the major components of the
Visitor Industry Group. Transportation data include a portion of air transportation from
San Mateo County to reflect visitor-related employment at San Francisco International
Airport, technically not part of the city’s labor force (see Appendix Table 3.C for details).
1998
Visitor Industry Major Components
Employees (000), Payroll ($000,000), Percent Distribution
T – 3.e Employees Payroll Employees Payroll
Visitor Industry 72 548 100% 100%
Transportation 23 250 32% 46%
Hospitality 35 190 49% 35%
Trade 7 56 10% 10%
Arts, Entertainment & Amusements 4 33 6% 6%
Business & Other Services 3 18 4% 3%
Source: EDD
Visitor transportation encompasses air, water and surface transportation of passengers,
travel agents and tour operators, passenger car rentals and parking. The percentage of
Visitor Industry employees engaged in providing transportation services (32%) is
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 14
significantly smaller than their percentage of payroll (46%), reflecting above average pay
for transportation service providers. San Francisco employment and payroll concentration
ratios for three transportation business lines illustrate the importance of visitors in the
city’s transportation market (Table 3.f).
Selected Transportation Business Lines
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.f Employment Payroll
Taxicabs 623 602
Transportation Charter Service 1,037 1,046
Arrangement of Passenger Transportation 228 209
Hospitality, consisting of lodging, and eating and drinking places, is the most familiar
part of the Visitor Industry for most people. Here the much higher percentage of
employees (49%) than payroll (35%) reflects the prevalence of relatively low-paying
service jobs in the hospitality industry. San Francisco employment and payroll
concentration ratios are especially high for hotels, and significantly above 100 for eating
and drinking establishments (Table 3.g).
Hospitality
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.g Employment Payroll
Hotels, Motels & Tourist Courts 377 479
Eating & Drinking Places 120 128
The Trade segment includes selected lines of wholesale trade (mainly toys, jewelry, beer,
wine and distilled alcoholic beverages) and many more lines of retail trade. The retail
component is heavily weighted toward apparel, but also includes specialty food stores,
book stores, camera and photographic supplies, and gift, novelty and souvenir shops.
High concentration ratios for selected retail lines included in the Trade segment of the
Visitor Industry reflect these stores serving a broader market than San Francisco residents
(Table 3.h).
Selected Retail Trade Lines
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.h Employment Payroll
Dairy Products Stores 183 342
Retail Bakeries 144 138
Men’s & Boys’ Clothing & Furnishings 238 270
Women’s Ready-to-Wear Stores 150 200
Women’s Accessory & Specialty Stores 131 147
Family Clothing Stores 194 270
The Arts, Entertainment and Amusements part of the Visitor Industry includes museums
and art galleries, motion picture distribution and theaters, live performances by actors and
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 15
musicians, and coin operated amusement devices. Concentration ratios for all segments
of the Arts, Entertainment and Amusements Industry are very high (Table 3.i).
Arts, Entertainment & Amusements
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.i Employment Payroll
Museums & Art Galleries 1,314 1,573
Motion Picture Distribution & Services 4,428 3,566
Motion Picture Theaters 148 167
Producers, Orchestras, Entertainers 533 729
Business and Other Services supporting the Visitor Industry Group include security and
other business services.
The city has a major stake in the Visitor Industry because it is one of the City’s largest
employers and taxpayers, it exports virtually its entire product, and it has a synergistic
relationship with other basic industries. The following issues deserve attention to enhance
the industry’s ability to add value to San Francisco:
• Hotel Rooms: The long recession in the 1990s slowed hotel development in San
Francisco at the same time the city was moving forward with a fifty percent
expansion of Moscone Convention Center. Current hotel occupancy rates of around
81% are pushing the maximum for a smooth running system. When Moscone West
opens in February 2003 the city will need 7% to 8% more convention hotel rooms to
support the new facility.
• Airport: Flight delays at the SFO are a growing concern for the Visitor Industry, if
for no other reason than industry participants hear about it every day for their
customers. The runway project is very much on the minds of the Visitor Industry.
• Airport Traffic: Growing congestion on US-101 and I-280 between the airport and
San Francisco also is a concern. BART to SFO should provide some relief, as will
Caltrain’s Rapid Rails project. Nevertheless, the north end of the Peninsula corridor
should be closely monitored for its impact on visitor travel to and from the airport.
• Access: Access to congested destinations in the city is a major issue for all parts of
the Visitor Industry, and generally is seen as a shortage of parking. Many business
travelers rent a car at the airport here as they do in other cities, and leisure travelers
with multiple local destinations tend to use their own or a rented automobile.
Shoppers from the metro area and patrons of evening entertainment also frequently
bring their vehicles into the city. There is a widening gap between the demand and
supply of short term transient parking as construction displaces temporary surface
lots and more automobile commuters look for space in structured parking.
• Housing: Housing is a particular challenge for most Visitor Industry workers
because of their relatively low wages. Housing for this portion of the city’s labor
force must be exceptionally dense to be affordable, and even then it is a stretch for
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 16
most Visitor Industry workers. Currently the city is not zoning, nor is the housing
industry building a sufficient number of units of this type to meet demand.
• Regional Transportation: The trade off for city-based housing is in the regional
transportation system. Although housing is in short supply throughout the Bay Area,
efficient, affordable regional transportation can relieve some of the pressure on the
local housing market for Visitor Industry employees by increasing their range of
housing choices.
• Street People: The number of panhandlers and homeless people on the streets is a
continuing concern of the Visitor Industry because of comments they hear from
visitors of all type about their negative experience with people living on the city’s
streets.
• Business Development: After conventions, business meetings in the city are the
most important driver of Visitor Industry sales. Prospects for this part of the industry
are tied to continued growth and development of San Francisco. The loss of a
corporate headquarters means a loss of business visitors.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 17
3.4 -- FINANCE, INVESTMENT AND DEAL-MAKING
San Francisco is a mature financial center offering a full range of financial, investment
and deal-making services to individuals, entrepreneurs and businesses of all sizes. The
largest of the city’s basic industry groups, Finance, Investment and Deal-Making
employs a quarter of San Francisco’s private sector labor force, and its $2.4 billion
annual payroll represents nearly 40% of all private sector wages earned in the city. The
industry includes:
• depository and other credit-granting institutions
• security and commodity brokers, dealers and exchanges
• investment advice
• insurance carriers, agents and brokers
• real estate developers, operators, lessors and agents
• holding companies, trusts and other investment offices
• professional services of lawyers, accountants, managers and consultants
• business services that support deal-making, finance and investment activities
The city’s comparative advantage in investment and finance is based on its historic role
in the Western United States, past investments in infrastructure and human resources, and
the region’s economic base of fast growing, knowledge-based industries.
• History: San Francisco traditionally has been the nation’s leading west coast
financial center.
• International City: San Francisco’s west coast location, its international character,
and ethnically diverse population all are competitive assets for attracting international
business.
• Critical Mass: The critical mass of financial and investment activities in the city
enables the industry to handle complex transactions, and attracts new customers and
industry participants.
• Labor Force: Characteristics of much of the labor force already in the city and
region mach the industry’s needs, and abundant employment opportunities, choice of
lifestyles, and outstanding quality of life attract highly educated workers from around
the world.
• Regional Transportation: A well developed regional transportation system with San
Francisco at its hub helps the industry access workers from throughout the region.
• Professional Services: The city’s well developed professional services industry
provides essential support for deal-making, finance and investment activities.
• Regulators: The regional offices of State and federal financial regulatory agencies
are concentrated in San Francisco.
• Judiciary: State and federal high courts are concentrated in the city.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 18
• Airport: The city’s premier international airport is a major asset for the industry in
global competition.
• Market: Rapidly growing knowledge-based industries and high net worth
individuals within the region provide a sizable local market in addition to the
industry’s broader export market.
The employment and payroll of major parts of the Finance, Investment and Deal-Making
Industry are summarized in Table 3.j.
1998
Finance, Investment & Deal-Making Industry Major Components
Employees (000), Payroll ($000,000), Percent Distribution
T – 3.j Employees Payroll Employees Payroll
Finance, Investments & Deal-Making Industry 126 2,389 100% 100%
Finance 29 625 23% 26%
Security & Commodity Brkrs, Dlrs, Exchanges & Services 16 656 12% 27%
Insurance Carriers, Agents, Brokers & Service 16 245 13% 10%
Real Estate 10 125 8% 5%
Holding & Other Investment Offices 4 55 3% 2%
Professional Services 25 414 19% 17%
Business Services 27 269 22% 11%
Source: EDD
3.4.1 -- FINANCE is the largest segment of the industry, with depository institutions alone
employing 24 thousand people with a collective annual payroll of about $500 million.
Another 5 thousand people work in nondepository credit institutions, such as mortgage
banks, and business and personal credit institutions. The regional headquarters of the top
five commercial banks in the Bay Area are located in the city along with the international
headquarters of each of these institutions, except Bank of America. Credit granting
institutions employ 23% of the people who work in the Deal-making, Finance and
Investment Industry and they account for 26% of the payroll. The employment and
payroll concentration ratios for both depository and nondepository institutions shown in
Table 3.k are very high. The astronomically high foreign bank ratio reflects the fact that
only one of the Bay Area’s foreign bank branches is located outside San Francisco.
Selected Financial Business Lines
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.k Employment Payroll
Commercial Banks 387 701
Savings Institutions 147 138
Foreign Banks, Branches & Agencies 13,706 11,967
Functions Closely Related to Banking 627 1,346
Rediscount & Financing Institutions 517 663
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 19
3.4.2 -- S ECURITIES AND C OMMODITIES TRADING businesses employ 12% of the
Investment, Finance and Deal-Making Industry’s labor force (16 thousand), but generate
a whopping 27% of payroll ($656 million), giving workers in Securities and
Commodities Trading the highest average compensation in the industry group.
Employment in Securities and Commodities Trading is only a little over half that of
credit granting businesses such as banks and credit unions, but this industry’s share of
total payroll is larger than that of credit granting businesses. High employment
concentration ratios indicate the lion’s share of Bay Area securities and commodities
trading is located in San Francisco, especially the broker/dealer community and services
supporting the industry (Table 3.l).
Securities & Commodities Trading
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.l Employment Payroll
Security Brokers & Dealers 1,165 1,1763
Commodity Contracts Brokers & Dealers 232 290
Security & Commodity Services 528 774
3.4.3 -- INSURANCE industry employment is about the same size as Securities and
Commodities Trading (16 thousand), but its payroll is only a little over one-third the size
($245 million). Insurance also represents a smaller percent of payroll (10%) than
employees (13%) in the overall Finance, Investment and Deal-Making Industry.
Concentration ratios are high for all parts of the industry, with the largest concentrations
in Life Insurance, Medical Service and Health Insurance, and Surety Insurance (Table
3.m).
Insurance Industry
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.m Employment Payroll
Life Insurance 502 460
Medical Service & Health Insurance 527 567
Fire, Marine & Casualty Insurance 155 169
Surety Insurance 826 983
Insurance Agents, Brokers & Service 222 273
3.4.4 -- REAL ESTATE employs fewer people than other parts of Finance, Investment and
Deal Making (10 thousand), and it is less concentrated in San Francisco (Table 3.n). Real
Estate’s $125 million payroll is 5% of the overall industry, and 8% of the industry’s
employees.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 20
Real Estate
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.n Employment Payroll
Real Estate Operators & Lessors 144 186
Real Estate Agents & Managers 142 166
Subdividers & Developers 100 180
3.4.5 -- HOLDING & OTHER INVESTMENT OFFICES are a small, but highly concentrated
part of the Finance, Investment & Deal-Making Industry Group, with just four thousand
employees and a $55 million annual payroll. The core function of this group is asset
management. The Trust part of the industry is heavily weighted in favor of non-profit
educational, religious and other charitable trusts ($8 million payroll) versus for-profit
trusts ($3 million payroll). The exceptionally high concentration ratios for holding
companies suggest most of these businesses need to be in the region’s financial center
(Table 3.o).
Holding & Other Investment Offices
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.o Employment Payroll
Holding Companies 4,738 2,316
Investment Offices 261 357
Trusts 293 237
3.4.6 -- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES supporting the Finance, Investments & Deal-Making
Industry account for 19% of the Industry’s employment (25 thousand) and 17% of the
Industry’s payroll ($414 million). Concentration ratios are highest for Legal Services,
but near or above 200 for each of the professions in the Professional Services group
(Table 3.p). Legal Services are becoming less concentrated in San Francisco over time as
law firms establish and expand satellite offices in the South Bay to be near Silicon Valley
clients.
Professional Services
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.p Employment Payroll
Legal Services 414 391
Accounting, Auditing & Bookkeeping 230 276
Engineering, Architectural & Surveying 193 186
Management & Public Relations Services 197 212
3.4.7 -- BUSINESS S ERVICES is a diverse group of activities that includes adjustment,
collection and credit reporting services; clerical activities such as photocopying,
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 21
duplicating and secretarial services; building services such as cleaning, maintenance and
pest control; employment agencies and other personnel supply services; and computer-
related products and services such as programming, prepackaged software, integrated
systems design, data preparation and processing, information retrieval, and computer
maintenance and repair. This family of services represents 22% of the employees in the
Finance, Investment & Deal-Making Industry, but only 11% of the payroll.
Finance, Investment and Deal-Making are a lot of what San Francisco’s economy is
about. The high-rise downtown area is called the “financial district” with good reason.
The Industry employs a quarter of the city’s labor force, pays nearly 40% of wages
earned in the city, and directly or indirectly generates a major share of the city’s tax
revenues. The city has a major stake in the continued growth and vitality of this key basic
industry, a reason to pay attention to the following issues that concern the industry.
• Office Space: Virtually all of the business activities in this industry occur in
offices. Although some industry participants are relatively insensitive to the
price of office space, competition forces price sensitivity on the industry as a
whole. Local administrative constraints on office construction limit the
market’s ability to correct imbalances between office supply and demand, and
drive decisions to relocate in response to soaring rents. The risk of losing
significant industry participants in this process is increased by continuous
corporate restructuring driven by global competition.
• Labor Force: The current tight labor market makes it difficult to recruit
employees locally, and because of the high cost of Bay Area housing, many
employers are forced to pay a housing bonus to recruit employees from other
parts of the country. Access to a qualified labor force is a continuing concern
of the industry.
• Housing: The high price and limited availability of city-based and metro area
housing is the most difficult hurdle in recruiting employees in this industry.
• Regional Transportation: There is a trade off between city-based housing
and the regional transportation system. This industry draws much of its labor
force form the metro area outside San Francisco. The ability to access this
labor force through the regional transportation system is an industry concern.
• Airport: The industry serves a national and international as well as local
clientele. Delays at SFO and congestion in the Peninsula transportation
corridor between SFO and San Francisco are a continuing concern.
• Access: The supply of downtown parking is dwindling as buildings reclaim
temporary surface lots making a tight parking situation worse. The absence of
a definitive plan for improving access to the downtown without bring more
automobiles into the areas is a major concern to the industry.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 22
• Fiscal & Regulatory Policy: Periodic proposals floated in the Board of
Supervisors to single out all or specific parts of the industry for punitive
regulation and taxation are major concerns and remind industry participants of
the fragility of the San Francisco’s business environment.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 23
3.5 -- COMMUNICATIONS AND MEDIA CONTENT
The Bay Area is an internationally significant media and communications center, and the
nation’s fifth largest media market. Bay Area electronic media include 85 radio stations,
22 television broadcast stations. The proportion of Bay Area households that subscribe to
cable television networks, and the proportion of businesses and household that have e-
mail and are wired to the Internet, are among the highest in the nations. The city itself has
more Internet domain names that any other US city. The region is home to more
independent presses than any U.S. metropolitan area after New York. Local print media
publish 348 periodicals with combined circulation of more than 12.5 million targeting the
regional market. Another 127 periodicals with combined circulation of more than 15.5
million are published for national and international markets.
A leading innovator in the media and communications industry, the Bay Area has
developed much of the technology underlying modern communications:
• vacuum tube – Lee deForest, 1912
• television – Philo Farnsworth, 1927
• klystron tube (microwave & satellite communications) – Russel Varian, 1937
• oscilloscopes – Hewlett-Packard 1938
• magnetic tape recording – Alexander Poniatoff, 1948
• video tape recording – Ray Dolby & Charles Ginsberg, 1954
• Dolby-B noise reduction – Ray Dolby 1968
• microprocessor – Intel, 1969
• motion picture special effects – Industrial Light & Magic, 1977
• Postscript language (desktop publishing) – Adobe Systems, 1985
San Francisco is the icon for the region, and through the media its name and major
landmarks are recognized by hundreds of millions of people around the world who have
never set foot in the city.
In analyzing the San Francisco’s communications industry this report emphasizes both
communications media and the producers of content for communications media. The
dot.coms, booming recent additions to the city’s communications industry, are in the
business of producing content for the Internet. The communications industry thus defined
includes:
• telephone communications -- wired, wireless, voice and data
• non-voice telecommunications, such as e-mail, fax, teletype, telex, telegraph
• radio and television broadcast
• cable and other pay television
• printing and publishing
• advertising
• communications equipment
• services to the communications industry
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 24
San Francisco’s comparative advantage in communications and media content production
is based on its historic role in the industry, continuous technical innovation, infrastructure
investments, and the large pool of creative talent from which local media of all types
draw their labor force.
• History: San Francisco has been a leading communications center since
William Randolph Hearst inherited the San Francisco Examiner in 1887 and
used it to launch a nation-wide media empire. The industry has the cumulative
advantage of technology, infrastructure and labor force developed over many
years.
• Technology: Much of the technology driving growth in the communications
industry world-wide was developed in San Francisco and the Bay Area to
launch or expand Bay Area communications businesses.
• Infrastructure: The city and region have invested in infrastructure to take
advantage of new technology, such as the speed and clarity of digital
communications. Access to fiber optic networks, wide band lines, microwave
transmissions, and satellite communications enable the industry to offer the
highest quality and most innovative communications products.
• Labor Force: The communications industry draws on a local pool of
scientists, technicians, and people in creative occupations. San Francisco
offers the region’s largest pool of creative talent because of employment
opportunities in the visual and performing arts, advertising, design and other
creative industries. The creative work force is a major asset for all media, and
was instrumental in drawing the dot.coms to San Francisco.
• Entrepreneurs & Venture Capital: The concentration of venture capitalists
in the Bay Area is a significant advantage for media company start ups or
expansions.
The employment and payroll of major parts of the Communications and Media Content
Industry are summarized in Table 3.q.
1998
Communication & Media Content Industry Major Components
Employees (000), Payroll ($000,000), Percent Distribution
T – 3.q Employees Payroll Employees Payroll
Communications & Media Content Industry 36 579 100% 100%
Telecommunications 11 186 30% 32%
Printing & Publishing 8 112 23% 19%
Advertising 5 101 15% 17%
Communications Equipment 1 15 4% 3%
Services to Communications Industry 10 165 28% 28%
Source: EDD
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 25
3.5.1 -- TELECOMMUNICATIONS is the largest segment of the communications industry
with 30% of the employees (11 thousand) and 32% of payroll ($186 million). Telephone
communications (wires, wireless, voice and data) represent 58% of telecommunications
employment (6 thousand). Radio and television broadcast, the second largest segment,
accounts for another 28% of employment (3 thousand). The remaining 14% of
employment is spread among cable television (9%), non-voice message communications
(3%), and telecommunications employment not elsewhere classified (2%). Employment
and payroll concentrations exist in all four parts of the telecommunications industry, but
are most pronounced in non-voice message communications which include e-mail,
facsimile transmissions, teletype, telex, telegrams and cablegrams. Concentration ratios
also are very high for radio and television broadcast stations (Table 3.r).
Telecommunications
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.r Employment Payroll
Telephone Communications – wires & Wireless 110 115
Non-Voice Message Communications 927 1706
Radio & Television Broadcast 836 974
Cable & Other Pay Television 126 116
3.5.2 -- P RINTING AND P UBLISHING is the second largest player in San Francisco’s
communications industry with 23% of employment (8 thousand) and 19% of payroll
($112 million). Commercial Printing represents nearly half (48%) of the employment in
the Printing and Publishing group, followed by Periodicals Publishing and Printing (22%)
and Newspapers Publishing and Printing (20%). The relatively large size of the
commercial printing business reflects in part the large volume of work done for San
Francisco’s investment and finance industry. Commercial printing, periodicals and
newspapers account for 90% of Printing and Publishing employment, with the other 10%
spread across the crafts of bookbinding, typesetting and platemaking. Employment and
payroll concentrations are highest in Periodicals Publishing and Printing, but also quite
high for the crafts servicing the printing trade (Table 3.s).
Printing & Publishing
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.s Employment Payroll
Newspapers: Publishing, or Printing & Publishing 102 136
Periodicals: Publishing, or Printing & Publishing 505 632
Commercial Printing 155 176
Service Industries for Printing Trade 322 349
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 26
3.5.3 -- ADVERTISING, a content producer for the communications industry, is exhibited
separately because of its large size (54 hundred employees and more than a $100 million
payroll), its exceptionally high concentration ratios (Table 3.t), and prominence in
national and international markets. The industry is large, and its reach is global.
Advertising
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.t Employment Payroll
Advertising 783 929
3.5.4 -- COMMUNICATIONS E QUIPMENT is a small manufacturing industry employing
only about 13 hundred workers with an annual payroll of $15 million. The industry
includes computers, audio and video equipment, communications equipment, electronic
components, and miscellaneous electrical machinery, equipment and supplies. The city
does not exhibit concentrations of employment or payroll in this industry, suggesting that
it serves primarily the local market. Nevertheless, communications equipment is part of
the larger and more concentrated Communications Industry.
3.5.5 -- SERVICES TO THE COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY include mailing, reproduction,
commercial art and photograph, stenographic services and a family of computer-related
services similar to the computer-related services supporting the Investment and Finance
Industry. The portion of businesses in this group supporting the communications
industry employs about 10 thousand people with and annual payroll of $165 million.
Service lines that collectively have high employment and payroll concentration ratios are
summarized in Table 3.u.
Services to Communications Industry
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.u Employment Payroll
Mailing, Reproduction, Commercial Art, Commercial 271 315
Photography, Stenographic Services
3.5.6 -- DOT.COMS are difficult to isolate in the traditional product-oriented Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC). These businesses should be easier to spot in the new
process-oriented North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) first used in
the 1997 economic census, and whose detailed data are just now becoming available. In
the mean time, dot.com activity is spread among several SIC codes.
• E-Commerce Classified by Product: E-commerce retail sales are lumped
with other retail sales classified by product in SIC codes (codes 5211-5949
and 5983-5999). The portion of dot.com retail sales classified in this way in
the data cannot be isolated from other retail sales in these classifications.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 27
• Non-Store Retailers: Retail sales by non-store retailers such as TV shopping
channels, telemarketers, catalogues, mail-order houses, vending machines,
door-to-door salespeople, and mobile units (SIC codes 5961-5963) are an
exception to the usual SIC classification of retail sales by product. Some
dot.coms are in effect non-store retailers and some of their activity may be
reflected in TV Shopping Channels, Catalog and Mail Order Houses (SIC
code 5961).
• Information Retrieval Service: Most dot.coms are in the business of
providing on-line access to information stored by third parties, including
vendors. They typically do not store the information themselves or sell
products for their own account. Many retail-oriented sites facilitate price and
other comparisons among products offered by different vendors. This report
attributes 80% of employment and payroll in Information Retrieval Services
(SIC 7375) to the Communications Industry Group. The 11 hundred
employees and $18 million payroll in Information Retrieval Services
represents 11% of the employment and payroll in Services to the
Communications Industry Group.
• Other Computer-Related Service: Some of dot.com employment also may
be reflected in other computer-related services.
Issues of concern to the communications industry are similar to issues that concern other
San Francisco basic industries although some of them are more poignant for rapidly
growing digital media firms.
• Office Space: One factor that drove digital media’s explosive growth in San
Francisco was the availability of office space after the recession. However, the
city’s advantage in office space disappeared as the office vacancy rate shrank
to near 1%.
• Local Public Transit: The South of Market area where many digital media
firms are located is poorly served by public transportation and the level of
transit service will become a bigger issue as these firms expand to industrial
areas in the South East part of the city where transit currently is even more
limited.
• Access: Parking provided by temporary surface lots in the South of Market
area is shrinking as building activity reclaims these lots. Currently there is no
definitive plan for replacing this parking with new parking developments.
Muni has requested funding for additional transit service South of Market in
its 2001 budget.
• Housing: Housing is a challenge for the communications industry work force
as it is for most people who work in the city. The addition of live-work units
through building conversion and new construction accommodated some of the
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 28
demand for city-based housing generated by growth in digital media
employment. However, new restrictions on development of live-work space in
older industrial areas may curtail this source of housing. The price and
availability of city-based housing is a major industry concern.
• Regional Transportation: Construction of city-based housing is falling
further behind housing demand due to down zoning and other measures that
make it more difficult to create new housing. Public policy that is limiting the
supply of new housing forces the communications industry to rely more
heavily on regional transportation to access its labor force. Therefore, the
quality and availability of regional transportation is a concern.
• Infrastructure: As the communications industry expands to parts of the city
further from the downtown area, the availability of needed infrastructure, such
as fiber optics, becomes an issue.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 29
3.6 -- PUBLIC SECTOR
San Francisco’s historic role as the center of industry and commerce in the Western
United States made it the Federal Government’s western administrative headquarters and
situs for many State government functions. The federal presence includes offices of all
executive departments, the Federal Communications Commission, Securities and
Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve Bank, Federal Home Loan bank, Ninth Circuit
of the U.S. Court of Appeals, and U.S. District Court. San Francisco is an extension of
the capital in Sacramento for many State governmental functions. The California Public
Utilities Commission and the California Supreme Court are located in the city, along with
major offices or headquarters of the Department of Insurance, Department of Financial
Institutions, and California Department of Justice.
San Francisco’s public sector is quite large. One of every 14 people who work in the city
is employed by government and the annual public payroll is more than $1 billion (Table
T – 3.v). The federal government, smallest of the three levels of government in terms of
city-based employment, represents are about a quarter of all public employment (20
thousand) and public payroll ($251 million). State government represents 29% of public
employment (24 thousand) and 28% of payroll ($282 million). Local government is 47%
of pubic sector employment (39 thousand) and payroll ($478 million) (Table T – 3.w).
1998 Public & Private Employment in San Francisco
Employment (000), Payroll ($000,000), Percent Distribution
T – 3.v Percent Distribution
Employment Payroll Employment Payroll
Total Employment 595 7,128 100% 100%
Public Sector 83 1,012 14% 14%
Private Sector 512 6,116 86% 86%
Source: EDD
1998 Public Employment in San Francisco
Employment (000), Payroll ($000,000), Percent Distribution
T – 3.w Percent Distribution
Employment Payroll Employment Payroll
Public Sector 83 1,012 100% 100%
Federal Government 20 251 24% 25%
State Government 24 282 29% 28%
Local Government 39 478 47% 47%
Source: EDD
The city’s role as the region’s principal center for State and federal government
administration is reflected in employment concentration ratios well above 200 for these
two levels of government (Table 3.x). Concentration ratios for San Francisco local
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 30
government are well below 100, despite local government representing 47% of all public
sector employment. San Francisco has a high ratio of city employees to residents, but a
relatively low ratio of city employees to total jobs because of the large commuter work
force.
