Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Maps  2010 fall_update
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Maps 2010 fall_update

313

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
313
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Focus Area (peak and daily)
    Vehicle trips
    VMT
    delay
    Greater Downtown (NE Cordon) (peak and daily)
    Vehicle trips
    VMT
    delay
    Citiwide(peak and daily)
    Vehicle trips
    VMT
    delay
  • Delay increase statistic is for focus area
    Focus Area (peak and daily)
    Vehicle trips – 120k PM Peak, 480k Daily
    VMT – 160k PM Peak, 770k Daily
    Delay – 6.5k hrs PM Peak, 28k hrs Daily
    Greater Downtown (NE Cordon) (peak and daily)
    Vehicle trips – 210k PM Peak, 850k Daily
    VMT
    Delay
    Citiwide(peak and daily)
    Vehicle trips – 450k PM Peak, 1.9M Daily
    VMT – 2.0M PM Peak, 9.3M Daily
    Delay – 55k PM Peak, 200k Daily
  • Talking points/faq:
    Amount of development represnted by Transbay, as well as all projects (# of units and/or jobs for Rincon, Transbay (I, II?), Eastern Neighborhoods, Mission Bay, M&O maybe, and TI),
    Traffic conditions (today, as well as with Transbay, etc.)
  • V:\U\PowerPoint\Images\20060525\perspective\jpg\
    Treasureisland-landmark tower-all-2
  • Delay increase statistic is for focus area
    Focus Area (peak and daily)
    Vehicle trips – 120k PM Peak, 480k Daily
    VMT – 160k PM Peak, 770k Daily
    Delay – 6.5k hrs PM Peak, 28k hrs Daily
    Greater Downtown (NE Cordon) (peak and daily)
    Vehicle trips – 210k PM Peak, 850k Daily
    VMT
    Delay
    Citiwide(peak and daily)
    Vehicle trips – 450k PM Peak, 1.9M Daily
    VMT – 2.0M PM Peak, 9.3M Daily
    Delay – 55k PM Peak, 200k Daily
  • Focus Area (peak and daily)
    Vehicle trips
    VMT
    delay
    Greater Downtown (NE Cordon) (peak and daily)
    Vehicle trips
    VMT
    delay
    Citiwide(peak and daily)
    Vehicle trips
    VMT
    delay
  • Key talking points:
    These are not final; the goal is to discuss the perceived benefits, impacts, and concerns. We’ll collect feedback through the next phase of study, and continue the technical analysis of cost and benefits.
    All of these would be subject to review once monitoring and evaluation is in place. The rate may change, some may sunset if impacts are too high, etc.
  • Who are they
  • $35 – 65 million in transportation improvement revenue annually (net)
    all funds allocated to transportation infrastructure and operations
    expenditure plan would direct how funds are distributed, along with clear performance metrics
    bond against portion of revenue
    could deliver $300 - 600 million in capital projects
    would help get projects on the ground earlier in process
    These are not final. We’ll refine based on feedback and analysis, and return with a final package as part of the action in February.
    All of these would be subject to performance criteria to ensure that funds are invested wisely and efficiently
  • $35 – 65 million in transportation improvement revenue annually (net)
    all funds allocated to transportation infrastructure and operations
    expenditure plan would direct how funds are distributed, along with clear performance metrics
    bond against portion of revenue
    could deliver $300 - 600 million in capital projects
    would help get projects on the ground earlier in process
    These are not final. We’ll refine based on feedback and analysis, and return with a final package as part of the action in February.
    All of these would be subject to performance criteria to ensure that funds are invested wisely and efficiently
  • $35 – 65 million in transportation improvement revenue annually (net)
    all funds allocated to transportation infrastructure and operations
    expenditure plan would direct how funds are distributed, along with clear performance metrics
    bond against portion of revenue
    could deliver $300 - 600 million in capital projects
    would help get projects on the ground earlier in process
    These are not final. We’ll refine based on feedback and analysis, and return with a final package as part of the action in February.
    All of these would be subject to performance criteria to ensure that funds are invested wisely and efficiently
  • This is the schedule for the remainder of the study. We will host public workshops this summer, both in San Francisco and in the neighboring counties. As a reminder, this is still a study, with the goal of answering the following questions:
    What scenarios would be feasible?
    What improvements should be part of the package?
    What are the potential benefits and impacts?
    Is congestion pricing right for San Francisco?
