san francisco transportation plan update · 2013. 6. 4. · knitting it all together investment...

www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

San Francisco Transportation Plan Update

Board Workshop Draft for CAC

May 29, 2013

Draft SFTP Financially Constrained Investment Scenario

S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y 2

Total: $72.6Billion

What we heard from the

public:

• More investment in

operations and

maintenance of the

existing system

Committed projects

(Baseline) - $9.43B


public:


operations and

maintenance of the

existing system

• Better transit

reliability, reduced

transit crowding


public:


operations and

maintenance of the

existing system

• Better transit


transit crowding

• Investment in safety

projects, pedestrian

infrastructure, traffic

calming


public:


operations and

maintenance of the

existing system

• Better transit


transit crowding

• Investment in safety

projects, pedestrian

infrastructure, traffic

calming

• Support for cost-

effective projects that

improve system

efficiency

Draft SFTP Total plan summary by type


Total discretionary

revenue: $3.14Billion

Knitting it all together

Investment Scenario Approach

Complementary choices among investment types (e.g.

replacement vehicles, rapid transit network

development can increase effective level of transit

service)

But also:

Tradeoffs between and within investment types (e.g.

Operations, Maintenance, Programs, Expansion), modes,

geographic areas and

Plan development considered multiple factors: Need,

Performance, Cost-Effectiveness, Public Input , Policy/Plan

status, Equity

S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y

4

Draft SFTP Discretionary funds by type


Total discretionary

revenue: $3.14Billion

Findings & Recommendations Transit Operations

Crowding, unreliability, and service reductions continue without more investment; moreover,

current Muni service is financially unsustainable, need to study alternatives


6

Plan recommendations:

Invest $410M (13% of discretionary revenues)

toward continued/new transit services (mostly

Muni, plus potentially, small amount for new

contracted regional bus service)

Result: Slows the decline of service, cuts

would still be inevitable

Other policy recommendations:

• Advocate for new, dedicated transit

operating revenue

• Pursue Muni cost management strategies,

in concert with regional efforts

Source: MTC Transit Sustainability Project

Findings & Recommendations Transit Operations

7

Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3


Other policy recommendations, continued:

• Enable regional operator inbound pick ups

• Study/pilot new models of service delivery

Findings & Recommendations Transit Maintenance

Unreliability and cost trends will continue to worsen unless we act decisively to address SOGR.


8

Plan rec’s:

Increase transit SOGR investment by $10M/

year (9% of discretionary revenue) toward

capital asset maintenance (vehicles, facilities,

guideways) to fund 70% of most critical needs

Result: Replace all vehicles and 70% of other

mission critical assets on time

Other policy rec’s:

• Finish Muni Asset Mgmt System, C3 and

Radio Replacement projects

• Implement Muni Facilities Plan

• Develop pipeline of projects and funding

strategy

Source: SFMTA Transit Effectiveness Project

Findings & Recommendations Local Streets and Roads Maintenance

Without significant investment pavement degradation will impair safe travel by all modes.


9

Plan rec’s:

Increase LS&R investment by $480M (over

$16M/year, 14% of discretionary revs) for pavement

resurfacing and reconstruction

Result: Over time, worsens PCI about 15% to 50’s (vs.

64 today)


• Do “Smart SOGR” – follow the paving/sewer

project for complete streets, reduced costs

• Support full roll-out of Envista as a map-based

coordination platform for street/sewer

improvement projects

• Must advocate for additional resurfacing funding

Findings & Recommendations Programmatic Enhancements

The city can deliver Complete Streets more efficiently and effectively than today.


10

Plan rec’s: Invest $640M (20% of

discretionary revenue) into multi-modal

(pedestrian, bicycling, traffic calming,

signal) projects.

Note: This investment level represents

aspirational delivery rates, based on past and

current indications; it could be delivered in ½

the Plan period with strong policy and politic al

support.

Result: Safer, more complete pedestrian,

bicycle and transit networks; calmer

streets, smoother traffic flows

Source: SFMTA Pedestrian Strategy

Findings & Recommendations Programmatic Enhancements – complete streets

The city can deliver Complete Streets more efficiently and effectively than today.


11


• Increase transparency and public

involvement through “Citizen’s Guide to

Transportation Improvements in SF”

• Clarify city’s Complete Streets design

policies, processes and standards.

• Support MTA’s revised Traffic Calming

program, Pedestrian Strategy, and

creation of signals investment strategy

(e.g., for the “Sfgo” program).