Public Sector
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.x Employment Payroll
Public Sector 118 128
Federal Government 227 230
State Government 214 220
Local Government 78 87
Measured by employment, Health and Human Services is the largest governmental
function (Table T – 3.y). It represents nearly half of all public employees (49%) and a
slightly smaller share of payroll (46%). Enterprise departments and Public Works are a
distant second with 21% of employees and payroll. Enterprise departments share some
characteristics with private businesses. Frequently they derive a major share, if not all of
their revenue from user charges, or produce a product that is similar to products produced
in the private sector. A good example is the U.S. Postal Service, and another is the San
Francisco Mint (classified as Metal Stamping n.e.c. in manufacturing SIC code 3469).
1998 Public Sector Employment in San Francisco
Employment (000), Payroll ($000,000), Percent Distribution
T – 3.y Percent Distribution
Employment Payroll Employment Payroll
PUBLIC SECTOR 83.0 1,012.2 100% 100%
Administration & Regulation 11.4 146.0 14% 14%
Legislative & Executive Combined 4.6 54.6 6% 5%
Protection & Justice 9.0 136.6 11% 13%
Health & Human Services 40.5 466.4 49% 46%
Enterprise & Public Works 17.6 208.6 21% 21%
Source: EDD
For purposes of this report Administration and Regulation (14% of public employment),
and Protection and Justice (11%) are key parts of the public sector (Tables 3.z and 3.aa).
The former makes and enforces the rules for private business and commerce; the latter
detects and prosecutes criminal violations of the rules, and adjudicates civil disputes.
Together these two broad functions of government work to assure the stable legal
environment businesses need to evaluate risks.
The nature and size of the role different levels of government play in these two functions
differ substantially. Local government plays a relatively minor role in Administration and
Regulation when measured by employment. The federal government represents 48% of
employment in this area (6 thousand), and the State represents another 42% (5 thousand).
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 31
These shares reflect the fact that regulation of commerce and industry is a federal
function in the United States exercised in partnership with the states. The city’s periodic
attempts regulate business practices and pricing consistently have been turned back by
the Courts.
Administration & Regulation
Employment (000), Payroll ($000,000), Percent Distribution
T – 3.z Percent Distribution
Employment Payroll Employment Payroll
Administration & Regulation 11.4 146.0 100% 100%
Federal Government 5.5 71.5 48% 49%
State Government 4.8 60.2 42% 41%
Local Government 1.1 14.3 10% 10%
Source: EDD
It the Protection and Justice function, the distribution of responsibilities is the reverse of
the distribution in Administration and Regulation. Local government accounts for three-
quarters of the employment (7 thousand), compared with 19% for the federal government
(17 hundred) and 6% for the state (5 hundred). Local government employment in
Protection and Justice is heavily concentrated in Public Order and Safety (7 thousand).
State government employment is distributed among Police Protection (290), Legal
Counsel (166) and Correctional Institutions (46). At the federal level employment is
fairly evenly split between the Courts and Legal Counsel (843), and Police Protection and
Public Order (986),
Protection & Justice
Employment (000), Payroll ($000,000), Percent Distribution
T – 3.aa Percent Distribution
Employment Payroll Employment Payroll
Protection & Justice 9.0 136.6 100% 100%
Federal Government 1.7 24.6 19% 18%
State Government 0.5 7.2 6% 5%
Local Government 6.8 104.9 75% 77%
Source: EDD
The State and federal administrative, regulatory and judicial establishments in San
Francisco are vital resources for the city’s basic industries. The communications industry
has frequent interaction with the Federal Communications Commission and the State
Public Utilities Commission. The finance industry, especially depository institutions and
their holding companies, have on-going business with state and federal depository
institution regulatory authorities. Many of these institutions also use credit from the
Federal Reserve Bank’s discount window. The securities and commodities trading
industry similarly is involved with the office of the Securities and Exchange
Commission. The professional services industry – lawyers, accountants and consultants –
supporting Finance, Investment and Deal-Making regularly consult government
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 32
regulators for administrative interpretation of rules and regulations, and for opinions
about how these will apply to proposed transactions. The concentration of state and
federal high courts is a convenience for all major businesses, and a boon to the city’s
heavy concentration of lawyers.
State and federal offices are less concentrated in San Francisco today than they were a
generation ago. One reason is the pull of growth in other parts of the Bay Area, such as
Silicon Valley and the East Bay. The other reason is the push of high costs and limited
availability of office space in a city that has not welcomed new construction of state and
federal facilities. During the Feinstein administration the federal government was
persuaded to give up the office site it controlled on Market Street for construction of the
Marriott Hotel. The federal government was promised another site in return for the favor,
but fifteen years later it still is waiting. The State has constructed a new 850,000 sq ft
office building on the civic center block that also is the site of the historic California
Supreme Court building. City activists made every effort to reduce the size of the planned
structure, and had these efforts succeeded, still more state offices would have left San
Francisco. Meanwhile, the city of Oakland provided attractive downtown sites near
BART and other public transportation for the construction of new state and federal office
buildings that continue to drawn government tenants away from in San Francisco
It is true that government offices do not pay taxes, but they are a major asset for those
who do. San Francisco needs to be much more aware of its vulnerability to losing
importation parts of the state and federal government establishment, and redouble its
efforts to meet their needs.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 33
3.7 -- THE YEARS AHEAD
3.7.1 -- PUBLIC POLICY
San Francisco currently is positioned for substantial job growth over the next decade,
something that was not anticipated by many forecasters until fairly recently. Whether this
optimistic outlook emanates from ABAG, California Department of Finance, Center for
Continuing Study of the California Economy, or this report, it comes with similar
assumptions about San Francisco public policy:
• The city’s land use decisions will accommodate growth in industries whose
growth is the reason for the optimistic forecast.
• The city will permit enough housing to be built to accommodate projected
household growth.
• The city and regional transportation system will provide access to the city and
metro area labor force implicit in the forecasts.
• The city’s relatively favorable political climate for economic growth in the
late 1990s will continue.
The city’s response to housing and transportation issues will heavily influence the
political climate for land use decisions favorable to economic growth. Without noticeable
progress in housing and transportation, it will become increasingly difficult to secure
approval for more growth enabling development.
3.7.2 -- SHADES OF DIFFERENCE
Respected sources offer a range of forecasts of San Francisco’s people and economy over
the next ten years. The State Department of Finance (DOF) projects a drop in population
of nearly 10 thousand to a level of 782 thousand by 2010. ABAG projects an increase of
nearly 20 thousand to 819 thousand. The Center for Continuing Study of the California
Economy (CCSCE) projects an even larger increase of about 37 thousand to 833
thousand, based on faster growth it projects for the State and region.
Projections of growth in the number of households are similarly diverse. ABAG expects
that in the next decade the city will add only 500 more than the 10 thousand households it
added in the last decade, to reach a total of 326 thousand households in 2010. CCSCE
expects more than twice as much household growth as ABAG, and projects there will be
337 thousand households in San Francisco by 2010.
CCSCE doesn’t publish job growth by county, but its Bay Area job growth projections
are significantly higher than ABAG’s projections. CCSCE expects 4.6 million Bay Area
wage and salary jobs by 2010. ABAG expects 4.2 million Bay Area jobs by 2010, and it
doesn’t project 4.6 million Bay Area jobs until 2020.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 34
The point is not that forecasters have different views about the amount of prospective
growth in San Francisco, but that they agree the next decade promises substantial growth
for the city. There is something to learn from each of the forecasts. CCSCE’s projections
for individual counties are driven by its forecast of the national and State economy
transmitted to California’s regions and counties primarily through industry location and
expansion decisions. Using this methodology CCSCE’s Bay Area forecast anticipated the
rapid growth experienced in the late 1990s. ABAG’s regional and county forecasts
incorporate much more local information than CCSCE’s forecast, but they did not catch
the acceleration of growth in San Francisco until ABAG’s Projection 2000. Both
methodologies provide useful insights into the dynamics of local economic growth and
development.
3.7.3 -- REPORT PROJECTIONS
San Francisco job growth projected in this report is based on ABAG’s forecast. The
report incorporates some of the stronger growth CCSCE anticipates for the State and
region, and it takes a more optimistic view of what can be achieved in the areas of land
use, housing and transportation by current business and political leadership. This
assessment of the city’s prospects suggests San Francisco can capture a larger share of
Bay Area growth and prosperity than ABAG expects, if the city chooses to do so. This is
a projection, not prophesy. It describes a credible scenario for what could happen.
Table 3.bb summarizes this report’s projection of job growth in major industry groups
covered in the discussion of San Francisco’s economic base. ABAG’s estimate of total
year 2000 employment in San Francisco is the baseline for the report’s projections,
although the method of classifying jobs is different in the two data sets. Public Sector
employment shown here for the year 2000 is considerably higher than ABAG’s more
narrowly defined Government Employment, and this report forecasts job growth in the
broad industry groups that form the city’s economic base, rather than in the conventional
economic sectors ABAG uses.
2000 – 2010
Projected Job Growth in San Francisco by Basic Industry Group
T – 3.bb Jobs (000) Percent Distribution Percent
2000 2010 2000 2010 Growth
Total Employment 629 695 100% 100% 10.5%
All Private Sector Jobs 541 605 86% 87% 11.7%
Basic Industries 247 290 39% 42% 17.3%
Visitor Industry 76 87 12% 13% 14.8%
Finance, Investment, Deal-Making 133 155 21% 22% 16.4%
Communications & Media Content 38 48 6% 7% 25.8%
Other Private Sector Jobs 294 314 47% 45% 7.0%
Public Sector Jobs 88 90 14% 13% 3.0%
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 35
The current report’s more optimistic view of the city’s economic prospects is reflected in
10.5% total jobs growth forecast over the next ten years, compared to 9.6% total job
growth anticipated for the same period in ABAG’s forecast. The difference represents
about 75 hundred additional jobs or nearly 13% more overall job growth. Projected job
growth is concentrated in the private sector (11.7%) and is expected to add 63 thousand
new private sector jobs in the forecast period. The public sector is expected to add only
about 3 thousand new jobs for 3% growth. At these growth rates, the share of private
sector employment in the city would rise from 86% in 2000 to 87% by 2010.
Within the private sector, employment in basic industries is projected to grow much
faster than other private sector employment (17% verses 7%), and generate 43 thousand
new jobs. The fastest growing industry group will be Communications and Media
Content (26%), followed by Finance, Investment and Deal-Making (16%), and the
Visitor Industry (15%). However, because of the large employment base in Finance,
Investment and Deal-Making, the rate of growth projected for this industry group will
create the largest number of new jobs (22 thousand), followed by the Visitor Industry (11
thousand), and Communications and Media Content (10 thousand).
Basic Industries, which currently represent about 39% of all jobs in San Francisco, are
projected to create 43 thousand new jobs and increase their share of total employment to
42%. The share of other private sector employment will decline from 47% to 45%, even
though these industries are projected to create 21 thousand new jobs. Each of the three
basic industry groups discussed in this report will experience some increase in its share of
total city-based employment. The rising share of city-based jobs in basic industries is a
favorable development for economic growth because of the leverage basic industries
exert on job creation in the overall economy.
3.7.4 -- HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION
The 66 thousand new city-based jobs projected by the end of the decade will be divided
between city residents and metro area residents. The percent of city-based jobs held by
city residents declined from 73% in 1960 to 54% in 1990, as shown in Table 3.cc, but the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) estimates the 54% share remained
fairly constant during the last decade.
1960 – 2000
Share of San Francisco Jobs Held by
City and Metro Area Residents
T – 3.cc 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
All City-Based Job 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
City Residents 73% 63% 56% 54% 54%
Metro Area Residents 27% 37% 44% 46% 46%
Source: MTC
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 36
Table 3.dd illustrates the gross number of new jobs that would be held by City residents
under different assumptions about the percent of all city-based jobs held by city residents.
The highest number (36 thousand) assumes continuation of the current 54% - 46% split
between city and metro area residents. The lowest number (8 thousand) assumes a 50% -
50% split.
2000 – 2010
Hypothetical Distribution of New Jobs Between
San Francisco and Metro Area Residents
T – 3.dd 2000 Employment Increment 2010 Employment
(000) Distribution 2000-2010 (000) Distribution
Total Jobs 629 100% 66 695 100%
City Residents 54%
City Residents 340 54% 36 375 54%
Metro Area Residents 289 46% 30 320 46%
City Residents 53%
City Residents 340 54% 28 368 53%
Metro Area Residents 289 46% 38 327 47%
City Residents 52%
City Residents 340 54% 21 361 52%
Metro Area Residents 289 46% 45 334 48%
City Residents 51%
City Residents 340 54% 14 354 51%
Metro Area Residents 289 46% 52 341 49%
City Residents 50%
City Residents 340 54% 8 348 50%
Metro Area Residents 289 46% 58 348 50%
Several factors will affect the distribution of new city-based jobs between city and metro
area residents:
• The amount of new housing construction is a major constraint on new city-
based household formation, and hence the share of new jobs held by city
residents.
• An increase in the number of dwellings occupied by more than one household
would push the number of city-based jobs held by city residents above the
limits of new housing construction.
• The extent to which the 78 thousand city residents currently working outside
the city take advantage of new city-base employment opportunities will affect
the share of city-based jobs held by city residents.
• The types of jobs created in the city will influence whether incumbents can
afford to live in city-based housing and be city residents.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 37
• The level of congestion in the regional transportation system will influence
the number of incumbents that seek city-based housing to shorten the time and
aggravation associated with their commute to work.
ABAG’s Local Policy Survey estimated that, even after a decade of down zoning existing
residential neighborhoods, current zoning and prospective redevelopment give San
Francisco the potential for 55 thousand additional housing units. Yet ABAG forecasts
only about 500 more San Francisco households will be formed in the next decade than
were formed in the 1990s. Realization of ABAG’s forecast for 10,500 new households
by 2010 would drop the percent of city-based jobs held by city residents in ABAG’s
forecast from 54% to about 51%, assuming 20% percent of employed city residents
continue to work outside the city. That would mean an additional 48 thousand commuters
from the metro area to fill the balance of the 58,500 new San Francisco jobs ABAG
projects by 2010.
This report argues San Francisco has a much higher potential for housing construction
than estimated in ABAG’s Local Policy Survey, and that the city’s practical ability to
construct housing in the next decade is much higher than ABAG’s forecast of household
formation. It is desirable for the city to accommodate more housing to mitigate cost
pressure from the current, exceptionally low residential vacancy rate, as well as to
accommodate new household formation.
This report’s assessment of San Francisco’s housing potential includes the higher density
permitted under current zoning, and the opportunity for relatively dense mixed use
redevelopment of underutilized industrial areas and commercial strips. SPUR and the
Mayor advocate such redevelopment for Third Street, and there are many similar
opportunities throughout the city. Redevelopment of the former Hunters Point Shipyard,
and additions to the city’s housing stock from former military bases at Treasure Island
(1,000 units) and the Presidio (1,100 units) should be included in the near term supply of
housing for household formation.
Constructing 20 thousand new housing units in 10 years would mean building 2,000 units
per year, or roughly twice the rate of housing construction in the last decade. The
formidable barriers current San Francisco public policy poses to reaching this goal are
discussed in the housing section of this report – clearly this is a case of there having to be
the will for there to be a way to reach this housing goal.
Construction of 20 thousand units would arrest the decline in the share of city-based jobs
held by city residents at a little above 52% in ABAG’s forecast, and a little below 52% in
this report’s forecast. This level of housing construction implies an increase in metro area
commuters of about 38 thousand in ABAG’s forecast, and about 46 thousand in the
report’s forecast. The transportation corridor analysis in Section 4 of this report suggests
42% of the increment in new commuters would be in the Peninsula Corridor, 34% in the
Bay Bridge Corridor, and 24% in the Golden Gate Corridor. With these additions, in
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Section 3 San Francisco Economy 3 - 38
2010 the Bay Bridge corridor would carry 50% of the commuters to and through San
Francisco. The Peninsula Corridor would carry 35%, and the Golden Gate Corridor, 15%.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 4 TRANSPORTATION 4-1
4.1 -- ECONOMIC EVOLUTION
For nearly a century San Francisco was the only major city in the Western United States.
As such, it was the manufacturing, distribution, and trade center of the West, as well as
the seat of government administration, services, and cultural activities. Growth and
development of the metropolitan Bay Area after World War II brought profound changes
and considerable specialization within the regional economy. Changes in the geographic
distribution of jobs, suburbanization, freeways and BART loosened the link between
place of residence and place of work in the Bay Area.
4.2 -- WHERE WE LIVE AND WORK
As the number of San Francisco-based jobs rose from 444,000 in 1960 to an estimated
568,000 in 2000, the proportion of the city’s labor force drawn from the metro area
increased from 27% to 46%. This shift in the geographic composition of the labor force
reflects 140,000 new metro area commuters filling 124,000 new city-based jobs and
16,000 jobs previously filled by city residents who now work the metro area. Another
way of looking at the shift is that it reflects 56,000 more city residents holding metro-
based jobs, the sum of 40,000 newly employed residents with metro-based jobs and
16,000 residents who have changed the base of their employment from city to metro area.
Currently, 80% of employed city residents work in San Francisco providing 54% of the
city’s labor force. One in five employed residents commutes to a job in the metro area.1
Choices about where to live or work are influenced by a variety of factors, such as
employment opportunities, professional skills, cost and availability of different types of
housing, quality of local schools, transportation options, life style preference, family
traditions, and habit.
4.2.1 -- ACCESS TO WORKERS
Realizing San Francisco could not accommodate an influx of automobiles to match the
growth of city-based jobs, San Francisco permitted no increase in the capacity of
highways bringing vehicles into the city after the completion of Interstate 280 in 1964.
Access to the labor force that fueled the growth and transformation of San Francisco’s
economy was achieved by much greater use of public transit, especially BART, and more
intense use of existing freeway capacity.
Table 4.a summarizes the current and projected number of commuters to jobs in San
Francisco by major commute corridor. The city itself is considered a commute corridor
1
Data from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) presented in Appendix Tables 4.A and
4.B detail commute patterns by Bay Area county using the decennial census from 1960 to 1990, and MTC
projections to 2020. MTC’s projections, including the current year, 2000, are based on employment
estimates in ABAG’s Projections ’98 which are slightly lower than employment estimates in ABAG’s
Projections 2000.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 4 TRANSPORTATION 4-2
for city residents, and it not only is the most intensely used corridor (54% of the
workforce), but also the one with the most projected growth -- 12.3% by 2010 and 17.2%
by 2020.
In this report the term “commuter” refers to any person traveling to a job regardless of
the traveler’s place of work or place of residence. The commute corridor information
presented here refers to the number of commuters, rather than the number of trips taken
by commuters. Information about trips of all types to and within San Francisco is
presented in Section 4.3 of this report. All data, unless otherwise identified, are
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) forecasts based on the decennial
census, ABAG Projections ’98, and periodic surveys and traffic counts.
1990 – 2020
Commuters to Jobs in San Francisco by Commute Corridor
T – 4.a 1990 2000 2010 2020
NUMBER (000)
San Francisco Residents 299.9 305.6 343.3 358.0
Golden Gate Corridor 42.1 37.3 40.8 41.4
Bay Bridge Corridor 121.8 137.7 143.3 159.9
Peninsula Corridor 87.0 87.5 93.4 100.8
TOTAL to San Francisco 550.8 568.2 620.9 660.1
In ABAG Projections '98
TOTAL to San Francisco 566.6 587.0 638.5 680.0
In ABAG Projections 2000
4.2.2 -- BAY BRIDGE CORRIDOR
The Bay Bridge corridor (Westbound I-80, BART, AC Transit, and ferries) is the largest
commute corridor into San Francisco (24% of the labor force), and the external corridor
for which the most commute growth is projected. MTC expects 6,400 additional
commuters in the corridor by 2010, and 25,300 by 2020, with 90% commuting to a job in
San Francisco. Pushed by congestion on the Bay Bridge and pulled by BART as an
attractive alternative to the private automobile, a higher percentage of commuters use
public transit in the Bay Bridge corridor than in the Peninsula and Golden Gate
Corridors. The Bay Bridge corridor also hosts the region’s largest reverse commute
market, averaging 20% of the westbound commute.
Table 4.b summarizes the current and projected number of commuters using the Bay
Bridge corridor westbound. Commuters using the corridor who are not headed for a job
in San Francisco will show up as reverse commuters in the Peninsula and Golden Gate
Corridors.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 4 TRANSPORTATION 4-3
1990 – 2020
Bay Bridge Corridor Commuters (I-80 Westbound & BART Transbay Tube)
T – 4.b 1990 2000 2010 2020
All Commuters (000) 131.6 150.9 157.3 176.2
Commuters To San Francisco Jobs 121.8 137.7 143.3 159.9
Commuters To Jobs in Other Counties 9.8 13.2 14.0 16.3
The Bay Bridge Corridor is critical for San Francisco’s current and future access to the
labor force required to sustain the city’s economy. For this reason, enhancements to this
transportation corridor should be among the city’s highest priorities for regional
transportation projects. It is important to increase both the capacity and convenience of
public transit in the corridor, and the capacity and convenience of transit feeding the
corridor.
4.2.3 -- PENINSULA CORRIDOR
The Peninsula Corridor (Northbound US-101, I-280, CA-1, BART, CalTrain, and
SamTrans) is the second largest and most intensely used commute corridor into San
Francisco (15% of the labor force). MTC projects that it also will have the second highest
commute growth -- 5,900 new commuters to San Francisco jobs by 2010, and 13,300 by
2020. The two freeways in the Peninsula Corridor together provide significantly more
vehicle capacity than either the Bay Bridge or Golden Gate Bridge. Table 4.c summarizes
the present and projected number of commuters using the Peninsula Corridor into San
Francisco.
1990 – 2020
Peninsula Corridor Commuters (US-101, I-280, BART, Caltrain & SamTrans)
T – 4.c 1990 2000 2010 2020
All Commuters (000) 99.9 100.1 108.1 116.6
Commuters To San Francisco Jobs 87.0 87.5 93.4 100.8
Commuters To Jobs in Other Counties 12.9 12.6 14.7 15.8
Source: MTC, except estimates of Peninsula Corridor commuters to
jobs in counties other than San Francisco. These estimates include
100% of Peninsula commuters destined for Napa, Sonoma, Marin and
65% of Peninsula commuters destine for Alameda, Contra Costa,
Solano.
Historically, Peninsula Corridor commuters have used public transit less than commuters
in other parts of the dense inner ring of development around the Bay because of the
limited availability of regional transit serving the Peninsula. This could change with
completion of BART to SFO and Millbrae, currently projected for 2002, and with
implementation of Caltrain’s “Rapid Rail” plan. The Rapid Rail project would
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 4 TRANSPORTATION 4-4
rehabilitate Caltrain infrastructure and electrify the entire 77-mile line from San
Francisco to Gilroy. Dealing with the 53 at-grade crossings between San Francisco and
San Jose, and 28 between San Jose and Gilroy, is a major challenge for the project.
Nevertheless, the estimated 21% system-wide reduction in travel times for the $836
million estimated cost of the Rapid Rail project suggests it could be an efficient near term
alternative to extending BART to San Jose.
The proposed underground extension of Caltrain from Fourth and Townsend to the Muni
Metro and BART nexus under Market Street is a tougher issue because of the potential
impact of the high cost of the project on other transit funding priorities. The economics of
the project might be improved by combining it with the proposed California High Speed
Rail project and/or the proposed underground extension of Muni Metro into Chinatown.
In the meantime, the surface Muni Metro extension to Fourth and Townsend provides a
stop gap interface between Caltrain, and City and regional rapid transit systems.
4.2.4 -- GOLDEN GATE CORRIDOR
The Golden Gate Corridor (Southbound US-101, and ferries), historically one of the
largest into San Francisco, actually shrunk in size between 1990 when it carried 42,100
commuters (8% of the City’s workforce), and the year 2000 when it is projected to carry
37,300 commuters (7% of the City’s workforce). Although MTC expects the number of
commuters in this corridor to increase by about 11% over the next 20 years, it is not
projected to reach the 1990 number of commuters in this period.
The main reasons for declining commute numbers in the Gold Gate corridor appear to be
significant job growth in Marin and Sonoma Counties, and relatively slow growth in the
North Bay labor force. Table 4.d summarizes the current and projected number of
commuters using the southbound Golden Gate Corridor.
1990 – 2020
Golden Gate Corridor Commuters (US-101 Southbound)
T – 4.d 1990 2000 2010 2020
All Commuters (000) 48.0 43.6 48.1 48.7
Commuters To San Francisco Jobs 42.1 37.3 40.8 41.4
Commuters To Jobs in Other Counties 5.9 6.3 7.3 7.3
4.2.5 -- SAN FRANCISCO CORRIDOR
The San Francisco corridor (Muni, city streets, Skyway, a portion of I-280, and
Pedestrians) is the largest corridor for commuters to San Francisco jobs (54% of the labor
force), and the corridor for which the most commute growth is projected. MTC expects
38,000 additional commuters in the corridor by 2010, and 69,000 by 2020, with about
80% headed for San Francisco-based employment. Upward revision of population and
jobs forecasts for San Francisco County in ABAG’s Projections 2000 would raise these
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 4 TRANSPORTATION 4-5
estimates by a little over 3%. Information in the housing section of this report points to
opportunities for more of San Francisco’s labor force to live in the city. Table 4.e
summarizes the current and projected number of commuters using the San Francisco
Corridor.
1990 - 2020
San Francisco Corridor Commuters (Entire City)
T – 4.e 1990 2000 2010 2020
Employed SF Residents (000) 371.4 383.8 435.7 453.1
Commute To San Francisco Jobs 299.9 305.6 343.3 358.0
Commute To Jobs in Other Counties 71.5 78.2 92.4 95.1
San Francisco is America’s second most transit intensive city. According to data from the
last census, 33.5% of San Francisco residents use public transit to get to work, compared
to 10.5% in Los Angeles, 18% in Oakland, and 3.5% in San Jose. In the nation’s most
transit intensive city, New York, 53% of workers use transit to get to their jobs. The
national average for metropolitan area residents is 6.5%. Intensive use of public transit in
San Francisco is attributed to densely developed residential and commercial areas;
relatively convenient, affordable transit service; congested streets and expensive parking.
In addition to the 33.5% of city residents using transit to get to work, 11.5% carpool, and
16.5% walk or ride bicycles or motorcycles. Still, 38% drive to work alone and contribute
140,000 automobiles to the city’s rush hour traffic. Consequently, many arterial streets
within the city are nearly as congested during the rush hour as the most congested
transportation corridor leading into the city.
San Francisco is a major regional job center with consistently low residential vacancy
rates and the nation’s highest average housing costs – two of several reasons why 46% of
the city’s labor force lives outside the city. Therefore, many are surprised that 20% of
employed San Francisco residents work outside the city. Life style choice surely is one
reason people working in the metro area chose a San Francisco residence. Equally
important, however, is the city’s location at the hub of the regional transit system. It’s
easier to work “elsewhere” if you live in San Francisco than anywhere else in the Bay
Area. Not only is transit available, but if you have a day job, you’re doing a relatively
uncongested reverse commute.