  • How do you think it will affect the decisions by businesses (small and large) located in downtown San Francisco? Do you think businesses would be more likely or less likely to locate in downtown San Francisco?
    Thinking about your own business:
    Does your firm compete for labor mainly in the City and County of San Francisco, the broader Bay Area, or national/international markets? How would something like this impact your ability to retain employees? How do most of your employees get to work?
    Does your firm compete with other firms primarily from the City and County of San Francisco, the greater Bay Area, or nationally/internationally? How do you think this might impact your ability to compete with businesses that don’t operate in an area where congestion pricing exists?
    If your firm had to relocate out of downtown San Francisco, where would the second best location be: other locations in San Francisco, other areas in the Bay Area, or outside the Bay area?
    In general, what makes San Francisco and your current location preferable? Could it be the proximity to labor, customers, or other vendors of services? Could it be the availability of transportation options?
    Do you think congestion pricing would deter your customers from visiting your place of business? Whom would it deter?
    Do you think rising gas prices have changed people’s driving habits? How so? Have your businesses felt any impact in your customer base or delivery of goods as a result of changing gas prices?
    What if the congestion charge was levied only during peak hours, let’s say 7am-9am and 4pm-6pm. Do you think the overall impact on your business would be less severe? How much of your business is conducted during peak vs off-peak hours?
    What if drivers were charged when crossing into and out of the city? Do you think this would help San Francisco businesses attract new customers that currently drive out to Daly City or the East Bay to shop?
    Do you think it’s possible for congestion pricing to improve customers’ access to your business or your access to customers? (PROBE: What if more pleasant streets or the knowledge that you could get around quicker meant that more people shopped downtown while people just passing through took another route?)
    We know from other cities where congestion charging has been implemented that the downtown areas are still robust and thriving. The design of the program matters. Businesses in the London zone are growing at 2x the rate of businesses outside of the zone. Stockholm saw a 5% increase in retail uptake. Additionally in Stockholm:
    Delivery schedules shifted to accommodate the charge
    Drivers were able to make approximately 5 deliveries/hr with the charge, compared with 4/hr without the charge
    Courier companies reported more efficient driving/routes when charge in place, leading to a 10% increase in productivity for one of the companies studied
    Companies reported that finding parking spaces in the charging zone
    Overall travel time decreased by 20%
    The top reasons that people visit or shop in Downtown San Francisco (restaurants, types of shops, atmosphere) will either remain the same or improve with congestion pricing. With this in mind, are there other ways that you might envision spending the revenue?
    What about using the revenue for improvements to the streets themselves? (PROBE: Signal timing, real-time traffic information (on messages boards), street resurfacing, bike lane and pedestrian improvements, and landscaping)
    What investments do you think could be made with the program revenues that would help you attract more customers, despite the congestion charge to drivers?
    Say you had $100 to spend. How would you distribute the funds across the various categories that you’ve just mentioned?
  • 25 of jobs = 3600
    Much of local and regional growth will occur in already congested areas
    382,000 more daily trips made to, from and within the Focus Area by 2030
    10% more time lost by 2015, over 30% more by 2030
    travel times will increase substantially, with proportion of delay growing to more than 60% on average
    Unable to reach environmental goals with technology alone
  • This is the schedule for the remainder of the study. We will host public workshops this summer, both in San Francisco and in the neighboring counties. As a reminder, this is still a study, with the goal of answering the following questions:
    What scenarios would be feasible?
    What improvements should be part of the package?
    What are the potential benefits and impacts?
    Is congestion pricing right for San Francisco?
  • This is the schedule for the remainder of the study. We will host public workshops this summer, both in San Francisco and in the neighboring counties. As a reminder, this is still a study, with the goal of answering the following questions:
    What scenarios would be feasible?
    What improvements should be part of the package?
    What are the potential benefits and impacts?
    Is congestion pricing right for San Francisco?
