EXPLORING PARKING PRICING FOR CONGESTION MANAGEMENT USING THE SFCTA ACTIVITY-BASED REGIONAL PRICING MODEL

0 views
498 views

Published on

This paper compares the potential benefits and impacts of two types of congestion pricing: oad- or cordon-based, and parking-based, that the San Francisco County Transportation Authority studied as a part of the Mobility, Access, and Pricing Study. The study is evaluating comprehensive pricing and mobility-enhancing packages to improve access and offer more sustainable travel choices to and within San Francisco. The Study Team evaluated the cordon and parking congestion charges using the SF-CHAMP regional travel demand model (also known as RPM-9). This paper discusses the current representation of parking in SF-CHAMP and its limitations, and then summarizes the development of an improved parking representation including additional data needs.

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
0
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

EXPLORING PARKING PRICING FOR CONGESTION MANAGEMENT USING THE SFCTA ACTIVITY-BASED REGIONAL PRICING MODEL

  1. 1. Exploring Parking Pricing for Congestion Management Using the SFCTA Activity- Based Regional Pricing Model Lisa Zorn, Elizabeth Sall, Zabe Bent Event 752: Jan 26, 2011Promises and Perils of Parking TRB 90th Pricing: Latest Evidence from the Field Annual Meeting SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
  2. 2. Mobility, Access and Pricing Study Goals‣ Improve mobility by reducing travel times and increasing system efficiency for both motorists and transit passengers‣ Increase accessibility by providing improved and more reliable transportation options‣ Enhance overall quality-of-life by reducing traffic and tailpipe emissions to improve safety and health‣ Promote the city’s economic vitality by improving multimodal access to facilitate future growth and enhance regional competitiveness SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 2
  3. 3. Potential Timeline December 2010 Board decision to advance to environmental clearance 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 Coordinate w/San Francisco Climate Action Strategy 2011 - 2013 Environmental analysis, system design Legislative Authorization Coordination with long-range plan Implementation Decision 2013 - 2014 Final Design & Procurement 2014 - 2015 Construction of system & capital improvements Additional transit services 2015 Potential Implementation SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 3
  4. 4. San Francisco Traffic CongestionCauses Significant Auto Vehicle Delay in the Downtown Area LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F Source: SFCTA Congestion Management Program Spring 2009 Weekday PM Peak Automobile Delay Conditions SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 4
  5. 5. San Francisco Traffic CongestionExacerbates Transit Delays and Impairs Reliability > 15.0 mph 12.5 - 15.0 mph 10.0 - 12.5 mph 7.5 - 10.0 mph <7.5 mph Source: SFCTA Congestion Management Program Spring 2009 Weekday PM Peak Muni Bus Speeds SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 5
  6. 6. Focus AreaBased on Auto Delay and Transit Service Source: SFCTA Congestion Management Program Spring 2009 Source: SFCTA Congestion Management Program Spring 2009Weekday PM Peak Automobile Delay Conditions Weekday PM Peak Muni Bus Speeds SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 6
  7. 7. Focus AreaBased on Auto Delay and Transit Service Source: SFCTA Congestion Management Program Spring 2009 Source: SFCTA Congestion Management Program Spring 2009Weekday PM Peak Automobile Delay Conditions Weekday PM Peak Muni Bus Speeds SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 6
  8. 8. Pricing Strategies Performance Improves Transit? Higher Bridge Tolls: nominal no Golden Gate, Bay Bridge Regional HOT Lane nominal long-term Network SFpark pending - FA Parking Charge peak period auto regional + local trip reduction NE Cordon Charge peak period auto regional + local trip reduction SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 7
  9. 9. Northeast Cordon Charge ScenarioCharges Autos a $3 fee to cross the Cordon during Peak Periods SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 8
  10. 10. Northeast Cordon Charge ScenarioCharges Autos a $3 fee to cross the Cordon during Peak Periods SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 8
  11. 11. Northeast Cordon Charge ScenarioCharges Autos a $3 fee to cross the Cordon during Peak Periods SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 8
  12. 12. Focus Area Parking Charge ScenarioCharges Autos a $3 fee to Enter or Exit a Parking SpaceDuring Peak Periods LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F Source: SFCTA Congestion Management Program Spring 2009 Weekday PM Peak Automobile Delay Conditions SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 9
  13. 13. Focus Area Parking Charge ScenarioCharges Autos a $3 fee to Enter or Exit a Parking SpaceDuring Peak Periods LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F Source: SFCTA Congestion Management Program Spring 2009 Weekday PM Peak Automobile Delay Conditions SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 9
  14. 14. Summary of Effects‣Shift driving routes‣Shift modes and times of day (non-work > work trips)‣Shift destination‣Change number of daily trips: ‣Induced auto travel due to less congestion ‣Trip suppression SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 10
  15. 15. Peak Period Charge EventsGreater sensitivity to the Cordon Charge due to the possibility ofdiversions400,000 -8%300,000 -36%200,000 -13% -22%100,000 0 Cordon Crossings Focus Area Parking Events 2015 Baseline NE Cordon Charge FA Parking Charge SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 11