4.2.6 -- CORRIDOR SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The increment in the number of commuters to San Francisco-based jobs projected by
MTC is summarized in Table 4.f.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 4 TRANSPORTATION 4-6
1990 – 2020
Increment In Commuters To and Within San Francisco
T – 4.f 1990- 2000- 2010-
2000 2010 2020
TOTAL INCREMENT (000) 27.8 70.8 45.1
To Jobs in San Francisco 17.3 52.7 39.0
San Francisco Residents 5.7 37.7 14.7
Golden Gate Corridor -4.8 3.5 0.3
Bay Bridge Corridor 15.9 5.6 16.6
Peninsula Corridor 0.5 5.9 7.4
To Jobs Outside San Francisco 10.5 18.1 6.1
San Francisco Residents 6.7 14.2 2.7
Golden Gate Corridor 0.4 1.0 0.0
Bay Bridge Corridor 3.4 0.8 2.3
Peninsula Corridor 0.0 2.1 1.1
Source: MTC, except estimates of Peninsula Corridor commuters to
jobs in counties other than San Francisco. These estimates by the
author include 100% of Peninsula commuters destined for Napa,
Sonoma, Marin and 65% of Peninsula commuters destined for
Alameda, Contra Costa, Solano
The Bay Bridge Corridor currently is the largest and most congested commuter gateway
to San Francisco, and the one with the largest projected absolute growth over the next 20
years. Silicon Valley job growth is expected to pull commuters South out of the
Peninsula Corridor, and North Bay job growth is expected to pull commuters North away
from the Golden Gate Corridor. The net result is that the most significant growth in the
number of commuters to San Francisco-based jobs will occur in the Bay Bridge Corridor
and within the city itself.
If MTC’s projections are realized, San Francisco will have 70,000 additional commuters
of all types by 2010, or roughly a 10% increase from the 679,000 commuters of all types
expected in 2000. Nearly three-fourth (73%) of these new commuters will be city
residents. The city will have an additional 116,000 commuters by 2020, or a 17%
increase from the current level. Sixty percent of new commuters in the 20-year forecast
are expected to be city residents.
From the perspective of access to the city’s labor force, the commute corridor analysis
makes it fairly clear San Francisco’s priorities should be the Bay Bridge Corridor and the
San Francisco city Corridor. Analysis in Section 4.3 of this report broadens the
perspective to include travel for purposes other than employment, and replaces the “body
count” used in commute corridor studies with “trip counts”. The two concepts are very
different – apples and oranges, if you will – and should not be confused with one
another.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 4 TRANSPORTATION 4-7
4.3 -- TRIP GENERATION FOR SAN FRANCISCO
MTC’s transportation model forecasts trips originating from the traveler’s home (home-
based trips) and trips originating from a place other than the traveler’s home (non-home-
based and commercial truck trips). Home-based trips are further divided by the purpose
of the trip (work, school, social and recreational trips, and shopping and other trips). All
trips are counted one way, and assume the origin-to-destination portion of the trip is the
first leg of a round trip.
Average Daily San Francisco Trips From All Sources by Purpose of Trip
Percent Distribution and Growth, 1990 to 2010
Year 2000 – (000)
T – 4.g Year Percent Compound
2000 Distribution Percent Change Annual Rate
2000 1990-00 2000-10 1990-00 2000-10
From Home to:
Work 843.5 30.9% 1.8% 11.1% 0.18% 0.21%
Secondary School 132.5 4.9% 32.8% 7.8% 2.88% 0.75%
Colleges & Universities 71.2 2.6% -7.9% 28.8% -0.82% 2.56%
Social & Recreation 276.5 10.1% 12.5% 9.2% 1.18% 0.88%
Shopping & Other 548.3 20.1% 7.7% 5.8% 0.75% 0.56%
Non-Home-Based Trips 816.2 29.9% 4.2% 7.4% 0.41% 0.72%
Commercial Truck Trips 41.7 1.5% 1.6% 8.0% 0.16% 0.77%
TOTAL TRIPS 2,730.0 100% 4% 9% 0.70% 0.59%
Table 4.g summarizes the projected distribution of average daily trips to and within San
Francisco for various purposes in the year 2000, and projected growth in the number of
trips for each purpose over the next 10 years.2 The second column of the table
(Distribution 2000) indicates currently a little over 30% of all local trips (843 thousand)
are home-based work trips; 30% (825 thousand) are home-based trips for socializing,
recreation and shopping; and 30% (816 thousand) are non-home-based trips. The
remaining 9% of local travel is home-based school trips (7.5% or 204 thousand) and
commercial truck trips (1.5% or 42 thousand).
Looking at the travel purpose with the largest current trip base, average daily home-based
work trips are projected to increase 11.1% (94 thousand) over the next decade; trips for
recreation, socializing and shopping are projected to rise 6.9% (57 thousand); and non-
home-based trips by 7.4% (60 thousand). In the education category, college trips account
for two-thirds of the growth (20 thousand additional trips verses 10 thousand for
secondary schools).
2
Appendix Table 4.C details trips to San Francisco by trip purpose from each Bay Area county at ten year
intervals from 1990 through 2020. This table also details the percent distribution of trips for each purpose
by county of trip origin.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 4 TRANSPORTATION 4-8
The number of commercial truck trips is projected to rise 8.0% (3,347 trips). Most
commercial truck traffic (77%) consists of small size trucks, and the projected increase
also is concentrated in small size trucks (2,548 trips). Nevertheless, MTC forecasts 532
more average daily trips by large (combination) trucks in San Francisco over the next 10
years on the current base of 6,767 trips by large trucks.
Table 4.h examines current average daily trips data for San Francisco according to
whether the trip is generated within the city or from the Metro Bay Area. The third
column (Total Bay Area) is identical to the first column of the previous table.
Average Daily San Francisco Trips by Origin and Purpose of Trip
San Francisco compared to Metro Bay Area Excluding San Francisco
Year 2000 – (000)
T – 4.h San Metro Percent of Total
Francisco Area TOTAL SF Metro
From Home to:
Work 441.6 401.9 843.5 52% 48%
Secondary School 128.2 4.3 132.5 97% 3%
Colleges & Universities 38.4 32.8 71.2 54% 46%
Social & Recreation 188.7 87.8 276.5 68% 32%
Shopping & Other 449.7 98.6 548.3 82% 18%
Non-Home-Based Trips 667.9 148.3 816.2 82% 18%
Commercial Truck Trips 29.8 12.0 41.7 71% 29%
TOTAL AV. DAILY TRIPS 1,944.3 785.7 2,730.0 71% 29%
The data indicate that 71% of all trips in San Francisco originate in the city, and 29%
originate in the Metro Area. As one would expect, residents initiate trips in San Francisco
for purposes other than work far more frequently than residents in the metro area. Home-
based work trips in San Francisco are 23% of all San Francisco trips originated in the
City and 55% of all San Francisco trips originated in the metro area.
Data in the table confirm many things most people would expect. For example, there is a
close match between the geographic distribution of work trips (52% San Francisco origin,
48% Metro) and the geographic distribution of the city’s labor force (54% San Francisco,
46% Metro). In the education category, virtually all of the Secondary School trips (97%)
originate in San Francisco, while the distribution of College and University trips mirrors
the distribution of the labor force (54% San Francisco, 46% metro).
Visitors staying in San Francisco hotels are included in home-based shopping and
recreation trips generated in the city. Hotel guests contribute to the high percentage of
such trips that originate in the city (82% for shopping and 68% for recreation), although
the percentages would be expected to be higher for city residents than for metro area
residents even without the contribution from hotel guests.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 4 TRANSPORTATION 4-9
Seventy-one percent of commercial truck trips in San Francisco originate in the city,
verses 29% from the metro area. The distribution of the city’s truck traffic exactly
mirrors the distribution of all trips for all purposes.
4.3.1 -- HOME-BASED WORK TRIPS
Table 4.i presents data on the distribution and growth of home-based work trip by Bay
Area county. The 52%-48% split between San Francisco and metro area outside the city
shown in Table 4.h, appears in the Distribution 2000 column in Table 4.i.
Average Daily Home-Based Trips to Work in San Francisco
1990, 2000 & 2010 – (000)
T- 4.i Percent
Distribution Percent Change
1990 2000 2010 2000 1990-00 2000-10
TOTAL 828.4 843.5 937.2 100% 1.8% 11.1%
From San Francisco 440.2 441.6 488.6 52% 0.3% 10.6%
From Bay Area Counties 388.2 401.9 448.6 48% 3.5% 11.6%
Alameda 90.7 92.6 100.9 11% 2.1% 8.9%
Contra Costa 77.0 87.6 94.1 10% 13.8% 7.4%
Marin 54.7 53.0 63.6 6% -3.1% 20.0%
San Mateo 123.5 124.2 135.5 15% 0.6% 9.1%
Other Counties 42.3 44.5 54.6 5% 5.1% 22.7%
The largest absolute increase in work trips from individual counties in the metro area to
San Francisco is projected to come from Marin and San Mateo. San Mateo already
generates the most home-based work trips originating outside the city (124 thousand) and
represents 15% of all work trips in San Francisco. San Mateo is expected to originate
another 11 thousand work trips per day by 2010. Marin currently generates 6% of the
work trips in the city (53 thousand), and is projected to generate nearly 11 thousand
additional work trip in the City by 2010.
The other two major generators of home-based work trips to San Francisco are Alameda
(93 thousand) and Contra Costa (88 thousand). Together these two counties currently
account for 21% of work trips in the city, and between them will contribute another 15
thousand work trips in 10 years. The growth in trip generation will be faster in Alameda
(8.9%) than in Contra Costa (7.4%). Contra Costa’s work trip generation growth was
especially strong during the 1990s (13.8%) because of significant additions to its housing
stock and the extension of BART lines in the county.
Other Bay Area metro counties collectively generate only 5% of home-based San
Francisco work trips at present, but rapid growth in their average daily trip generation by
2010 (22.7%) will add 11 thousand trips to their current base of 45 thousand work trips to
the city. Virtually all of the projected other metro area work trip growth will come from
Sonoma (7 thousand) and Solano (4 thousand).
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 4 TRANSPORTATION 4 - 10
Growth in home-based work trips is projected to add 11 thousand daily trips in the
Peninsula Corridor, 17 thousand in the Golden Gate Corridor, and 19 thousand in the Bay
Bridge Corridor (assuming trips generated by Sonoma go to the Golden Gate Corridor,
and trips generated by Solano go to the Bay Bridge Corridor).
4.3.1.1 – INTRA CITY HOME-BASED WORK TRIPS
MTC’s trip model generates home-based work trip data for trips originating and ending
in 34 sub-county “super districts”. San Francisco super districts divide the city in to four
quadrants: Northeast (north of Townsend and east of Van Ness), Northwest (north of
Golden Gate Park and west of Van Ness), Southeast (south of Townsend and east of twin
peaks), and Southwest (south of Golden Gate Park and west of Twin Peaks). Table 4.j
shows the origin (rows) and destination (columns) of the 441.6 thousand home-based
work trips MTC estimates will begin and end in San Francisco in 2000.
Home-Based Work Trips Originating & Ending in San Francisco
Projected Origin & Destination by Super District
(000)
T – 4.j Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest All Destinations
Northeast 51.1 6.3 8.5 1.6 67.4
Northwest 73.5 34.6 21.9 6.5 136.5
Southeast 80.7 20.6 57.3 6.6 165.3
Southwest 34.3 11.3 17.2 9.6 72.4
All Origins 239.6 72.8 105.0 24.3 441.6
Source: MTC
As would be expected, the largest share of home-based work trips (240 thousand) end in
downtown San Francisco (northeast quadrant). The second largest share (105 thousand)
end in the industrial southeastern part of the city. The third largest share (73 thousand)
end in the northwest quadrant which is home to several of large institutional employers
including the Parnassus, Mt. Zion and Laurel Heights campuses of the UCSF; Lone
Mountain campus of USF, California Pacific Hospital and Medical Center, Kaiser
Hospital and Medical Center, and Veterans Hospital and Medical Center at Fort Miley.
Tables 4.k and 4.l provides an origin and destination summary of San Francisco-based
work trips from 1990 to estimated and projected trips in 2000 and 2010. In the trip origin
summary the most growth (21 thousand daily trips) comes from the Southeast, suggesting
that is where ABAG’s local policy survey indicated most of the housing growth would
occur in San Francisco over the next decade. The rest of the trip origin growth is spread 7
thousand to 10 thousand daily trips across the other three quadrants of the city.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 4 TRANSPORTATION 4 - 11
1990 - 2010
San Francisco Home-Based Work Trips
Trip Origin Summary
T – 4.k Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest Total
Trips (000)
1990 66 138 164 73 440
2000 67 137 165 72 442
2010 76 147 186 79 489
Percent Distribution
1990 15% 31% 37% 16% 100%
2000 15% 31% 37% 16% 100%
2010 16% 30% 38% 16% 100%
1990 - 2010
San Francisco Home-Based Work Trips
Trip Destination Summary
T – 4.l Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest Total
Trips (000)
1990 242 76 99 23 440
2000 240 73 105 24 442
2010 268 78 116 25 489
Percent Distribution
1990 55% 17% 22% 5% 100%
2000 54% 16% 24% 5% 100%
2010 55% 16% 24% 5% 100%
In the trip destination summary the largest growth (28 thousand daily trips) is to the
downtown area (northeast quadrant) as would be expected, but there also is substantial
growth (11 thousand trips) to the industrial southeast quadrant.
4.3.2 -- HOME-BASED SOCIAL AND RECREATION TRIPS
Table 4.m summarizes data on the growth and distribution of home-based social and
recreation trips in San Francisco.
Average Home-Based Social and Recreation Trips in San Francisco
1990, 2000 & 2010 – (000)
T – 4.m Percent Percent Percent
Distribution Change Change
1990 2000 2010 2000 1990-00 2000-10
TOTAL 245.9 276.5 301.9 100% 12.5% 9.2%
From San Francisco 163.6 188.7 207.3 68% 15.3% 9.8%
From Bay Area Counties 82.3 87.8 94.6 32% 6.7% 7.7%
Alameda 13.3 14.6 14.4 5% 10.3% -1.6%
San Mateo 41.0 44.2 49.4 16% 7.7% 12.0%
Other Counties 28.0 29.0 30.8 10% 3.6% 6.0%
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 4 TRANSPORTATION 4 - 12
About a third (32%) of the 276 thousand average daily social and recreation trips in San
Francisco are generated by metro area residents, with the largest number generated by
San Mateo (44 thousand or 16%) and Alameda (15 thousand or 5%). The rest are
generated mainly by Contra Costa, Marin and Santa Clara (3.2%, 3.2% and 2.3%,
respectively) which collectively account for 24 thousand trips.
After San Francisco (19 thousand trips), San Mateo County is projected to generate the
largest growth in social and recreation trips (5 thousand). The number of such trips from
Alameda County are projected to decrease slightly in the forecast period, and other Bay
Area Metro counties are projected to generate an additional 2 thousand daily trips.
Projected growth in home-based social and recreation trips will add 6 thousand daily trips
in the Peninsula Corridor, 1 thousand in the Golden Gate Corridor, and essentially none
in the Bay Bridge Corridor. The San Francisco Corridor is projected to generate an
additional 19 thousand average daily social and recreation trips by 2010.
4.3.3 -- HOME-BASED SHOPPING AND OTHER TRIPS
Table 4.n presents data on the growth and distribution of shopping and other personal
trips by Bay Area county.
Average Daily Home-Based Shopping and Other Trips in San Francisco
1990, 2000 & 2010 – (000)
T – 4.n Percent Percent Percent
Distribution Change Change
1990 2000 2010 2000 1990-00 2000-10
TOTAL 509.0 548.3 580.0 100% 7.7% 5.8%
From San Francisco 408.4 449.7 478.0 82% 10.1% 6.3%
From Bay Area Counties 100.7 98.6 102.1 18% -2.0% 3.5%
Alameda 15.1 14.7 13.6 3% -2.8% -7.4%
San Mateo 56.1 57.9 62.4 11% 3.3% 7.6%
Other Counties 29.5 26.0 26.1 5% -11.7% 0.4%
Bay Area Metro counties generate 18% of the average daily “shopping and other” trips in
San Francisco. Although some of the individual county trip numbers are relatively large,
they are dwarfed by the 450 thousand such trips generated within the city. San Mateo
generates the largest number of trips among metro counties (58 thousand or nearly 11%),
followed by Alameda, Contra Costa and Marin that collectively generate 33 thousand
trips (6.2%).
The largest absolute growth in daily “shopping and other” trips (28 thousand, or 6.3%) is
projected to occur in San Francisco County. The highest rate of trip growth (7.6%) is
projected to be generated from San Mateo County (4.4 thousand trips). Marin and Contra
Costa together are projected to generate a little less than one thousand new daily
“shopping and other” trips to San Francisco. All other Bay Area Metro counties are
projected to generate fewer such trips to San Francisco by 2010 than they did 2000.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 4 TRANSPORTATION 4 - 13
The only measurable impact on commute corridors would be the 4,400 additional average
daily trips in the Peninsula Corridor generated by San Mateo County.
4.3.4 -- HOME-BASED SCHOOL TRIPS
Tables 4.o and 4.p present data on the growth and distribution of secondary school trips
and college trips, respectively, by Bay Area county.
Average Daily Home-Based Secondary School Trips in San Francisco
1990, 2000 & 2010 – (000)
T – 4.o Percent Percent Percent
Distribution Change Change
1990 2000 2010 2000 1990-00 2000-10
TOTAL 99.8 132.5 142.8 100% 32.8% 7.8%
From San Francisco 97.1 128.2 139.9 97% 32.0% 9.1%
From Bay Area Counties 2.5 4.1 2.7 3% 63.8% -33.7%
San Mateo 2.3 3.8 2.6 3% 62.1% -31.5%
Other Counties 0.1 0.3 0.1 0% 91.9% -63.3%
Average Daily Home-Based College Trips in San Francisco
1990, 2000 & 2010 – (000)
T – 4.p Percent Percent Percent
Distribution Change Change
1990 2000 2010 2000 1990-00 2000-10
TOTAL 77.2 71.2 91.6 100% -7.9% 28.8%
From San Francisco 57.6 38.4 58.3 54% -33.3% 51.9%
From Bay Area Counties 19.7 32.8 33.3 46% 66.6% 1.7%
Alameda 3.3 4.6 4.9 6% 37.9% 6.1%
Contra Costa 1.5 4.5 4.1 6% 203.4% -8.1%
Marin 1.7 2.9 4.0 4% 65.4% 38.6%
San Mateo 10.8 12.1 13.5 17% 12.9% 11.5%
Solano 1.0 3.6 3.2 5% 269.8% -11.1%
Sonoma 0.6 3.6 2.5 5% 457.1% -30.7%
Napa & Santa Clara 0.8 1.5 1.1 2% 94.1% -26.2%
As would be expected, virtually all home-based secondary school trips in San Francisco
are generated in San Francisco (97%). The 3% of average daily secondary school trips to
San Francisco generated by Bay Area counties is generated almost entirely by San Mateo
County (3,800 trips) and that is projected to decrease by one-third by 2010.
Generation of the 71 thousand average daily home-based college trips in San Francisco is
more evenly divided between San Francisco (54%) and Bay Area metro counties (46%).
The largest concentration in the metro area is 12 thousand average daily trips generated
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 4 TRANSPORTATION 4 - 14
by San Mateo Country that represents 17% of all such trips in the City. Alameda, Contra
Costa, Solano and Sonoma each have 5% to 6.5% of total trip generation, Marin has 4%,
and Napa and Santa Clara combined represent 2%.
Average daily home-based college trips in San Francisco are projected to increase only
from Alameda (281 trips or 6.1% in the Bay Bridge Corridor), Marin (1,114 trips or
38.6% in the Golden Gate Corridor), and San Mateo (1,400 trips or 11.2% in the
Peninsula Corridor).
4.3.5 -- NON-HOME-BASED TRIPS
Table 4.q presents data on the growth and distribution of average daily non-home-based
trips in San Francisco. Non-home-based trips are travel for any purpose that originates
from a place other than the traveler’s residence. The 816 thousand trips in this large
category of travel represent 30% percent of all trips in San Francisco. Included here are
trips for business purposes (other than commercial truck trips) that originate at a place of
business, as well as the full range of personal trips that originate from a place other than
the traveler’s residence.
Average Daily Non-Home-Based Trips in San Francisco
1990, 2000 & 2010 – (000)
T – 4.q Percent Percent Percent
Distribution Change Change
1990 2000 2010 2000 1990-00 2000-10
TOTAL 783.2 816.2 876.7 100% 4.2% 7.4%
From San Francisco 648.0 667.9 716.5 82% 3.1% 7.3%
From Bay Area Counties 135.3 148.3 160.2 18% 9.6% 8.0%
Alameda 25.0 25.6 28.3 3% 2.5% 10.4%
Contra Costa 8.5 8.9 9.8 1% 4.8% 9.8%
Marin 13.8 14.7 15.6 1.8% 6.4% 5.9%
San Mateo 76.6 86.4 92.8 11% 12.8% 7.4%
Santa Clara 7.9 8.9 9.4 1% 12.5% 6.0%
Other Counties 3.4 3.7 4.2 0.4% 7.2% 14.1%
As would be expected, the majority of such trips (82%) originate in San Francisco (668
thousand trips). Of the 18% generated by the metro area (148 thousand trips), nearly half
(46%) are generated by San Mateo and represent 11% of all average daily non-home-
based trips in the city. Another 25 thousand trips (3%) are generated by Alameda, 9
thousand (1%) by Contra Costa, 15 thousand (1.8%) by Marin, 9 thousand (1%) by Santa
Clara, and the remaining 4 thousand daily trips (0.4%) by Napa, Solano and Sonoma
Counties.
The average daily number of non-home-based trips in San Francisco is projected to
increase 7.4% by 2010 (60 thousand trips). Forty-nine thousand daily trips (80%) will
originate in the city and 12 thousand (20%) in the metro area. The largest absolute
increase will occur in San Mateo (6.4 thousand trips), and the highest rate of growth
(2.5%) will occur in Alameda (2.7 thousand trips). Contra Costa and Marin will generate
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 4 TRANSPORTATION 4 - 15
an additional 900 daily trips each, Santa Clara, an addition 500 trips, and Napa, Solano
and Sonoma collectively, an additional 500 trips.
These projections would add 7 thousand daily trips in the Peninsula Corridor, 3.8
thousand in the Bay Bridge Corridor, and 1.2 thousand in the Golden Gate Corridor.
4.3.6 -- COMMERCIAL TRUCK TRIPS
Table 4.r presents data on the growth and distribution of commercial truck trips in San
Francisco.
Average Daily Commercial Truck Trips in San Francisco
1990, 2000 & 2010 – (000)
T – 4.r Percent Percent Percent
Distribution Change Change
1990 2000 2010 2000 1990-00 2000-10
TOTAL 41.1 41.7 45.1 100% 1.6% 8.0%
Small Size Trucks 31.5 31.9 34.5 77% 1.5% 8.0%
Medium Size Trucks 3.0 3.0 3.3 7% 0.7% 7.8%
Large Combination Trucks 6.6 6.8 7.3 16% 2.5% 8.3%
From San Francisco 29.8 29.8 31.9 71% -0.2% 7.1%
From Bay Area Counties 11.3 12.0 13.2 29% 6.3% 10.2%
Alameda 2.8 2.8 3.1 7% 0.1% 9.1%
Contra Costa 0.8 0.9 1.0 2% 8.4% 8.9%
Marin 1.1 1.1 1.2 3% 2.1% 7.5%
San Mateo 2.9 3.3 3.5 8% 12.6% 7.8%
Santa Clara 2.0 2.2 2.4 5% 8.1% 8.4%
Solano 1.2 1.2 1.4 3% 3.1% 18.9%
Other Counties 0.51 0.57 0.72 1% 11.3% 26.0%
San Francisco originates 71% of the average daily commercial truck trips in the city (30
thousand trips), compared to 29% originated in the metro area (12 thousand trips). More
that three-fourths (77%) of commercial truck trips are made by small trucks, with large
trucks contributing 16% of the traffic (6.8 thousand trips). Even though a substantial part
of commercial truck traffic in the city represents US mail and package delivery services,
the high percentage of city-originated commercial truck trips suggests a sizable locally-
based distribution industry.
Three counties generate 69% of the 12 thousand average daily truck trips in San
Francisco that originate in the metro area. Alameda originates 2,800 trips (23%), San
Mateo 3,200 trips (28%), and Santa Clara originates 2,200 trip (18%). Other significant
truck trip generators are Contra Costs (955 daily trips) and Solano (1,200 daily trips).
Total commercial truck traffic in San Francisco is projected to increase 8.0% by 2010
(3,300 daily trips), with the city generating 7.1% growth (2,100 daily trips), and the
metro area generated 10.2% growth (1,200 daily trips). The faster growth in metro area
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 4 TRANSPORTATION 4 - 16
trip generation reflects the on-going shift of distribution and industrial support businesses
out of the dense urban core in San Francisco.
The projected growth will add 400 to 500 average daily truck trips to each of the three
transportation corridors leading into San Francisco.
4.3.7 -- TRIP FORECAST SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Table 4.t summarizes MTC’s San Francisco trip forecast for the year 2000. The
assignment of trips to transportation corridors (except San Francisco) is based on
location, rather than being derived from MTC’s model. Trips generated in Alameda,
Contra Costa and Solano Counties are assumed to enter the city through the Bay Bridge
Corridor. Trips from Marin, Napa and Sonoma, through the Golden Gate Corridor; and
trips from San Mateo and Santa Clara through the Peninsula Corridor.
2000
Average Daily San Francisco Trips by Purpose & Origin
(000)
T – 4.t Nine San Eight Bay Golden
Counties Francisco Counties Bridge Peninsula Gate
Home-Based
Work 843.5 441.6 401.9 196.5 132.5 72.9
School 203.7 166.6 37.1 12.9 16.9 7.3
Social & Recreation 276.5 188.7 87.8 25.3 50.4 12.2
Shopping & Other 548.3 449.7 98.6 24.4 61.0 13.2
Non-Home Based 816.2 667.9 148.3 36.1 95.3 16.8
Commercial Trucks 41.7 29.8 12.0 4.9 5.4 1.7
TOTAL 2,730.0 1,944.3 785.7 300.1 361.6 124.0
The trip forecasts show the larger, more complex travel market not shown in the
commuter forecast. If the three transportation corridors into San Francisco are measured
by number of commuters and number of trips, the results are very different.
Share of Commuters and All Trips Carried
by Transportation Corridor
T – 4.u Commuters All Trips
Bay Bridge 53% 38%
Peninsula 33% 46%
Golden Gate 14% 16%
All Corridors 100% 100%
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 4 TRANSPORTATION 4 - 17
Home-based work trips represent the largest share of all trips in the Bay Bridge Corridor
(65%), and the smallest share in the Peninsula Corridor (37%). The trip forecasts
underscore the high degree of integration between San Francisco and San Mateo Counties
– and it’s not just the airport, although the airport is a very important part of the
integration of the economies of the two counties. The share of San Francisco trips for
shopping, recreation, social gatherings, and other unclassified purposes from the
Peninsula Corridor are significantly higher than the shares in either of the other two
transportation corridors. Non-home-based trips, which include trips originating at the
airport, are 26% of all San Francisco trips from the Peninsula Corridor – twice the share
of non-home-based trips to San Francisco from either of the other two corridors.
