Tilly Chang - SFCTA - San Francisco ICT Transportation Initiatives

February, 2008

SAN FRANCISCOICT Transportation Initiatives

Tilly Chang, SFCTACISCO Connected Urban Development Conference

January 21, 2008

www.sfmobility.org 2

WHY WE’RE CONCERNEDTransportation consistently ranks #1 problem in regional surveys (Bay Area Council)

Bay Area is 2nd most congested region in the nation (Texas Transportation Institute)

Half of average regional trip is spent in traffic delay with bus speeds 9 –35% slower than auto speeds

Transportation contributes about 50% of eCO2 emissions in SF

San Francisco sacrificed $2.3 billion to congestion in 2005

Federal funds shortageSource: SFCTA, Spring 2006 LOS Monitoring

SFMTA, Spring 2007AVL Monitoring Results

Congested Streets in San Francisco


TRAVEL to DOWNTOWN SF

1,000,000 trips daily to Downtown, Civic Center, and SOMA

500,000 by car (daily)150,000 by car (AM/PM peaks)

Transit mode share to/from downtown (41%, pm peak)

East Bay: 66%North Bay: 42%South Bay/Peninsula: 23%

San Francisco

East Bay

South Bay

North Bay

Downtown

SoMa

374,172(39%)

150,417(16%)

52,624(6%)

242,077(26%)128,475

(14%)

Daily Trips to/from San Francisco (2005)

Source: SF-CHAMP


PLANNING for a SUSTAINABLE FUTURE

Photo: San Francisco Redevelopment Agency

Photo: UCSF

Photo: San Francisco Planning Department


WHY STUDY CONGESTION PRICING in SF?

Economic tool for managing scarce, underpriced resource

Successful implementation in several cities worldwide

National / regional support and trends in congestion management

SF Countywide Transportation Plan

SF Climate Action Plan

Key Benefits

Faster, more reliable trips for all travelers

Improved traffic flow and road safety

Funds reinvested in transportation improvements

London14,000 new bus seats (more frequent service)$200M net revenue annually 30% less congestion16% reduction in vehicle emissions

Stockholm2,800 new park & ride spaces$50M net revenue annually 22% less congestion14% reduction in vehicle emissions

Rome*14 new regional/express bus lines$65M net revenue annually 20% less congestion


POLITICAL LEADERSHIP

Mayor Newsom, 2nd Inaugural AddressJanuary 8, 2008


CONGESTION PRICING in PRACTICE

Benefits include

reduced delays & traffic (13 – 26%)

increased speeds (20 – 39%)

better transit reliability & ridership (5 – 18%)

decrease in emissions (15 – 20%)

decrease in pedestrian injuries (~9%)

substantial net revenues ($50M – 200M)


CONGESTION PRICING – A PACKAGE

Variable fee paid by drivers in most congested areas or on key congested routes

Revenues reinvested in improving transportation options (including BRT)

“Barrier-free” electronic detection, payment and enforcement

Multiple, convenient payment methods

Real time information

Public outreach and awareness


BRT on VAN NESS and GEARY

$212M (2012)$87M (2011)

Bus speeds increase more than 30%

Transit ridership increase more than 23%

Regional transit services and connections

50,000 daily riders20,000 daily riders

4+ miles2 miles

Geary BoulevardVan Ness Avenue


WHAT SCENARIO(S) MIGHT WORK HERE?

Where is auto and transit congestion worst? What areas have the most options?

What gateways or routes might be charged? What area could be the focus?

What other scenarios might there be?


CONGESTION PRICING GOALS Improve transportation system performance

Reduced traffic delayMore reliable travel times

Enhance environment and quality of lifeDecreased vehicle emissionsImproved road safety

Maintain economic vitalityBetter access to business & commerceReduce costs of wasted time & fuel

Support sustainable growthBalanced transportation choicesSustainable growth in travel demand

Economy

Environment

Equity


Role of ICTSupports public information and system

management:

Transportation system management (traffic, transit)

Convenient electronic payment systems

Real time user information on time and money costs

Enforcement, account management and customer support

Monitoring and evaluation

Integrated system management


STUDY SCHEDULE

Develop Preliminary Mobility Packages

Recommendations & Next Steps

Refine & Evaluate Mobility Packages

Workshop 1:Issues & Goals

Workshop 2:Preliminary Mobility Packages

Workshop 3:Evaluation & Next Steps

SUMMER/FALL 2008WINTER 2007

Baseline Analysis & Case Studies

Current Activities:

Model development

Design of scenarios and improvements

Economic and financial analyses

Technology review


USDOT URBAN PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMSF selected as a US DOT Urban Partner;Region to receive $159M in grant funds

Doyle Drive Value Pricing Program is centerpiece

Program demonstrates US DOT’s 4Ts of congestion management:tolling (congestion pricing) transit and ferry investmentstechnologytelecommuting