  16. 16. Peak Vehicle TripsAffected more uniformly by NE Cordon Charge 0% -11% -13% -13% -15% -22% -30% To/From/Within To/From/Within NE Cordon Focus Area NE Cordon Charge FA Parking Charge SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 12
  17. 17. Daily Trip MakingEffectively unchanged by the NE Cordon ChargeReduced by the Focus Area Parking Charge 4% 2% 1.5% 0% 0% -2% -2.5% -3.5% -4% Non-Work Trips Total SF to/from/within Person Focus Area Trips NE Cordon Charge FA Parking Charge SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 13
  18. 18. VMTGreater reduction with the NE Cordon Charge 0% -3.5% -5.0% -5% -8.5% -10.0% -10% VMT in VMT in SF Focus Area NE Cordon Charge FA Parking Charge SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 14
  19. 19. Results NE FA Cordon Parking Charge ChargeTotal Daily Charged Trips 250,000 145,000 Change vs. 2015 BaselineTotal SF Daily Person Trips — -2.5%Peak Vehicle Trips to/from/within Focus Area -13% -22%Peak Vehicle Trips to/from/within NE Cordon -13% -11%Daily Non-Work Trips to/from/within Focus Area +1.5% -3.5%Daily VMT, Focus Area -10% -8.5%Daily VMT, SF -5% -3.5% SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 15
  20. 20. Impact of Diversions FA Parking Charge Traffic > NE Cordon 1,779 - 3,162 Charge Traffic 1,001 - 1,778 563 - 1,000 317 - 562 179 - 316 101 - 178 -100 - 100 -178 - -101 -316 - -179 -562 - -317 -1,000 - -563 - 1,778 - -1,001 FA Parking Charge Traffic < NE Cordon Charge Traffic Difference: [Focus Area Parking Charge AM Traffic Volume] minus [NE Cordon Charge AM Traffic Volume] SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 16
  21. 21. Conclusions‣Could be effective at reducing VMT and peak auto congestion‣BUT trip suppression is more of a concern‣Some of the benefits are likely to be eroded by increased through trips in the Focus Area‣Challenging to serve the new transit demand with available revenue SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 17
  22. 22. Caveats & Future Work‣This was an exploratory analysis‣Parking data needs ‣ Payment ranges and subsidy levels for existing parking inventory ‣ Reserved vs unreserved‣Coordination with SFpark SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 18
  23. 23. Questions? http://sfmobility.org lisa.zorn@sfcta.org 415.593.1660See Also:Sall, Elizabeth, Zabe Bent, Jesse Koehler, Billy Charlton and Gregory Erhardt. “Evaluating Regional Pricing Strategies in San Francisco--Application of the SFCTA Activity-Based Regional Pricing Model.” Paper presented at the Transportation Research Board 89th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, January 10-14, 2010.Zorn, Lisa, Elizabeth Sall and Billy Charlton. “Incorporating Discrete Characteristics and Network Relationships of Parking into the SF- CHAMP Travel Model.” Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Innovations in Travel Modeling (ITM) of the Transportation Research Board (TRB), Tempe, AZ, May 10-12, 2010.Erhardt, Greg, Joel Freedman, Joe Castiglione, Billy Charlton, Mark Bradley. “Enhancement and application of an activity-based travel model for congestion pricing.” Presented at the Second International Conference on Innovations in Travel Modeling (ITM) of the Transportation Research Board (TRB), Portland, OR, June 22-24, 2008. SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 19
  24. 24. Who Pays to Park? Percentage of Drivers Who Pay to Park 0% - 10% 11% - 20% 21% - 30% 31% - 40% 41% - 50% 50% - 60% 61% - 70% 71% - 80% 81% - 90% 91% - 100% SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 20
  25. 25. Who Pays to Park? Percentage of Drivers Who Pay to Park 0% - 10% 11% - 20% 21% - 30% 31% - 40% 41% - 50% 50% - 60% 61% - 70% 71% - 80% 81% - 90% 91% - 100% SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 20
  26. 26. San Francisco Traffic CongestionNegatively Impacts SF’s economy and environment Passenger Passenger Vehicle Vehicle Commercial Delay Cost Fuel Cost Vehicle Cost 2005 2015 2030 $0B $1B $2B $3B $4B Figures are in constant 2008 dollars. Source: PBS&J, 2008, based on SFCTA data. SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 21
  27. 27. AM Transit VolumesHigher to the Focus Area in FA Parking Charge Scenario 317 - 464 216 - 316 148 - 215 101 - 147 69 - 100 33 - 68 -32 - 32 -68 - -33 -100 - -69 -147 - -101 -215 - -148 -316 - -216 -464 - -318 -553 - -464 Difference: [Focus Area Parking Charge AM Transit Volume] minus [NE Cordon Charge AM Transit Volume] SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 22
  28. 28. Non-Auto Modes Affected DifferentlyNE Cordon Charge shifts auto trips to transit and walk/bikeFA Parking Charge shifts auto trips to transit20,000 17,000 12,00010,000 6,000 0 0 Non-Motorized Transit NE Cordon Charge FA Parking Charge SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 23
  29. 29. Peak Vehicle TripsAffected more uniformly by NE Cordon Charge 0% -11% -15% -13% -13% within -22% -30% To/From/Within To/From/Within NE Cordon Focus Area NE Cordon Charge FA Parking Charge SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 24
  30. 30. NE FA FA Results Cordon Parking Parking Charge Charge Charge T6 TEP T6Total Daily Charged Trips 250,000 145,000 145,000 Change vs. 2015 BaselineTotal SF Daily Person Trips — -2.5% -2.5%Peak Vehicle Trips to/from/within Focus Area -13% -22% -22%Peak Vehicle Trips to/from/within NE Cordon -13% -11% -11%Daily Non-Work Trips to/from/within Focus Area +1.5% -3.5% -3.5%Daily VMT, Focus Area -10% -8.5% -8.5%Daily VMT, SF -5% -3.5% -3.5%Peak Transit Trips to/from Focus Area +12,000 +17,000 +16,000Peak Walk and Bike Trips to/from Focus Area +6,000 — — SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 25

×