Potrero Shuttle Plan Report

8/9/2019 Potrero Shuttle Plan Report

1/23

Building a Residential-Based

Community Shuttle Service

For

Potrero Hill-Showplace Square

Prepared for the Related Companies

by

Silvani Transportation Consulting

October, 2014


2/23

Building a Residential-Based Community Shuttle

Page 1

PREFACE

The neighborhoods in and surrounding Potrero/Showplace are growing. To the immediate south, Dogpatch,

a traditional industrial neighborhood, will add more than 2,000 new units of housing; Mission Bay is

building 1,200+ new units; and new neighborhoods are being built in East and West SOMAmost

notably the eight towers which are part of the new Transbay Terminal development area, but also severalprojects in the 300-500 dwelling unit range. Two new major medical facilities will open on the eastern

edge of Potrero, as will a major new sports and events complex.

Several new residential units are also slated for construction in the Potrero Hill and Showplace Square

neighborhoods in the next three to five years. While this is much-needed housing, new development will

constrain the existing transportation infrastructure in long-established Potrero/Showplace neighborhoods.

Creative new solutions will be required to keep pace with growing communities by both the public and

private sectors.

The population and increases in overall trips, coupled with emerging trends and values, have significant

implications for how both new and current residents will get aroundboth within their immediatecommunity and beyond its environs. The new paradigm that access trumps ownership is championing the

growth of many new shared economy industries, including the delivery of transportation services, as car

ownership becomes less desirable and important among Millennials.

The SFMTA has already designated some streets which run through the Potrero/Showplace districts to

become transit-priority streets (such as 16thStreet); others will have new signalization; parking which was

once relatively abundant and free, will be managed seven days a week. Traffic volumes are envisioned

to increase, and levels of service will be impacted at many key intersections.

The Potrero Hill Boosters Association has engaged residents and businesses in discussions about their

transportation needs and concerns for nearly two years. These efforts have largely focused on how a

community shuttle network might be part of the solution. In 2012, the community identified destinations itwould want a shuttle to serve. In 2013, a more comprehensive survey revealed specific trip patterns, times

of day, and perceptions about various types of service. It was followed by a community workshop that

began to illustrate what a community shuttle might look like and how it could be funded.

This study is a follow-on to the previous work done and took the next steps of meeting with developers,

businesses owners, community leaders and residents to determine their interest in participating in and

helping fund a community shuttle. We conducted further research and updated projections and

assumptions about the community and the area. We have refined a framework for both a community

shuttle and a shopper shuttle, identifying possible routes and stops as well as partners.

This report summarizes the updated and new information about the community; meetings with potential

partners; and articulates the service planning principles which were used to construct the conceptual

schedules which are presented. The report also outlines general budget, organizational development and

management considerations in establishing a new shuttle service. Lastly, it describes how a variety of

funding mechanisms and sources can collectively fund a community shuttle. The intent is to present an array

of information and ideas that facilitate further discussion with the community about solutions a community

shuttle can provide as Potrero Hill and Showplace Square prepare for the future.


3/23


Page 2

EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS UPDATE:Population, Employment, Trip Patterns and Circulation

Recap of Key Findings from EN Trips Plan

The Eastern Neighborhoods Plan (referred to in this report as EN Trips) was published in 2012 and

provided an overview of the areas projected growth. The Eastern Neighborhoods is broadly defined as

the area bounded by the Embarcadero on the northern edge; Cesar Chavez to the south; Market Street to

the west; and the waterfront on the east. Within this geographic area are several distinct neighborhoods:

East SOMA, West SOMA, Showplace Square, Mission Bay, Potrero Hill, Dogpatch, and the Central

Waterfront/Pier 70.

By 2035, the population in the EN Trips area is estimated to increase by 33%. Mission Bay and the

Central Waterfront will become major new employment centers, with over 25,000 and 15,000 jobs,

respectively. Potrero-Showplace will add some 3,000 new jobs and 23,000 new trips. Overall, the EN

area will see a 50% increase in jobs, according to the EN Plan.

The report assumed Showplace Square/Potrero would retain its residential character, with new housing

along the 16th-17thStreet mixed use corridors and a small amount of new office and retail in Showplace

Square. No new housing was slated for Showplace Square.