10-Year Increment from 2000 to 2010
Average Daily San Francisco Trips by Purpose & Origin
(000)
T – 4.s Nine San Eight Bay Golden
Counties Francisco Counties Bridge Peninsula Gate
Home-Based
Work 93.7 47.0 46.7 18.3 17.8 10.5
School 30.8 31.6 -0.8 -0.5 -0.3 0.0
Social & Recreation 25.4 18.6 6.8 -0.2 1.2 5.8
Shopping & Other 31.7 28.3 3.4 -1.0 4.2 0.2
Non-Home Based 60.5 48.6 11.9 3.8 7.0 1.2
Commercial Trucks 3.3 2.1 1.2 0.6 0.4 0.2
TOTAL 245.3 176.2 69.2 20.9 30.3 18.0
The analysis of commuters and home-based work trip data give a similar, but not
identical picture even of employment-related local travel. San Francisco provides a little
over half (52%) of commuters to work in the city and generates a slightly larger
percentage (54%) of home-based work trips in San Francisco. The Bay Bridge
transportation corridor carries 52% of metro area commuters who work in San Francisco
and a slightly lower 49% share of metro area home-based work trips to the city. The
difference between the two percentages shows up in the Golden Gate Corridor which has
14% of the metro area commuters to San Francisco, but represents 18% of metro area
work trips to the city. The small difference between the share of commuters and the share
of work trips in the Bay Bridge Corridor, becomes a considerably larger percent
difference in the Golden Gate corridor. This difference is related to the work force
characteristics that distinguish the two commuter markets. The Peninsula Corridor’s
share of both metro area commuters to San Francisco and San Francisco work trips
generated in the metro area is 33%.
By the end of the current decade, the numbers of trips in San Francisco from all sources
for all purposes is forecast to increase 9% or by 245 thousand average daily trips. The
rate of growth in the number of trips generated in both the city and the metro area also
will be very close to 9%, with San Francisco generating 176 thousand new trips and the
metro area , 69 thousand.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 4 TRANSPORTATION 4 - 18
In the metro area, the Peninsula will generate the most new San Francisco trips (30
thousand) and represent 44% of the overall increase in San Francisco trips generated in
the metro area. The Bay Bridge Corridor will generate 21 thousand new San Francisco
trips and represent 30% of the metro area increment. The Golden Gate will have the most
rapid growth in San Francisco trips (14.5%) and generate 18 thousand new daily trips.
4.4 – TRANSPORTATION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The transportation section of this report analyses traffic to and within San Francisco over
the next 10 years. It suggests three broad areas the City needs to address to assure
transportation needs are met.
• Congestion within the city
• Access to the metro area labor force through the regional transportation
system required to support projected economic growth in San Francisco
• Flight delays at San Francisco International Airport
SPUR recognizes San Francisco’s competitive advantage arises from infrastructure that
permits the city to concentrate employment in the urban core, and that future economic
growth depends on bringing additional workers into the urban core. Congestion from too
many automobiles is the principal threat to the city’s ability to access the labor force its
economy requires. The goal of transportation planning, therefore, must be to make the
urban core more accessible by transit, and less attractive to private automobiles.
Automobiles can continue to be a major source of transportation for short-term, transient
uses such as business meetings, shopping and entertainment, but the work force – San
Francisco residents and metro area commuters – must make much greater use of transit to
assure the city’s continued economic success. Massive investments in transit
infrastructure were required to create the city’s present economy, and similar investments
are vital to preserve the economy.
4.4.1 – CITY TRANSPORTATION
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) estimates that approximately 2.7
million trips for all purposes will occur in San Francisco each business day this year, and
that 71% of these trips will originate in the city. This number is projected to increase 9%
over the next 10 years, with 72% of the increase originating in San Francisco. Studies by
the San Francisco County Transportation Authority indicate the number of automobiles
in the city on a typical business day currently exceeds practical capacity for traffic
circulation. Moreover, San Francisco’s capacity to accommodate additional automobiles
in the most congested part of the city cannot be increased without demolishing buildings,
narrowing sidewalks, and/or double decking the streets – options unlikely to appeal to
very many San Franciscans.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 4 TRANSPORTATION 4 - 19
As the most densely developed part of the region, San Francisco has both a greater
opportunity and a greater need to make it easier for more people to complete trips in the
city by transit, taxi, bicycle, or on foot. Keys to making the city more accessible to the
largest number of people is aggressively to encourage use of the full range of
transportation modes, accommodate a more limited number of automobiles and their
parking requirements, and increase the amount and quality of transit service. This is not
just about making San Francisco a more livable city. It is what is required to enable the
city’s economy to continue to thrive and grow.
SPUR has developed an extensive set of recommendations to address current congestion
and make the city more accessible to residents and the large number of visitors who are a
mainstay of San Francisco’s economy.
• Core Muni Lines: Improving transit service in San Francisco doesn’t necessarily
mean new routes on more streets. Muni already provides a bus stop within three
blocks of almost every home and business in city, which is excellent coverage by any
standard. Rather the focus should be on improving Muni’s core service – the
workhorse lines used by the greatest number of patrons. The challenge is to make
these Muni lines the preferred alternative for people who can choose their mode of
transportation. Meaningful improvements would include shorter travel times, greater
frequency and reliability, easier transfers, greater comfort, and better customer
service.
• Muni Metro Expansion: The city has adopted a “Four Corridor Rail Plan,” but to
date only the Third Street Light Rail Corridor is funded. The other three elements, all
as yet unfunded, are the “Central Subway” to extend the Third Street line under-
ground through Chinatown to Northbeach; the Geary line, with by far the greatest
potential number of riders; and the Van Ness line. Each of these projects promises
major improvements in comfort and travel times, and the efficiency of an expanded
network of electric light rail in the city.
• Express Service: Muni should significantly expand its Express and Limited Stop
services to shorten travel times, and attract more riders from neighborhoods farther
from downtown.
• SOMA Service: Transit service has yet to catch up with rapid business and
residential development South of Market. Consequently the level of congestion South
of Market is approaching the level of congestion in the downtown high-rise office
core. Muni has requested funding in the 2001 Budget for expanding South of Market
service and implementing better service should be put on a fast track.
• Parking Priorities: The concentration of employment in downtown San Francisco is
based on a transit-intensive model. Yes, there are streets, but it never was intended
that very much of the work force would come to the Financial District by private
automobile. That is why, in addition to the massive private investment in high rise
buildings, there was a massive public investment in BART and Muni Metro to move
workers under Market Street to the high rise office core. Parking in downtown San
Francisco primarily is for short term use – business meetings, shopping,
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 4 TRANSPORTATION 4 - 20
entertainment – it never was intended to accommodate more than the relatively small
portion of the work force that requires use of a personal automobile to do the work.
This is the parking model to which the city must return to make downtown San
Francisco accessible to everyone who needs to be there in the course of the business
day.
• New Parking: New commercial parking should be located in neighborhood
commercial districts to relieve the parking deficit that existed from the beginning of
these developments, and south of US 101/Bay Bridge to avoid bring more
automobiles into the office core. Existing downtown parking should be oriented to
short term use.
• Parking Price: The market is the most powerful tool for accomplishing many
objectives, and it has an important role in restoring accessibility downtown. Parking
rates should favor transient parking and penalize all day parking. city-owned garages
and many private operators already use this pricing model.
• Pedestrian: Walking is the only way most people who work downtown and in many
other parts of the city would consider taking lunch or shopping trips during the day.
Indeed, walking for purpose and pleasure is a leading pastime in the city. Yet,
walking is a challenge for many pedestrians in many parts of San Francisco. The city
should develop a pedestrian-enhancement plan for the city to promote this frequent
choice for mobility.
• Harmonize Modes of Transportation: Many modes of transportation share San
Francisco streets. The city should promote street designs that harmonize automobiles
with other modes of travel. Every street in San Francisco needs to accommodate
automobile traffic, but every street also is a pedestrian street. Boulevards that
separate fast-moving traffic from slower traffic, and the traffic calming techniques
that modulate traffic flows, are excellent solutions for San Francisco.
• Delivery Vehicles: Through routing, signs, control over curb space, and control over
the timing of deliveries, the city has the tools to ensure deliveries are facilitated in
ways that mesh well with the rest of the activities on San Francisco streets. However,
this is unlikely to happen without a plan. The city, in collaboration with San
Francisco businesses, should create a plan for delivery vehicles.
• Transit Revenue from Parking: The Department of Parking and Traffic has the
authority to create revenue for Muni through parking enforcement and parking
charges. DPT should use this authority to assist Muni and improve accessibility.
4.4.2 – REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 4 TRANSPORTATION 4 - 21
More intensive use of public transportation is needed throughout the Bay Area as well as
within San Francisco to improve access and reduce congestion. MTC estimates 29% of
all trips in San Francisco and 48% of the trips from home to work, will originate outside
the city this year,. San Francisco is unique among Bay Area counties in the high
percentage of its labor force that lives outside the city, and consequently, has a vital
interest in efficient regional transportation. SPUR recommends the city should support
the following regional transportation initiatives.
Congestion Pricing: The market is a powerful tool for managing congestion. SPUR
supports the use of congestion pricing of bridge tolls, parking and transit fares.
Park and Ride: Bay Area patterns of urbanization outside San Francisco frequently
require the use of an automobile to access transit, which generates the need for parking at
transit stations. San Francisco’s commitment to transit for its metro area work force needs
to begin with removing the practical obstacles to transit use that motivate people to drive
to San Francisco. Inadequate parking at regional transit stations is one of the most
important of these obstacles.
Regional Ferry System: This July a new State-chartered commission will begin
exploring the feasibility of creating a regional ferry network to augment the regional
transportation system. It is too early to tell whether ferries can be a major addition to
regional transit service, but SPUR supports a thorough investigation of this promising
idea.
Non-Muni Buses in the City: A major objective of transportation planning for San
Francisco is to promote transit use in the city and to this end SPUR recommends Golden
Gate Transit and Samtrans be allowed to pick up, discharge, and carry passengers at all
stops in San Francisco.
4.4.2.1 -- PENINSULA CORRIDOR
Although the Bay Bridge Corridor carries 57% more commuters than the Peninsula
Corridor, the Peninsula Corridor generates more trips to San Francisco because of the
influence of the Airport, close integration of northern San Mateo County with San
Francisco, traffic crossing the city en route to the Bay Bridge and Golden Gate Bridge,
and connections between the high tech companies in Silicon Valley and a variety of San
Francisco businesses. The Peninsula also is the part of the inner ring of development
around the Bay with the least well developed public transit service, which encourages
excessive reliance on automobiles. The airport alone is enough to make the Peninsula a
crucial gateway to San Francisco.
• BART: Growing congestion in the Peninsula Corridor, especially between the
Airport and San Francisco, is a major concern for the many San Francisco industries
that depend on the airport, most notably the Visitor Industry. Completion of the
BART extension to SFO, which will provide the first rapid transit link between the
airport, downtown San Francisco and Eastbay cities served by BART, is the most
important near term transit project in the Peninsula Corridor.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 4 TRANSPORTATION 4 - 22
• Caltrain Rapid Rails: The proposed Caltrain Rapid Rails Project involves
electrification of the entire 72-mile line from San Francisco to Gilroy with a BART-
Caltrain interface in Milbrae. While the Peninsula Corridor between San Francisco
and San Jose is one of the fastest growing travel markets in the Bay Area, it is the
least well served by Transit. The Rapid Rails Project will significantly upgrade transit
service in this most heavily used gateway to San Francisco, and should be the second
highest transit priority in the Peninsula Corridor after completion of BART to SFO-
Milbrae.
• Caltrain Downtown Extension: The gap between the Caltrain station at Fourth and
Townsend and the BART-Muni nexus under Market Street has long been recognized
as a significant barrier to increasing the use of Caltrain by travelers in the Peninsula
Corridor. SPUR supports the extension of Caltrain to close this gap.
• Caltrain Park and Ride Facilities: Most of the present market for Caltrain
commuters is not concentrated near Peninsula and Southbay Caltrain stations
necessitating use of private automobiles to access Caltrain service. Lack of parking at
or within easy walking distance of Caltrain stations is a major issue for prospective
Caltrain riders. SPUR believes this issue should be addressed with pay-for-use
surface lots and parking garages at or near Caltrain stations. It is in San Francisco’s
interest to participate in these largely self-amortizing projects to expedite their
construction.
• Third Street Light Rail Extension: The current project to extend Muni Metro along
Third Street will terminate service within San Francisco. This does not recognize the
high degree of economic integration between the city and northern San Mateo
County. SPUR recommends the city engage San Mateo County in a discussion of the
possibility of extending the Third Street Muni Metro line into northern San Mateo
County.
4.4.2.2 -- Bay Bridge Corridor
The Bay Bridge Corridor (Bridge, BART, AC Transit and Ferries) carries the largest
number of commuters to San Francisco (138 thousand) and is projected to have the
largest increase in commuters in the next decade (5,600). This corridor is the second
largest generator of trips to San Francisco (300 thousand daily), and also will have the
second largest increase in trips over the next 10 years (21 thousand daily).
• BART Extensions: The fixed lane capacity of the Bay Bridge makes transit
improvements, especially BART, vital to enable the corridor to carry projected
increases in commuter and other trips. These projects include planned East and South
Bay extensions of BART, and increased bus feeder service to BART lines.
• Highway Projects: Highway projects planned or underway will not increase the
number of lanes in the corridor, but should improve the flow of traffic. These
projects include rebuilding or retrofitting the east span of the Bay Bridge, completing
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 4 TRANSPORTATION 4 - 23
the rebuild and seismic retrofit of the I-80, I-580, I-880 and I-980 interchange
commonly known as the Bay Bridge Maze, and rebuilding the western approach to
the bridge in San Francisco (terminal separation structure). Rebuilding the western
approach presents major challenges in the areas of replacement parking and traffic
management. Careful planning and extraordinary measures will be needed during the
period of construction to avoid major disruptions of both surface transit lines and auto
traffic.
• Ferries: Ferries once were the only transit in the Bay Bridge Corridor, but they were
discontinued once the Bridge and transbay BART tube were constructed. As travel
demand grows in the Bay Bridge Corridor, ferries may offer an attractive means of
bring more people without automobiles in to the city, and extending the life of current
transportation infrastructure in the Corridor. SPUR supports the initiative proposed by
the Bay Area Council to determine the feasibility of substantially expanding ferry
service on the Bay.
• Other Major Initiatives: As other major projects to add capacity to transportation in
the Bay Bridge Corridor are proposed, SPUR believes a fundamental criteria for
evaluating these projects should be their ability efficiently to move large numbers of
people in the Corridor without increasing the number of automobiles in San
Francisco.
4.4.2.3 -- GOLDEN GATE CORRIDOR
The Golden Gate Corridor (Bridge, buses and ferries) is in much better shape than either
the Peninsula or Bay Bridge Corridors. The number of commuters using the corridor
actually declined during the last decade (from 42 thousand to 37 thousand a day) and
growth in the number of commuters in the next decade is not projected to raise the total
to the 1990 level. Trip generation is another matter. Although the Golden Gate generates
the smallest total number of daily trips among the three corridors (124 thousand), its
growth in trip generation over the next 10 years will nearly match that of the Peninsula
Corridor (18 thousand daily trips). It is the only one of the three corridors with significant
projected growth in non-work-related trips (6 thousand daily).
• Doyle Drive: The proposed rebuilding of Doyle Drive and associated feeder streets
will substantially improve safety and traffic flows to and from the southern approach
to the Bridge. It also will dramatically reduce the visual impact of the roadway on the
Presidio National Park. This project should receive the highest priority among
proposals to improve transportation in the Golden Gate Corridor.
• Fastrak E-Toll: The much delayed Fastrak E-Toll system, implemented in July
2000, permits electronic toll collection on the Golden Gate Bridge, and is expected to
significantly improve the southbound flow of traffic in the morning commute for
Golden Gate Transit Buses as well as automobiles. SPUR supports this initiative as
well as companion systems being readied for other Bay Area bridges.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 4 TRANSPORTATION 4 - 24
• U.S. 101 HOV Lane: Caltrans abandoned the segment of the high occupancy vehicle
(HOV) lane on US 101 from the Richardson Bay Bridge south across the Golden
Gate Bridge because it believed the lane in this portion of the Golden Gate Corridor
was not justified by high occupancy vehicle use. SPUR believes Caltrans should
revisit this decision in light of growing traffic in the Corridor and the need to
encourage more commuters to use transit.
• Ferries: Ferry service from Larkspur and Sausalito in Marin County to San Francisco
has operated since 1970, however ferries never have attracted enough patrons to be
economically viable without substantial subsidies from Golden Gate Bridge tolls. The
Golden Gate Bridge District’s on-going program of replacing current ferries with
high speed catamarans has the potential to draw more traffic off the Bridge to this
mode of transportation, and SPUR supports this program.
Private Blue and Gold Fleet ferries from Tiburon to San Francisco operate without
subsidy at peak commute hours with four roundtrips in the morning and evening. This
popular service would attract even more riders if Blue and Gold were to add at least
one mid-day roundtrip to serve non-commute travelers.
• Rail Transportation: The Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District
owns the right-of-way of the former Northwest Pacific Railroad from Larkspur to
Sonoma. Marin and Sonoma Counties, and the Bridge District have long term plans
to implement passenger service on this abandoned rail line to relieve congestion in
the U.S. 101 Corridor north of San Rafael, and to provide a feeder service from
Northbay counties to Bridge District ferries and buses at the Larkspur Ferry Terminal
for the final leg of the journey to San Francisco. SPUR supports this plan to bring
commuters to San Francisco from fast growing Northbay counties without their
automobiles.
4.4.3 -- SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is one of the most valuable assets of the city
and region. The airport carries 65% of all airline passengers entering and leaving the Bay
Area, 93 % of international passenger, and more than half the value goods exported from
the region.
Currently SFO experiences more and longer delays than any other major international
airport in the nation, a situation directly related to weather and the configuration of SFO’s
runways. Delays and congestion are not expected to diminish until new runways are built,
a project that involves Bay fill. SFO has responded to the concerns of environmentalists
by committing to mitigate the environmental effects of the Bay fill. Other critics of the
project include residents of adjacent communities who fear increased aircraft noise and
increased highway congestion in and around the airport.
Because SFO is such a vital asset to the City and region, San Francisco’s Mayor has
pledged the authority of his office and his considerable political acumen to secure
approval. Most business and government leaders throughout the region are solidly behind
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 4 TRANSPORTATION 4 - 25
the expeditious approval and completion of SFO’s runway reconfiguration project.
SPUR believes it is critically important to solve the delay problem at SFO expeditiously
and to mitigate any adverse effects on the Bay, aircraft noise, and surface transportation.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 5 HOUSING 5-1
5.1 – SUPPLY PROBLEM
The global competitive advantage of San Francisco and the Bay Area arises from the
productivity of industries that form the economic base of the city and region. Productivity
in these knowledge-based industries depends primarily on their ability to attract skilled
workers and entrepreneurs. Until the last few years, the best and the brightest were
readily drawn to the region by abundant business and employment opportunities, wealth-
creating infrastructure, and legendary quality of life. However, the high cost of living in
San Francisco and the Bay Area, driven mainly by the high cost of housing, has made it
increasingly difficult to attract and hold the labor force our economy requires.
What is happening is easily understood. Bay Area housing demand is rising much faster
than housing supply. The reasons local jurisdictions have not permitted the market to
close the gap between the supply and demand for housing are complex.
• Increasing reliance on the sales tax to finance local government in the wake
of Proposition 13 has motivated many local governments to emphasize
commercial rather than residential development.
• Scarce land in the inner ring of development around the Bay commands ever
higher prices, requiring an increase in density for residential development to
be profitable. Current residents typically resist increases in density,
especially in their own neighborhoods.
• Lagging transit development has forced excessive use of private automobiles,
contributing to congestion and encouraging more resistance to new housing
construction.
• Rent controls, and other local housing market regulations adopted to protect
low income groups, have further restricted the market’s ability to close the
gap between housing supply and demand.
The Bay Area’s housing problem is most acute in San Francisco. The city has unique
characteristics that distinguish it, and its housing problem, from other Bay Area
communities. This section of this report explores the origins of San Francisco’s critical
housing shortage and public policies that could improve the city’s housing market.
5.2 – BAY AREA HOUSING
The Bay Area’s population has increased 50% in the last 30 years, with 12% to 16%
growth in each decade since 1970. In the same 30-year period, the region’s housing stock
rose 57%, with nearly half the increase (47%) occurring in the 1970s when San Francisco
lost a little over 5% of its population to the metropolitan area. Net additions to the
region’s housing stock have been smaller in each decade since the 70s, despite the steady
increase in population (Table 5.a).
July 10, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 5 HOUSING 5-2
1970 – 2000
Bay Area Population & Housing Stock
(000) & Percent Change
T – 5.a 1970 1980 1990 2000
Population 4,628 5,180 6,020 6,931
Total Housing Units 1,625 2,061 2,365 2,557
1970-80 1980-90 1990-00 1970-00
Population 11.9% 16.2% 15.1% 49.7%
Total Housing Units 26.8% 14.7% 8.1% 57.4%
Within the region since 1970, net additions to the housing stock have declined in every
Bay Area county except San Francisco, which, however, had the lowest rate of net
housing production throughout the 30-year period. San Francisco’s 9.6% housing stock
increase over 30 years, is one quarter of the next lowest rate (San Mateo County, 38%).
Even Marin County, with the Bay Area’s most restrictive zoning and fewer than a quarter
million people, managed to add 13% more housing units that San Francisco (Tables 5.b
& 5.c).
The largest increments in housing stock occurred in Santa Clara County (253 thousand
units), followed by Alameda and Contra Costa Counties (157 thousand and 176 thousand,
respectively). The highest rates of growth were in North Bay counties -- Solano,
Sonoma, and Napa (154%, 135% & 83%, respectively) -- and Contra Costa (98%).
Alameda and San Mateo each added about 40% more housing between 1970 and 2000.
1970 - 2000
Change in Bay Area Housing Stock by County
(000)
T – 5.b 1970-80 1980-90 1990-00 1970-00
Bay Area with SF 436 304 192 932
Bay Area w/o SF 430 292 181 902
Alameda 65 60 32 157
Contra Costa 74 64 38 176
Marin 21 7 6 34
Napa 13 4 5 22
San Francisco 6 12 12 30
San Mateo 43 19 12 73
Santa Clara 137 66 49 253
Solano 31 35 17 83
Sonoma 46 37 23 106
Source: 1970, 1980, 1990 Census; 2000 Calif. Dept. of Finance
1970 - 2000
July 11, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 5 HOUSING 5-3
Change in Bay Area Housing Stock by County
(Percent)
T – 5.c 1970-80 1980-90 1990-00 1970-00
Bay Area with SF 26.8% 14.7% 8.1% 57.4%
Bay Area w/o SF 32.7% 16.7% 8.9% 68.6%
Alameda 17.1% 13.4% 6.4% 41.3%
Contra Costa 41.2% 25.5% 12.0% 98.4%
Marin 30.1% 7.7% 5.5% 47.7%
Napa 49.2% 10.4% 10.9% 82.6%
San Francisco 2.0% 3.7% 3.6% 9.6%
San Mateo 22.4% 8.0% 4.6% 38.3%
Santa Clara 40.8% 14.0% 9.0% 75.1%
Solano 57.2% 41.4% 14.4% 154.2%
Sonoma 59.1% 29.7% 14.0% 135.2%
Source: 1970, 1980, 1990 Census; 2000 Calif. Dept. of Finance
The housing characteristics of San Francisco are the mirror image of the housing
characteristics in the rest of the Bay Area. Single family units are 31% of San Francisco’s
housing stock, and multi-family units are 69%. In the rest of the Bay Area, single family
units1 are 69% of the housing stock, and multi-family units are 31%. Roughly one third
of San Francisco householders own their homes, compared with two-thirds of metro area
householders who are owners. The number of vacant units in San Francisco2 is nearly
60% higher than the number of vacant units in the rest of the Bay Area.
2000
Bay Area Housing Characteristics 2
T – 5.d Total Single 2-4 5+ Mobile Occupied Percent
(000) Units Units Units Units Homes Units Vacant
Bay Area with SF 2,557 1,579 261 656 61 2,428 5.06%
Bay Area w/o SF 2,217 1,473 181 502 61 2,113 4.69%
Alameda 536 319 60 150 7 510 5.01%
Contra Costa 354 259 24 63 8 340 5.09%
Marin 105 73 9 22 2 99 5.95%
Napa 49 36 4 6 4 46 6.49%
San Francisco 340 106 80 154 0.1 315 7.47%
San Mateo 263 171 19 70 4 253 3.93%
Santa Clara 589 376 44 148 21 566 3.87%
Solano 136 102 10 20 5 129 5.23%
Sonoma 184 137 11 23 12 170 7.31%
Source: California Department of Finance
1
Single family units include mobile homes.
2
“Frictional vacancy” (units awaiting new tenants or owners) affects the number of vacant units in all Bay
Area counties. However, not all units currently vacant are offered for lease or sale. The percent of vacant
units cited here should not be confused with the much lower rental vacancy rate that includes only units for
which tenants are being sought.
July 11, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 5 HOUSING 5-4
2000
Bay Area Housing Characteristics
Percent Distribution by Type of Unit 2
T – 5.e Total Single 2-4 5+ Mobil Occupied Percent
Units Units Units Units Homes Units Vacant
Bay Area with SF 100% 62% 10.2% 26% 2.4% 95% 5.06%
Bay Area w/o SF 100% 66% 8.2% 23% 2.8% 95% 4.69%
Alameda 100% 60% 11.3% 28% 1.3% 95% 5.01%
Contra Costa 100% 73% 6.7% 18% 2.1% 96% 5.09%
Marin 100% 69% 8.2% 21% 1.6% 94% 5.95%
Napa 100% 73% 7.3% 12% 8.1% 94% 6.49%
San Francisco 100% 31% 23.6% 45% 0.0% 93% 7.47%
San Mateo 100% 65% 7.1% 27% 1.4% 96% 3.93%
Santa Clara 100% 64% 7.5% 25% 3.5% 96% 3.87%
Solano 100% 75% 7.5% 15% 3.4% 95% 5.23%
Sonoma 100% 75% 6.2% 13% 6.6% 93% 7.31%
Source: California Department of Finance
5.3 – SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING
San Francisco shares the basic challenge of housing demand rising faster than housing
supply experienced by its Bay Area neighbors, but the city is unique in many respects
that affect its housing market.
• Old City: San Francisco is a much older city than other Bay Area urban
centers. Much of its housing stock is relatively old, and its 200-year history
of human activity means the capacity to create new housing depends on reuse
of land previously developed.
• Density: Scarce land and dense development place many housing
opportunities in medium and high rise mixed use projects, rather than in
homogeneous residential neighborhoods.
• Commuters: With nearly half the labor force for city-based jobs living
outside the city, policies to stabilize local housing prices need to address the
margin of job-related housing demand that must be accommodated, rather
than the housing needs of the entire labor force.
• Reverse Commuters: The city’s strategic location at the hub of the regional
transportation system makes the city a good residential location for its nearly
one in five employed residents who work outside San Francisco in the metro
area.
• Heterogeneity: A heterogeneous population with many income levels,
family sizes and life style choices, provides the market for the heterogeneous
mix of housing that characterizes San Francisco. This is not a city where one
size fits all in either existing housing or new housing construction. The needs
of much of San Francisco’s labor force are for much denser housing
July 11, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 5 HOUSING 5-5
development than exists in many city neighborhoods or than is occurring in
other Bay Area communities.
• Housing Market Regulation: San Francisco has adopted more
comprehensive housing market regulations than other Bay Area
communities. These regulations include administrative rent controls,
restrictions on the conversion of rental units to owned units, and
requirements for the project to subsidize buyers of affordable units through
inclusionary zoning. These local regulations are on top of the State’s
standard building code requirements and California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) requirements.
