Congestion in San FranciscoMonitoring and Management
October 3, 2019
Presentation Outline
2
Congestion in San Francisco: now and in the future
TNCs and Congestion
Impacts on Muni
Policy Recommendations
3
0
300,000
600,000
900,000
1,200,000
1,500,000
1980 2015 2050
Population
Jobs
SF Population and Employment 1980 – 2050
We are Growing
4
Where Are We Growing?
Treasure Island
Transit Center District Plan
Central SoMa
The Hub
Mission Bay
Pier 70Potrero HOPE SF
Potrero Power Station
Parkmerced
Balboa Reservoir
Schlage LockHOPE SF Sunnydale
Executive ParkCandlestick Point
Hunters Point Shipyard
India BasinHOPE SF Hunters View
Mission Rock
Based on adopted plans, policies, and entitlements
2015-2050 Change in SF Population and Employment Density
Traffic is bad — and it’s getting worse
Weekday PM peak speed,2017
Traffic speeds have been declining
Average auto speeds 2006 – 2017
SFCTA, Congestion Management Program 2017
6
But transit speeds are relatively stable*
Average transit speeds 2011 – 2017
7SFCTA, Congestion Management Program 2017
*thanks to investments in transit priority streets.
Auto to transit ratio has improved
Auto/transit speed ratio 2011 – 2017
8
SFCTA, Congestion Management Program 2017
TNCs & Congestion
9
Source: SFCTA “TNCs Today”2017
TNC: Transportation Network Company
10 Guiding Principles for Emerging Mobility
Safety Transit
Congestion
SustainabilityEquitable Access
Accountability Labor CollaborationFinancial Impact
Disabled Access
Adopted by the SFCTA and SFMTA boards.
TNC trips by Time‐of Day and Day‐of Week
AM peak
PM peak
CONTEXT
Emerging Mobility
13
Mile
s pe
r ho
ur
Change in Speeds by Time of Day for all roadways in San Francisco
Congestion Gets Worse, Auto Speeds Decline
SF‐CHAMP
14
Transit is More Crowded
18%8%
31% 45% 3%3%
11%
11%
18%
23%
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
2015 2050 2015 2050 2015 2050 2015 2050 2015 2050
Transbay service
Not crowded
Crowded
Average Weekday Passenger Hours by Crowding Level
18% 8% 31% 45% 3%3%
11%
11%
18%
23%
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
20152050 20152050 20152050 20152050 20152050
SF‐CHAMP
15
Transit is More Crowded
15%
19%
24%
32%
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
2015 2050 2015 2050
Not CrowdedCrowded
Not crowded
Crowded
Average Weekday Passenger Hours by Crowding Level –Muni
SF‐CHAMP
16
Transit is More Crowded
Muni Bus Muni Rail Regional Transit
2050 AM Passenger Crowding Level
SF‐CHAMP
Congestion increases operating costs
As congestion increases in areas where transit does not have traffic priority measures, transit service becomes slower and more expensive to provide.
Travel Time (Minutes)
Buses Required
Annual Cost
30 $3.9 million45 $5.9 million60 $7.9 million75 $9.9 million
EXAMPLE: Cost to Provide 10‐Minute Bus Frequency, 6 AM – 12 AM, daily
Assumes operating cost of $200/hour per vehicle. Actual costs vary by mode.
Travel time and cost increase together
Muni On‐Time Performance
Muni Bunching and Gaps
Muni Forward produces travel time savings
• Muni Forward projects generally improve travel time by 10% or more
• Over 30 miles implemented to date
• Examples:• Church Street: 15%• 5R Fulton Rapid: 9‐12%• Mission: 13% • 16th Street: 10%• Potrero: 20%• Two‐Way Haight: Over 20%• Sansome: Over 20%
Mission Street Muni Forward
• In 2016, SFMTA added transit only lanes, required right turns, stop consolidation, left turn restrictions, and right turn pockets to improve Muni reliability and safety
• Travel times reduced by up to 2 minutes but riders perceived a 10‐minute savings
• As a result, ridership went up by 4,500 boardings per day in this corridor
22
Potrero Avenue Muni Forward
• In 2018, SFMTA completed improvements on Potrero Avenue to improve Muni reliability
• Improvements include red lane, boarding islands, signal priority, stop consolidation, plus pedestrian and bike safety upgrades
• These treatments improved travel times by up to 2 minutes
• Along with other improvements, this has led to a 38% increase in ridership on the 9 and 9R
Delay Hot Spots
• Muni Forward covers most but not all delay “hot spots”
• Spot improvements can fill in the gaps
• We are mapping the 10 slowest Muni segments
• Next: develop plan to speed up Muni at each of them, such as turn pockets, queue jumps, signal timing changes, etc.
Top 10 PM Peak hot spots for delay
Congestion Problems for Muni
1. Speed
2. Reliability
3. Crowding
4. Conflicts
25
What’s working?
1. Muni Forward / Red Lanes
2. More and larger vehicles
3. Transportation Sustainability Program including TDM requirements
26
What do we need next?
1. MORE Muni Forward / Red Lanes2. Close the equity gap3. Curb management4. Pricing projects5. New mobility permitting6. More funding for transit
27
PRICING STUDY:
Downtown Congestion Pricing
Thank you.Any Questions?sfcta.org
For reference only
30
2010 Congestion Pricing Study
What scenarios would be feasible and effective?
What improvements should be part of the package?
What are the potential benefits and impacts?
3131
PRICING STUDY:
US101 to I‐280 Express Lanes
M anaged Lanes evaluated in this study
M anaged Lanes now under construction
M anaged Lanes now under construction
2010 RECOMMENDATION
Northeast Cordon
33
Proposed program:$3 toll to cross cordon during peak
Discounts & subsidies:
• Zone resident
• Low‐income HH
• Bridge toll payers
Multimodal investment program
2010 RECOMMENDATION
Northeast Cordon
34
Benefits:12% fewer peak period auto trips
21% reduction in vehicle delay
20% – 25% transit speed improvements
16% reduction in Northeast Cordon GHGs
12% reduction in pedestrian collisions
Business effects broadly neutral
What’s different since 2010
More growth and congestion
TNCs (Uber, Lyft)
Even more focus on equity
Opportunity for incentives
35
NOW:
New Congestion Pricing Study
New stakeholder conversations
New equity study
Updated analysis and new recommendations
36
Top Related