EN Trips predicted that a third of all trips made would stay within the Eastern Neighborhoods. Some 48%

of these internal trips are allocated to SOMA and 25% to Mission Bay and the Central Waterfront,

making these major new destinations. The 320,000 daily trips projected in the EN area break down as

shown below:

Daily Trip Projections for the Eastern Neighborhoods

Number of Trips Destination

320,000 Total trips in Eastern Neighborhoods area

97,00048,00028,000

Trips That Will Take Place Totally Within EN boundariesSOMAMission Bay/Central Waterfront

60,00030,00021,000

Non San FranciscoEast BaySouth Bay

46,000 Downtown San Francisco

50,000 Candlestick Point/ Hunters Point

15,000 Chinatown/North Beach

According to the report, private vehicles currently account for 50% of all trips. Transits current mode

share is 19%. Walking was calculated at 16%; bicycling and carpooling each had a 5% modal share.

Only a negligible 3% shift is projected from private motor vehicles to transit long-term.

Vehicular volume is slated to increase by 15% or more on all North-South and East-West corridors

between Third and 16thStreets; and Market and Potrero.


4/23


Page 3

According to recent studies conducted by the City, over time, Level of Service (LOS), which measures

delays at major intersections, is expected to worsen at several key intersections causing major delays for

both transit and private vehicles. This will impact internal and external trips in the area as some of these

intersections are at entries or in the heart of Potrero/Showplace.

Transit trips, in order of destination with the highest increased demand are projected as follows:

East Bay

Downtown

SOMA

North Beach/Chinatown

Western Market

Altogether, this geographic area is the fastest growing in San Francisco for both jobs (80,000 jobs

projected) and residents.

Updating the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan

Since the EN Trips study was completed, several other projects have been proposed which will further

increase the number of trips made to, from and within the area. These include:

Kaiser Medical Office at Mission Bay

UCSF application for additional entitlement of at Mission Bay and more housing units

Giants- Mission Rock development

Warriors Arena & Event Center Complex

New residential developments of including the Concourse and Henry Adams projects

An increase of public housing units in the Potrero Annex & Terraces rebuild project

Other developments since the EN Trips Plan was published are also sparking interest in cooperative

transportation programs and services. The recent adoption of AB1339, the Bay Area Commuter Benefit

regulation requiring employers with 50+ employees to provide commuter information, financial assistance,

or provide services such as shuttles, is a significant development that may change the landscape of both

first and last mile as well as regional transportation.

The adoption of managed parking throughout the Eastern Neighborhoodsnew meters with dynamic

pricing that operate until 10pm or later, weekdays and weekendsis another recent development which

will encourage greater numbers to utilize alternative modes of transport for all types of trips.


5/23


Page 4

Recap of Census-Concord Group Findings

According to the Concord Group:

Approximately two thirds of all Potrero Hill residents also work in San Francisco

Of the 2928 residents who work in San Francisco, 731 (25%) work in Mission Bay, East or West

SOMA; 537 in Central Market and downtown; but 1670 (57%) work in other San Franciscodistricts.

Approximately 50% of Potrero Hill residents work in non-central (downtown) locations

Compared to adjacent areas, Potrero Hill residents have the highest drive alone commute rate

(49% drive alone as opposed to 27% in Mission Bay1and 24% in the Mission.)

Compared to its adjacent areas, Potrero Hill residents have the lowest use of public transit (19%)

for commute trips (34% in Mission Bay; 41% in Mission)

Ridership on the two key Potrero Hill transit routes (22 Fillmore and 9 Bayshore) decreased 4%

between 2004 and 2012, while the T Third Street light rail saw a 21% increase. Ridership on the

Line 22 has yet to reach the high watermark it enjoyed in 2005 (22,806 passengers)2012

ridership was 17,772.

Summary

Having a range of services which connect residents and workers between one Eastern Neighborhood and

another, as well as to light rail and bus transit hubs, will be vital to Potrero Hill/Showplace Squares future.

There is no single solution or magic bullet. Rather, a spectrum of transportation options is needed to

accommodate the spectrum of trip types, trip variables, and population segments living and working here.

1According to Mission Bays 2013 survey, the total community drive alone rate is 20%


6/23


Page 5

PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE

Potrero Hill-Showplace Square is served by four MTA bus routes: the 10, 19, 22 and 33. While all five

of the new, high density Potrero-Showplace residential developments are served by at least two of these

lines, the directness of routes to key destinations, frequency, hours of operation, and overall capacity

varies widely from one route to another. There are also areas within the Potrero Hill-Showplace districtswhere there are gaps in the existing public service network, or inadequate service.