Almost everyone understands that upward spiraling housing costs are the direct result of
housing demand rising much faster than housing supply. Yet, San Francisco’s public
policies do not allow sufficient housing production to stabilize housing prices. Many
assume the market can do nothing to contain housing prices, but the data suggest
otherwise. Periods or relatively stable rents have coincided with recession-reduced
demand, and reflected periods when major housing projects have come to market.
1987 – 1999
Average Annual Change in San Francisco Apartment Rents
T – 5.f 1 Bed 2 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed Average Inflation
Studio 1 Bath 1 Bath 2 Bath 2 Bath Rent Rate
1987-90 5.5% 4.9% 5.2% 5.0% 6.0% 5.8% 4.3%
1991-94 1.2% 1.0% 0.9% 1.6% 1.7% 1.4% 3.0%
1995-99 11.9% 12.6% 11.6% 9.9% 11.3% 11.8% 2.6%
Source: Realfacts, RealData, Sedway Group
Table 5.f compares San Francisco rents to the rate of inflation in three periods since 1987.
In the late 1980s, rents rose at a 5.8% rate when the average annual inflation rate was
4.3%. During the recession in the first half of the 1990s, rents rose at an annual rate of
only 1.4%, less than half the 3.0% annual inflation rate. In the booming late 1990s, the
average annual increases in rents (11.8%) became a multiple of the rate of inflation
(2.6%). Clearly, the city’s housing market does respond to changing supply and demand.
5.3.1 – SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
San Francisco’s population increased 10.7% in the last decade to about 800 thousand.
Household population increased somewhat faster, 11.7%, with nearly two-thirds of the
increase coming in the better economic times in the last half of the decade. The average
size of city households increased 8%, from 2.3 to 2.5 persons per household. These and
other housing characteristics are summarized in Tables 5.g & 5.h
Of the estimated 340 thousand housing units in the city in the year 2000, 106 thousand or
31% are single family attached or stand alone units. The other 234 thousand are multi-
family units of which two thirds (154 thousand) are in buildings with five or more units.
It is estimated that 25,400 units (7.5% of the total housing inventory) are vacant. The
July 11, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 5 HOUSING 5-6
city produced a little less than 10,000 net additions to the housing stock in the last 10
years for a slim 3.6% increase. The number of occupied units, however, rose only 3.0%
in the last 10 years.
1990 – 2000
San Francisco Population & Household Population
T – 5.g Total Household Group Persons Per
Population Population Quarters Household
Population (000)
1990 724 699 25 2.29
1995 752 729 23 2.35
2000 801 779 22 2.48
Percent Distribution
1990 100% 97.0% 3.0%
2000 100% 96.4% 2.6%
Percent Change
1990-00 10.7% 11.4% -9.6% 8.1%
Source: California Department of Finance
1990 – 2000
San Francisco Housing Characteristics
T – 5.h Total Single Single 2-4 5+ Mobil Occupied Percent
Units Detached Attached Units Units Homes Units Vacant
Housing Units (000)
1990 328.5 55.5 49.7 78.9 144.3 0.1 305.6 6.97
1995 333.6 55.4 49.8 79.4 148.9 0.1 309.6 7.20
2000 340.3 56.2 49.8 80.2 154.0 0.1 314.9 7.47
Percent Distribution
1990 100% 17% 15% 24% 44% 0% 93.0%
2000 100% 17% 15% 24% 45% 0% 93.5%
Percent Change
1990-00 3.6% 1.3% 0.2% 1.7% 6.7% 0.0% 3.0% 7.2%
Source: California Department of Finance
San Francisco is an old city and much of its housing stock is relatively old. More than
half the city’s housing was constructed prior to 1940, and about 16,000 of the 48,000
Victorian homes built between 1850 and 1900 still are occupied. Some older housing is
well maintained, and some is in need of upgrades or replacement, investments often
discouraged by rent control laws, housing demolition laws, and laws designed to protect
the integrity of historic buildings. If an owner can not make a reasonable return on an
investment, including the cost of securing entitlement to make the investment, the
investment is unlikely to be made.
5.3.2 – HOUSING PRICES
July 11, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 5 HOUSING 5-7
The price of housing is a challenge for middle income families in every major coastal city
in the United States, and that challenge has reached new heights in the Bay Area with the
nation’s highest average home prices. Within the region, San Francisco home prices have
averaged 120% of the Bay Area home prices over the last decade as shown in Table 5.i.
1989 – 1998
San Francisco & Bay Area
Price of a Three Bedroom Home
T – 5.i Annual San
Average Francisco Percent Change
Price (000) Percent for Period
SF BA of BA SF BA
1989 298 240 124 % na na
1990 299 239 126 % 0.6 % -0.8 %
1991 292 242 121 % -2.6 % 1.4 %
1992 286 240 119 % -1.8 % -0.7 %
1993 275 238 116 % -3.9 % -0.8 %
1994 275 238 116 % -0.3 % -0.2 %
1995 284 233 122 % 3.3 % -1.8 %
1996 288 242 119 % 1.6 % 3.7 %
1997 311 266 117 % 8.0 % 10.1 %
1998 361 292 124 % 16.1 % 9.6 %
1989-98 297 247 120 % 21.4 % 21.4 %
Source: SF City Planning Department 1998 Housing Inventory
The average price of a three-bedroom home in San Francisco declined in four successive
years during the recession (1991-94), and the 1990 average price of $299 thousand was
not reached again until 1997. However, beginning in 1997, the booming economy ran
headlong into the city’s 30-year history of restricting new housing construction and
forced housing prices up at an alarming rate. Over the decade from 1989 to 1998 the
average price of a three-bedroom home in San Francisco rose 21%, the same rate of
increase experienced in the Bay Area as a whole.
A similar trend occurred in the city’s rental housing market in the 1990s (Table 5.j), but
the overall percentage increase in rents greatly exceeded the overall increase in home
prices. Like home prices, rents stabilized and registered small declines in the recession
years, but climbed rapidly after the recession. Between 1991 and 1995 rents increased at
an annual average rate of only 1.5%, well below the average inflation rate of 4.3%.
Between 1996 and 1999, rents increased at an average annual rate of 12.6%, nearly four
times the 3.2% rate of inflation. In the decade from 1989 to 1998, average rents rose
76%, or more than three and a half times the increase in the average price of a three-
bedroom home in the city. Studios and one-bedroom units exhibited the largest
percentage increase in rents over the 10-year period.
1986 – 1999
July 11, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 5 HOUSING 5-8
San Francisco Apartment Rents
T – 5.j 1 Bed 2 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed Average Average
Studio 1 Bath 1 Bath 2 Bath 2 Bath Rent Vacancy
Monthly Rent
1986 $608 $822 $911 $1,205 $1,280 $908 3.0%
1990 $753 $996 $1,115 $1,466 $1,615 $1,136 6.2%
1991 $764 $1,015 $1,140 $1,550 $1,650 $1,174 3.2%
1995 $839 $1,095 $1,195 $1,668 $1,720 $1,245 2.4%
1996 $1,038 $1,383 $1,512 $1,987 $2,010 $1,508 2.4%
1999 $1,374 $1,858 $1,970 $2,486 $2,917 $2,077 2.1%
Average Annual Av. Annual
Percent Change Inflation
1986-90 6.0% 5.3% 5.6% 5.4% 6.5% 6.3% 5.5%
1991-95 2.5% 2.0% 1.2% 1.9% 1.1% 1.5% 4.3%
1996-99 10.8% 11.4% 10.1% 8.4% 15.0% 12.6% 3.2%
1989-98 7.5% 7.5% 7.4% 6.2% 7.3% 7.6% 3.6%
1986-99 9.7% 9.7% 8.9% 8.2% 9.8% 9.9% 3.7%
Total
Percent Change
1986-90 23.8% 21.2% 22.4% 21.7% 26.2% 25.1%
1991-95 9.8% 7.9% 4.8% 7.6% 4.2% 6.0%
1996-99 32.4% 34.3% 30.3% 25.1% 45.1% 37.7%
1989-98 74.7% 74.5% 73.6% 61.6% 72.5% 76.0%
1986-99 126.0% 126.0% 116.2% 106.3% 127.9% 128.7%
Source: Realfacts, RealData, Sedway Group
5.3.3 – HOUSING MARKET REGULATION
San Francisco is a case study in the power of private markets to solve economic problems
and maintain economic prosperity. When the city lost its economic base of
manufacturing, distribution and maritime industries after World War II, the market
created a vibrant new services economy in the 1960s and 1970s. In a single generation,
the market replaced low-rise factories and warehouses with high rise office buildings, and
transformed the city’s labor force from factory workers to office workers. When global
competition restructured corporate America in the 80s and 90s, San Francisco lost half its
Fortune 500 headquarters and much of the back office processing for its services
economy. The market reformed the services economy around the city’s major strengths,
and ushered in a whole new era of prosperity with the digital media industry.
San Francisco’s experience gives every reason to trust the market to help the city solve its
most intractable problems, yet in the area of housing, the city largely has rejected market
solutions in favor of local government regulation. As the information presented in the
previous section of this report suggests, the results have not been good for either city
residents or their economy.
July 11, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 5 HOUSING 5-9
The dominant goal of San Francisco housing policy is to assure a supply of rental
housing for low income people. Regardless of the nature of the proposed housing project,
its real or imagined effects on low income rental housing is a major consideration for city
housing regulators. The city has not crafted a broad strategy to increase the overall size of
San Francisco’s housing stock -- specifically, a strategy that addresses the needs of the
entire range of workers supporting the city’s economy. In total, the city’s housing
regulations constitute a defacto policy of preserving the current proportion of renters and
owners, notwithstanding that more San Franciscans might be better and more cheaply
housed, if the proportions evolved toward the national and regional norm. Legislation
continues to be proposed to restrict the ownership opportunities of San Franciscans who
can afford to purchase a home in the city. Many middle income prospective home buyers
who want to take advantage of the lowest mortgage rates since the 1960s, must look
outside the city. San Francisco’s current housing policies leave little room for the market
to make housing affordable to more of the city’s households.
The city instigated housing market regulation at the end of a decade in which San
Francisco’s population declined by 5% and household size declined by 6.4%. The
Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance (adopted in 1979) substituted
administrative regulation for market determined rents. It was followed in the next ten
years by the Residential Hotel Unit Conversion and Demolition Ordinance, Apartment
Unit Conversion Ordinance, Time Share Conversion Ordinance, and Condominium
Conversion Ordinance adopted to limit the market’s ability to alter the composition of
the housing stock. More recently, the city has considered measures to block tenants from
pooling their resources to buy their buildings as “tenants in common” and become
owners of the units they currently rent. This proposal clearly reflects the city preference
for renters, since occupants of the units before and after conversion would be the same
people.
Measures to regulate San Francisco’s housing market have restrained rents for some
people, but they have had other consequences as well. Rents paid by people who occupy
the same unit for many years become as unreasonably low in the current market as the
rents of unregulated units are unreasonably high. The number of vacant units has risen to
25,400 – two and one-half times the addition to San Francisco’s housing stock ABAG
projects for the next 10 years. The proportion of vacant units rose 70% in the decade
following adoption of the first rent control ordinance suggesting that owners discovered
holding units off the market was the only way they could regain control of their property.
The large number of vacant units also suggests owners may not invest in maintenance
and upgrades, due to the cost of seeking a rent increase to amortize such investments
through the protracted and uncertain application process at the Rent Board.
San Francisco need not abandon its commitment to housing its most vulnerable residents
to expand housing supply and lower housing prices for other San Franciscans, because
housing is not the zero sum game current housing policy appears to assume. Just as
economic growth is the most powerful tool for reducing poverty and raising the incomes
of the whole population, significant growth in the housing stock is the most powerful tool
for assuring housing is more affordable for all San Franciscans.
July 11, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 5 HOUSING 5 - 10
5.3.4 – HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS
The primary housing recommendation of this report is that San Francisco substantially
increase the size of the city’s housing stock. The minimum target for net additions to the
housing stock over the next 10 years should be 20,000 to 25,000 units.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors currently is in the process of commissioning a
study of San Francisco’s housing market. The study is an opportunity for a
comprehensive analysis of the effects of public policy on the price and availability of all
San Francisco housing, instead of the usual focus on specific interests and projects.
Parties on all sides of the issue will lobby to influence study results, and it is too early to
tell whether this will be just another study, or the objective analysis that could help solve
the current housing crisis. This report urges the Board of Supervisors to use its study to
increase understanding of the housing market, the perverse effects of current public
policy on the market, and the changes in public policy needed to permit a substantial
increase in San Francisco’s housing production.
SPUR proposes the following detailed changes in public policy to stimulate greater
housing production.
5.3.4.1 – SITES AND DENSITY
Identifying sites and providing for greater density are two keys to greater housing
production. SPUR recommends the follow steps in these areas:
• Rezone underutilized land currently zoned for industrial and commercial uses to include
moderate to high density housing.
• Provide density bonuses city-wide for projects that provide affordable units.
• Increase heights and densities along neighborhood commercial corridors and major transit
routes.
• Revise height and bulk limits in certain residentially zoned districts to better synchronize
them with Building Code height restrictions and building envelopes that are feasible to
construct.
• Permit Planned Unit Development approvals for residential and mixed use developments on
lots smaller than _ acre and within the downtown area.
• Increase the housing density permitted on downtown lots without the need to acquire
transferable development rights (TDRs).
5.3.4.2 – RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS
July 11, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 5 HOUSING 5 - 11
San Francisco prides itself on being an intimate, accessible city, with public transit never
more than three blocks away from any location. People don’t need automobiles for many
trips, and many people don’t own automobiles. SPUR recommends residential parking
requirements be reduced for places well served by transit and resident-serving businesses,
and for housing serving populations with very low rates of automobile ownership.
5.3.4.3 – RESIDENTIAL ENTITLEMENT PROCESSES
Regulatory processes for housing construction in San Francisco add to the cost of most
dwelling units constructed in the city. Residents value the city’s efforts to assure that
homes are safe, well constructed, and not a blight on their surroundings, but they would
like these services to be delivered more efficiently. SPUR has the following suggestions
for the Department of City Planning:
• Produce neighborhood plans with program environmental impact reports that relieve
individual projects of the requirement for further environmental review so long as the project
conforms to the approved neighborhood plan. This proposal currently is being pursued in
three neighborhoods: Central Waterfront, Balboa Park, and Hayes Valley. SPUR urges the
City Planning Department to continue this program as an on-going part of its work in other
neighborhoods.
• Link inclusionary affordable housing requirements to density bonuses, either on site or
elsewhere, so that inclusionary zoning results in more housing.
• Remove the automatic conditional use requirement for projects over 40 feet in height in all
residential zoning districts
• Establish enforceable timelines for review of residential projects.
5.4 – CONCLUSION
Increased housing is essential to maintain San Francisco as a vital and diverse
community. The city’s economy is structured to draw its labor force from throughout the
Bay Area, and the city and region have created transportation infrastructure to permit this
type of economic organization. However, there is a growing margin of demand for city-
based housing that is not met due to the city’s tight restrictions on housing construction,
and that unmet demand is driving the current upward spiral in city housing costs.
Public policies have forced housing production well below the margin of regional
housing demand that wants to be met in the city, and well below the city’s’ capacity to
create new housing to meet current demand. Each of the constraints on housing
production in San Francisco was proposed for some meritorious purpose, but collectively
they have placed a stranglehold on housing production that negatively affects every
household in the city.
July 11, 2000 SPUR
SECTION 5 HOUSING 5 - 12
San Francisco has abundant opportunities to increase its housing stock and relieve the
current crisis. However, to make substantial progress the goal must be housing
production, not micromanaging the housing market to address social or economic ills in
the city. Significant growth in the housing stock is the most powerful tool for assuring
housing is more affordable for all San Franciscans.
Solving the housing crisis can improve the amenities and livability of San Francisco
neighborhoods, and would increase the material well-being of most San Franciscans.
Failure to resolve the housing problem threatens the viability of the city’s economy and
ultimately, therefore, the livability of neighborhoods.
July 11, 2000 SPUR
INDEX OF TEXT TABLES TT - 1
Section 1 Summary and Conclusions
T – 1.a 2000 – 2010 1–5
Projected Job Growth in San Francisco by Basic Industry Group
Section 2 Economic Context
T – 2.a 2000 – 2010 2–2
Projected US Population Growth by Age Cohort
T – 2.b US Households 2–3
Million, 10-Year Change and Annual Compound Rate of Change
T – 2.c 1995 – 2010 2–3
Average US Household Size and Family Size
T – 2.d 1988 – 2008 2–3
Projected Total US Labor Force
T – 2.e 1998 – 2008 2–4
US Population, Labor Force and Jobs
Compound Annual Rates of Growth
T – 2.f 1988 – 2008 2–5
United States Jobs by Major Industrial Groups
Jobs, Percent Change, Compound Annual Rate of Change
T – 2.g 1990 – 1999 2–7
Net Components of Change in California’s Population
T – 2.h 1990 – 2010 2–7
California Population Projections by Region
T – 2.i 1990 – 2010 2–8
Bay area Population Projections
T – 2.j 2010 2–9
Alternative Forecasts of Population, San Francisco and Bay Area
T – 2.k 1990 – 2010 2 – 11
Number of San Francisco and Bay Area Households
T – 2.l 1990 – 2010 2 – 11
Bay Area and San Francisco Employed Residents
T – 2.m 1990 – 2010 2 – 12
Number of San Francisco and Bay Area Jobs
T – 2.n 1990 – 2010 2 – 13
Bay Area Employment by Industrial Sector
Section 3 San Francisco Economy
T – 3.a 1990 – 2010 3–6
San Francisco Jobs by Type of Industry, Number, Projected Change
T – 3.b 2000 3–6
Successive ABAG Biennial Projections of San Francisco Economy
Jobs, Population, Households and Employed Residents
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Index of Text Tables TT - 2
Section 3 San Francisco Economy -- Continued
T – 3.c 1998 3 – 10
Employment & Payroll in Basic Industry Groups
T – 3.d 1998 3 – 10
Public Sector Employment & Payroll
T – 3.e 1998 3 – 13
Visitor Industry Major Components
Employees, Payroll, Percent Distribution
T – 3.f Selected Transportation Business Lines 3 – 14
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.g Hospitality 3 – 14
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.h Selected Retail Trade Lines 3 – 14
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.i Arts, Entertainment & Amusements 3 – 15
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.j 1998 3 – 18
Finance, Investment & Deal-Making Industry Major Components
Employees, Payroll, Percent Distribution
T – 3.k Selected Financial Business Lines 3 – 18
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.l Securities & Commodities Trading 3 – 19
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.m Insurance Industry 3 – 19
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.n Real Estate 3 –20
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.o Holding & Other Investment Offices 3 – 20
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.p Professional Services 3 – 20
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.q 1998 3 – 24
Communications & media Content Industry Major Components
Employees, Payroll, Percent Distribution
T – 3.r Telecommunications 3 – 25
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.s Printing & Publishing 3 – 25
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.t Advertising 3 – 26
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.u Services to Communications Industry 3 – 26
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.v 1998 Public & Private Employment in San Francisco 3 – 29
Employment, Payroll, Percent Distribution
T – 3.w 1998 Public Employment in San Francisco 3 – 29
Employment, Payroll, Percent Distribution
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Index of Text Tables TT - 3
Section 3 San Francisco Economy -- Continued
T – 3.x Public Sector 3 – 30
Employment & Payroll Concentration Ratios
T – 3.y 1998 Public Sector Employment in San Francisco 3 – 30
Employment, Payroll, Percent Distribution
T – 3.z Administration & Regulation 3 – 31
Employment, Payroll, Percent Distribution
T – 3.aa Protection & Justice 3 – 31
Employment, Payroll, Percent Distribution
T – 3.bb 2000 – 2010 3 – 34
Projected Job Growth in San Francisco by Basic Industry Group
T – 3.cc 1960 – 2000 3 – 35
Share of San Francisco Jobs Held by City and Metro Area Residents
T – 3.dd 2000 – 2010 3 – 36
Hypothetical Distribution of New Jobs Between
San Francisco and Metro Area Residents
Section 4 Transportation
T – 4.a 1990 – 2020 4–2
Commuters to Jobs in San Francisco by Commute Corridor
T – 4.b 1990 – 2020 4–3
Bay Bridge Corridor Commuters
T – 4.c 1990 – 2020 4–3
Peninsula Corridor Commuters
T – 4.d 1990 – 2020 4–4
Golden Gate Corridor Commuters
T – 4.e 1990 - 2020 4–5
San Francisco Corridor Commuters (Entire City)
T – 4.f 1990 – 2020 4–6
Increment In Commuters To and Within San Francisco
T – 4.g Year 2000 4–7
Average Daily San Francisco Trips From All Sources by Purpose
T – 4.h Year 2000 4–8
Average Daily San Francisco Trips by Origin and Purpose
T – 4.i 1990, 2000, 2010 4–9
Average Daily Home-Based Trips to Work in San Francisco
T – 4.j Year 2000 4 – 10
Home-Based Work Trips Originating & Ending in San Francisco
T – 4.k 1990 – 2010 4 – 11
San Francisco Home-Based Work Trips, Trip Origin Summary
T – 4. l 1990 – 2010 4 – 11
San Francisco Home-Based Work Trips, Trip Destination Summary
T – 4.m 1990, 2000, 2010 4 – 11
Average Home-Based Social & Recreation Trips in San Francisco
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Index of Text Tables TT - 4
Section 4 Transportation – Continued
T – 4.n 1990, 2000, 2010 4 – 12
Average Daily Home-Based Shopping & Other Trips, San Francisco
T – 4.o 1990, 2000, 2010 4 – 13
Average Daily Home-Based Secondary School Trips, San Francisco
T – 4.p 1990, 2000, 2010 4 – 13
Average Daily Home-Based College Trips, San Francisco
T – 4.q 1990, 2000, 2010 4 – 14
Average Daily Non-Home-Based Trips, San Francisco
T – 4.r 1990, 2000, 2010 4 – 15
Average Daily Commercial Truck Trips, San Francisco
T – 4.t Year 2000 4 – 16
Average Daily San Francisco Trips by Purpose & Origin
T – 4.u Year 2000 4 – 16
Share of Commuter & All Trips Carried by Transportation Corridor
T – 4.s 10-Year Increment from 2000 to 2010 4 – 17
Average Daily San Francisco Trips by Purpose & Origin
Section 5 Housing
T – 5.a 1970 – 2000 5–2
Bay Area Population & Housing Stock
T – 5.b 1970 – 2000 5–2
Change in Bay Area Housing Stock by County
T – 5.c 1970 – 2000 5–3
Percent Change in Bay Area Housing Stock by County
T – 5.d Year 2000 5–3
Bay Area Housing Characteristics
T – 5.e Year 2000 5–4
Bay Area Housing Characteristics Percent Distribution by Type Unit
T – 5.f 1987 – 1999 5–5
Average Annual Change in San Francisco Apartment Rents
T – 5.g 1990 – 2000 5–6
San Francisco Population & Household Population
T – 5.h 1990 – 2000 5–6
San Francisco Housing Characteristics
T – 5.i 1989 – 1998 5–7
San Francisco & Bay Area Price of a Three Bedroom Home
T – 5.j 1986 – 1999 5–8
San Francisco Apartment Rents
July 10, 2000 SPUR
Appendix Table 3.A
San Francisco Industries With Concentration Ratios Greater Than 100
1998 Ratios by 3-Digit SIC Code
SIC ESTABLISH- EMPLOY-
CODE SIC INDUSTRY NAME MENTS MENT PAYROLL
ALL INDUSTRIES 100 100 100
0-- AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY & FISHING
091 COMMERCIAL FISHING 73 164 145
15-- CONSTRUCTION
154 NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 71 120 108
20-- MANUFACTURING
207 FATS & OILS 134 1,088 2,246
232 MEN & BOY FURNISHINGS, WORK CLS & ALLIED GR 567 7,376 17,886
238 MISCELLANEOUS APPAREL & ACCESSORIES 806 3,446 7,182
239 MISC FABRICATED TEXTILE PRODUCTS 182 436 425
259 MISCELLANEOUS FURNITURE & FIXTURES 78 1,395 1,747
271 NEWSPAPERS: PUBLISHING, PUBLISHING & PRINTING 154 102 136
272 PERIODICALS: PUBLISHING, PUBLISHING & PRINTING 179 505 632
274 MISCELLANEOUS PUBLISHING 150 119 126
275 COMMERCIAL PRINTING 102 155 176
279 SERVICE INDUSTRIES FOR PRINTING TRADE 308 322 349
391 JEWELRY, SILVERWARE, & PLATED WARE 208 145 130
393 MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS 102 148 103
396 COSTUME JEWELRY, NOVELTIES EXCP PREC MTL 207 438 415
412 TAXICABS 322 623 602
414 TRANSPORTATION CHARTER SERVICE 327 1,037 1,046
441 DEEP SEA FOREIGN TRANSPORTATION 448 253 172
448 WATER TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS 299 10,804 11,567
449 SERVICES INCIDENTAL TO WATER TRANSPTION 94 484 487
