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