  • Transcript

    • 1. SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Fall 2010 Update San Francisco Mobility, Access & Pricing Study
    • 2. How do you travel for your most typical trips to downtown San Francisco (work, school, etc?) Drive alone Transit Carpool/rideshare Bike/walk Combination of above 2
    • 3. Our Citywide development goals rely on improving the downtown core:  Strengthen the City’s Regional Competitiveness  Create a more Livable City  Ensure a Healthy Environment  Provide World-Class Infrastructure Goals for the Future 3
    • 4. Expected SF growth over the coming decades:  150,000 more residents  230,000 more workers Focused in core/transit accessible areas  Transbay Transit Center District  Rincon Hill  Mission Bay  Eastern Neighborhoods  Market/Octavia Our Sustainable Growth Challenge 4
    • 5. Courtesy, SF Planning Department View from Treasure Island |View from Treasure Island | Skyline todaySkyline today 5
    • 6. Courtesy, SF Planning Department View from Treasure Island |View from Treasure Island | According to the Transbay PlanAccording to the Transbay Plan 6
    • 7. Downtown Growth Planned +73,000 auto trips +30,000 transit trips +37,000 auto trips +15,000 transit trips +8,000 auto trip +4,000 transit trips +8,000 auto trips +4,000 transit trips +19,000 auto trips +9,000 transit trips *projected growth by 2030, Projections 2007 and SF-CHAMP 2010 +39,000 auto trips +25,000 transit trips + 24,000 hsg units + 107,000 jobs + 24,000 hsg units + 107,000 jobs +184,000 auto trips +88,000 transit trips +184,000 auto trips +88,000 transit trips 7
    • 8.  longer, more severe rush hour  30% increase in delay by 2030 Growth or Gridlock? 8 If we proceed in a BAU fashion, growth areas forecast to become even more congested 40k more peak-period vehicle trips in greater downtown by 2030 In the Bay Area, annual delay per person is expected to increase from 39 to 47 hours by 2035 (MTC, T2035 Plan)
    • 9. Our Citywide development goals rely on improving the downtown core:  Strengthen the City’s Regional Competitiveness  Create a more Livable City  Ensure a Healthy Environment  Provide World-Class Infrastructure Goals for the Future 9 Robust solutions are needed for demand management and to generate revenue for investment in infrastructure
    • 10. With future growth anticipated in San Francisco, what’s the best way to maintain and improve mobility?  Add traffic lanes (eg remove on-street parking, reduce sidewalk widths, make existing lanes more narrow)  Give buses and bicycles lane and signal priority on congested streets, reducing the lanes available to private autos)  Manage congestion through user fees  Restrict private auto access  Other (eg, don’t agree with the growth premise) 10
    • 11. Transit speed below 8 mph Auto speed below 10 mph Highway speed below 30 mph Average Travel Speeds in SF Potential Scenarios for SF 11
    • 12. Transit speed below 8 mph Auto speed below 10 mph Highway speed below 30 mph Downtown Cordon Potential Scenarios for SF 12
    • 13. Potential Scenarios for SF Transit speed below 8 mph Auto speed below 10 mph Highway speed below 30 mph Gateway with Parking Pricing     13
    • 14. Transit speed below 8 mph Auto speed below 10 mph Highway speed below 30 mph Northeast Cordon Potential Scenarios for SF 14
    • 15. How congestion pricing would work Technology would leverage existing systems, e.g. FasTrak accounts Design considerations support camera- based equipment Multiple payment methods possible  Phone, web, text, retail, etc. Sample Detection Technology Possible Fees Weekdays Weekends 6am – 9am $3 NO FEE 9am – 3pm NO FEE NO FEE 3pm – 7pm $3 NO FEE evenings NO FEE NO FEE 15
    • 16. Suggested Discounts/Exemptions Type of Driver/ Group Level of Discount Taxi, Transit, Emergency FREE Toll-payer ‘Fee’-bate $1 off Low-Income (Lifeline Value) 50% off Disabled Drivers 50% off Zone Residents 50% off Low-Emission Vehicles - HOV/Carpool -  Daily cap of $6  Fleet program for commercial vehicles, rental, shuttles 16
    • 17. 2.3M person-trips in the Northeast Cordon daily  nearly half are auto trips  over 40% of trips are made during peak periods (17% AM; 25% PM) More than half of the 260,000 auto person-trips in the Northeast Cordon are made by San Francisco residents Distribution of trips (2005 base) 17 Source: SF-CHAMP, 2010 Proportion of PM Peak Auto Trips to/from/within NE Cordon, 2005 East Bay, 30,000, 12% North Bay, 10,000, 4% South Bay, 26,000, 10% w/in NE Cordon, 52,000, 20% Rest of SF, 136,000, 53% External, 3,000, 1% Distribution of AUTO Trips during the PM Peak, 2005