Although the area is served by BART, Caltrain and MTAs light rail, all of themajor transit hubs are a five

to 10 minute drive from Potrero-Showplace neighborhoods and an even longer walk.

The following table summarizes bus service within mile of each project and key destinations served.

Most routes are within a 1 to 2 block walk of the respective developments.

Project Bus Lines Transit Destinations

Caltrain

@ 4th

Mission

Bay

16thSt.

BART

Civic

BART

Montg.

BART

Trans

Bay1601 Mariposa 10, 19, 22, 33 x x x x x no

1200 17thStreet(Walden Dev.)

10, 22, 33 x x x no x no

7that Hooper St(Equity at Daggett)

10, 22, 33 x x x no x no

801 Brannan 19 no no no x no no

1 Henry Adams 19 no no no x no no

The following table summarizes hours of operation and frequency of each of the bus lines.

Bus Line Weekday Hours of Operation Peak Hour Frequency

10 6:30am-8pm :20-:22

19 5:30am-1am :14-:15

22 4am-2am (Owl) :08

33 5:30am-1am :15

Bus Service to 1601 Mariposa

Bus Route Service To Routing Notes

10Caltrain (4th& King)SOMAMontgomery BART

Via Mission Bay resl streetsVia Townsend/4th2nd& MarketVia 2ndStreet

Current service ends 7pm(TEP calls for later but tbd)Overcrowded, unreliable

19 Civic Center BART Via De Haro; 7th& 8th Good service; direct

2216thBARTMission BayT Third St

Via 16thStVia 16thSt, Third St

New route; will be crowdedTransfers reqd at 16thSt willcause delays, confusionUnreliable now


7/23


Page 6

3316thSt. BARTDogpatch (20th& TN)

Via 16thSt.Via 18th& 20thSts

New service planned

MTAs Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) 2-5 Year Improvements

Even with the recently approved improvements to frequency which are part of the Transit EffectivenessProject (TEP), demand will continue to exceed available capacity and it is questionable whether

improvements will resolve the transportation concerns of the Potrero/Showplace community.

The MTA predicts a 144% increase in volume for its Line 22 as it extends service to Mission Bay. Patrons

will need to transfer from a streetcar to a bus at the 16 thSt. BART station when bound for Mission Bay.

Many new riders will be patients and families going to the new UCSF Hospitals for the first time.

Overall, MTA projects a 63% increase in overall transit utilization in the Potrero district. These increases in

ridership will contribute to delays along three major transit corridors which impact the Potrero-Showplace

area:

Third Street (T Third Street rail) 16thStreet (22 and 9 bus)

Potrero Ave (9 bus)

Major delays (LOS F conditions) are expected at the following intersections within the Potrero-Showplace

area, which will affect both transit and private vehicles:

Division at 8th& Townsend Circle

Division at 11th

16that Potrero

16that DeHaro

The Central Subway will provide an important new spine along Fourth Street in the heart of SOMA, for

new cross-town connections, but it, too, will be a five to 10 minute drive from most points of origins within

the Potrero-Showplace project area.

Even though the Transit Effectiveness Plan calls for expansion and increased frequency for many routes,

there will still be a lack of consistent, frequent and direct service between the Eastern Neighborhoods.

Summary

Despite significant increases to the public transit system as a result of the TEP, demand will still exceed

capacity, resulting in continuing service gaps for residents and workers in the Potrero/Showplace districts.

This presents an opportunity for other high occupancy travel alternatives to fill these gaps.


8/23


Page 7

SERVICE PLANNING FOR POTRERO/SHOWPLACE

In 2013, the Potrero Hill Boosters surveyed over 350 residents to assess interest in developing a community

shuttle and learn about their work and personal travel patterns. The response was overwhelming positive.

Over 66% were equally interested in a commuter shuttle and a shopping shuttle.