Implementing agencies include: SFCTA, MTC, SFMTA, GGBHTD and Caltrans

Legislative authority is required to access grant funds


SAN FRANCISCO URBAN PARTNERSHIPDoyle Drive Value Pricing Program

toll Doyle Drive to close funding gap and manage congestion ($12M)Doyle Drive Replacement Project ($35.3M)Evaluation ($0.4M)

Traffic management ($58M)SFgo traffic management transit signal priority

Parking Management ($20M)variable pricingreal-time information on availability

Integrated mobility account / Pricing back endTransLink, FasTrak integration, 511 ($9M)Pricing back-end systems ($11.2M)


DOYLE DRIVE REPLACEMENT PROJECT

Regional need: highest priority safety project in the state

Context-sensitive design to replace Doyle Drive1 of 2 alternatives with comparable project costs; broad consensus on parkway design

$1.06B project; $640M already committed in state & local funds65% of project funding from SF; SF trips comprise 16% of peak Doyle trips

Actively seeking other funds to reduce funding gap ($417M)Would help to reduce amount of toll

Doyle Drive (existing)

Doyle Drive (parkway design)


DOYLE DRIVE TOLLING PROJECTBarrier free (no new tollbooths): existing FasTrak system and new technologies

All users could be tolled with detection at multiple exits

Bond against toll revenue to deliver replacement project by 2013

Revenues reinvested within the corridor


SFgo Real Time Traffic Mgmt


Transit and EV Signal Priority

Transit priority improves Muni’s on-time performance and reliability

Emergency vehicle preemption reduces response time by 20%


On- and Off-Street Parking ManagementVariable pricing will be based on periodic occupancy surveys

Procure up to 150 multispace meters with networked sensors at individual spaces with pay by cell phone capability

Equip meters with ability to accept Translink and credit cards

Off-Street garages would be equipped with FasTrak


Parking Guidance


Use FT and Translink to pay for bridge and road tolls, transit and parking fees

Develop a single user interface to manage Mobility account funds

Integrated Mobility Account


MAPS – UPA COORDINATIONMAPS is a feasibility study:

recommendations by summer/fall 2008;

UPA project is a demonstration project: legislative authority needed by March 31, 2008

UPA to demonstrate value:Close Doyle funding gap with self-helpManage peak period demandShowcase technologyConcept of re-investing revenue in the Doyle/101 corridorBuild public trust in government to deliver

Monitoring and evaluation of Doyle program will help inform decision-making for broader implementation in SF

February, 2008

THANK YOU

www.sfmobility.org

415.522.4832

[email protected]


ADVISORY COMMITTEESPolicy Working Group

SFMTAMayor’s Office of Economic DevelopmentBARTMTC/BATASF Planning DepartmentCaltransGolden Gate Bridge DistrictAlameda County Congestion Mgmt AgencyFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration

Business Advisory CouncilBay Area CouncilBOMA SFSF Chamber of CommerceUnion Square AssociationMarket Street AssociationTransportation Mgmt AssociationUCSFPG&EAAAand more…

Stakeholder Task ForceSPURTALCSierra ClubLivable CitySF Bicycle CoalitionSenior Action NetworkWalk SFSF Convention & Visitors Bureau and more…

Technical Advisory CommitteeSFMTABART Caltrain/SamTransAC Transit MTC/BATAABAGBay Area Air Quality Mgmt DistrictGolden Gate Bridge DistrictPort of SF


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Very Low Income Low Income Middle Income High Income

No opinionDisagree StronglyDisagree SomewhatAgree SomewhatAgree Strongly

IS CONGESTION PRICING FAIR?How do travelers currently use the system?

Who would pay?

What value would they receive?

How would funds be spent?

How might we minimize impacts?

program design

amenities

appropriate discounts

Support for Studying Congestion Pricing in San Francisco by

Income

Source: SFCTA, Poll of Bay Area residents, 2007


WILL SF CONTINUE to be COMPETITIVE?How does congestion affect businesses today?

How would potential charges impact businesses?

by sizeby sectorby location

How can we minimize potential impacts?

program designamenitiesincentives

London, Stockholm & Rome: Still Thriving


Analysis method is comprehensive:

And targeted:Frequency and average “spends” by access mode (foot, car, transit)Special attention to retail, tourism, freight industries

Changes in generalized travel cost from SF-CHAMP

How are travel costs perceived?

• Auto drivers

• Transit Users

• Employees

• Business

• Customers

Who pays the congestion charge?

Incidence Analysis of Direct Impacts

• Business Sector

• Business Location

• Business Size

What are the changes in consumer spending?

Changes in household incomes and purchases

How do these costs multiply through the economy?

Input – output analysis using IMPLAN

• Indirect Impacts

• Induced Impacts

• Business Sector

• Business Location

• Business Size

What are the impacts to businesses?

Changes business output and employment

EVALUATING ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Date post:	18-Jan-2015
Category:	Business
Upload:	shane-mitchell
View:	1,602 times
Download:	0 times