Draft SFTP Equity Analysis · N.Beach/Chinatown Quality, Performance Noe/Glen/Bernal Performance...

www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA |

www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF

Draft SFTP Equity Analysis

April 15, 2013

Socioeconomic and Geographic Disparities in our

Current and Future Transportation System

The Purpose of This Analysis

• Identify investment and policy needs for SFTP

• Shape/guide SFTP investment plan

• Support SFTP policy recommendations (e.g. TDM)

Note:

• This is not a Title VI analysis, as required by transit agencies that

receive federal funding, like SFMTA

• SFMTA is currently working on its Title VI recertification (due to the

Federal Transit Administration late this year)

www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 2

Communities of Concern


Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission (2012), Plan Bay Area Equity Analysis Methodology

To qualify as a CoC:

• Zone must have at

least four “degrees

of disadvantage”

OR

• Meet low-income

and race/ethnicity

concentration

thresholds

SFCTA 12-District System


Approach


High-Level Findings Safety Metrics


Metric Socioeconomic Disparity Notes

Pedestrian Safety Injuries concentrated in highest-

density districts, many of which are

CoCs

Bike Safety Injuries concentrated in highest-


CoCs

Street/Transit Crime Highest-crime areas concentrated in

CoCs

Air-Quality Impacts Concentrations around elevated

freeways, high-volume northeastern

streets

Major Trends Small/No Trends

Note: For every metric, there are geographic trends and/or disparities that either

A. Are expected because of land use or geography (i.e. hills)

B. Indicate an inequity rooted in other reasons, opening the potential for a policy/investment response.

High-Level Findings Transportation Network Quality Metrics



Access to Muni

Rapid

Concentrations of lower-access

areas in lower-density

southern/western areas

Access to Regional

Transit

Major gaps in access in Sunset,

Richmond, and southeast/

southwest edges of the city

Transfer Rate to

Popular Destinations

Most transfers needed in the

southern and western parts of the

city

Pavement Quality Concentration of best conditions in

northeast core, worst conditions in

dense core-adjacent districts


Need a good dataset:

• Pedestrian Network

Quality

Still working on

methodology:

• Access to Bike

Network

• Access to Owl Network




High-Level Findings Transit Performance Metrics



Transit Speeds Transit speeds lowest in densest

districts, many of which are CoCs

Transit Reliability Small differential in speeds is not

necessarily indicative of speedy

service

AM-Peak Transit

Crowding

Crowding most affects residents of

Western Market, outlying districts

Travel Time to


Concentrations of longest travel

times in the southern and western

parts of the city

Vehicle Miles

Traveled

Concentrations of lowest VMT levels

in dense, central districts; highest

VMT levels in lower-density areas



• Transportation

Affordability




High-Level Findings By Neighborhood


District Poor Performance Poor Cats Strong Performance Strong Cats

Bayshore Across the Board

Downtown Safety Quality, Performance

Hill Districts Quality Safety

Marina/N. Heights Safety

Mission/Potrero Safety

N.Beach/Chinatown Quality, Performance

Noe/Glen/Bernal Performance

Outer Mission Safety

Richmond Safety

SoMa Performance

Sunset Performance

Western Market Safety Quality, Performance

Significantly Worse than

Citywide Average

Significantly Better than

Citywide Average

Safety

• Pedestrian Safety (total collisions and collision rate)

• Bike Safety

• Street and Transit-Related Crime

• Transportation-Related Air Quality Impacts


SA

FET

Y

Pedestrian Injuries: Raw Total Concentrations in Densest Districts


Sources:

Tract Populations: American Community Survey, 2009

Ped Collisions (2007-11): Statewide Integrated Traffic Reporting System (SWITRS)

SA

FET

Y

Total Pedestrian Injuries by CoC Status A significant socioeconomic disparity


31%

56%

15%

9%

33%

25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Worst 20% of Zones Worst 40% of Zones Zero Injuries

Per

cen

t of Z

on

es in

So

cio

eco

no

mic

Ca

tego

ry

Total Pedestrian Injuries

In COC

Outside COC

SA

FET

Y

Pedestrian Injury Rate Concentrations in less-dense districts with high-vol arterials