    • 18. Program Could Generate $60 -80M/year 18 Program revenue would be invested in the transportation network, public realm, and travel programs Annual Investment by Market
    • 19. Investment Program—up-front improvements 19 $200-300 million for projects including: San Francisco  Van Ness BRT  Signal priority and diamond lanes on Fulton, Mission, California  Bike lanes citywide  Real-time signage and wayfinding East Bay  BART station wayfinding, capacity, access improvements North Bay  101 corridor management (FPI/ramp metering) South Bay  Caltrain access improvements, 101 HOV lane
    • 20. Investment Program—annual investments 20 $35-55M/year to be spent on multi-modal improvements such as:  More regional and local express bus service  Street paving/pothole repair  Traffic calming  Streetscape improvements  Parking management and enforcement  School, worksite TDM programs  Power-washing sidewalks
    • 21. If congestion pricing were implemented, how should the revenues generated be spent? Proposed program is a good start Invest more in roadways (e.g. street infrastructure) Invest more in amount of/access to transit Invest more in bicycle and walking facilities Invest more in discount policies 21
    • 22. Study Outreach Public Workshop Series (local and regional): 3 rounds of public workshops (4th round underway!) Community Groups and Organizations, including: BOMA Committees Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association KQED:  Forum Marina Community Association  Metropolitan Transportation Commission committees Rincon Point/South Beach Citizens Advisory Committee SF Chamber of Commerce & Public Policy Forum SF Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services (MONS) SF Policy and Urban Planning Association (SPUR) SF Small Business Commission Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) Sunset District Neighborhood Coalition (SDNC) Regional Transportation Justice Working Group Transportation and Land Use Coalition (TALC) Union Square Association Western SOMA Task Force Yerba Buena Alliance Business Focus Groups:  Commercial Transportation  Retail  Restaurant  Tourism & Hospitality Advisory Committees:  Business Advisory Council  Policy Working Group  Technical Advisory Committee  Stakeholder Task Force 22
    • 23. Feedback: community & equity Top concerns:  Availability, reliability, and cost of transit services  Impacts on working poor, families  Reduction in local/off-peak service due to core/peak demands  Traffic/parking diversions on edges of ‘zone’  Geographic equity (no South Bay tolls currently) Needs/requests:  Discounts and/or exemptions for low- income drivers, disabled drivers EQUITY OUTREACH Transportation Justice Working Group TALC Annual Summit MTC Committees:  Citizens Advisory Committee  Elderly/Disabled Advisory Committee  Minority Citizens Advisory Committee Varied community organizations and neighborhood groups 23
    • 24. Feedback: business impacts & analysis Congestion should be addressed Top concerns:  Better enforcement of double parking  More enforcement of loading zones  More loading zones, tour bus parking Needs/requests:  Varied fee/discount suggestions: - fleet rates should be flat - periodic invoices to minimize administrative burden  Varied scenarios suggestions: - AM only charges (even if higher) - Outbound only charges during PM - Parking pricing 24 Business Outreach Union Square Association (board & policy committee) Chamber of Commerce (board & public policy committee) BOMA Committees (Environment & Gov’t Affairs) Small Business Commission Workshops on:  Commercial Transportation  Hospitality/Tourism  Restaurant  Retail Ongoing organizational meetings & associations
    • 25. Possible Recommendations Medium-term:  Refined Cordon best mitigates congestion in the greater downtown area 25 Auto Travel Speeds Northeast Cordon  12% fewer peak period auto trips  21% reduction in vehicle hours of delay (VHD)  5% reduction in GHGs citywide
    • 26. PILOT Northeast Cordon (PM) Possible Recommendations: Pilots 26 In the near-term, a pilot would:  Respond to public feedback  Demonstrate proof-of-concept  Allow for program evaluation Potential Pilots:  Refined Cordon – PM Outbound
    • 27. Possible Recommendations: Pilots In the near-term, a pilot would:  Respond to public feedback  Demonstrate proof-of-concept  Allow for program evaluation Potential Pilots:  Refined Cordon – PM Outbound  Hybrid: Southern Gateway (AM/PM) w/parking pricing 27   PILOT Southern Gateway