472 ARRANGEMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 214 228 209
481 TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION 88 110 115
482 TELEGRAPH COMMUNICATION 131 927 1,706
483 RADIO & TELEVISION BROADCASTING 305 836 974
484 CABLE & OTHER PAY TELEVISION SVCS 65 126 116
50-- WHOLESALE TRADE
502 FURNITURE & HOME FURNISHINGS 242 154 171
513 APPAREL, PIECE GOODS, & NOTIONS 193 286 259
515 FARM-PRODUCT RAW MATERIALS 109 153 209
519 MISCELLANEOUS NONDURABLE GOODS 148 144 173
52-- RETAIL TRADE
542 MEAT MARKETS & FREEZER PROVISIONERS 158 142 162
545 DAIRY PRODUCTS STORES 189 183 342
546 RETAIL BAKERIES 127 144 138
549 MISCELLANEOUS FOOD STORES 133 140 142
561 MEN'S & BOYS' CLOTHING & FURNISHINGS 188 238 270
562 WOMEN'S READY-TO-WEAR STORES 118 150 200
563 WOMEN'S ACCESSORY & SPECIALTY STORES 129 131 147
565 FAMILY CLOTHING STORES 158 194 270
569 MISCELLANEOUS APPAREL & ACCESSORIES 149 200 209
581 EATING & DRINKING PLACES 121 120 128
593 USED MERCHANDISE STORES 160 139 188
594 MISCELLANEOUS SHOPPING GOODS STORES 112 101 120
596 NONSTORE RETAILERS 64 401 382
599 RETAIL STORES, NEC 111 112 137
Source: SIC Code data from EDD
3-A-1
Appendix Table 3.A
San Francisco Industries With Concentration Ratios Greater Than 100
1998 Ratios by 3-Digit SIC Code
SIC ESTABLISH- EMPLOY-
CODE SIC INDUSTRY NAME MENTS MENT PAYROLL
60-- FINANCE, INSURANCE & REAL ESTATE
601 CENTRAL RESERVE DEPOSITORY 100% SF 100% SF 100% SF
602 COMMERCIAL BANKS 74 387 701
603 SAVINGS INSTITUTIONS 107 143 138
608 FOREIGN BANKS & BRANCHES & AGENCIES 12,540 13,706 11,967
609 FUNCTIONS CLOSELY RELATED TO BANKING 158 627 1,346
611 REDISCOUNT & FINANCING INSTITUTIONS 96 517 663
616 MORTGAGE BANKERS & BROKERS 58 75 138
621 SECURITY BROKERS & DEALERS 272 1,165 1,763
622 COMMODITY CONTRACTS BROKERS, DEALERS 102 232 290
623 SECURITY & COMMODITY EXCHANGES 100% SF 100% SF 100% SF
628 SECURITY & COMMODITY SERVICES 229 528 774
631 LIFE INSURANCE 157 502 460
632 MEDICAL SERVICE & HEALTH INSURANCE 175 527 567
633 FIRE, MARINE, & CASUALTY INSURANCE 84 155 169
635 SURETY INSURANCE 102 826 983
641 INSURANCE AGENTS, BROKERS, & SERVICE 82 222 273
651 REAL ESTATE OPERATORS & LESSORS 123 144 186
653 REAL ESTATE AGENTS & MANAGERS 103 142 166
655 SUBDIVIDERS & DEVELOPERS 103 100 180
671 HOLDING OFFICES 238 4,738 2,316
672 INVESTMENT OFFICES 149 596 569
673 TRUSTS 243 361 357
679 MISCELLANEOUS INVESTING 195 293 237
70-- SERVICES
701 HOTELS, MOTELS, & TOURIST COURTS 205 377 479
702 ROOMING & BOARDING HOUSES 280 1,016 552
704 MEMBERSHIP-BASIS ORGANIZATION HOTELS 134 1,937 3,916
724 BARBER SHOPS 106 185 244
725 SHOE REPAIR & HAT CLEANING SHOPS 138 158 141
729 MISCELLANEOUS PERSONAL SERVICES 89 123 110
731 ADVERTISING 234 783 929
732 CREDIT REPORTING & COLLECTION 119 95 169
733 MAILING, REPRODUCTION, STENOGRAPHIC 224 271 315
734 SERVICES TO BUILDINGS 52 136 149
735 NEWS SYNDICATES 72 140 245
738 MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS SERVICES 109 146 126
752 AUTOMOBILE PARKING 299 511 681
764 REUPHOLSTERY & FURNITURE REPAIR 133 173 186
782 MOTION PICTURE DISTRIBUTION & SERVIC 330 4,428 3,566
783 MOTION PICTURE THEATERS 138 148 167
792 PRODUCERS, ORCHESTRAS, ENTERTAINERS 300 533 729
803 OFFICES OF OSTEOPATHIC PHYSICIANS 100 194 196
809 HEALTH & ALLIED SERVICES, NEC 114 146 104
811 LEGAL SERVICES 199 414 391
811 LEGAL SERVICES 199 414 391
822 COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES 151 140 83
823 LIBRARIES & INFORMATION CENTERS 299 1,316 1,677
824 CORRESPONDENCE & VOC SCHOOLS 119 148 136
Source: SIC Code data from EDD
3-A-2
Appendix Table 3.A
San Francisco Industries With Concentration Ratios Greater Than 100
1998 Ratios by 3-Digit SIC Code
SIC ESTABLISH- EMPLOY-
CODE SIC INDUSTRY NAME MENTS MENT PAYROLL
829 SCHOOLS & EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, NEC 122 204 246
832 INDIVIDUAL & FAMILY SERVICES 120 223 208
839 SOCIAL SERVICES, NEC 225 271 284
841 MUSEUMS & ART GALLERIES 358 1,314 1,573
861 BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS 143 233 207
862 PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 190 368 304
863 LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 136 154 153
864 CIVIC & SOCIAL ASSOCIATIONS 130 233 281
865 POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS 544 12,283 13,357
866 RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS 175 170 158
869 MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATIONS, NEC 127 427 498
871 ENGINEERING,ARCHITECTURAL,SURVEYING 112 193 186
872 ACCOUNTING,AUDITING,BOOKKEEPING 94 230 276
874 MANAGEMENT & PUBLIC RELATIONS SERVICES 123 197 212
881 PRIVATE HOUSEHOLDS 148 166 157
899 SERVICES, NEC 136 204 266
90-- GOVERNMENT 114 118 128
901 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 83 227 230
902 STATE GOV 279 214 220
99-- ALL OTHER EMPLOYMENT
999 NONCLASSIFIABLE ESTABLISHMENTS 146 314 108
XXX SUM OF THE CONFIDENTIAL (Restricted) CELLS 64 174 168
Notes: Concentration ratios in this table are the ratio of the percent of San Francisco establishments,
employees or payroll in a particular industry to the percent of establishments, employees or
payroll in the same industry in the Bay Area excluding San Francisco. The formula is
Industry Concentration Ratio = [(percent of San Francisco in this industry)/ (percent of
8-county Bay Area in this industry)] x 100
Source: SIC Code data from EDD
3-A-3
Appendix Table 3.B
San Francisco Industries Concentration Ratios -- All Industries
1998 Ratios by 3-Digit SIC Code
SIC ESTABLISH- EMPLOY-
CODE SIC INDUSTRY NAME MENTS MENT PAYROLL
ALL INDUSTRIES 100 100 100
0-- AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY & FISHING
11 CASH GRAINS 19 0 0
13 FIELD CROPS, EXCEPT CASH GRAINS 0 0 0
16 VEGETABLES & MELONS 4 0 0
17 FRUITS & TREE NUTS 6 5 3
18 HORTICULTURAL SPECIALTIES 15 6 10
19 GENERAL FARMS, PRIMARILY CROP 3 0 0
21 LIVESTOCK, EXCEPT DAIRY, POULTRY, ETC 12 6 5
24 DAIRY FARMS 3 0 0
25 POULTRY & EGGS 0 0 0
27 ANIMAL SPECIALTIES 15 0 0
29 GENERAL FARMS, PRIMARILY LIVESTOCK 0 0 0
71 SOIL PREPARATION SERVICES 0 0 0
72 CROP SERVICES 0 0 0
74 VETERINARY SERVICES 23 41 42
75 ANIMAL SERVICES, EXCEPT VETERINARY 21 19 20
76 FARM LABOR & MANAGEMENT SERVICES 14 0 0
78 LANDSCAPE & HORTICULTURAL SERVICES 25 23 34
81 TIMBER TRACTS 23 0 0
83 FOREST NURSERIES & GATHERING OF FOREST PROD. Restricted Restricted Restricted
85 FORESTRY SERVICES 64 Restricted Restricted
91 COMMERCIAL FISHING 73 164 145
97 HUNTING, TRAPPING, GAME PROPAGATION 0 Restricted Restricted
10-- MINING
101 IRON ORES 896 Restricted Restricted
104 GOLD & SILVER ORES 224 Restricted Restricted
108 METAL MINING SERVICES 0 Restricted Restricted
109 MISCELLANIOUS METAL ORES Restricted Restricted Restricted
123 ANTHRACITE MINING Restricted Restricted Restricted
124 COAN MINING SERVICES 0 Restricted Restricted
131 CRUDE PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS 25 0 0
132 NAURAL GAS LIQUIDS 224 Restricted Restricted
138 OIL & GAS FIELD SERVICES 37 9 20
141 DIMENSION STONE 0 Restricted Restricted
142 CRUSHED & BROKEN STONE 0 0 0
144 SAND & GRAVEL 0 0 0
148 NONMETALIC MINERAL SERVICES 0 Restricted Restricted
149 MICSELLANEOUS NONMETALLIC MINERALS 0 Restricted Restricted
15-- CONSTRUCTIONS
152 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 57 71 72
153 OPERATIVE BUILDERS 32 19 10
154 NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 71 120 108
161 HIGHWAY & STREET CONSTRUCTION 31 53 71
162 HEAVY CONSTRUCTION, EXCEPT HIGHWAY 22 26 29
171 PLUMBING, HEATING, AIR CONDITIONING 55 42 36
172 PAINTING, PAPER HANGING, DECORATING 64 78 85
173 ELECTRICAL WORK 52 59 55
174 MASONRY, STONEWORK, & PLASTERING 27 37 44
Source: SIC Code data from EDD
3-B-1
Appendix Table 3.B
San Francisco Industries Concentration Ratios -- All Industries
1998 Ratios by 3-Digit SIC Code
SIC ESTABLISH- EMPLOY-
CODE SIC INDUSTRY NAME MENTS MENT PAYROLL
175 CARPENTERING & FLOORING 40 30 25
176 ROOFING & SHEET METAL WORK 60 56 49
177 CONCRETE WORK 18 18 17
178 WATER WELL DRILLING 0 0 0
179 MISC SPECIAL TRADE CONTRACTORS 36 32 30
20-- MANUFACTURING
201 MEAT PRODUCTS 128 95 102
202 DAIRY PRODUCTS 76 36 21
203 CANNED & PRESERVED FRUITS & VEGETABLES 82 54 92
204 GRAIN MILL PRODUCTS 28 0 0
205 BAKERY PRODUCTS 156 66 65
206 SUGAR & CONFECTIONERY PRODUCTS 104 30 15
207 FATS & OILS 134 1,088 2,246
208 BEVERAGES 23 11 14
209 MISC FOOD PREPARATIONS & KINDRED PRODUCTS 140 61 45
221 BROAD WOVEN FABRIC MILLS, COTTON 163 0 0
222 BROAD WOVEN FBRC MILLS, MAN-MADE FBR & SILK 149 Restricted Restricted
223 BROAD WOVEN FBR MILLS, WOOL INCL DYE & FIN 0 Restricted Restricted
224 NARROW FABRIC MILLS 448 Restricted Restricted
225 KNITTING MILLS 672 Restricted Restricted
226 DYEING & FIN TXTLS, EXCL WL FBR & KNIT 112 0 0
227 FLOOR COVERING MILLS 112 Restricted Restricted
228 YARN & THREAD MILLS 0 Restricted Restricted
229 MISCELLANEOUS TEXTILE GOODS 32 0 0
231 MEN'S & BOYS' SUITS & COATS 0 Restricted Restricted
232 MEN & BOY FURNSHG, WORK CL & ALLIED GR 567 7,376 17,886
233 WOMEN'S, MISSES', & JRS' OUTERWEAR 822 1,842 2,270
234 WOMEN'S & CHILDREN'S UNDERGARMENTS 1,791 Restricted Restricted
235 HATS, CAPS, & MILLINERY 0 Restricted Restricted
236 GIRLS', CHILDREN'S, & INFANTS' OUTERWR 179 0 0
238 MISCELLANEOUS APPAREL & ACCESSORIES 806 3,446 7,182
239 MISC FABRICATED TEXTILE PRODUCTS 182 436 425
241 LOGGING 0 0 0
242 SAWMILLS & PLANING MILLS 0 0 0
243 MILLWORK, VENEER, PLYWD & STRUCTR MBRS 49 48 42
244 WOOD CONTAINERS 10 0 0
245 WOOD BUILDINGS & MOBILE HOMES 26 0 0
249 MISCELLANEOUS WOOD PRODUCTS 51 20 19
251 HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE 105 82 83
252 OFFICE FURNITURE 70 47 48
253 PUBLIC BUILDING & RELATED FURNITURE 90 0 0
254 PARTITIONS, SHELVG, LOCKERS & FIXTURES 44 72 81
259 MISCELLANEOUS FURNITURE & FIXTURES 78 1,395 1,747
261 PULP MILLS 0 Restricted Restricted
262 PAPER MILLS, EXCEPT BUILDING PAPER 64 0 0
263 PAPERBOARD MILLS 149 Restricted Restricted
265 PAPERBOARD CONTAINERS & BOXES 25 4 4
267 CONVERTED PAPER & PAPERBOARD PRDUCTS 77 33 25
271 NEWSPAPERS: PUBLISHING, PUBLISHING & PRINTING 154 102 136
Source: SIC Code data from EDD
3-B-2
Appendix Table 3.B
San Francisco Industries Concentration Ratios -- All Industries
1998 Ratios by 3-Digit SIC Code
SIC ESTABLISH- EMPLOY-
CODE SIC INDUSTRY NAME MENTS MENT PAYROLL
272 PERIODICALS: PUBLISHING, PUBLISHING & PRINTING 179 505 632
273 BOOKS 107 45 35
274 MISCELLANEOUS PUBLISHING 150 119 126
275 COMMERCIAL PRINTING 102 155 176
276 MANIFOLD BUSINESS FORMS 41 0 0
277 GREETING CARD PUBLISHING 50 0 0
278 BLANKBOOKS, LOOSELEAF BNDRS & BOOKBNDG 130 78 87
279 SERVICE INDUSTRIES FOR PRINTING TRADE 308 322 349
281 INDUSTRIAL INORGANIC CHEMICALS 8 0 0
282 PLASTICS MTLS, SYNTHETICS, EXCPT GLASS 22 0 0
283 DRUGS 23 11 9
284 SOAP, DETERGENTS, CLEANERS, TOILETRIES 39 3 1
285 PAINTS, VARNISHES, ENAMELS, ALLIED PRODUCTS 18 0 0
286 INDUSTRIAL ORGANIC CHEMICALS 0 0 0
287 AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS 0 0 0
289 MISCELLANEOUS CHEMICAL PRODUCTS 47 34 69
291 PETROLEUM REFINING 67 82 90
295 PAVING & ROOFING MATERIALS 0 0 0
299 MISC PRODUCTS OF PETROLEUM & COAL 0 Restricted Restricted
301 TIRES & INNER TUBES 0 Restricted Restricted
305 GASKETS,PACKING & SEALING DEVICES 0 0 0
306 FABRICATED RUBBER PRODUCTS, NEC 15 0 0
308 MISCELLANEOUS PLASTICS PRODUCTS 30 11 8
313 FOOTWEAR CUT STOCK 0 Restricted Restricted
314 FOOTWEAR, EXCEPT RUBBER 90 Restricted Restricted
316 LUGGAGE 560 Restricted Restricted
317 HANDBAGS & PERSONAL LEATHER GOODS 90 0 0
319 LEATHER GOODS, NEC 560 Restricted Restricted
321 FLAT GLASS 0 0 0
322 GLASS & GLASSWARE, PRESSED OR BLOWN 22 0 0
323 GLASS PRODUCTS,MADE OF PURCHASED GLASS 30 10 8
324 CEMENT, HYDRAULIC 0 Restricted Restricted
325 STRUCTURAL CLAY PRODUCTS 0 0 0
326 POTTERY & RELATED PRODUCTS 115 155 80
327 CONCRETE, GYPSUM, & PLASTER PRODUCTS 21 26 33
328 CUT STONE & STONE PRODUCTS 42 25 18
329 ABRASIVE, ASBESTOS, MISC NONMETALIC MINERALS 50 29 17
331 BLAST FURNACES, STEEL WRKS, ROLLING MILLS 54 0 0
332 IRON & STEEL FOUNDRIES 0 0 0
333 PRIMARY SMELTING & REFING OF NONFRS MTL 75 0 0
334 SECONDRY SMELTNG & REFING OF NONFRS MTL 75 Restricted Restricted
335 ROLLING, DRAWNG, EXTRDNG OF NONFRS MTL 21 0 0
336 NONFERROUS FOUNDRIES (CASTINGS) 29 0 0
339 MISCELLANEOUS PRIMARY METAL PRODUCTS 0 0 0
341 METAL CANS & SHIPPING CONTAINERS 19 0 0
342 CUTLERY, HAND TOOLS, & GENERAL HARDWR 14 0 0
343 HEATG, EXPT ELEC & WRM AIR Restricted 0 0
344 FABRICATED STRUCTURAL METAL PRODUCTS 52 24 19
345 SCREW MACHINE PRODT, BOLTS, NUTS, ETC 26 0 0
Source: SIC Code data from EDD
3-B-3
Appendix Table 3.B
San Francisco Industries Concentration Ratios -- All Industries
1998 Ratios by 3-Digit SIC Code
SIC ESTABLISH- EMPLOY-
CODE SIC INDUSTRY NAME MENTS MENT PAYROLL
346 METAL FORGINGS & STAMPINGS 14 0 0
347 COATING, ENGRAVING, & ALLIED SERVICES 17 4 3
348 ORDINANCE & ACCESSORIES, N.E.C. 224 Restricted Restricted
349 MISC FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS 26 17 19
351 ENGINES & TURBINES 0 0 0
352 FARM & GARDEN MACHINERY & EQUIPMNT 0 0 0
353 CONSTR, MINING, MATL H&L MACH & EQPT 33 0 0
354 METALWORKING MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 15 11 11
355 SPECIAL INDSTRY MACHN, EXCPT METALWRKG 9 1 0
356 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 12 10 7
357 OFFICE, COMPUTING, & ACCOUNTING EQUIPMENT 15 1 0
358 REFRIGERATION & SERVICE INDUSTRY MACHN 39 16 7
359 MISC MACHINERY, EXCEPT ELECTRICAL 6 2 2
361 ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBN EQUIP 46 0 0
362 ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIAL APPARATUS 7 0 0
363 HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES 45 0 0
364 ELECTRIC LIGHTING & WIRING EQUIPMENT 77 17 15
365 RADIO & TV RECVG EQUIP EXCEPT COMMUNCT 40 6 5
366 COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT 10 12 10
367 ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS & ACCESSORIES 7 4 2
369 MISC ELECTRCL MACHN, EQUIPT, SUPPLIES 16 1 1
371 MOTOR VEHICLES & MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMT 14 1 1
372 AIRCRAFT & PARTS 0 0 0
373 SHIP & BOAT BUILDING & REPAIRING 57 0 0
374 RAILROAD EQUIPMENT 0 Restricted Restricted
375 MOTORCYCLES, BICYCLES, & PARTS 26 0 0
376 GUIDED MISSILES, SPACE VEHICLES, PARTS 0 0 0
379 MISCELLANEOUS TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT 0 0 0
381 ENGNRG, LABRTRY, SCIENTFC, & RSRCH INS 11 0 0
382 MEASURING & CONTROLLING INSTRUMENTS 9 0 0
384 SURGICAL, MEDICL, & DENTL INSTR & SUPL 33 11 6
385 OPHTHALMIC GOODS 39 0 0
386 PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES 63 33 16
387 WATCHES, CLOCKS, CLOCKWRK OPERTD DEVIC 0 0 0
391 JEWELRY, SILVERWARE, & PLATED WARE 208 145 130
393 MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS 102 148 103
394 TOYS & AMUSEMNT, SPORTG, & ATHLETIC GD 96 101 87
395 PENS, PENCILS, & OTHER OFC & ART MATRL 29 0 0
396 COSTUME JEWELRY, NOVLTIES EXCP PREC MTL 207 438 415
399 MISCELLANEOUS MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES 63 29 23
4-- TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS & UTILITIES
401 RAILROADS 224 Restricted Restricted
411 LOCAL & SUBURBAN TRANSPORTATION 124 101 83
412 TAXICABS 322 623 602
413 INTERCITY HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION 149 0 0
414 TRANSPORTATION CHARTER SERVICE 327 1,037 1,046
415 SCHOOL BUSES 41 0 0
421 TRUCKING, LOCAL & LONG DISTANCE 44 44 31
422 PUBLIC WAREHOUSING 38 27 26
Source: SIC Code data from EDD
3-B-4
Appendix Table 3.B
San Francisco Industries Concentration Ratios -- All Industries
1998 Ratios by 3-Digit SIC Code
SIC ESTABLISH- EMPLOY-
CODE SIC INDUSTRY NAME MENTS MENT PAYROLL
423 TRUCKING TERMINAL FACILITIES 448 Restricted Restricted
441 DEEP SEA FOREIGN TRANSPORTATION 448 253 172
442 DEEP SEA DOMESTIC TRANSPORTATION 90 Restricted Restricted
444 WATER TRANSPORTATION OF FREIGHT, N.E.C. 448 Restricted Restricted
448 WATER TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS 299 10,804 11,567
449 SERVICES INCIDENTAL TO WATER TRANSPTION 94 484 487
451 CERTIFICATED AIR TRANSPORTATION 141 46 32
452 NONCERTIFICATED AIR TRANSPORTATION 54 23 12
458 AIR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 53 57 94
461 PIPELINES, EXCEPT NATURAL GAS 45 0 0
472 ARRANGEMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 214 228 209
473 ARRANGEMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF FREIGHT 109 117 113
474 RENTAL OF RAILROAD CARS 336 Restricted Restricted
478 MISCELLANEOUS TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 91 48 53
481 TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION 88 110 115
482 TELEGRAPH COMMUNICATION 131 927 1,706
483 RADIO & TELEVISION BROADCASTING 305 836 974
484 CABLE & OTHER PAY TELEVISION SVCS 65 126 116
489 COMMUNICATION SERVICES, NEC 169 74 63
491 ELECTRIC SERVICES 102 0 0
492 GAS PRODUCTION & DISTRIBUTION 448 Restricted Restricted
493 COMBINATION UTILITY SERVICES 241 Restricted Restricted
494 WATER SUPPLY 0 0 0
495 SANITARY SERVICES 24 70 85
496 STEAM & AIR-CONDITIONING SUPPLY Restricted Restricted Restricted
497 IRRIGATION SYSTEMS 0 Restricted Restricted
50-- WHOLESALE TRADE
501 MOTOR VEHICLES & AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT 41 34 24
502 FURNITURE & HOME FURNISHINGS 242 154 171
503 LUMBER & CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS 67 66 49
504 PROF & COMMERCIAL EQUIP & SUPPLIES 40 47 40
505 METALS & MINERALS, EXCEPT PETROLEUM 64 60 90
506 ELECTRICAL GOODS 34 17 15
507 HARDWARE, PLUMBING & HEATING EQUIPMENT 64 60 65
508 MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT, & SUPPLIES 41 31 31
509 MISCELLANEOUS DURABLE GOODS 172 100 84
511 PAPER & PAPER PRODUCTS 81 55 47
512 DRUGS, PROPRIETARIES, & SUNDRIES 93 0 0
513 APPAREL, PIECE GOODS, & NOTIONS 193 286 259
514 GROCERIES & RELATED PRODUCTS 130 100 89
515 FARM-PRODUCT RAW MATERIALS 109 153 209
516 CHEMICALS & ALLIED PRODUCTS 63 19 16
517 PETROLEUM & PETROLEUM PRODUCTS 54 46 58
518 BEER, WINE, & DISTILLED BEVERAGES 96 47 53
519 MISCELLANEOUS NONDURABLE GOODS 148 144 173
52-- RETAIL TRADE
521 LUMBER & OTHER BUILDING MATERIALS 37 20 23
523 PAINT, GLASS, & WALLPAPER STORES 69 74 70
525 HARDWARE STORES 81 57 61
Source: SIC Code data from EDD
3-B-5
Appendix Table 3.B
San Francisco Industries Concentration Ratios -- All Industries
1998 Ratios by 3-Digit SIC Code
SIC ESTABLISH- EMPLOY-
CODE SIC INDUSTRY NAME MENTS MENT PAYROLL
526 RETAIL NURSERIES & GARDEN STORES 31 39 25
527 MOBILE HOME DEALERS 0 0 0
531 DEPARTMENT STORES 24 43 86
533 VARIETY STORES 56 50 46
539 MISC GENERAL MERCH&ISE STORES 88 57 57
541 GROCERY STORES 94 49 40
542 MEAT MARKETS & FREEZER PROVISIONERS 158 142 162
543 FRUIT STORES & VEGETABLE MARKETS 166 104 64
544 C&Y, NUT, & CONFECTIONERY STORES 115 113 84
545 DAIRY PRODUCTS STORES 189 183 342
546 RETAIL BAKERIES 127 144 138
549 MISCELLANEOUS FOOD STORES 133 140 142
551 NEW & USED CAR DEALERS 23 20 20
552 USED CAR DEALERS 25 13 11
553 AUTO & HOME SUPPLY STORES 24 20 18
554 GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS 40 47 41
555 BOAT DEALERS 31 16 12
556 RECREATION & UTILITY TRAILER DEALERS 8 0 0
557 MOTORCYCLE DEALERS 52 86 69
559 AUTOMOTIVE DEALERS, NEC 14 0 0
561 MEN'S & BOYS' CLOTHING & FURNISHINGS 188 238 270
562 WOMEN'S READY-TO-WEAR STORES 118 150 200
563 WOMEN'S ACCESSORY & SPECIALTY STORES 129 131 147
564 CHILDREN'S & INFANTS' WEAR STORES 108 69 39
565 FAMILY CLOTHING STORES 158 194 270
566 SHOE STORES 70 85 115
569 MISCELLANEOUS APPAREL & ACCESSORIES 149 200 209
571 FURNITURE & HOME FURNISHINGS STORES 86 83 74
572 HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCE STORES 52 40 33
573 RADIO, TELEVISION, & MUSIC STORES 80 63 43
581 EATING & DRINKING PLACES 121 120 128
591 DRUG STORES & PROPRIETARY STORES 90 57 56
592 LIQUOR STORES 73 71 57
593 USED MERCH&ISE STORES 160 139 188
594 MISCELLANEOUS SHOPPING GOODS STORES 112 101 120
596 NONSTORE RETAILERS 64 401 382
598 FUEL & ICE DEALERS 0 0 0
599 RETAIL STORES, NEC 111 112 137
60-- FINANCE, INSURANCE & REAL ESTATE
601 CENTRAL RESERVE DEPOSITORY 100% SF 100% SF 100% SF
602 COMMERCIAL BANKS 74 387 701
603 SAVINGS INSTITUTIONS 107 143 138
606 CREDIT UNIONS 56 73 78
608 FOREIGN BANKS & BRANCHES & AGENCIES 12,540 13,706 11,967
609 FUNCTIONS CLOSELY RELATED TO BANKING 158 627 1,346
611 REDISCOUNT & FINANCING INSTITUTIONS 96 517 663
614 PERSONAL CREDIT INSTITUTIONS 55 34 74
615 BUSINESS CREDIT INSTITUTIONS 153 91 74
616 MORTGAGE BANKERS & BROKERS 58 75 138
Source: SIC Code data from EDD
3-B-6
Appendix Table 3.B
San Francisco Industries Concentration Ratios -- All Industries
1998 Ratios by 3-Digit SIC Code
SIC ESTABLISH- EMPLOY-
CODE SIC INDUSTRY NAME MENTS MENT PAYROLL
621 SECURITY BROKERS & DEALERS 272 1,165 1,763
622 COMMODITY CONTRACTS BROKERS, DEALERS 102 232 290
623 SECURITY & COMMODITY EXCHANGES 100% SF 100% SF 100% SF
628 SECURITY & COMMODITY SERVICES 229 528 774
631 LIFE INSURANCE 157 502 460
632 MEDICAL SERVICE & HEALTH INSURANCE 175 527 567
633 FIRE, MARINE, & CASUALTY INSURANCE 84 155 169
635 SURETY INSURANCE 102 826 983
636 TITLE INSURANCE 39 70 85
637 PENSION, HEALTH, & WELFARE FUNDS 175 94 101
639 INSURANCE CARRIERS, NEC 299 Restricted Restricted
641 INSURANCE AGENTS, BROKERS, & SERVICE 82 222 273
651 REAL ESTATE OPERATORS & LESSORS 123 144 186
653 REAL ESTATE AGENTS & MANAGERS 103 142 166
654 TITLE ABSTRACT OFFICES 32 0 0
655 SUBDIVIDERS & DEVELOPERS 103 100 180
671 HOLDING OFFICES 238 4,738 2,316
672 INVESTMENT OFFICES 149 596 569
673 TRUSTS 243 361 357
679 MISCELLANEOUS INVESTING 195 293 237
70-- SERVICES
701 HOTELS, MOTELS, & TOURIST COURTS 205 377 479
702 ROOMING & BOARDING HOUSES 280 1,016 552
703 CAMPS & TRAILERING PARKS 51 21 21
704 MEMBERSHIP-BASIS ORGANIZATION HOTELS 134 1,937 3,916
721 LAUNDRY, CLEANING, & GARMENT SERVICES 94 81 61
722 PHOTOGRAPHIC STUDIOS, PORTRAIT 122 67 86
723 BEAUTY SHOPS 88 98 108
724 BARBER SHOPS 106 185 244
725 SHOE REPAIR & HAT CLEANING SHOPS 138 158 141
726 FUNERAL SERVICE & CREMATORIES 78 104 79
729 MISCELLANEOUS PERSONAL SERVICES 89 123 110
731 ADVERTISING 234 783 929
732 CREDIT REPORTING & COLLECTION 119 95 169
733 MAILING, REPRODUCTION, STENOGRAPHIC 224 271 315
734 SERVICES TO BUILDINGS 52 136 149
735 NEWS SYNDICATES 72 140 245
736 PERSONNEL SUPPLY SERVICES 112 84 98
737 COMPUTER & DATA PROCESSING SERVICES 81 47 38
738 MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS SERVICES 109 146 126
751 AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS, WITHOUT DRIVERS 74 71 67
752 AUTOMOBILE PARKING 299 511 681
753 AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOPS 49 53 50
754 AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES, EXCEPT REPAIR 30 66 67
762 ELECTRICAL REPAIR SHOPS 51 32 26
763 WATCH, CLOCK, & JEWELRY REPAIR 127 70 66
764 REUPHOLSTERY & FURNITURE REPAIR 133 173 186
769 MISCELLANEOUS REPAIR SHOPS 41 46 51
781 MOTION PICTURE PRODUCTION & SERVICES 301 139 89
Source: SIC Code data from EDD
3-B-7
Appendix Table 3.B
San Francisco Industries Concentration Ratios -- All Industries
1998 Ratios by 3-Digit SIC Code
SIC ESTABLISH- EMPLOY-
CODE SIC INDUSTRY NAME MENTS MENT PAYROLL
782 MOTION PICTURE DISTRIBUTION & SERVIC 330 4,428 3,566
783 MOTION PICTURE THEATERS 138 148 167
784 VIDEO TAPE RENTAL 63 59 64
791 DANCE HALLS, STUDIOS, & SCHOOLS 64 77 114
792 PRODUCERS, ORCHESTRAS, ENTERTAINERS 300 533 729
793 BOWLING & BILLIARD ESTABLISHMENTS 24 21 31
794 COMMERCIAL SPORTS 40 0 0
799 MISC AMUSEMENT, RECREATIONAL SERVICES 64 70 76
801 OFFICES OF PHYSICIANS 97 60 57
802 OFFICES OF DENTISTS 79 66 56
803 OFFICES OF OSTEOPATHIC PHYSICIANS 100 194 196
804 OFFICES OF OTHER HEALTH PRACTITIONERS 88 77 63
805 NURSING & PERSONAL CARE FACILITIES 49 61 60
806 HOSPITALS 79 102 89
807 MEDICAL & DENTAL LABORATORIES 61 26 17
808 OUTPATIENT CARE FACILITIES 60 50 53
809 HEALTH & ALLIED SERVICES, NEC 114 146 104
811 LEGAL SERVICES 199 414 391
821 ELEM & SECONDARY SCHOOLS 94 104 106
822 COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES 151 140 83
823 LIBRARIES & INFORMATION CENTERS 299 1,316 1,677
824 CORRESPONDENCE & VOC SCHOOLS 119 148 136
829 SCHOOLS & EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, NEC 122 204 246
832 INDIVIDUAL & FAMILY SERVICES 120 223 208
833 JOB TRAINING & RELATED SERVICES 113 91 95
835 CHILD DAY CARE SERVICES 50 57 55
836 RESIDENTIAL CARE 53 74 75
839 SOCIAL SERVICES, NEC 225 271 284
841 MUSEUMS & ART GALLERIES 358 1,314 1,573
842 BOTANICAL & ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS 128 Restricted Restricted
861 BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS 143 233 207
862 PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 190 368 304
863 LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 136 154 153
864 CIVIC & SOCIAL ASSOCIATIONS 130 233 281
865 POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS 544 12,283 13,357
866 RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS 175 170 158
869 MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATIONS, NEC 127 427 498
871 ENGINEERING,ARCHITECTURAL,SURVEYING 112 193 186
872 ACCOUNTING,AUDITING,BOOKKEEPING 94 230 276
873 RESEARCH,DEVELOPMENT,TESTING SERVICES 69 45 28
874 MANAGEMENT & PUBLIC RELATIONS SERVICES 123 197 212
881 PRIVATE HOUSEHOLDS 148 166 157
899 SERVICES, NEC 136 204 266
90-- GOVERNMENT 114 118 128
901 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 83 227 230
902 STATE GOV 279 214 220
903 LOCAL GOV 5 78 87
99-- ALL OTHER EMPLOYMENT
999 NONCLASSIFIABLE ESTABLISHMENTS 146 314 108
Source: SIC Code data from EDD
3-B-8
Appendix Table 3.B
San Francisco Industries Concentration Ratios -- All Industries
1998 Ratios by 3-Digit SIC Code
SIC ESTABLISH- EMPLOY-
CODE SIC INDUSTRY NAME MENTS MENT PAYROLL
XXX SUM OF THE CONFIDENTIAL (Restricted) CELLS 64 174 168
Notes: Concentration ratios in this table are the ratio of the percent of San Francisco establishments,
employees or payroll in a particular industry to the percent of establishments, employees or
payroll in the same industry in the Bay Area excluding San Francisco. The formula is
Industry Concentration Ratio = [(percent of San Francisco in this industry)/ (percent of
8-county Bay Area in this industry)] x 100
Some cells in the table are marked "Restricted" because data for the industry in either the
Metro Bay Area or San Francisco have been withheld because the number of establishments
is so small, or one establishment so dominates the industry, that disclosure of data for the
industry effectively would disclose data for individual establishments in the industry. Data that
are not disclosed by industry appear in the final row of the table marked "Sum of the
Confidential (Restricted) Cells".
