Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
What we heard from the
public:
• More investment in
operations and
maintenance of the
existing system
• Better transit
reliability, reduced
transit crowding
What we heard from the
public:
• More investment in
operations and
maintenance of the
existing system
• Better transit
reliability, reduced
transit crowding
• Investment in safety
projects, pedestrian
infrastructure, traffic
calming
What we heard from the
public:
• More investment in
operations and
maintenance of the
existing system
• Better transit
reliability, reduced
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
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 3
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
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 5
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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)
Other policy rec’s:
• 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.
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
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.
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
11
Other policy rec’s:
• 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
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
12
Plan recommendations:
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
Other policy rec’s:
• 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.
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
13
Plan recommendations:
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.
Other policy rec’s:
• 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.
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
14
Plan recommendations:
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.
Findings & Recommendations Efficiency and expansion projects
We must improve system performance (reliability, travel times) to meet existing and future
demands.
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
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)
Findings & Recommendations Efficiency and expansion projects
We must improve system performance (reliability, travel times) to meet existing and future
demands.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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%
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 21
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
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 22
Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3 Time period: AM Peak Hour
Muni Crowding by Service Type (PHT)
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 23
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
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 24
Source: SF-CHAMP 4.3 Time period: PM Peak Hour
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Citywide Comparison
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 25
-
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.
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
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
www.sfcta.org/MoveSmartSF | twitter.com/SanFranciscoTA | www.facebook.com/MoveSmartSF 27
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
OPERATIONAL INVESTMENTS
• Low: Transit frequency improvements
• Medium: Programmatic transit investments
POLICY CHANGES
• Low: Traffic management on key corridors
• Medium: Congestion pricing
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 30
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
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 31
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
OPERATIONAL INVESTMENTS
• Maintain transit operations
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 32
Only the most aggressive scenarios
approach goals
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 33
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
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 34
Even with bold strategies, San Francisco is likely to
achieve only a fraction of GHG reduction target
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 35
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