    • 28. Scenario Comparison – by the numbers NE Cordon* (AM/PM) Net Operating Revenue $80 M Operating Ratio (exp/gross rev after disc) 30-35% Peak Auto Trips to/from NE Cordon (avg) -12% Peak Auto Trips to/from S. Corridor (avg) -4% Change in Transit Speeds up to 20% Daily San Francisco VMT -5% Daily NE Cordon VHD -21% 28 NE Cordon (PM, outbound) Southern Gateway (AM/PM) $70 M $60 M 20-25% 25-30% -10% -5% -4% -20% up to 20% up to 15% -3% -4% -10% -4% Values in 2008$ for single representative year * Risk analysis pending
    • 29. Scenario Comparison – by the numbers NE Cordon* (AM/PM) Change in C02 Emissions (NE Cordon) -16% Change in C02 Emissions in (San Francisco) -5% Change in PM2.5 Emissions (NE Cordon) -17% Change in PM2.5 Emissions in (San Francisco) -5% Change in Collisions (NE Cordon) -12% Change in Collisions (San Francisco) -6% 29 NE Cordon (PM, outbound) Southern Gateway (AM/PM) -9% -7% -3% -4% -11% -8% -3% -4% -5% -3% -4% -5% Values in 2008$ for single representative year * Risk analysis pending
    • 30.  Employment impact expected to be minimal (up to 1%), due to:  infusion of external capital for startup costs  streetscape enhancements, visitor amenities  work/school TDM measures  Neutral to positive retail impacts expected considering multiple factors:  60,000 more transit and walk/bike trips per day in the cordon area (conservative estimate)  retail survey shows comparable spending by transit and auto users Business impacts broadly neutral Mode Drive Transit Walk Average Spend per Visit $56 $39 $42 Average # Trips per Month 4 7 7 Average Spend per Month $224 $273 $294 Average Spending & Frequency by Mode Survey of 1400 travelers in San Francisco’s downtown retail areas, December 2007 and April 2008 30
    • 31. Which scenario seems like the best fit for San Francisco? Northeast Cordon, AM/PM Northeast Cordon, PM outbound Southern Gateway with parking pricing Other None of the above 31
    • 32. My top concern about a potential charging program is:  Availability of travel options  Affordability, including for low-income travelers  Skepticism about government’s role in providing congestion/mobility improvements  Economic/ business impacts  Not sure it will be effective, prefer another solution 32
    • 33. The top benefit of a potential congestion pricing program is:  Reduce auto congestion/travel time  Improve transit speeds, frequency, and reliability  Improve bicycling/walking downtown  Improve the environment/quality of life  Disagree with the effectiveness, prefer another solution 33
    • 34. Institutional considerations & milestones  Obtain Legislative Authority to toll  Local ordinance (BoS)  State authority (legislature, governor)  Environmental analysis (local/federal approval)  Designate/create toll authority/agency, functions to include:  Set toll and discount policy  Bonding to deliver improvements up front  Concession with a program operator  Directly produce or contract for services/capital improvements  Monitor performance, change fee level/investment program as appropriate  Governance  MOAs with MTC/BATA, transit operators  Joint Powers Authority, e.g. ACCMA/VTA Express lanes 34
    • 35. Fall 2010 - 2011 Implement and evaluate SFpark (SFMTA) and other near-term projects:  More data to better characterize and track parking benefits & impacts: supply, demand, turnover  Track congestion reduction benefits & impacts 2011 - 2013 Environmental analysis, system design Legislative Authorization 2013 - 2014 Final Design & Procurement 2014 - 2015 Construction of system & capital improvements Additional transit services 2015 Potential Implementation 35 Potential Timeline IMPLEMENTATION DECISION
    • 36. What is your opinion about a potential congestion pricing project for San Francisco (in the next 3-5 years)?  I support implementing a permanent program  I prefer taking a pilot approach  I could support congestion pricing with modifications  I’m not sure yet/undecided/need more information  I prefer another solution 36
    • 37. Summer 2010 Outreach events, including:  Public workshops  Lunchtime webinars  Regional e-town halls Aug/Sept/Oct 2010 Ongoing outreach  Community/neighborhood organizations  Merchant associations  Stakeholder groups Oct/Nov 2010 CAC/P&P/Board Action:  Study Report and recommendations  Potential next steps: environmental clearance, legislative authority, system design 37 Status & next steps
    • 38. www.GearyBRT.org 38 QUESTIONS/FEEDBACK: www.sfmobility.com www.facebook.com/sfmobility mobility@sfcta.org 415.522.4819

    ×