Sources:

Predicted Crossing Volume: San Francisco Pedestrian Volume Model (2011)

Ped Collisions (2007-11): Statewide Integrated Traffic Reporting System (SWITRS)

SA

FET

Y

Pedestrian Injury Rate by CoC Status Still a socioeconomic issue, but much less pronounced


16%

32%

16% 15%

44%

26%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Worst 20% of Zones Worst 40% of Zones Rate lower than .01

Per

cen

t of Z

on

es in

So

cio

eco

no

mic

Ca

tego

ry

Pedestrian Injury Rate (by Crossing Volume)

In COC

Outside COC

SA

FET

Y

Bike Safety Concentrations in densest areas, w/ more bike/car conflicts


Sources: Tract Populations – American Community Survey, 2009

Bike Collisions (2007-11) – Statewide Integrated Traffic Reporting System (SWITRS)

Bike Facilities – SFMTA (2013)

SA

FET

Y

Bike Injuries by Socioeconomic Status Concentration of high-injury zones in COCs


20%

26%

8%

40%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Zones with 7 or more Injuries

During Analysis Period

Zones with No Injuries

During Analysis Period

Per

cen

t of Z

on

es in

So

cio

eco

no

mic

Ca

tego

ry

Bike Injuries by Zone

In COC

Outside COC

SA

FET

Y

Summary: Safety Issues Bike and Pedestrian Injuries


Metric Significantly Worse than City Avg Significantly Better than City Avg

Pedestrian Safety (Total Injuries) Downtown*

North Beach/Chinatown

Outer Mission*

SoMa*

Western Market

Bayshore*

Hill Districts

Marina/Northern Heights

Noe/Glen/Bernal

Sunset

Pedestrian Safety (Injury Rate) Bayshore*

Noe/Glen/Bernal

Outer Mission*

Sunset

Downtown*



SoMa*

Bike Safety Downtown*

Mission/Potrero*

SoMa*

Western Market

Bayshore*

Hill Districts


Richmond

SA

FET

Y

*Significant concentration of communities of concern

Summary: Safety Issues Crime and Air Quality



Street/Transit-Related Crime Bayshore*

Downtown*

Mission/Potrero*

Western Market

Hill Districts


Richmond

Sunset

Air-Quality Impacts Bayshore*

Mission/Potrero*


Richmond

SA

FET

Y


Transportation Network Quality

• Access to the Muni Rapid Network

• Access to the Regional Transit Network

• Transfer Rate to Popular Destinations

• Pavement Quality


QU

ALIT

Y

Access to the Rapid Network Best access in the core, along rail spines


Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3

Fixed/Final

QU

ALIT

Y

Access to Rapid Network Concentration downtown gives many CoCs good access


Source: Calculated using Muni TEP Rapid Network Designations.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

No

Connections

1

Connection

2

Connections

3

Connections

4

Connections

5+

Connections

Direct Access to Rapid Network by Socioeconomic Status

In COC

Outside COC

QU

ALIT

Y

Transfers per Transit Trip (2012, AM Peak Period) Geographic Pattern: Furthest from Downtown, no direct routes



QU

ALIT

Y

Pavement Conditions Best conditions cluster in NE core, worst in core-adjacent areas


QU

ALIT

Y

Summary: Transit Quality Issues



High-Quality Transit: Access to the

Rapid Network

Bayshore (both)*

Hill Districts

Marina/N. Heights

Noe/Glen/Bernal

Sunset

Bayshore (both)*

Downtown*

SoMa*

Western Market

High-Quality Transit: Access to the

Regional Network

Hill Districts

Richmond

Sunset

Downtown*

Mission/Potrero*

Noe/Glen/Bernal

Outer Mission*

SoMa*

QU

ALIT

Y


Summary: Transit Quality Issues



Transfer Rate to Popular

Destinations

Bayshore*

Mission/Potrero*

Noe/Glen/Bernal

Downtown*


SoMa*

Western Market

Pavement Quality Mission/Potrero*

Western Market

Downtown*


QU

ALIT

Y


Transportation Performance

• Transit Speed

• Transit Speed Variability (Reliability)

