tilly chang - sfcta - san francisco ict transportation initiatives
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
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
www.sfmobility.org 3
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
www.sfmobility.org 4
PLANNING for a SUSTAINABLE FUTURE
Photo: San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
Photo: UCSF
Photo: San Francisco Planning Department
www.sfmobility.org 5
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
www.sfmobility.org 6
POLITICAL LEADERSHIP
Mayor Newsom, 2nd Inaugural AddressJanuary 8, 2008
www.sfmobility.org 7
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)
www.sfmobility.org 8
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
www.sfmobility.org 9
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
www.sfmobility.org 10
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?
www.sfmobility.org 11
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
www.sfmobility.org 12
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
www.sfmobility.org 13
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
www.sfmobility.org 14
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
www.sfmobility.org 15
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)
www.sfmobility.org 16
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)
www.sfmobility.org 17
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
www.sfmobility.org 18
SFgo Real Time Traffic Mgmt
www.sfmobility.org 19
Transit and EV Signal Priority
Transit priority improves Muni’s on-time performance and reliability
Emergency vehicle preemption reduces response time by 20%
www.sfmobility.org 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
www.sfmobility.org 21
Parking Guidance
www.sfmobility.org 22
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
www.sfmobility.org 23
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
www.sfmobility.org 25
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
www.sfmobility.org 26
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
www.sfmobility.org 27
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
www.sfmobility.org 28
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