Tilly Chang - SFCTA - San Francisco ICT Transportation Initiatives


Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Tilly Chang - SFCTA - San Francisco ICT Transportation Initiatives

  1. 1. SAN FRANCISCO ICT Transportation Initiatives Tilly Chang, SFCTA CISCO Connected Urban Development Conference January 21, 2008 February, 2008
  2. 2. WHY WE’RE CONCERNED Transportation consistently ranks Congested Streets in San Francisco #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 Source: SFCTA, Spring 2006 LOS Monitoring Federal funds shortage SFMTA, Spring 2007AVL Monitoring Results www.sfmobility.org 2
  3. 3. TRAVEL to DOWNTOWN SF Daily Trips to/from San Francisco (2005) 1,000,000 trips daily to Downtown, Civic Center, and North Bay SOMA 52,624 (6%) 500,000 by car (daily) 150,000 by car (AM/PM peaks) 242,077 Transit mode share to/from Downtown 128,475 (14%) (26%) East Bay downtown (41%, pm peak) San Francisco SoMa East Bay: 66% North Bay: 42% 374,172 (39%) South Bay/Peninsula: 23% 150,417 South Bay (16%) Source: SF-CHAMP www.sfmobility.org 3
  4. 4. PLANNING for a SUSTAINABLE FUTURE Photo: San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Photo: San Francisco Planning Department Photo: UCSF www.sfmobility.org 4
  5. 5. WHY STUDY CONGESTION PRICING in SF? Economic tool for managing Key Benefits scarce, underpriced resource Faster, more reliable trips for all travelers Improved traffic flow and road safety Funds reinvested in transportation Successful implementation in improvements several cities worldwide London 14,000 new bus seats (more frequent service) $200M net revenue annually National / regional support and 30% less congestion trends in congestion 16% reduction in vehicle emissions management Stockholm 2,800 new park & ride spaces $50M net revenue annually SF Countywide Transportation 22% less congestion Plan 14% reduction in vehicle emissions Rome* SF Climate Action Plan 14 new regional/express bus lines $65M net revenue annually 20% less congestion www.sfmobility.org 5
  6. 6. POLITICAL LEADERSHIP Mayor Newsom, 2nd Inaugural Address January 8, 2008 www.sfmobility.org 6
  7. 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 7
  8. 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 8
  9. 9. BRT on VAN NESS and GEARY Van Ness Avenue Geary Boulevard 2 miles 4+ miles 20,000 daily riders 50,000 daily riders $87M (2011) $212M (2012) Bus speeds increase more than 30% Transit ridership increase more than 23% Regional transit services and connections www.sfmobility.org 9
  10. 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 10
  11. 11. CONGESTION PRICING GOALS Improve transportation system performance Reduced traffic delay More reliable travel times Enhance environment and quality of life Decreased vehicle emissions Improved road safety Maintain economic vitality Economy Equity Better access to business & commerce Reduce costs of wasted time & fuel Support sustainable growth Environment Balanced transportation choices Sustainable growth in travel demand www.sfmobility.org 11
  12. 12. Role of ICT Supports 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 12
  13. 13. STUDY SCHEDULE Workshop 1: Workshop 2: Workshop 3: Issues & Goals Preliminary Mobility Packages Evaluation & Next Steps Baseline Analysis Develop Preliminary Refine & Evaluate Recommendations & Case Studies Mobility Packages Mobility Packages & Next Steps WINTER 2007 SUMMER/FALL 2008 Current Activities: Model development Design of scenarios and improvements Economic and financial analyses Technology review www.sfmobility.org 13
  14. 14. USDOT URBAN PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM SF 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 investments technology telecommuting Implementing agencies include: SFCTA, MTC, SFMTA, GGBHTD and Caltrans Legislative authority is required to access grant funds www.sfmobility.org 14
  15. 15. SAN FRANCISCO URBAN PARTNERSHIP Doyle 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 pricing real-time information on availability Integrated mobility account / Pricing back end TransLink, FasTrak integration, 511 ($9M) Pricing back-end systems ($11.2M) www.sfmobility.org 15
  16. 16. DOYLE DRIVE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Doyle Drive (parkway design) Doyle Drive (existing) Regional need: highest priority safety project in the state Context-sensitive design to replace Doyle Drive 1 of 2 alternatives with comparable project costs; broad consensus on parkway design $1.06B project; $640M already committed in state & local funds 65% 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 www.sfmobility.org 16
  17. 17. DOYLE DRIVE TOLLING PROJECT Barrier 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 17
  18. 18. SFgo Real Time Traffic Mgmt www.sfmobility.org 18
  19. 19. Transit and EV Signal Priority Emergency vehicle preemption reduces response time by 20% Transit priority improves Muni’s on-time performance and reliability www.sfmobility.org 19
  20. 20. On- and Off-Street Parking Management Variable 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 20
  21. 21. Parking Guidance www.sfmobility.org 21
  22. 22. Integrated Mobility Account 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 www.sfmobility.org 22
  23. 23. MAPS – UPA COORDINATION MAPS 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-help Manage peak period demand Showcase technology Concept of re-investing revenue in the Doyle/101 corridor Build 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 23
  24. 24. THANK YOU www.sfmobility.org 415.522.4832 mobility@sfcta.org February, 2008
  25. 25. ADVISORY COMMITTEES Policy Working Group Business Advisory Council SFMTA Bay Area Council Mayor’s Office of Economic Development BOMA SF BART SF Chamber of Commerce MTC/BATA Union Square Association SF Planning Department Market Street Association Caltrans Transportation Mgmt Association Golden Gate Bridge District UCSF Alameda County Congestion Mgmt PG&E Agency AAA Federal Highway Administration and more… Federal Transit Administration Technical Advisory Committee Stakeholder Task Force SFMTA SPUR BART TALC Caltrain/SamTrans Sierra Club AC Transit Livable City MTC/BATA SF Bicycle Coalition ABAG Senior Action Network Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt District Walk SF Golden Gate Bridge District SF Convention & Visitors Bureau Port of SF and more… www.sfmobility.org 25
  26. 26. IS CONGESTION PRICING FAIR? How do travelers currently use the system? Support for Studying Congestion Who would pay? Pricing in San Francisco by Income 100% 90% What value would they receive? 80% No opinion 70% How would funds be spent? Disagree Strongly 60% Disagree Somewhat Agree Somewhat 50% Agree Strongly How might we minimize 40% impacts? 30% 20% program design 10% 0% amenities Very Low Income Low Income Middle Income High Income appropriate discounts Source: SFCTA, Poll of Bay Area residents, 2007 www.sfmobility.org 26
  27. 27. WILL SF CONTINUE to be COMPETITIVE? How does congestion affect London, Stockholm & Rome: Still businesses today? Thriving How would potential charges impact businesses? by size by sector by location How can we minimize potential impacts? program design amenities incentives www.sfmobility.org 27
  28. 28. EVALUATING ECONOMIC IMPACTS Analysis method is comprehensive: How are Who pays the How do these What are the What are the travel costs congestion costs multiply changes in impacts to perceived? charge? through the consumer businesses? economy? spending? Changes in Incidence Input – output Changes in Changes generalized Analysis of analysis household business travel cost from Direct Impacts using IMPLAN incomes and output and SF-CHAMP purchases employment • Auto drivers • Employees • Indirect Impacts • Business Sector • Business Sector • Transit Users • Business • Induced Impacts • Business Location • Business Location • Customers • Business Size • Business Size And targeted: Frequency and average “spends” by access mode (foot, car, transit) Special attention to retail, tourism, freight industries www.sfmobility.org 28