Findings & Recommendations Programmatic Enhancements - transit

Muni and Regional transit enhancements – a focus on “customer first” improvements


12


Maintain existing levels at $330M or $11.8M/year (10.5% of

discretionary revs) toward transit enhancements, e.g. development of

regional and local transit hubs with real-time information and access

improvements, including integration of bike/car sharing, taxi and

pedestrian safety, e.g. at Balboa Station

Result: More consistent and convenient user experience


• Coordinate major capital projects e.g. Embarc./Montgomery BART

stations with Transbay Terminal, Better Market Street

• Coordinate transit investment with land use development plans, M-

Line, Bayview Waterfront Transit Center, Geneva BRT, Treasures Island

• Increase regional partnerships & advocacy to develop project pipeline

Findings & Recommendations Programmatic Enhancements – Transportation Demand Mgmt

We must broaden our Transportation Demand Management (TDM) efforts to reach our goals.


13


Increase TDM investment to $60M ($2.1M/year, or 2% of

discretionary revs) for strategies to encourage time and mode

shifts away from single-occupant automobile trips.


• Continue to develop pricing and other peak–spreading

strategies (Treasure Island, Cordon Pricing, parking pricing,

and Employer policies)

• Develop MTA regulatory programs to allow safe integration

of 3rd party providers (Muni Partners, taxi/ride-sharing)

• Encourage, grow community-based mobility solutions, e.g.

vehicle sharing, volunteer driver program

• Explore area-wide parking cap or employer trip reduction

programs for SoMA/MissionBay

Findings & Recommendations Efficiency and expansion projects

We must improve system performance (reliability, travel times) to meet existing and future

demands.


14


Investment $870M ($31M/year, or 28% of discretionary revs) in new projects and studies to raise

the operational efficiency of our system and meet the demands of growth.



demands.


15

In addition to the Committed Projects,

the Plan includes:

• Continued rapid transit network

development for travel times and

reliability (TEP, Geary, Geneva and

Potrero/Bayshore BRT

• Address rapid network

capacity and

performance

bottlenecks (Transit

Performance

Initiative, BART

Metro)



demands.


16

In addition to the Committed Projects, the Plan includes:

• Setting a vision for SF freeway management strategies

• Study of our long range BART/Muni/Caltrain transit

network development

Other Policy Rec’s:

• Seek the delivery of Caltrain Electrification by 2019

• Solidify the plan for delivering DTX

• Expansion of P3s, value capture to replace

Redevelopment mechanism, and pursue other innovative

project delivery approaches, with strong revenue

advocacy for our priorities.

Findings & Recommendations Equity-focused Investments

The draft Plan responds to recent findings of Authority’s equity analysis identifying some

geographic and socio-economic disparities


17

Geographic equity support:

• Enhance regional transit system

access – new regional transit access

pilot, e.g. West side to Caltrain,

BART

• Improve reliability, especially in

outer parts of the city – SOGR,

transit enhancement (real time

information displays) and transit

priority network development

• Implement neighborhood

transportation improvements in

every district, e.g. through upcoming

5-year Prop K programs

Findings & Recommendations Equity-focused Investments

The draft Plan responds to recent findings of Authority’s equity analysis identifying some

geographic and socio-economic disparities


18

Socio-Economic equity support:

• Pedestrian Safety funding, including SR2S, SR2T, traffic

calming , education, outreach, and enforcement funds

• Bicycle network development and implementation

• Mobility management support for CBOs (e.g. Bayview shuttle-

sharing)

• Bikeshare/carshare initiatives (address affordability)

• Increased planning funds to build neighborhood capacity and

a strong pipeline of projects

Plan Performance

19

Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3 and DPW

• Despite limited new

resources, the Plan

achieves modest

performance in all goal

areas

• However, underfunding

road and transit

maintenance

counteracts SOGR gains

from reduced crowding

• Specific corridors see

more dramatic

performance gains


Total Tripmaking: 5M Overall Trips

www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 20

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Auto Transit Bike Ped

Tota

l Per

son

Tri

ps

(th

ou

san

ds)

Total Daily Trips To/From/Within SF by Mode

2040 Baseline

Financially

Constrained

Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3 Time period: Daily

Projected Mode Split: 2040 Baseline vs. Scenario Non-Auto Mode Share Moves to Right at 50%


52% 50%

21% 22%

2% 3%

25% 26%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Per

cen

t o

f To

tal T

rip

s

Scenario

Projected Mode Split, T/F/W SF, Daily

Ped

Bike

Transit

Auto

Mode Percent Change

Auto -5%

Transit +6%

Bike +18%

Walk +3%

Percent Difference in

Total Trips by Mode

Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3 Time period: Daily

Muni Crowding: Baseline and Constrained Scenarios Crowding diminished in Western Market, Eastern Spine


Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3 Time period: AM Peak Hour

Muni Crowding by Service Type (PHT)


