San FranciscoMobility On Demand Urban Implementation Case Study

Sandra Frem

San Francisco

(source:www.worldfromtheweb.com)

55

San Francisco

Like most American cities, the urban fabric of San Francisco developed on an orthogonal grid, or rather two orthogonal grids converging on a di-agonal spine: Market Street. Its singu-lar topography of 48 hills, however, produced urban situations where the American grid meets an untamed to-pography. This topography has set up a condition whereby public trans-port has low coverage on the hills , many parts of the city have a greater than 20 minute walk to a public trans-port option and, therefore, there is an extremely high rate of car ownership

(average of 3 cars per household) in the Western, Southern and South Eastern parts of the city.

The mobility on demand proposal in San Francisco, aims to improve the amount of mobility choice outside of the well-serviced downtown area, at the same time complementing the existing public transit system and reducing the distance that residents must travel in order to use alternative modes of transport.

In addition to focusing on residents, the proposal also looks at combining mobility on demand nodes with ma-jor tourist routes in the hope that they may also have access to a greater number of things within the San Fran-cisco area.

Lastly, mobility on demand nodes are also proposed at the intersec-tion of major civic institutions, such as schools, universities, colleges and mixed-use commercial centers.

Location and Context

San Francisco’s can be described according to the following:

A 180 degree Waterfront Pe- °rimeter

One diagonal main street (Mar- °ket Street)

Two orthogonal grids converg- °ing on the main street

Parks (Golden Gate, Presidio, °Merced, Mt Sutro, Mt David-son...)

Thirty-one “hilly fabric” situa- °tions

Two bridges connecting with °the Bay

57

Civic structure

Topography: grid meets hill

(source:maps.google.com) (copyright 2006 Philip Greenspun)

< When the natural hilly topography of San Francisco meets the urban grid it causes different types of street solutions to occur

> The topographical condition of San Francisco

59

Topography: events on the hills

Mobility on Demand: range by mode of transport

61

Mobility on Demand: range by mode of transport

< Potentiality of different vehicle modes to provide sufficient transportation in the city of San Francisco

Cityscape and tourism: the 49 mile drive

63

Cityscape and tourism

Tourism in Numbers

15 million visitors in 2005 °

7.5 billion $ in revenues °

3rd highest rate of foreign °tourists in a US city

Established in 1938, San Francisco’s 49 mile scenic tour meanders past the many major attractions and tour-ist landmarks of the city. Only acces-sible by car, the route could benefit from a mobility on demand system that allows a choice of cycling, Ro-boScooters or CityCars.

Exiting Regional Public Transport BART, Amtrak, Caltrain

The Bay Area connection provided by Bart allows in-ter cities mobility, flowing at a rate of 360000 passen-gers per day

65

Existing City Public Transport: MUNI

At first glance, the existing transit sys-tem in San Francisco appears com-prehensive. However, when taking into account the unique topography of the area (see following pages) it appears that there are in fact large areas with less than adequate access to non-private modes of transporta-tion.

Existing Accessibility to Public Transport System

Due to immense topographical chang-es and the resulting lack of public transit services to these areas, there are large transport islands (areas with insuffi-cient access to public transport) within the San Francisco area. Outside of the downtown area, many residents have to walk up to 20 minutes to reach a public bus or train stop.

67

Existing Accessibility to Public Transport System

Social Geography and Travel Behaviour

US Census data shows a sharp im-balance between downtown San Francisco and its periphery in terms of travel behavior.

At the periphery car usage is twice that of the center and car ownership is three times as much.

(source:www.smartdestinations.com)

69

Social Geography and Travel Behaviour

(source:commons.wikimedia.org)

Proposed Mobility-On-Demand SystemLogic of Distribution- the tourist network

The Tourist Network

This network will layer over the 49 miles’ drive major stops, and will function independently from the public transport system.

The reason to allocate an independent tourist network is the importance of tourism as a backbone industry in the economy of San Francisco, and the immense number of visitors each year (15 million).

The network will provide tourists with the commodity to tour the city freely without

having to go through a traditional car rental, and at the same time, enjoy the availability of customized mobility in locations not covered by public transport.

The proposed locations will be tri-modal nodes (car, scooter, bike). The network’s locations layer when possible with important community sites, in order to serve two audiences at once: the tourist and the resident.

71

The Resident Network

Before implementing a mobility on demand system, it should be noted that San Francisco’s transportation planning is centered on a “Transit First Policy,” which is incorporated in the “land use” of its General Plans, and in the city’s legal constitution, the City Charter.