Among the 2013 findings:

25% work in the immediate vicinities of Potrero, Mission Bay, Dogpatch, SOMA, and the Mission

18% work downtown

Transit connections respondents were most interested in were bus routes 10, 19, 22, 16thSt. BART

and the 22ndSt. Caltrain station

7am to 9am is the busiest commute time

Residents shop for groceries and run other errands primarily in the evenings on weekdays,

followed by during weekdays and on Saturday and Sunday afternoons

Residents prefer to shop locally at Whole Foods, the Good Life Grocery, and Potrero Center.

They generally shop at least once a week. 70% cited the difficulty and/or lack of parking as a reason why they either dont shop at larger

retail centers or dont shop more often at those locations.

Residential commute patterns were:

o Drive alone to work 33%

o Use bus/light rail 25%

o Walk 16%

o Bike 5%

o Carpool 5%

o Work at home 10%

From this data, we developed initial concepts for different types of shuttle services which were vetted withthe community. Residents liked the idea of having commuter shuttles, shopper shuttles, as well as a nightlife

shuttle.

In 2014, a second survey conducted through the Boosters Association reconfirmed and updated many of

these initial findings and reaffirmed interest in a community shuttle network that serves both commuter and

personal trips.

The number of people who work at home is growing; it is now 16%

Commute hours were generally the preferred hours cited for a shuttle, followed by mid-day and

weekends

The same destinations were cited as in the 2013 survey for shopping and errands. Potrero Center,

555 Ninth Street, and local shops on the Hill were priority destinations for respondents in 2013and 2014.

New information helped to complete our customer profile:

Frequencies of 15 to 20 minutes are needed for people to find a shuttle useful

Civic Center BART, Union Square, San Francisco Centre are new destinations to consider

A majority of respondents indicated they would be willing to pay for a shuttle ($60-$120/year)


9/23


Page 8

The survey data collected over the past two years, input received at community meetings which focused on

transportation needs, and meetings with prospective partners have all informed the development of the

conceptual framework for a community shuttle for Potrero/Showplace.

The planning principles which have emerged during this process include:

The shuttle is primarily residential-based (as opposed to employment center-based) Services should be developed according to trip typology: commuter, shopping, entertainment

Services should provide coverage where there is no existing service or it is inadequate and needs

to be augmented and support other non-SOV modes

Routes and stops should minimize travel time by offering direct routes and connectivity at hubs

The shuttle system should be designed to be scalable as the community evolves but should be

careful of over-reach in the beginning. As it grows, equipment can be upsized, routes and stops

expanded, etc.

The shuttles routes,hours of operations and stops must be customer-driven

Design of a community transportation network can be multi-modal and include all high occupancy

modes: car-share, casual carpools, and dynamic ridesharing, as well as local and regional shuttles

Design should utilize efficiencies of scale whenever possible (i.e., using commuter vehicles for mid-

day, evening or weekend services; carpool vehicles which can be used as car-share vehicles in off-

hours and/or volunteer driving programs).


10/23


Page 9

MEETINGS WITH MAJOR PROJECTS

In an effort to assess interest in participating in a shared commuter and shopper transport service, we also

met with developers at strategic locations in our proposed service area. We met with the developers of

eight residential and three commercial projects in February, March and April. All are interested in the

concept and expressed interest in either being part of or being kept informed of the planning effort as wemove forward.

The charts below summarize these projects:

Residential Projects

Address Name # Units Projected Open Interested In

801 Brannan Equity Residential 450 Q3 2016 Commuter, Shopper

1 Henry Adams Equity Residential 250 Q3 2016 Commuter, Shopper

7th& 16thSt (Daggett) Equity Residential 450 Q3 2016 Commuter, Shopper

Channel St Equity Residential 273 Q3 2016 Commuter, Shopper

340 Fremont St Equity Residential 340 Q3 2016 Commuter, Shopper

333 Third St Equity Residential 350 Open now Commuter, Shopper

1200 17th& 901 16th Walden Development 394 tbd Commuter, Shopper

1601 Mariposa St Related 316 tbd Commuter, Shopper

16th& Bryant Equity 1 125 2017/2018 Commuter

5th& Folsom Avant/Essex* 460 tbd Tbd

Unit Count 3,408

*We did not meet with this developer

Commercial Projects

Address Name Sq. Footage Projected Open Interested In

16th& Bryant Equity 1- Potrero Center 104,000 Open Shopper Direct

555 Ninth St. Crosspoint Realty 201,203 Open Commuter, Shopper

1706 Mariposa Anchor Brewers 200,000 2017-2018 Community Support

Most of the residential projects will be opening within a similar timeframe, and will attract a similardemographic. Among the similarities:

a majority population that will live and work in San Francisco, with a preponderance of

employment in the SOMA-Mission Bay-Dogpatch areas not currently well-served by existing

direct transit connections

a population not dependent on SOV use for work or personal trips, preferring to walk, bike, or

share rides when feasible


11/23


Page 10

a population which values shared economies and services and is technology-driven; access is

becoming preferred over ownershipwith a growing of urban dwellers choosing not to own a

personal vehicle

a common set of origins and destinations within the proposed service area

To the extent that we can successfully partner with others at strategic locations in a defined service area,

these similarities and common needs have the potential to make shared transportation services very

attractive and efficient both in cost and operating efficiencies. Many of those who live in the Potrero area

for example, will work in East/West SOMA, Mission Bay, or Downtown, while many living in the Rincon

area will be working in Mission Bay-Dogpatch and Showplace Square.

Because so many residential openings are, for the most part, well into the future, potential partners have

ample time to build costs and fees into rents and budgets which must be approved by DRE. This future

timeline also allows partners to incorporate amenities that support transportation in project designs.

The developments listed above represent only a portion of projects at various stagesin the pipeline,

approved, under construction or recently open. The table below summarizes overall growth slated for the

Eastern Neighborhoods at build-out. In addition, approximately 1 million square feet of new retail will bepart of these developments.

EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS AT BUILD-OUT

Area Housing Units Commercial SF

Mission Bay 6,000+ 4.4 million

Central Corridor/SOMA 6,500+

Rincon Hill-Transbay 6,900 6 million

East SOMA 2,800

UCSF Mission Bay 1,200 2.7 million

Mission Rock (Giants) 650-1,500 1.5 million

Central Waterfront 2,000

Pier 70 1,000-2,000 2 million


12/23


Page 11

Figure 1: Study Area and Residential Projects


13/23


Page 12

POTRERO TERRACES AND ANNEX

Rebuild Potrero will eventually dramatically reshape the existing communities of Potrero Terraces and

Annex. When completed, the projects will more than double the existing number of housing units to 1,600.

We reviewed both long term and short-to-medium term transportation plans and recommendations toassess opportunities to a) integrate services or b) plan services that would be complimentary in nature.

Long term, access to and within the Terraces and Annex will be transformed by an entirely new internal

street grid, new access points at its perimeters and an array of transit improvements.

The challenges of connectivity within the project area due to its steep and hilly terrain will be addressed

with new roads, transit routes and stops, a new series of staircases linking streets, and new bicycle and

pedestrian pathways designed to link various parts of the community with each other.

Short term, the steep terrain, circuitous entries and internal street structure isolate the community. As part

of an extensive community outreach effort, residents clearly defined and prioritized near term

transportation needs, preferences and goals. Planning is underway to implement two of the recommendedstrategies: a volunteer driving program and a community shuttle service. We concur that these two

mechanisms are the most efficient way to provide service to priority destinations identified by the

community including the Food Bank, local churches, SF General Hospital, 24thStreet BART, FoodsCo and the

VA Hospital.

At present, several factors would make it difficult to merge shuttles that serve Potrero Terraces and

Annex with the shuttle envisioned for the new residential complexes in Potrero-Showplace. Among them:

The respective communities have identified different destinations which are not efficiently served

by one route or system.

The main areas for short term improvement desired by residents are along the southern edge of

the Rebuild Potrero project areathe 25thStreet side, which is the farthest from the Potrero-Showplace service area. This would degrade service for all users of a single shuttle system, by

requiring circuitous and time-consuming routes and travel times.

The community shuttle currently designed for the Terraces and Annex communities can begin as

soon as routes, destinations, and funding is finalized and can be managed by these communities.

The system we are designing is still very much in the futurenone of the residential projects yet

exists, nor are there firm funding commitments or an organizational and management structure in

place.

As both shuttle systems evolve, we believe the most efficient way for our services to complement the

Terraces and Annex complexes will be to establish stops and schedules that facilitate easy transfer from

one system to another and minimize duplication of routes and destinations.


