1. SAN FRANCISCO
ICT Transportation Initiatives
Tilly Chang, SFCTA
CISCO Connected Urban Development Conference
January 21, 2008
February, 2008

2. WHY WE’RE CONCERNED
Transportation consistently ranks Congested Streets in San Francisco
#1 problem in regional surveys
(Bay Area Council)
Bay Area is 2nd most congested
region in the nation (Texas
Transportation Institute)
Half of average regional trip is spent
in traffic delay with bus speeds 9 –
35% slower than auto speeds
Transportation contributes about
50% of eCO2 emissions in SF
San Francisco sacrificed $2.3 billion
to congestion in 2005
Source: SFCTA, Spring 2006 LOS Monitoring
Federal funds shortage SFMTA, Spring 2007AVL Monitoring Results
www.sfmobility.org 2

3. TRAVEL to DOWNTOWN SF
Daily Trips to/from San
Francisco (2005)
1,000,000 trips daily to
Downtown, Civic Center, and North Bay
SOMA 52,624
(6%)
500,000 by car (daily)
150,000 by car (AM/PM peaks)
242,077
Transit mode share to/from Downtown
128,475
(14%)
(26%)
East Bay
downtown (41%, pm peak) San Francisco
SoMa
East Bay: 66%
North Bay: 42% 374,172
(39%)
South Bay/Peninsula: 23%
150,417
South Bay (16%)
Source: SF-CHAMP
www.sfmobility.org 3

4. PLANNING for a SUSTAINABLE FUTURE
Photo: San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
Photo: San Francisco Planning Department
Photo: UCSF
www.sfmobility.org 4

5. WHY STUDY CONGESTION PRICING in
SF?
Economic tool for managing Key Benefits
scarce, underpriced resource Faster, more reliable trips for all travelers
Improved traffic flow and road safety
Funds reinvested in transportation
Successful implementation in improvements
several cities worldwide London
14,000 new bus seats (more frequent service)
$200M net revenue annually
National / regional support and 30% less congestion
trends in congestion 16% reduction in vehicle emissions
management Stockholm
2,800 new park & ride spaces
$50M net revenue annually
SF Countywide Transportation 22% less congestion
Plan 14% reduction in vehicle emissions
Rome*
SF Climate Action Plan 14 new regional/express bus lines
$65M net revenue annually
20% less congestion
www.sfmobility.org 5

6. POLITICAL LEADERSHIP
Mayor Newsom, 2nd Inaugural Address
January 8, 2008
www.sfmobility.org 6

7. CONGESTION PRICING in PRACTICE
Benefits include
reduced delays & traffic
(13 – 26%)
increased speeds
(20 – 39%)
better transit reliability & ridership (5
– 18%)
decrease in emissions
(15 – 20%)
decrease in pedestrian injuries (~9%)
substantial net revenues
($50M – 200M)
www.sfmobility.org 7

8. CONGESTION PRICING – A PACKAGE
Variable fee paid by drivers in most
congested areas or on key congested
routes
Revenues reinvested in improving
transportation options (including BRT)
“Barrier-free” electronic detection,
payment and enforcement
Multiple, convenient payment methods
Real time information
Public outreach and awareness
www.sfmobility.org 8

9. BRT on VAN NESS and GEARY
Van Ness Avenue Geary Boulevard
2 miles 4+ miles
20,000 daily riders 50,000 daily riders
$87M (2011) $212M (2012)
Bus speeds increase more than 30%
Transit ridership increase more than 23%
Regional transit services and connections
www.sfmobility.org 9

10. WHAT SCENARIO(S) MIGHT WORK
HERE?
Where is auto and transit congestion worst? What areas have the most
options?
What gateways or routes might be charged? What area could be the focus?
What other scenarios might there be?
www.sfmobility.org 10

11. CONGESTION PRICING GOALS
Improve transportation system performance
Reduced traffic delay
More reliable travel times
Enhance environment and quality of life
Decreased vehicle emissions
Improved road safety
Maintain economic vitality Economy Equity
Better access to business & commerce
Reduce costs of wasted time & fuel
Support sustainable growth Environment
Balanced transportation choices
Sustainable growth in travel demand
www.sfmobility.org 11

12. Role of ICT
Supports public information and system
management:
Transportation system management (traffic,
transit)
Convenient electronic payment systems
Real time user information on time and money
costs
Enforcement, account management and
customer support
Monitoring and evaluation
Integrated system management
www.sfmobility.org 12

13. STUDY SCHEDULE
Workshop 1: Workshop 2: Workshop 3:
Issues & Goals Preliminary Mobility Packages Evaluation & Next Steps
Baseline Analysis Develop Preliminary Refine & Evaluate Recommendations
& Case Studies Mobility Packages Mobility Packages & Next Steps
WINTER 2007 SUMMER/FALL 2008
Current Activities:
Model development
Design of scenarios and improvements
Economic and financial analyses
Technology review
www.sfmobility.org 13

14. USDOT URBAN PARTNERSHIP
PROGRAM
SF selected as a US DOT Urban Partner;
Region to receive $159M in grant funds
Doyle Drive Value Pricing Program is centerpiece
Program demonstrates US DOT’s 4Ts of congestion management:
tolling (congestion pricing)
transit and ferry investments
technology
telecommuting
Implementing agencies include: SFCTA, MTC, SFMTA, GGBHTD
and Caltrans
Legislative authority is required to access grant funds
www.sfmobility.org 14