Cells in which the numerator or the denominator of the ratio is zero also are marked "Restricted"
except in cases where the activity (e.g. Central Reserve Depository aka Federal Reserve Bank)
is known to occur exclusively in San Francisco. These cell are marked, "100% SF")
Source: SIC Code data from EDD
3-B-9
Appendix Table 3.C
Visitor Industry Payroll, Employment and Percent of Industry by 4-Digit SIC Code
Percent 1998 1998
SIC of AVERAGE AVG QTRLY
CODE INDUSTRY SIC CODE NAME Industry EMPLOYMENT PAYROLL
VISITOR INDUSTRY 72,252 547,711,392
Transportation 23,314 250,217,961
4121 Taxicabs 70% 188 944,675
4141 Local Bus Charter Service 90% 585 3,843,070
4142 Bus Charter Service, Except Local 90% 266 1,684,127
4481 Deep Sea Transportation of Passengers, Exc Ferries 100% 26 318,199
4489 Water Transportation of Passengers n.e.c. 70% 333 2,837,990
4512 Air Transportation, Scheduled, San Francisco Co 70% 1,539 11,300,827
4522 Air Transportation, Non-Scheduled, San Franisco Co 40% 5 31,314
4581 Airports, Flying Field & Airport Terminal Operations, SF 70% 151 1,974,368
451 Air Transportation, Scheduled -- San Mateo Co 70% 17,339 207,171,374
452 Air Transportation, Non-Scheduled, San Mateo Co 40% 28 205,490
4581 Airports, Flying Field & Airport Terminal Ops, SM 70% 529 3,578,931
4724 Travel Agents 50% 1,044 8,033,704
4725 Tour Operators 40% 190 1,221,472
4729 Arrangement of Passenger Transportation n.e.c. 40% 22 176,465
7514 Passenger Car Rental 50% 315 2,168,656
7521 Automotive Parking 50% 756 4,727,300
Hospitality 35,118 189,611,635
5812 Eating Places 40% 14,808 58,683,438
5813 Drinking Places 40% 1,086 3,354,582
7011 Hotels & Motels 100% 19,223 127,573,615
7033 Camps & Recreational Vehicle Parks and Campsites 100% 21 89,199
Wholesale Miscellaneous Durable Goods 493 5,638,319
5092 Toys & Hobby Goods & Supplies 30% 71 884,403
5094 Jewelry, Watches, Precious Stones & Precious Metals 30% 199 1,650,111
5181 Beer & Ale 50% 134 1,718,439
5182 Wine & Distilled Alcholic Beverages 50% 91 1,385,367
Retail Stores 6,527 50,577,336
5461 Retail Bakeries 35% 589 2,468,998
5499 Miscellaneous Food Stores 35% 350 1,631,812
5311 Department Stores 25% 964 8,959,438
5331 Variety Stores 30% 38 195,588
5611 Men's & Boys' Clothing & Accessory Stores 35% 256 2,017,447
5621 Women's Clothing Stores 35% 447 2,185,400
5632 Women's Accessory & Specialty Stores 35% 108 464,681
5651 Family Clothing Stores 30% 1,539 16,899,485
5661 Shoe Stores 30% 237 1,374,888
5699 Miscellaneous Apparel & Accessory Stores 30% 209 922,185
5942 Book Stores 25% 216 797,852
5946 Camera & Photographic Supply Stores 40% 102 641,912
5947 Gift, Novelty & souvenir Shops 65% 1,471 12,017,651
Arts, Entertainment & Amusements 4,111 33,225,103
7822 Motion Picture & Video Tape Distribution 60% 118 925,675
7832 Motion Picture Theaters, Except Drive-In 60% 615 1,865,108
7922 Theatrical Producers & Misc. Theatrical Services 60% 1,523 13,304,585
7929 Bands, Orchestras, Actors & Otr Entrtainers/Grps 60% 748 10,060,425
7933 Bowling Centers 20% 12 60,094
Source: EDD
3-C-1
Appendix Table 3.C
Visitor Industry Payroll, Employment and Percent of Industry by 4-Digit SIC Code
Percent 1998 1998
SIC of AVERAGE AVG QTRLY
CODE INDUSTRY SIC CODE NAME Industry EMPLOYMENT PAYROLL
7993 Coin Operated Amusement Devices 10% 12 53,973
7999 Amusement & Recreation Services n.e.c. 20% 273 1,446,600
8412 Museums & Art Galleries 60% 811 5,508,643
Business & Other Services 2,688 18,441,039
7381 Detective, Guard & Armored Car Services 25% 1,306 5,773,569
7382 Security System Services 25% 17 164,377
7389 Business Services n.e.c. 20% 1,339 12,054,618
8999 Services n.e.c.. 5% 27 448,475
Source: EDD
3-C-2
Appendix Table 3.D
Finance, Investment and Deal-Making Industry
Payroll, Employment and Percent of Industry by 4-Digit SIC Code
Percent 1998 1998
SIC of AVERAGE AVG QTRLY
CODE INDUSTRY SIC CODE NAME Industry EMPLOYMENT PAYROLL
FINANCE, INVESTMENT & DEAL-MAKING 126,282 2,389,206,050
Finance 29,114 625,261,719
6011 Federal Reserve Banks 100% 1,361 75,092,484
602 Commercial banks 100% 21,257 420,285,885
603 Sanvings Institutions 100% 1,893 26,127,140
606 Credit Unions 100% 535 5,234,176
608 Foreign Banking, Branches & Agences of Foreign Bks 100% 497 10,523,415
609 Functions Related to Depository Banking n.e.c. 100% 1,526 30,845,250
6111 Federal & Federally-Sponsored Credit Agencies 100% 49 866,576
6141 Personal Credit Institutions 100% 179 4,611,534
6153 Short-Term Business Credit Insitutions, Exc Agric. 100% 139 3,168,936
6159 Miscellaneous Business Credit Institutions 80% 468 9,198,240
6162 Mortgage Bankers & Brokers 100% 873 19,350,299
6163 Loan Brokers 100% 337 19,957,784
Security & Comodity Brkrs, Dlrs, Exchanges, & Serv's 15,773 656,155,578
6211 Security Brokers, Dealers & Flotations Companies 100% 12,026 495,687,786
6221 Commodity Contracts Brokers & Dealers 100% 21 698,368
6231 Security & Commodity Exchanges 100% 378 21,081,800
6282 Investment Advice 100% 3,119 133,502,631
6289 Services Allied w/exchng of Securitiess, Commodities 100% 229 5,184,993
Insurance Carriers, Agents, Brokers & Service 15,870 244,976,708
6311 Life Insurance 100% 2,228 30,134,376
6321 Accident & Health Insurance 100% 281 4,666,061
6324 Hospital & Medical Service Plans 100% 1,568 23,390,150
6331 Fire, Marine & Casualty Insurance 100% 4,069 62,302,500
6351 Surety Insurance 100% 475 9,727,160
6361 Title Insurance 100% 597 10,153,381
6371 Pension, Health & Welfare Funds 100% 253 2,871,259
6399 Insurance Carriers, n.e.c. 100% 182 2,861,081
6411 Insurance Agents, Brokers & Service 100% 6,217 98,870,740
Real Estate 9,974 124,843,746
651 Real Estate Operators (Exc Developers) & Lessors 100% 3,567 32,932,800
6531 Real Estate Agents & Mangers 100% 5,771 77,834,219
6552 Land Subdividers & Developers, Except Cemeteries 100% 615 13,945,060
6553 Cemetery Subdividers & Developers 100% 21 131,667
Holding & Other Investment Offices 3,572 54,948,566
6712 Offices of Bank Holding Companies 100% 4 609,256
6719 Office of Holding Companies, n.e.c. 100% 2,183 36,711,388
672 Investment Offices 100% 45 1,274,150
6732 Trusts, Educational, Religious & Charitable 100% 751 7,999,199
6733 Trusts, Except Educational, Religious & Charitable 100% 180 2,969,733
6794 Patent Owners & Lessors 100% 409 5,384,840
Professional Services 24,526 414,212,578
8111 Legal Services 80% 13,195 218,877,973
8721 Accounting, Auditing & Bookeeping Services 80% 5,428 84,205,274
8741 Management Services 80% 2,718 48,930,311
Source: EDD
3-D-1
Appendix Table 3.D
Finance, Investment and Deal-Making Industry
Payroll, Employment and Percent of Industry by 4-Digit SIC Code
Percent 1998 1998
SIC of AVERAGE AVG QTRLY
CODE INDUSTRY SIC CODE NAME Industry EMPLOYMENT PAYROLL
8742 Management Consulting Services 80% 2,333 50,686,584
8743 Public Relations Services 80% 793 11,117,077
8748 Business consulting Services n.e.c 80% 60 395,358
Business Services 27,453 268,807,155
7322 Adjustment & Collection Services 100% 171 1,375,087
7323 Credit Reporting Services 100% 208 4,872,802
7334 Photocopying & Duplicating Services 60% 881 6,204,033
7338 Secretarial & Court Reporting Services 80% 318 2,243,702
7342 Disinfecting & Pest Control 40% 65 709,676
7349 Building Cleaning & Maintenance Service n.e.c. 80% 4,936 26,164,056
7359 Equipment Rental & Leasing n.e.c. 40% 578 11,123,782
7361 Employment Agencies 60% 866 16,685,673
7363 Help Supply Services 60% 6,703 51,046,081
7371 Computer Programming Services 35% 1,258 23,305,963
7372 Prepackaged Software 40% 608 11,378,607
7373 Computer Integrated Systems Design 20% 165 3,410,205
7374 Computer Processing & Data Preparation & Processng 60% 503 6,628,034
7375 Information Retrieval Services 15% 214 3,439,509
7378 Computer Maintenance & Repair 60% 86 777,460
7379 Computer Related Services n.e.c. 60% 2,249 45,243,152
738 Micsellaneous Business Services 60% 7,643 54,199,335
Source: EDD
3-D-2
Appendix Table 3.E
Communications and Media Content Industry
Payroll, Employment and Percent of Industry by 4-Digit SIC Code
Percent 1998 1998
SIC of AVERAGE AVG QTRLY
CODE INDUSTRY SIC CODE NAME Industry EMPLOYMENT PAYROLL
COMMUNICATIONS & MEDIA CONTENT 35,690 579,097,864
Telecommunications 10,782 185,882,989 100.0% 100.0%
4812 Radio Telephone Communications 100% 451 6,910,955 4.2% 3.7%
4813 Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone 100% 5,837 107,915,826 54.1% 58.1%
4822 Telegraph & Other Message Communications 100% 334 9,972,689 3.1% 5.4%
4832 Radio Broadcasting Stations 100% 1,061 16,560,610 9.8% 8.9%
4833 Television Broadcasting Stations 100% 1,939 28,770,034 18.0% 15.5%
4841 Cable & Other Pay Television 100% 944 12,394,417 8.8% 6.7%
4899 Communications n.e.c. 100% 216 3,358,458 2.0% 1.8%
Printing & Publishing 8,234 112,047,925 100.0% 100.0%
2711 Newspapers: Publishing, or Publishing & Printing 100% 1,603 20,853,659 19.5% 18.6%
2721 Periodicals: Publishing, or Publishing & Printing 100% 1,844 31,262,094 22.4% 27.9%
2731 Books: Publishing, or Publishing & Printing 100% 238 2,575,832 2.9% 2.3%
2741 Miscellaneous Publishing 100% 68 558 0.8% 0.0%
2752 Commercial Printing, Lithographic 100% 2,070 28,145,728 25.1% 25.1%
2759 Commercial Printing n.e.c. 100% 1,885 22,729,046 22.9% 20.3%
2789 Bookbinding & Related Work 100% 132 1,060,765 1.6% 0.9%
2791 Typesetting 100% 113 1,277,246 1.4% 1.1%
2796 Platemaking & Related Services 100% 281 4,142,997 3.4% 3.7%
731 Advertising 100% 5,417 101,310,187
Communications Equipment 1,351 15,024,530 100.0% 100.0%
3571 Electronic Computers 40% 24 558,096 1.7% 3.7%
365 Household Audio & Video Equipment 100% 21 177,236 1.6% 1.2%
366 Communications Equipment 100% 449 8,349,626 33.2% 55.6%
367 ElectronicComponents & Accessories 30% 841 5,774,473 62.3% 38.4%
369 Misc Electrical Machinery, Equipment & Supplies 25% 16 165,099 1.2% 1.1%
Services to Communications Industry Group 9,906 164,832,234 100.0% 100.0%
7331 Direct Mail Advertising Services 100% 727 7,973,168 7.3% 4.8%
7335 Commerical Photography 100% 397 2,804,627 4.0% 1.7%
7336 Commercial Art & graphic Design 100% 1,740 29,980,276 17.6% 18.2%
7371 Computer Programming Services 60% 2,156 39,953,080 21.8% 24.2%
7372 Prepackaged Software 40% 608 11,378,607 6.1% 6.9%
7373 Computer Integrated Systems Design 75% 619 12,788,269 6.2% 7.8%
7374 Computer Processing & Data Preparation & Processng 30% 252 3,314,017 2.5% 2.0%
7375 Information Retrieval Services 80% 1,140 18,344,046 11.5% 11.1%
7378 Computer Maintenance & Repair 30% 43 388,730 0.4% 0.2%
7379 Computer Related Services n.e.c. 30% 1,125 22,621,576 11.4% 13.7%
7812 Motion Picture & Video Tape Production 100% 759 11,188,217 7.7% 6.8%
7819 Services Allied to Motion Picuture Production 100% 287 3,200,671 2.9% 1.9%
8999 Services n.e.c. 10% 53 896,951 0.5% 0.5%
Source: EDD
Appendix Table 3.F.1
Federal Government Reporting Units, Employment and Payroll by 4-Digit SIC Code
AVG 1998 1998
SIC RPTNG AVERAGE AVG QTRLY
Code INDUSTRY UNITS EMPLOYMENT PAYROLL
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 77 19,831 251,369,732
Administration & Regulation 32 5,490 71,507,386
9199 General Government n.e.c 7 854 11,916,694
9311 Finance, Taxation & Monetary Policy 2 1,511 22,611,004
9511 Air, Water & Solid Waste Management 1 912 7,303,519
9512 Land, Mineral, Wildlife Conservation 3 265 3,687,694
9611 Administration of General Economic Programs 5 712 8,652,054
9621 Regulation & Administration of Transportation 2 301 4,994,155
9631 Regulation & Administration of Utilities 1 6 127,704
9641 Regulation of agricultural Marketing 3 148 1,907,033
965, Regulation of Mis. Commercial sectors (965), National 8 781 10,307,529
,71,72 Security (971) & International Affairs (972)
Justice 10 1,703 24,581,040
9211 Courts 1 553 7,033,021
9221 Police Protection 4 750 11,187,966
9222 Legal Counsel & Prosecution 2 259 4,451,257
9223 Correctional Institutions 1 5 47,615
9229 Public Order & Safety n.e.c. 2 136 1,861,181
Health & Human Services 15 3,435 51,930,658
8062 General Medical & Surgical hospitals 1 1,695 28,526,345
8399 Social Services n.e.c. 1 2 42,368
8412 Museums & art galleries 0 0 0
8999 Services n.e.c 1 9 115,924
9411 Administration of Educational Programs 2 229 2,648,461
9431 Administration of Public Health Programs 2 8 121,606
9441 Administration of Social & Manpower Programs 6 957 13,551,680
9451 Administration of veterans Affairs 1 280 3,123,784
9531 Housing Programs 1 255 3,800,490
Enterprise 20 9,203 103,350,648
2741 Miscellaneous Publishing 1 17 200,750
3469 Metal Stampings n.e.c. 1 482 5,116,679
4311 U.S. Postal Service 7 7,111 77,324,073
5399 Miscellaneous general merchandise Stores 1 63 255,201
5411 Grocery Stores 2 46 309,272
5812 Eating Places 1 25 148,888
6035 Federal Savings Institutions 1 177 2,623,770
6111 Federal & Federally-Sponsored Credit 0 1 9,487
6311 Life Insurance 1 0 0
6399 Insurance Carriers n.e.c 1 187 3,906,019
7041 Membership-Basis Organizations Hotels 1 0 0
7999 Amusement & Recreation n.e.c. 1 782 8,995,680
8711 Engineering services 2 312 4,460,829
Source: EDD
Appendix Table 3.F.2
State Government Reporting Units, Employment and Payroll by 4-Digit SIC Code
AVG 1998 1998
SIC RPTNG AVERAGE AVG QTRLY
Code INDUSTRY UNITS EMPLOYMENT PAYROLL
STATE GOVERNMENT 1,055 23,814 282,376,555
Administration & Regulation 282 4,748 60,208,981
9199 General Government n.e.c. 13 109 1,474,076
9311 Finance, Taxation &Monetary Policy 3 46 780,432
9511 Air Water & Solid Waste Management 2 135 2,128,249
9512 Land, Mineral & Wildlife Conservation 3 101 1,415,648
9621 Regulation & Administration of Transportation 123 2,355 25,842,988
9631 Regulation & Administration of Utilities 41 440 7,858,060
9641 Regulation of Agricultural Marketing 5 10 144348
9651 Regulation of Miscellaneous Comercial Sectors 92 1,552 20,565,180
Legislature 1 12 123,499
9121 Legislative Bodies 1 12 123,499
Justice 21 502 7,183,084
9211 Courts 1 0 0
9221 Police Protections 4 290 3,001,571
9222 Legal Counsel & Prosecution 12 166 3,333,875
9223 Correctional Institutions 4 46 847,638
Health & Human Services 749 18,549 214,834,532
8063 Psychiatric Hospitals 1 167 1,587,080
8211 Elementary & Secondary Schools 7 0 7,827
8221 Colleges & Universities 657 16,051 184,443,030
9224 Fire Protection 1 0 0
9431 Administration of Public Health Programs 9 109 1,525,781
9441 Administration of Social & Manpower Programs 74 2,222 27,270,814
Enterprise 2 3 26,459
5961 Catalog & Mail-Order Houses 1 1 564
8748 Business Consulting n.e.c. 1 2 25,895
Source: EDD
Appendix Table 3.F.3
Local Government Reporting Units, Employment and Payroll by 4-Digit SIC Code
AVG 1998 1998
SIC RPTNG AVERAGE AVG QTRLY
Code INDUSTRY UNITS EMPLOYMENT PAYROLL
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 28 39,354 478,454,730
Administration & Regulation 8 1,137 14,286,290
4785 Inspection & Fixed Facilities 1 338 4,093,269
9311 Finance, Taxation & Monetary Policy 1 452 5,543,602
9511 Air, Water & Solid Waste Management 1 200 2,385,525
9512 Land, Mineral & Wildlife Conservation 2 3 12,504
9532 Urban & Community Development 1 128 2,032,155
9621 Regulation & Administration of Transportation 1 9 130,977
9641 Regulation of Agricultural Marketing 1 7 88,258
Legislative & Executive Combined 3 4,587 54,455,478
9131 Executive & Legislative Combined 3 4,587 54,455,478
Justice 1 6,771 104,875,242
9229 Public Order & Safety n.e.c. 1 6,771 104,875,242
Health & Human Services 9 18,502 199,616,700
6513 Apartment Building Operators 1 933 10,716,095
8062 General medical & Surgical Hospitals 1 5,513 62,231,245
8211 Elementary & Secondary Schools 1 7,556 78,131,366
8222 Junior Colleges 1 2,094 24,042,789
8399 Social Services n.e.c. 1 0 503
8412 Museums & Art Galleries 1 74 719,494
8231 Libraries 2 822 6,134,405
9441 Administration of Social & Manpower Programs 1 1,510 17,640,803
Enterprise & Public Works 7 8,357 105,221,020
1611 Highway & Street Construction 1 364 4,450,320
4111 Local & Suburban Transit 1 3,669 48,549,650
4491 Marine Cargo Handling 1 219 3,028,106
4581 Airports, Flying Fields & Associated Services 1 1,085 13,610,411
4941 Water Supply 1 297 4,372,345
4952 Sewage Systems 1 1,524 20,987,467
7999 Amusement & Recreation n.e.c. 1 1,199 10,222,721
Source: EDD
Appendix Table 4.A
1960 - 2020
Commuters To Jobs in San Francisco
Number, Percent Distribution, Percent Growth
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
NUMBER
San Francisco Jobs 444,000 452,197 510,988 550,835 568,177 620,946 660,123
City Residents 322,000 283,184 284,297 299,926 305,617 343,348 358,014
Commuters 122,000 169,013 226,691 250,909 262,560 277,598 302,109
Bay Area 122,000 169,013 224,346 247,413 254,110 269,033 291,214
Alameda 25,000 35,197 50,895 60,505 61,799 65,122 70,335
Contra Costa 10,000 20,491 38,236 47,678 55,883 57,031 63,195
Marin 19,000 31,191 37,662 33,656 29,763 31,984 33,001
Napa 0 458 549 1,044 1,079 952 1,074
San Mateo 59,000 67,723 78,706 78,832 79,254 85,360 91,209
Santa Clara 7,000 9,052 7,438 7,536 7,214 7,015 8,215
Solano 1,000 1,249 4,371 9,805 11,667 12,877 16,032
Sonoma 1,000 3,652 6,489 8,357 7,451 8,692 8,153
Outside Bay Area na na 2,345 3,496 8,450 8,565 10,895
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION
San Francisco Jobs 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
City Residents 73% 63% 56% 54% 54% 55% 54%
Commuters 27% 37% 44% 46% 46% 45% 46%
Bay Area 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Alameda 20% 21% 23% 24% 24% 24% 24%
Contra Costa 8% 12% 17% 19% 22% 21% 22%
Marin 16% 18% 17% 14% 12% 12% 11%
Napa 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%
San Mateo 48% 40% 35% 32% 31% 32% 31%
Santa Clara 6% 5% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Solano 1% 1% 2% 4% 5% 5% 6%
Sonoma 1% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Outside % of Commte na na 1% 1% 3% 3% 4%
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
PERCENT GROWTH
San Francisco Jobs na 2% 13% 8% 3% 9% 6%
City Residents na -12% 0% 5% 2% 12% 4%
Commuters na 39% 34% 11% 5% 6% 9%
Bay Area na 39% 33% 10% 3% 6% 8%
Alameda na 41% 45% 19% 2% 5% 8%
Contra Costa na 105% 87% 25% 17% 2% 11%
Marin na 64% 21% -11% -12% 7% 3%
Napa na na 20% 90% 3% -12% 13%
San Mateo na 15% 16% 0% 1% 8% 7%
Santa Clara na 29% -18% 1% -4% -3% 17%
Solano na 25% 250% 124% 19% 10% 25%
Sonoma na 265% 78% 29% -11% 17% -6%
Outside Bay Area na na na 49% 142% 1% 27%
Note: Data on commuters from outside the Bay Area first were collected in the 1980 Census
Source: MTC Forecasts based on ABAG Projections '98
Appendix Table 4.B
1960 - 2020
San Francisco Residents Commuting to Jobs In and Outside San Francisco
Number, Percent Distribution, Percent Growth
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
NUMBER
Employed SF Residents 344,000 315,486 331,470 371,409 383,770 435,741 453,131
Work in San Francisco 322,000 283,184 284,297 299,926 305,617 343,348 358,014
Work Outside SF 22,000 32,302 47,173 71,483 78,153 92,393 95,117
Bay Area 22,000 32,302 46,825 70,699 77,618 91,690 94,435
Alameda 6,000 7,874 15,181 18,822 18,214 22,220 22,785
Contra Costa 1,000 1,129 2,430 5,747 5,187 6,639 6,945
Marin 2,000 1,419 3,332 5,006 6,201 7,036 7,576
Napa 0 77 14 117 134 215 209
San Mateo 12,000 18,349 21,443 32,170 37,633 42,837 44,590
Santa Clara 1,000 2,972 3,721 7,992 9,296 11,587 11,026
Solano 0 362 349 377 330 422 387
Sonoma 0 120 355 468 623 734 917
Outside Bay Area na na 348 784 535 703 682
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION
Employed SF Residents 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Work in San Francisco 94% 90% 86% 81% 80% 79% 79%
Work Outside SF 6% 10% 14% 19% 20% 21% 21%