14/23


Page 13

COMMUTER SHUTTLE CONCEPTS

One basis from which to begin building a commuter shuttle are the residents who will be living in new

residential complexes in Potrero/Showplace which will all be within close proximity of each other. The

larger developments include: Equitys projects at 16th& Seventh Streets, the Concourse and Henry Adams;

Walden Developments project at 16th& Mississippi; and Related Companys project at 1601 Mariposa.

In addition, there are several smaller in-fill projects slated for development.

Over 30% of the eventual residents in these projects will work in nearby employment centers not currently

well-served by transit. Some 38% will work in other San Francisco locations, and the East Bay and South

Bay are tertiary work destinations. Transportation choices for these destinations will be important

amenities that these urban dwellers will value highly.

By providing services to key employment centers such as these, a shuttle will also benefit the community at

large by reducing SOV trips and the associated traffic in and through the area and reducing demand for

parking. It will also encourage patronage of local business, and by enabling others in the neighborhoods

to use services, it will enhance overall community mobility which in turn, contributes to the economic vitality,a sense of place and quality of life in these neighborhoods.

Concept A

The first concept developed envisioned a fixed route to both local retail hubs and the Van Ness

Corridor/Civic Center BART hub. This concept facilitates cross-town travel, trips to the Financial District and

East Bay (via BART). It provides a choice between the 16thBART Station served by several Muni bus lines,

and Civic Center BART and Mid-Market. This concept also included a dynamic circulator zone which

includes the 4thStreet Caltrain Station, and the TransBay Terminal transit hubs as well as service throughout

East and West SOMA and into Mission Bay.


15/23


Page 14

Figure 2: Concept A


16/23


Page 15

Concept B

As we further studied the communities within SOMA and Mission Bay, we saw the potential to bring

additional partners into the network. The shuttle could be used in the reverse direction by these partners

and thus the system would become more efficient. By spreading costs among more property-partners, it

may also be more affordable for everyone. We identified high density residential developments near

Moscone Center and adjacent to the new Transbay Terminal as potential partners. Stops at these locationswould not only be central locations to drop customers from Potrero/Showplace for nearby destinations;

they would offer convenient access to the shuttle for the thousands of residents living in these and nearby

properties who work in Mission Bay and Potrero/Showplace.

Two alternatives under this scenario were developed. The first, a one-route system, would provide a

circulator service running between Potrero/Showplace, Mission Bay, and SOMA. This route would serve

Caltrain, the Central Subway (future light rail stations), and the TransBay Terminal. The one-route system

relies on the SFMTAs existing and planned bus lines for trips between both area BART stations (16 thStreet

and Civic Center BART).

The second alternative utilizes a two-route system to serve the same area, but with shorter, more direct

service from either end (Showplace/Potrero or SOMA) to the major employment centers at Mission Bay. Itassumes a high concentration of ridership between the Potrero/Showplace service area and Mission Bay

once the new medical facilities and entertainment complex open in Mission Bay to justify a separate route.

This also builds in more reliability than a single loop system, as traffic incidents which affect one end or

another need not necessarily impact the entire system

Residents from Potrero/Showplace heading to Mission Bay would take the purple route. They would use

the Green route to get to Caltrain, the Central Subway, or SOMA.

SOMA residents would use the Green route to get to Caltrain, the Central Subway, Mission Bay or to

Potrero/Showplace.

As in the one-route concept, those bound for BART would utilize SFMTAs bus lines to either Civic Center or16thSteet, so we are not duplicating service.


17/23


Page 16

Figure 3: Concept B One Route Alternative


18/23


Page 17

Figure 4: Concept B Two Route Alternative


19/23


Page 18

ESTABLISHING A COMMUNITY SHUTTLE

Successful shuttles have several common characteristics. By far the most important facet is that they are

driven by what their customers want. Routes serve a sufficient volume of customers, and stops are located

both at points of origins and destinations. Its customers need to have similar travel patterns (i.e., hours

they use the shuttle), and a predictable level of regularity. The shuttle needs to run frequently enough tobe a reliable and convenient mode choice for customers. Vehicles used are right-sized for the size of the

customer base, the types of trips being made, and the geography of the area served. There needs to be

a broad enough financial baseby existing businesses, new developers and/or property ownersto fund

adequate levels of serviceor a convenient way for customers to pay directly for access to the shuttle

system. Most successful shuttles dont attempt to be all things to all people instead, they prioritize

specific customer niches and trip types, and focus on creating value in those core areas. Services expand

as demand for other niches and trip types grow, but care is taken not to degrade core services.