• Transit Crowding in the Morning Peak Hour

• Travel Time to Popular Destinations

• Vehicle Miles Traveled


PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

Muni Crowding Morning Peak Hour, 2012 and 2040



PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

2012: Transit Crowding Experienced by Origin District AM Peak Period



20% 19% 20% 20% 19% 13%

11% 9% 6% 3%

2% 1%

9%

7% 6% 2% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% 4% 1% 1%

10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Per

cen

t of P

erso

n-H

ou

rs T

rave

lled

Crowding Experienced by Transit Riders, by Origin District in the 2012 Morning Peak

Overcapacity

Crowded

Uncrowded

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E




30% 20% 23% 21%

11%

15% 16%

11% 17%

6%

5%

14%

18%

14% 16% 14% 17%

28%

15% 13% 6% 8% 7%

19%

8% 16%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Per

cen

t of P

erso

n-H

ou

rs T

rave

lled

Crowding Experienced by Transit Riders, by Origin District in the 2040 Morning Peak

Overcapacity

Crowded

Uncrowded

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E




PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

Crowding and Communities of Concern (’12 and ’40) Transit Trips To/From/Within CoCs vs. Citywide



80% 81%

10% 9%

10% 10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Communities of Concern Citywide

Crowding Experienced by CoC Transit

Riders, 2012 Morning Peak

Overcapacity

Crowded

Uncrowded

63% 66%

19% 18%

18% 16%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Communities of Concern Citywide

Crowding Experienced by CoC Transit

Riders, 2040 Morning Peak

Overcapacity

Crowded

Uncrowded

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

Average Transit Travel Time (2012 AM Peak) Geographic pattern: Southern, western edges see longest times



PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

Summary: Transportation System Performance



Transit Operating Speeds Downtown*


Bayshore*

Hill Districts

Noe/Glen/Bernal

Transit Reliability Richmond

SoMa

Downtown


AM-Peak Transit Crowding

Experienced by Trip Origin

Bayshore*

Noe/Glen/Bernal

Richmond

Sunset

Western Market

Downtown*



PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

Summary: Transportation System Performance



Travel Time to Popular

Destinations

Bayshore*

Outer Mission*

Sunset

Downtown*



Noe/Glen/Bernal

SoMa*

Western Market

Vehicle Miles Traveled Bayshore*

Hill Districts

Noe/Glen/Bernal

Outer Mission*

Sunset

Western Market

Downtown*



SoMa*

Western Market


PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

Conclusions

• Transportation system performance shows geographic disparities on

most metrics

• Socioeconomic disparities most pronounced for safety metrics

• All metrics have some kind of geographic component – some based

on land use/geography, some rooted in other reasons

• Differences in geographic location of CoCs mask some system-

performance deficiencies in the Bayshore neighborhood


www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA |

www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF

SFTP Equity Analysis

April 15, 2013

Socioeconomic and Geographic Disparities in our

Current and Future Transportation System

High-Level Findings Safety Metrics



Pedestrian Safety Injuries concentrated in highest-


CoCs

Bike Safety Injuries concentrated in highest-


CoCs

Street/Transit Crime Highest-crime areas concentrated in

CoCs

Air-Quality Impacts Concentrations around elevated

freeways, high-volume northeastern

streets



A. Are expected because of land-use decisions made ages ago or


High-Level Findings Transportation Network Quality Metrics



Access to Muni

Rapid

Concentrations of lower-access

areas in lower-density

southern/western areas

Access to Regional

Transit

Major gaps in access in Sunset,

Richmond, and southeast/

southwest edges of the city

Transfer Rate to


Most transfers needed in the

southern and western parts of the

city

Pavement Quality Concentration of best conditions in

northeast core, worst conditions in

dense core-adjacent districts



• Pedestrian Network

Quality

Still working on

methodology:

• Access to Bike

Network

• Access to Owl Network




High-Level Findings Transit Performance Metrics



Transit Speeds Transit speeds lowest in densest

districts, many of which are CoCs

Transit Reliability Small differential in speeds is not

necessarily indicative of speedy

service

AM-Peak Transit

Crowding

Crowding most affects residents of

Western Market, outlying districts

Travel Time to


Concentrations of longest travel

times in the southern and western

parts of the city

Vehicle Miles

Traveled

Concentrations of lowest VMT levels

in dense, central districts; highest

VMT levels in lower-density areas



• Transportation

Affordability




Bayshore Downtown Marina/N. Hts N. Beach/Chntwn

Ped Safety (Total)

Ped Safety (Rate)

Bike Safety

Crime

Air Quality

Rapid Network

Regional Network

Transfer Rate

Pavement Conditions

Transit Speeds

Transit Reliability

Transit Crowding

Travel Time

Vehicle Miles Traveled

Summary: Geographic Equity Districts that Perform Worst and Best


Significantly Worse than

Citywide Average

Significantly Better than

Citywide Average

Overrepresented in Best and

Worst Categories

Communities of Concern Metropolitan Transportation Commission Definition


Disadvantage Factor % Regional Population Concentration Threshold*

Minority Population

(any racial/ethnic minority)

54% 70%

Low-Income Population

(<200% of Poverty)

23% 30%

Limited-English Proficiency Pop 9% 20%

Zero-Vehicle Households 9% 10%

Seniors 75 and Over 6% 10%

Population with Disability 18% 25%

Single-Parent Families 14% 20%

Cost-Burdened Renters 10% 15%


*Thresholds are all between the regional mean and one standard deviation above the mean

San Francisco Communities of Concern What Criteria Each Area Meets



CoC Low-

Income

Minority LEP Senior Zero-

Vehicle

Single-

Parent

Disabled Rent

Burden

Richmond

W. Addition

Tenderloin

Chinatown

SoMa

Mission Bay

Mission

Bayvw/HP

Vis Valley

Outer Mission

Crocker-Amz

Ocean View

Treasure Is.

Communities of Concern: Total Crime Incidents


Sources:


Crime (2012-13): data.sfgov.org/Public-Safety/SFPD-Reported-Incidents-2003-to-Present/dyj4-n68b

SA

FET

Y

Communities of Concern: Crime Rate


Sources:


Crime (2012-13): data.sfgov.org/Public-Safety/SFPD-Reported-Incidents-2003-to-Present/dyj4-n68b

SA

FET

Y

Potential Roadway Particulate Exposure


Source: San Francisco Department of Public Health (2008)

SA

FET

Y

Regional Transit Network Access Major gaps in direct access on west side, far southeast


QU

ALIT

Y

Access to Regional System by CoC Status Better access from CoC zones


16%

12%

19%

23%

31%

52%

17% 15%

11%

6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

None Few Several Many Most

Per

cen

t of Z

on

es in

So

cio

eco

no

mic

Ca

tego

ry

Connections to Regional Bus and Rail System

In COC

Outside COC

QU

ALIT

Y

AM Peak: Muni Speeds Slowest speeds concentrated in downtown


Source: SFMTA Automatic Vehicle Locator Data

Data preparation credit: Eric Fisher

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

AM Peak: Muni Speed Variability Consistent but slow service downtown, variability on arterials


Source: SFMTA Automatic Vehicle Locator Data

Data preparation credit: Eric Fisher

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

10%

1%

4%

1%

-8%

2% 4%

2%

11%

3% 3%

13% 9%

7%

10%

12% 15%

27%

12%

12%

6%

6%

3%

18%

8%

6%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Change in Passenger Hours in Crowded/Overcapacity Conditions, 2012-2040

Change in Overcapacity

Change in Crowded

Increase in Crowding by Origin District (2012-40)



PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

Change in Average Transit Trip Time (2012-40) Notable improvement along T-3rd and Geary Corridors



PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

2012: Vehicle Miles Traveled by Household Clusters of high VMT in south and west


PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

2040: Vehicle Miles Traveled by Household Similar pattern, with higher VMT across the board


PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

Date post:	14-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Draft SFTP Equity Analysis · N.Beach/Chinatown Quality, Performance Noe/Glen/Bernal Performance...

Documents