15. SAN FRANCISCO URBAN PARTNERSHIP
Doyle Drive Value Pricing Program
toll Doyle Drive to close funding gap and manage congestion ($12M)
Doyle Drive Replacement Project ($35.3M)
Evaluation ($0.4M)
Traffic management ($58M)
SFgo traffic management
transit signal priority
Parking Management ($20M)
variable pricing
real-time information on availability
Integrated mobility account / Pricing back end
TransLink, FasTrak integration, 511 ($9M)
Pricing back-end systems ($11.2M)
www.sfmobility.org 15

16. DOYLE DRIVE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Doyle Drive (parkway design)
Doyle Drive (existing)
Regional need: highest priority safety project in the state
Context-sensitive design to replace Doyle Drive
1 of 2 alternatives with comparable project costs; broad consensus on parkway
design
$1.06B project; $640M already committed in state & local funds
65% of project funding from SF; SF trips comprise 16% of peak Doyle trips
Actively seeking other funds to reduce funding gap ($417M)
Would help to reduce amount of toll
www.sfmobility.org 16

17. DOYLE DRIVE TOLLING PROJECT
Barrier free (no new tollbooths):
existing FasTrak system and new
technologies
All users could be tolled with detection
at multiple exits
Bond against toll revenue to deliver
replacement project by 2013
Revenues reinvested within the
corridor
www.sfmobility.org 17

18. SFgo Real Time Traffic Mgmt
www.sfmobility.org 18

19. Transit and EV Signal Priority
Emergency vehicle preemption
reduces response time by 20%
Transit priority improves
Muni’s on-time
performance and
reliability
www.sfmobility.org 19

20. On- and Off-Street Parking Management
Variable pricing will be based on periodic occupancy surveys
Procure up to 150 multispace meters with networked sensors at
individual spaces with pay by cell phone capability
Equip meters with ability to accept Translink and credit cards
Off-Street garages would be equipped with FasTrak
www.sfmobility.org 20

21. Parking Guidance
www.sfmobility.org 21

22. Integrated Mobility Account
Use FT and Translink to pay for bridge and road tolls, transit and parking
fees
Develop a single user interface to manage Mobility account funds
www.sfmobility.org 22

23. MAPS – UPA COORDINATION
MAPS is a feasibility study:
recommendations by summer/fall 2008;
UPA project is a demonstration project:
legislative authority needed by March 31, 2008
UPA to demonstrate value:
Close Doyle funding gap with self-help
Manage peak period demand
Showcase technology
Concept of re-investing revenue in the Doyle/101 corridor
Build public trust in government to deliver
Monitoring and evaluation of Doyle program will help inform
decision-making for broader implementation in SF
www.sfmobility.org 23

24. THANK YOU
www.sfmobility.org
415.522.4832
mobility@sfcta.org
February, 2008

25. ADVISORY COMMITTEES
Policy Working Group Business Advisory Council
SFMTA Bay Area Council
Mayor’s Office of Economic Development BOMA SF
BART SF Chamber of Commerce
MTC/BATA Union Square Association
SF Planning Department Market Street Association
Caltrans Transportation Mgmt Association
Golden Gate Bridge District UCSF
Alameda County Congestion Mgmt PG&E
Agency AAA
Federal Highway Administration and more…
Federal Transit Administration
Technical Advisory Committee Stakeholder Task Force
SFMTA SPUR
BART TALC
Caltrain/SamTrans Sierra Club
AC Transit Livable City
MTC/BATA SF Bicycle Coalition
ABAG Senior Action Network
Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt District Walk SF
Golden Gate Bridge District SF Convention & Visitors Bureau
Port of SF and more…
www.sfmobility.org 25

26. IS CONGESTION PRICING FAIR?
How do travelers currently use
the system?
Support for Studying Congestion
Who would pay? Pricing in San Francisco by
Income
100%
90%
What value would they receive? 80%
No opinion
70%
How would funds be spent? Disagree Strongly
60% Disagree Somewhat
Agree Somewhat
50%
Agree Strongly
How might we minimize 40%
impacts? 30%
20%
program design 10%
0%
amenities Very Low Income Low Income Middle Income High Income
appropriate discounts Source: SFCTA, Poll of Bay Area residents, 2007
www.sfmobility.org 26

27. WILL SF CONTINUE to be COMPETITIVE?
How does congestion affect London, Stockholm & Rome: Still
businesses today? Thriving
How would potential charges
impact businesses?
by size
by sector
by location
How can we minimize potential
impacts?
program design
amenities
incentives
www.sfmobility.org 27

28. EVALUATING ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Analysis method is comprehensive:
How are Who pays the How do these What are the What are the
travel costs congestion costs multiply changes in impacts to
perceived? charge? through the consumer businesses?
economy? spending?
Changes in Incidence Input – output Changes in Changes
generalized Analysis of analysis household business
travel cost from Direct Impacts using IMPLAN incomes and output and
SF-CHAMP purchases employment
• Auto drivers • Employees • Indirect Impacts • Business Sector • Business Sector
• Transit Users • Business • Induced Impacts • Business Location • Business Location
• Customers • Business Size • Business Size
And targeted:
Frequency and average “spends” by access mode (foot, car, transit)
Special attention to retail, tourism, freight industries
www.sfmobility.org 28