A small group of developers and property owners have already expressed interest in pursuing the

concepts of commuter and shopper shuttles. The service concepts and broad cost estimates and funding

options presented in this report are intended to be a starting point for dialogue with potential partnersand the community.

Costs

There are two over-arching cost categories in a shuttle program: operations and management.

Operations include the cost of equipment (vans or buses), maintenance, insurance, drivers, necessary

permits and other such expenses. Management includes marketing, customer relations, service planning,

accounting, vendor management, and coordination with members or properties receiving service.

Costs vary widely depending on how service and management are structured. Typical variables include:

The number of service hours and how they are charged (i.e., a daily rate or hourly rate, minimums

required, the amount of deadhead time from the vendor to first stop, etc.)

Fuel charges based on distances traveled

The type of professional driver credential required for service and the types of vehicles used

The type and age of equipment, amenities, whether it is owned or leased, exclusive or shared use

The level of technology needed (i.e., GPS systems)

Whether management is full time or part time; separate or part of another organization/business

Overhead

Operations

Generally, small shuttle programs contract with an operations vendor for turn-key service. The vendor

provides the vehicles equipped as specified by the customer, maintenance, insurance, drivers, the

necessary permits, licenses and other credentials, an account liaison, dispatch and reports.


20/23


Page 19

A growing trend is for certain types of destinations (i.e., grocery stores or shopping centers) to sponsor

their own shuttle system. Some have regular fixed route service; others are on-demand or reservations-

based. Some buy their own vans and hire their own drivers; others contract out for a turn-key service.

Management

Identification of an appropriate organizational structure is a key to a successful shuttle partnership.

Management must meet the needs of those funding and governing a partnership, serve as customer liaison

and the public face for the service. It must handle all the back office responsibilities such as budgeting

and accounting, tax reporting and other fiscal responsibilities, as well as be the primary liaison with the

service vendor. Controlling these overhead costs is critical, especially for start-ups and small shuttles.

The Potrero/Showplace project can consider several options:

The group may choose to form their own TMA or organization with the singular purpose of

providing transportation services to their members/tenants. Members of the TMA would also have

governance responsibilities, establishing levels of service, destinations to be served, membership

requirements and fees.

They may ask an already existing business organization such as the Potrero Hill Boosters

Association to form a division to manage a shuttle program. In this case, a sub-committee of the

Board would also become the governance structure, with similar roles and responsibilities as

above. The umbrella non-profit provides fiscal sponsorship and is responsible for accounting,

holding contracts, and other back office functions for which it receives a fee.

They may ask an already existing TMA such as Mission Bay TMA to manage its shuttle program

(Mission Bay may be amenable to this, if the Potrero/Showplace project provides funding and

services that benefit the Mission Bay community). Again, a separate sub-committee of members

contributing to these specific services may be formed to provide governance and oversight. The

TMA provides the back office functions for a fee. They may contract out with a vendor such as RidePal, which not only provides operations, but

manages the service as well, by selling rides on routes directly to consumers. In this model, there is

either minimal or no role for sponsors. A property/sponsor may have an individual agreement

with RidePal to subsidize their residents or not. In exchange for taking on management and

marketing responsibilities, the group has no say-so about how the service (routes, hours,

frequency, etc.) is implemented or control over who can rideit becomes a public, market-driven

service.

Recent Shuttles LegislationThe SFMTA recently launched a Commuter Shuttles pilot project. This program is in response to the

growing popularity of shuttles in the City and how to better integrate them into the larger transportation

network without negatively impacting Munis performance and creating problems at the neighborhood

level. While it was primarily designed to address the impact of the larger regional shuttles on

neighborhoods such as Noe Valley, it is having a significant impact on intra-city shuttles as well, which, for

the most part, operate much smaller vehicles, are transit-hub based, and provide very frequent service.


21/23


Page 20

The pilot regulates shuttles insofar as the SFMTA wants to know who is running what and where. Routes,

stops, hours of operation, the number and type of vehicles being used, and ridership data must now be

reported. Buses which use Muni zones (share stops with Muni) or specified white zones must also use GPS

on buses which report data at 6-second intervals to the MTA, and pay for the program on a per-stop-

event basis.