0%

12%

23% 22%

18%

27%

34%

25%

0%

27% 25%

39%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Community Local Rapid Specialized

Pe

rce

nt

of P

ers

on

-Ho

urs

Tra

vele

d

Change in Crowded/Overcapacity PHT, 2012 vs. 2040 Baseline vs. 2040 Financially Constrained

2012

2040 Baseline

2040 Financially Constrained

Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3 Time period: AM Peak Hour

Congestion: Baseline and Constrained Scenarios Improvement on I-280 in- and outbound, I-80 and 101 inbound


Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3 Time period: PM Peak Hour

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Citywide Comparison


-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

Baseline FC Scenario

Met

ric

Ton

s o

f GH

G E

mit

ted

Scenario

Difference in GHG Emitted

Offpeak (18 hours)

Peak (6 hours)

4,493

2,757

1,736

2,663

1,443

Time periods: Peak – AM and PM, Offpeak – EA, MD, and EV Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3

Note: GHG from trips to or from San Francisco counted 50%

4,106

Plan Investment vs. Need

0.41 0.28 0.46 1.13 0.87

1.55 0.75 0.51

1 0.63

2 4

1.53

1 2.9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6"Priority 2" Need

"Priority 1" Need

Discretionary Revenue

(Financially Constrained

Investment Strategy)

26

Note: LS&R Operations is not

shown because it is fully

funded with expected

revenues and does not require

additional discretionary

contribution in the Plan.


Bill

ion

s

Conclusions and next steps

• Significant performance benefits require “sticks” (driving disincentives) as well as

“carrots” (transit, bike, and walking enhancements and capacity increases)

• Investments with significant performance benefits require politically difficult

tradeoffs (e.g., auto restrictions)

• Need pursuit of a combination of new resources and cost containment to meet

SOGR needs

• Some goals can be met in the financially constrained scenario (economic

competitiveness, non-auto mode shares)

• GHG emission reduction goal remains challenging

• New project and service delivery approaches can help reach benefits sooner at a

lower cost


SFTP “Vision” Scenario

Aspirational Scenarios: What does it take to reach our

goals with an unconstrained budget?

If new revenues were available, how should we invest

them?

Focus on Livability ($15 billion)

CAPITAL INVESTMENTS

• New rail lines

• Second transbay BART tube

• Road diets and traffic calming

• Cycletracks

OPERATIONAL INVESTMENTS

• Improved transit frequency and reliability

• Bicycle sharing

• Bicycle stations at major transit hubs

POLICY CHANGES

• Reduced need for transit transfers

• Promotion of walking and cycling

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 29

Focus on Economic Competitiveness ($2 to $15 billion)

CAPITAL INVESTMENTS

• Low: Caltrain electrification, transit priority measures

• Medium: BRT, Caltrain downtown extension

• High: Second transbay BART tube, high speed rail


• Low: Transit frequency improvements

• Medium: Programmatic transit investments

POLICY CHANGES

• Low: Traffic management on key corridors

• Medium: Congestion pricing


Focus on Healthy Environment ($10 billion)

CAPITAL INVESTMENTS

• Designated transit lanes

• Rail extensions

• Cycle tracks

POLICY CHANGES

• Congestion pricing

• Employer-subsidized transit passes and TDM

• Residence-based TDM (transit passes for new housing residents,

personalized outreach on commute alternatives, car-sharing)

• School-based TDM

• Regional road pricing


Focus on Infrastructure ($10 Billion) $10 billion CAPITAL INVESTMENTS

• Maintain local streets, bridges and tunnels, and transit vehicles and

facilities in a state of good repair


• Maintain transit operations


Only the most aggressive scenarios

approach goals


Goal

Goal

25

30

35

40

45

Healthy Env

+ Pricing

EconMed Healthy Env Livability Baseline

Commute Travel Time to SF (minutes)

-75%

-50%

-25%

0%

25%

50%

75%

Healthy Env +

Pricing

Healthy Env EconMed Livability Baseline

GHG (daily metric tons for SF destination trips)

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

Baseline EconMed Healthy Env Livability Healthy Env +

Pricing

Non-Auto Mode Share (percent of trips)

Goal

Healthy Environment with Congestion Pricing

comes closest to achieving targets


Even with bold strategies, San Francisco is likely to

achieve only a fraction of GHG reduction target


Thank ou! For For meeting schedule through July,

see:

www.movesmartsf.org

Authority Board Workshop

Thursday, May 30, 1:30 – 5

SFCTA Offices

www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

http://www.movesmartsf.org/

san francisco transportation plan update · 2013. 6. 4. · knitting it all together investment...

Documents