Bay Area 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Alameda 27% 24% 32% 27% 23% 24% 24%
Contra Costa 5% 3% 5% 8% 7% 7% 7%
Marin 9% 4% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8%
Napa 0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%
San Mateo 55% 57% 46% 46% 48% 47% 47%
Santa Clara 5% 9% 8% 11% 12% 13% 12%
Solano 0% 1.1% 0.7% 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% 0.4%
Sonoma 0% 0.4% 0.8% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 1.0%
Outside % of Commte na na 0.7% 1.1% 0.7% 0.8% 0.7%
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
PERCENT GROWTH
Employed SF Residents na -8% 5% 12% 3% 14% 4%
Work in San Francisco na -12% 0% 5% 2% 12% 4%
Work Outside SF na 47% 46% 52% 9% 18% 3%
Bay Area na 47% 45% 51% 10% 18% 3%
Alameda na 31% 93% 24% -3% 22% 3%
Contra Costa na 13% 115% 137% -10% 28% 5%
Marin na -29% 135% 50% 24% 13% 8%
Napa na na -82% 736% 15% 60% -3%
San Mateo na 53% 17% 50% 17% 14% 4%
Santa Clara na 197% 25% 115% 16% 25% -5%
Solano na na -4% 8% -12% 28% -8%
Sonoma na na 196% 32% 33% 18% 25%
Outside Bay Area na na na 125% -32% 31% -3%
Note: Data on commuters from Bay Area Counties to outside the Bay Area first were collected in 1980
Source: MTC Forecasts based of ABAG Projection '98
Appendix Table 4.C
1990 - 2020
Trips to San Francisco by Purpose and Origin of Trip
Number of Trips and Percent Distribution
Number of Trips Percent Distribution
PURPOSE & ORIGIN 1990 2000 2010 2020 1990 2000 2010
HB Work Trips 828,360 843,540 937,195 994,022 100% 100% 100%
San Francisco 440,168 441,605 488,603 507,495 53.1% 52.4% 52.1%
Alameda 90,691 92,615 100,869 110,635 10.9% 11.0% 10.8%
Contra Costa 77,015 87,621 94,071 105,584 9.3% 10.4% 10.0%
Marin 54,698 53,005 63,605 66,540 6.6% 6.3% 6.8%
Napa 1,698 2,115 2,401 2,711 0.2% 0.3% 0.3%
San Mateo 123,494 124,228 135,477 145,076 14.9% 14.7% 14.5%
Santa Clara 10,752 8,281 7,577 8,567 1.3% 1.0% 0.8%
Solano 13,893 16,293 19,891 24,153 1.7% 1.9% 2.1%
Sonoma 15,951 17,777 24,701 23,261 1.9% 2.1% 2.6%
HB Shopping & Other Trips 509,003 548,333 580,031 591,868 100% 100% 100%
San Francisco 408,353 449,703 477,971 485,850 80.2% 82.0% 82.4%
Alameda 15,086 14,660 13,581 11,852 3.0% 2.7% 2.3%
Contra Costa 10,210 8,594 8,829 7,714 2.0% 1.6% 1.5%
Marin 12,480 10,158 10,734 9,951 2.5% 1.9% 1.9%
Napa 583 431 278 250 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
San Mateo 56,093 57,945 62,361 67,179 11.0% 10.6% 10.8%
Santa Clara 2,926 3,103 2,881 3,275 0.6% 0.6% 0.5%
Solano 1,389 1,109 948 3,496 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%
Sonoma 1,883 2,630 2,448 2,301 0.4% 0.5% 0.4%
HB Social & Recreation Trips 245,894 276,519 301,897 313,979 100% 100% 100%
San Francisco 163,617 188,707 207,283 218,458 66.5% 68.2% 68.7%
Alameda 13,259 14,631 14,394 11,464 5.4% 5.3% 4.8%
Contra Costa 8,090 8,976 9,200 7,855 3.3% 3.2% 3.0%
Marin 8,558 8,943 10,108 9,468 3.5% 3.2% 3.3%
Napa 380 375 329 300 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%
San Mateo 40,985 44,152 49,441 53,522 16.7% 16.0% 16.4%
Santa Clara 6,544 6,224 6,781 8,085 2.7% 2.3% 2.2%
Solano 1,658 1,648 1,457 2,104 0.7% 0.6% 0.5%
Sonoma 2,803 2,863 2,904 2,723 1.1% 1.0% 1.0%
Non-Home Based Trips 783,218 816,181 876,666 921,574 100% 100% 100%
San Francisco 647,966 667,924 716,513 768,358 82.7% 81.8% 81.7%
Alameda 25,001 25,633 28,302 21,180 3.2% 3.1% 3.2%
Contra Costa 8,535 8,941 9,818 7,385 1.1% 1.1% 1.1%
Marin 13,824 14,715 15,583 12,292 1.8% 1.8% 1.8%
Napa 411 480 605 477 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
San Mateo 76,571 86,410 92,838 99,494 9.8% 10.6% 10.6%
Santa Clara 7,899 8,890 9,427 9,736 1.0% 1.1% 1.1%
Solano 1,527 1,571 1,785 1,257 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%
Sonoma 1,484 1,617 1,795 1,395 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%
HB TOTAL School Trips 177,016 203,679 234,455 198,351 100% 100% 100%
San Francisco 154,666 166,561 198,167 165,375 87.4% 81.8% 84.5%
Alameda 3,429 4,740 5,002 2,976 1.9% 2.3% 2.1%
Contra Costa 1,509 4,547 4,162 2,397 0.9% 2.2% 1.8%
Marin 1,946 3,232 4,203 3,329 1.1% 1.6% 1.8%
Napa 90 449 262 73 0.1% 0.2% 0.1%
San Mateo 13,092 15,935 16,142 19,986 7.4% 7.8% 6.9%
Note: All trips are "home based" (HB), except truck trips and the "non-home based" category of personal trips. Home
Based means the trip begins at the traveler's home.
Source: MTC Forecasts based on ABAG Projection '98 4-C-1
Appendix Table 4.C
1990 - 2020
Trips to San Francisco by Purpose and Origin of Trip
Number of Trips and Percent Distribution
Number of Trips Percent Distribution
PURPOSE & ORIGIN 1990 2000 2010 2020 1990 2000 2010
Santa Clara 662 1,013 817 1,287 0.4% 0.5% 0.3%
Solano 979 3,620 3,217 1,383 0.6% 1.8% 1.4%
Sonoma 643 3,582 2,483 1,545 0.4% 1.8% 1.1%
HB Grade School Trips 67,614 98,064 93,292 74,971 100% 100% 100%
San Francisco 66,858 96,979 92,235 74,289 98.9% 98.9% 98.9%
Alameda 95 129 134 5 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
Contra Costa 18 23 20 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Marin 69 109 104 24 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
Napa 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
San Mateo 573 823 796 651 0.8% 0.8% 0.9%
Santa Clara 1 1 3 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Solano 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Sonoma 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
HB High School Trips 32,163 34,464 49,537 38,248 100% 100% 100%
San Francisco 30,247 31,209 47,629 35,182 94.0% 90.6% 96.1%
Alameda 11 28 4 0 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Contra Costa 6 18 2 0 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Marin 132 237 99 17 0.4% 0.7% 0.2%
Napa 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
San Mateo 1,767 2,969 1,803 3,047 5.5% 8.6% 3.6%
Santa Clara 0 3 0 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Solano 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Sonoma 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
HB College Trips 77,239 71,151 91,626 85,132 100% 100% 100%
San Francisco 57,561 38,373 58,303 55,904 74.5% 53.9% 63.6%
Alameda 3,323 4,583 4,864 2,971 4.3% 6.4% 5.3%
Contra Costa 1,485 4,506 4,140 2,397 1.9% 6.3% 4.5%
Marin 1,745 2,886 4,000 3,288 2.3% 4.1% 4.4%
Napa 90 449 262 73 0.1% 0.6% 0.3%
San Mateo 10,752 12,143 13,543 16,288 13.9% 17.1% 14.8%
Santa Clara 661 1,009 814 1,283 0.9% 1.4% 0.9%
Solano 979 3,620 3,217 1,383 1.3% 5.1% 3.5%
Sonoma 643 3,582 2,483 1,545 0.8% 5.0% 2.7%
TOTAL Truck Trips 41,076 41,734 45,081 47,829 100% 100% 100%
San Francisco 29,808 29,752 31,871 34,669 72.6% 71.3% 70.7%
Alameda 2,801 2,803 3,059 2,821 6.8% 6.7% 6.8%
Contra Costa 809 877 955 858 2.0% 2.1% 2.1%
Marin 1,073 1,095 1,177 1,098 2.6% 2.6% 2.6%
Napa 271 316 410 361 0.7% 0.8% 0.9%
San Mateo 2,893 3,258 3,512 3,987 7.0% 7.8% 7.8%
Santa Clara 2,011 2,174 2,356 2,547 4.9% 5.2% 5.2%
Solano 1,169 1,205 1,433 1,214 2.8% 2.9% 3.2%
Sonoma 241 254 308 274 0.6% 0.6% 0.7%
Small Truck Size Trips 31,456 31,927 34,475 36,525 100% 100% 100%
San Francisco 23,953 23,945 25,690 27,964 76.1% 75.0% 74.5%
Alameda 2,005 2,025 2,201 1,982 6.4% 6.3% 6.4%
Note: All trips are "home based" (HB), except truck trips and the "non-home based" category of personal trips. Home
Based means the trip begins at the traveler's home.
Source: MTC Forecasts based on ABAG Projection '98 4-C-2
Appendix Table 4.C
1990 - 2020
Trips to San Francisco by Purpose and Origin of Trip
Number of Trips and Percent Distribution
Number of Trips Percent Distribution
PURPOSE & ORIGIN 1990 2000 2010 2020 1990 2000 2010
Contra Costa 533 588 636 541 1.7% 1.8% 1.8%
Marin 825 851 908 838 2.6% 2.7% 2.6%
Napa 166 193 250 203 0.5% 0.6% 0.7%
San Mateo 2,209 2,482 2,694 3,052 7.0% 7.8% 7.8%
Santa Clara 862 920 1,001 1,098 2.7% 2.9% 2.9%
Solano 801 818 968 758 2.5% 2.6% 2.8%
Sonoma 102 105 127 89 0.3% 0.3% 0.4%
Medium Size Truck Trips 3,018 3,040 3,277 3,492 100% 100% 100%
San Francisco 2,475 2,467 2,643 2,884 82.0% 81.2% 80.7%
Alameda 163 154 172 139 5.4% 5.1% 5.2%
Contra Costa 30 30 39 27 1.0% 1.0% 1.2%
Marin 62 57 72 53 2.1% 1.9% 2.2%
Napa 7 8 14 7 0.2% 0.3% 0.4%
San Mateo 196 225 239 281 6.5% 7.4% 7.3%
Santa Clara 39 49 49 65 1.3% 1.6% 1.5%
Solano 44 48 46 30 1.5% 1.6% 1.4%
Sonoma 2 2 3 6 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
Large (Combination) Truck Trips 6,602 6,767 7,329 7,812 100% 100% 100%
San Francisco 3,380 3,340 3,538 3,821 51.2% 49.4% 48.3%
Alameda 633 624 686 700 9.6% 9.2% 9.4%
Contra Costa 246 259 280 290 3.7% 3.8% 3.8%
Marin 186 187 197 207 2.8% 2.8% 2.7%
Napa 98 115 146 151 1.5% 1.7% 2.0%
San Mateo 488 551 579 654 7.4% 8.1% 7.9%
Santa Clara 1,110 1,205 1,306 1,384 16.8% 17.8% 17.8%
Solano 324 339 419 426 4.9% 5.0% 5.7%
Sonoma 137 147 178 179 2.1% 2.2% 2.4%
Note: All trips are "home based" (HB), except truck trips and the "non-home based" category of personal trips. Home
Based means the trip begins at the traveler's home.
Source: MTC Forecasts based on ABAG Projection '98 4-C-3
Appendix table 5.A.1
1990 - 1999
San Francisco Housing Market
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 307,221 308,590 309,171 309,360 309,597 309,925 309,661 311,081 312,679 314,481
Persons Per Household 2.29 2.30 2.31 2.33 2.36 2.35 2.38 2.42 2.45 2.47
HOUSING STOCK 330,095 331,711 332,436 332,769 333,491 334,376 334,921 336,151 337,870 339,979
Single-Family 55,446 55,446 55,446 55,446 55,443 55,521 55,648 55,852 56,032 56,183
Multifamily 274,649 276,265 276,990 227,323 278,048 278,855 279,273 280,299 281,838 283,797
Owner-Occupied 107,527 108,007 108,210 108,276 108,359 108,474 108,381 108,878 109,438 110,068
Renter-Occupied 199,694 200,584 200,961 201,084 201,238 201,451 201,280 202,203 203,241 204,312
Percent of Units Vacant 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.1% 7.2% 7.3% 7.6% 7.5% 7.5%
ADDITIONS to Housing Stock 1,077 987 629 1,001 948 515 1,212 1,792 2,402 1,817
Detached Single-Family 161 195 70 82 107 106 162 189 186 115
Multifalmily & Attached Single-Family 916 792 559 919 841 409 1,050 1,603 2,216 1,702
UNITS SOLD 5,312 5,472 5,692 5,480 6,149 5,512 6,580 8,244 8,262 7,981
New 320 203 281 324 465 316 603 664 503 368
Existing 4,992 5,269 5,411 5,156 5,684 5,196 5,977 7,580 7,759 7,613
SALES PRICE, Typical New Unit
Detached Single-Family $383,000 $351,100 $337,600 $284,700 $393,500 $432,900 $271,500 $296,600 $320,900 $414,300
Townhouses $148,600 na na na na na na $216,400 $256,600 $270,000
Apartment Condominiums $299,200 $260,200 $223,400 $242,300 $231,600 $253,900 $251,800 $300,400 $344,700 $425,900
RENT, Typical New Unit per Mo
One-Bedroom $996 $1,015 $1,016 $1,025 $1,037 $1,104 $1,362 $1,538 $1,646 $1,858
Two-Bedroom $1,466 $1,550 $1,509 $1,501 $1,556 $1,668 $1,902 $2,168 $2,248 $2,486
Rental Vacancy Rate 6.2% 3.2% 3.3% 4.6% 3.7% 2.4% 2.4% 3.0% 1.9% 2.1%
Price, Typical Single-Family Lot $195,000 $178,800 $171,900 $145,000 $200,400 $204,800 $210,000 $215,000 $220,000 $230,000
Source: California department of Finance; 1990 U.S. Census; Economic Sciences Corporation; RealFacts; California Association of Realtors;
Construction Industry Research Board; Sedway Group.
Appendix Table 5.A.2
1990 - 1999
San Francisco Housing Market -- Percent Growth
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1990-99
TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% -0.1% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 2.4%
Persons Per Household 0.6% 0.3% 1.0% 1.1% -0.1% 1.1% 1.9% 0.9% 0.8% 7.7%
HOUSING STOCK 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 3.0%
Single-Family 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 1.3%
Multifamily 0.6% 0.3% -17.9% 22.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.4% 0.5% 0.7% 3.3%
Owner-Occupied 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% -0.1% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 2.4%
Renter-Occupied 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% -0.1% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 2.3%
Percent of Units Vacant -0.1% 0.6% 0.4% 0.6% 1.8% 1.9% 3.1% -1.1% 0.0% 7.5%
ADDITIONS to Housing Stock
Detached Single-Family 21.1% -64.1% 17.1% 30.5% -0.9% 52.8% 16.7% -1.6% -38.2% -28.6%
Multifalmily & Attached Single-Family -13.5% -29.4% 64.4% -8.5% -51.4% 156.7% 52.7% 38.2% -23.2% 85.8%
UNITS SOLD
New -36.6% 38.4% 15.3% 43.5% -32.0% 90.8% 10.1% -24.2% -26.8% 15.0%
Existing 5.5% 2.7% -4.7% 10.2% -8.6% 15.0% 26.8% 2.4% -1.9% 52.5%
SALES PRICE, Typical New Unit
Detached Single-Family -8.3% -3.8% -15.7% 38.2% 10.0% -37.3% 9.2% 8.2% 29.1% 8.2%
Townhouses na na na na na na na 18.6% 5.2% 81.7%
Apartment Condominiums -13.0% -14.1% 8.5% -4.4% 9.6% -0.8% 19.3% 14.7% 23.6% 42.3%
RENT, Typical New Unit per Mo
One-Bedroom 1.9% 0.1% 0.9% 1.2% 6.5% 23.4% 12.9% 7.0% 12.9% 86.5%
Two-Bedroom 5.7% -2.6% -0.5% 3.7% 7.2% 14.0% 14.0% 3.7% 10.6% 69.6%
Rental Vacancy Rate -48.4% 3.1% 39.4% -19.6% -35.1% 0.0% 25.0% -36.7% 10.5% -66.1%
Price, Typical Single-Family Lot -8.3% -3.9% -15.6% 38.2% 2.2% 2.5% 2.4% 2.3% 4.5% 17.9%
Source: California department of Finance; 1990 U.S. Census; Economic Sciences Corporation; RealFacts; California Association of Realtors;
Construction Industry Research Board; Sedway Group.
Appendix Table 5.A.3
1990 - 1999
San Francisoco Housing Market -- Percent Distributions
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
HOUSING STOCK 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Single-Family 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17%
Multifamily 83% 83% 83% 68% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83%
Owner-Occupied 33% 33% 33% 33% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32%
Renter-Occupied 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60%
ADDITIONS to Housing Stock 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Detached Single-Family 15% 20% 11% 8% 11% 21% 13% 11% 8% 6%
Multifalmily & Attached Single-Family 85% 80% 89% 92% 89% 79% 87% 89% 92% 94%
UNITS SOLD 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
New 6% 4% 5% 6% 8% 6% 9% 8% 6% 5%
Existing 94% 96% 95% 94% 92% 94% 91% 92% 94% 95%
Source: California department of Finance; 1990 U.S. Census; Economic Sciences Corporation; RealFacts;
California Association of Realtors; Construction Industry Research Board; Sedway Group.
Appendix Table 5.B
1986 - 1999
San Francisco Apartment Rents (1)
1 Bed 2 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed Average Average
Studio 1 Bath 1 Bath 2 Bath 2 Bath Rent Vacancy
Monthly Rent
1986 $608 $822 $911 $1,205 $1,280 $908 3.0%
1987 $648 $858 $955 $1,273 $1,345 $956 4.0%
1988 $680 $908 $1,011 $1,308 $1,410 $1,002 4.0%
1989 $715 $943 $1,065 $1,391 $1,470 $1,048 4.7%
1990 $753 $996 $1,115 $1,466 $1,615 $1,136 6.2%
1991 $764 $1,015 $1,140 $1,550 $1,650 $1,174 3.2%
1992 $761 $1,016 $1,131 $1,509 $1,638 $1,151 3.3%
1993 $765 $1,025 $1,142 $1,501 $1,645 $1,164 4.6%
1994 $790 $1,037 $1,157 $1,556 $1,723 $1,201 3.7%
1995 $839 $1,095 $1,195 $1,668 $1,720 $1,245 2.4%
1996 $1,038 $1,383 $1,512 $1,987 $2,010 $1,508 2.4%
1997 $1,146 $1,538 $1,776 $2,168 $2,377 $1,734 3.1%
1998 $1,249 $1,646 $1,849 $2,248 $2,536 $1,844 1.9%
1999 $1,374 $1,858 $1,970 $2,486 $2,917 $2,077 2.1%
Percent Change Inflation
1987 6.6% 4.4% 4.8% 5.6% 5.1% 5.3% 3.4%
1988 4.9% 5.8% 5.9% 2.7% 4.8% 4.8% 4.4%
1989 5.1% 3.9% 5.3% 6.3% 4.3% 4.6% 4.9%
1990 5.3% 5.6% 4.7% 5.4% 9.9% 8.4% 4.5%
1991 1.5% 1.9% 2.2% 5.7% 2.2% 3.3% 4.4%
1992 -0.4% 0.1% -0.8% -2.6% -0.7% -2.0% 3.3%
1993 0.5% 0.9% 1.0% -0.5% 0.4% 1.1% 2.7%
1994 3.3% 1.2% 1.3% 3.7% 4.7% 3.2% 1.6%
1995 6.2% 5.6% 3.3% 7.2% -0.2% 3.7% 2.0%
1996 23.7% 26.3% 26.5% 19.1% 16.9% 21.1% 2.3%
1997 10.4% 11.2% 17.5% 9.1% 18.3% 15.0% 3.4%
1998 9.0% 7.0% 4.1% 3.7% 6.7% 6.3% 3.2%
1999 10.0% 12.9% 6.5% 10.6% 15.0% 12.6% 2.2%
Average Annual Percent Change
1987-90 5.5% 4.9% 5.2% 5.0% 6.0% 5.8% 4.3%
1991-94 1.2% 1.0% 0.9% 1.6% 1.7% 1.4% 3.0%
1995-99 11.9% 12.6% 11.6% 9.9% 11.3% 11.8% 2.6%
Average Annual Percent Change
1986-90 6.0% 5.3% 5.6% 5.4% 6.5% 6.3% 5.5%
1991-95 2.5% 2.0% 1.2% 1.9% 1.1% 1.5% 4.3%
1996-99 10.8% 11.4% 10.1% 8.4% 15.0% 12.6% 3.2%
1989-98 7.5% 7.5% 7.4% 6.2% 7.3% 7.6% 3.6%
1986-99 9.7% 9.7% 8.9% 8.2% 9.8% 9.9% 3.7%
Total Percent Change
1986-90 23.8% 21.2% 22.4% 21.7% 26.2% 25.1%
1991-95 9.8% 7.9% 4.8% 7.6% 4.2% 6.0%
1996-99 32.4% 34.3% 30.3% 25.1% 45.1% 37.7%
1989-98 74.7% 74.5% 73.6% 61.6% 72.5% 76.0%
1986-99 126.0% 126.0% 116.2% 106.3% 127.9% 128.7%
Source: Realfacts, RealData, Sedway Group
(1) Data Based on a sample of 14,262 units in 35 complexes of over 50 units, each.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Many people are familiar with Kent Sims’ analyses and commentary on the local
economy from his speeches and publications. He approaches his subject with
uncompromising rigor and presents the results with candor that has attracted both
admirers and critics.
Kent began his professional career in 1966 as Program Economist for the US Department
of State Mission to Pakistan in the heady years of the green revolution. He returned to the
United States in 1969 to begin a 16-year career with the Federal Reserve Bank of San
Francisco that included successive assignments as Director of Economic Research; Chief
of Banking Supervision, Regulation and Credit; and Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer. While at the Fed, he pioneered use of policy audits as the principal
basis for bank examinations, methods now used by all three federal bank regulatory
agencies; published the first written rules for use of the Discount Window in the Federal
Reserve System; and managed design and construction of the Fed’s headquarters
buildings in San Francisco and Los Angeles.
In 1985 Kent left the Fed to enter private practice as a financial consultant and asset
manager, and three years latter was recruited as founding president of the San Francisco
Economic Development Corporation. Often described as a “boutique think tank”, Kent’s
work at the EDC was reflected in numerous publications: Competition in a Changing
World identified the City’s roles in the metropolitan economy, its comparative
advantages, and strategy for leveraging these advantages to build prosperity; the massive
two-volume Bay Area Household Survey analyzed the changing relationship between San
Francisco and its metropolitan consumers and labor force, and offered strategies for
reversing the decline in metropolitan patronage of San Francisco business, cultural and
entertainment venues; Smartland Heartland, a regional image piece, documented major
components of the Bay Area’s knowledge-based economy and was among the first to
promote the Bay Area as “the nation’s laboratory for new ideas” – themes now common
in analyses of San Francisco and the region.
Recruited in 1992 to be San Francisco’s Director of Economic Planning and
Development, Kent created economic development plans based on his research at the
EDC. His major projects included expediting EIR certification for the $4 billion
expansion of San Francisco Airport, retention of the Giants baseball franchise, site
selection for UCSF’s second campus development, lab developments at San Franicsco
General Hospital, recruitment for the digital media industry, and Federated Department
Stores retail developments at Union Square (Macy’s expansion) and at the former
Emporium Department Store (Bloomingdales). He subsequently was projects manager
for the City Manager of Oakland, before returning to private practice as an economic
development consultant.
Kent holds a Ph.D. in economics with undergraduate work in architecture, engineering
and fine arts. He may be contacted at kentsims@pacbell.net.
July 10, 2000 SPUR