At present, this is a voluntary program. Because the requirements for GPS and data feeds (at 6-secondintervals) are expensive to install and administer, and pricing is on a per-stop basis, the program is

beyond the financial capabilities of many small operators. These providers have shifted their pick-up and

drop-off locations to non-SFMTA bus zones. We expect conditions and participation to continue to evolve

during the 18-month-long program.

Other

Because residents of new housing in the Potrero Hill-Showplace neighborhoods will not only want, but

expect to have an array of transportation choices, we strongly recommend that developers design

appropriate places as part of their project for several modes to stage, pick-up and drop customers, or parkin ways that become a neighborhood amenity.

In addition to building in the ability for a community shuttle to board and de-board residents safely and

with ease, it may be wise to consider how other modes (i.e., a Google bus) could also board customers, as

well as be utilized by dynamic ridesharing services, casual carpools, etc. By providing off-street

accessibility to others in the community, these features contribute to the neighborhood in a positive way. It

may also be possible to charge a fee to others for use (i.e., charging regional shuttles a fee to board

passengers, which is what the SFMTA Commuter Shuttles program does).


22/23


Page 21

FUNDING SHUTTLE SERVICES

Shuttle services can be funded in several ways, and none are mutually exclusive. Following is a brief

description of some of the most common funding mechanisms and methodologies:

FUNDING SOURCES AND METHODOLOGIESCommercial Developer/Building Owners Commercial (office, retail, research) space is charged

according to type of use and square footage. Sometimes thenumber of employees is also factored into assessments.

Residential Developer/Management Charges are per dwelling unit. Sometimes the size of thedwelling is factored into assessment. The fees are included inrentals; part of HOA dues for ownership properties

Single Destination Cost of a particular service (or part of a service network) ispaid for by a single entity i.e., a retail center, school oremployer. Example: Mollybus (Molly Stone grocery van)

User Fees Riders pay to use services. This may take the form of anannual or monthly pass (unlimited rides for a fixed fee); aper-ride basis; or subscription. New models of serviceproviders such as RidePal use technology for riders toregister for particular origins, destinations and routes,reserve seats and charge per-use.

Equal Share A number of partners, all roughly with equivalent populationsand utilization, split costs equally

WHAT DOES A SHUTTLE COST?

The cost to operate a shuttle will vary widely, depending on some of the variables described earlier. The

more luxurious the vehicle and amenities, and more technology-equipped it is, the higher the cost.

However, because some of these factors may be essential to how riders will use the shuttle system, theyshould not necessarily be considered optional luxuries (such as GPS technology).

The following costs are for conceptual budgeting purposes only and do not include management fees:

TYPICAL OPERATIONS COSTS FOR A 12-16 PASSENGER VAN

Type of Service Service Hours Hourly Rate Annual Cost Per Van

Commuter 5 days/week (8 hrs/day)6am-10am3pm-7pm

$55.00

$65.00

$111,760

$132,080Shopper 30 hours/week

8 hrs Thurs-Sat; 6 hrs Sun

12n-8pm; 11am-5pm

56 hours/week8 hours/day Mon-Sun

$55.00

$65.00

$55.00

$65.00

$85,800

$101,400

$160,160

$189,280


23/23


Sample Funding Scenarios

Commuter Shuttle (3 vans @ 8 hrs/day) $335,280 Annual Cost

Funded By:

300,000 SF commercial @ $0.12 $ 30,000

2550 dwelling units @ $120/year $306,000

Shopper Shuttle (2 vans @ 30 hrs/week) $171,600 Annual Cost

Funded By:

300,000 SF commercial @ $0.20 $ 60,000

2400 dwelling units @ $60/year $144,000

Commercial participants can include employers such as Anchor Brewers and office buildings in the service

area, in addition to retailers such as Whole Foods, 555 Ninth Street, and other shopping centers.

Residential members may include other high density housing that already exists in the Showplace area

along King, Townsend and Berry Streets as well as in other parts of SOMA where service is envisioned. It

may also be extended to residents in lower density housing in the districts for whom the service provides

value.

Again, one of the most important cautions for a start-up is to begin with a relatively small universe of

members and customers with clear service objectives to make sure the foundation is solid, sustainable andmanageable. From those successes, services can expand.

Potrero Shuttle Plan Report

Documents

Transcript of Potrero Shuttle Plan Report