Taking this into account, the resident network would mainly complement the MUNI and BART public transport system, and act as an intermediate to compensate the low accessibility

Proposed Mobility-On-Demand SystemLogic of Distribution- the resident network

of uncovered zones (the transport islands and the hills)

The proposed points would then be deployed in the following way:

Tri-modal points linked to the public transport stops.

Tri-modal points linked to amenities and hills linking to public tranport stops.

Bi-modal points serving as part of the first-last mile pervasive network.

Proposed Mobility-On-Demand SystemGeneral Plan

< The proposed mobility on demand network, combines tourist spots with San Francisco’s existing civic infrastructure, complements the existing public transit systems and provides new nodes within difficult to access and low-service areas.

> The 49 mile scenic drives becomes a new mobility network

> Tri and bi-mobiltiy nodes cover the hills and transport islands to promote a new network of mobility choice

73

Proposed Mobility-On-Demand SystemGeneral Plan

Proposed Mobility-On-Demand SystemCase Study: Downtown

15-20 min/ work trip

Density=50000 to 70000 per-son/sq mile

Median Income = $25000 to

$70000

Parking System in Center

One of the main problems in downtown San Francisco is its serious lack of parking.

While many residents in periphery choose not to take their car to work because of this particular reason, the negative results are unflexibility in mobility flows, contribution to congestion....

This issue gets really problematic when considering downtown as a major tourist destination with few parking facilities.

To remediate to this problem, my strategy would be to insert tri-modal points at major landmarks and shopping hubs which provides on-street parking and act as a part of the tourist network.

This insertion works well will the extensive public transport coverage

Walkability in Hills

Another problem is walkability in the neighbords of Nob hill, Russian hill and Telegraph hill which comprise the hardest slopes of all San Francisco.

The capacity to stay independent of the car in conditions of unfriendly pedestrian neighborhood and not always available public transport is threatened when having a household and having to make trips to the convenience store, pick up kids from school, or go shopping in the financial district.

For this matter, mobility on demand works again as an intermediate to overcome the hill and connect to the closest public transport lines.

Tri-modal points are then situated on top of the hills and on the bottom to ensure a smooth fluctuation.

(source:images.google.com)

75

Proposed Mobility-On-Demand SystemCase Study: Downtown

(source:images.google.com)

(source:images.google.com)

(source:images.google.com) (source:images.google.com)

(source:images.google.com)

(source:images.google.com)

Proposed Mobility-On-Demand SystemCase Study: Downtown

77

Proposed Mobility-On-Demand SystemCase Study: Downtown

Proposed Mobility-On-Demand SystemStacks & Racks- Typologie

The new mobility on demand system comprises four types of nodes:

Tri-modal point linked to a landmark °

Tri-modal point linked to a public °transport stop

Tri-modal point linking to a public °transport stop.

°

Two of the four types are playing a connecting role to complement the MUNI.

The tri-modal point linked to a landmark is mostly encouraging a independent trajectory geared towards tourists.

79

Proposed Mobility-On-Demand SystemStacks & Racks- Typologies

Proposed Mobility-On-Demand SystemSavings & Benefits- Carbon Emissions Reduction

51% of San Francisco carbon emissions come from transportation.Switching from personal car to mobility on demand saves 1 lb of CO2 emissions per mile driven.

(source:eng.wikipedia.org)

81

Proposed Mobility-On-Demand SystemSavings and Benefits- Carbon Emissions Reduction

Mobility on Demand & Carbon Reduction in San

FranciscoGiven that 51% of San Francisco’s carbon emission stems from transportation, introducing mobility on demand system will help considerably in reducing the city’s footprint .

A solo commuter switching his commute to mobility on demand saves an average of 20 lbs per day ( 1lb/ mile by 20 miles average work distance) and up to 4800 lbs a year ( 240 work days per year)

Switching to mobility on demand can also help improve a household footprint.

The annual use of an automobile driving 12000 miles/year with an average of 22 miles per gallon emit 4.6 metric tonnes of CO2 per year.

The annual use of a SUV is 7.9 metric tonnes of CO2 per year.

The average household carbon footprint is 22 metric tonnes a year.

Reducing the daily use of one low occupancy vehicle by switching to mobility on demand and public transport will reduce a household footprint between 25 and 30%.

Proposed Mobility-On-Demand SystemSavings and Benefits- Parking Compression

120% compression in width

310% compression in lenght

83

Proposed Mobility-On-Demand SystemSavings and Benefits- Time and Costs Scenarios

+

MUNI

6.5 miles

17 minutes(without parking search time)

20 $ parking wokday=8-10 hours

+1 $ Gasolineaverage 22 mpg car

6.5 lbs CO2without parking search time

carbon footprint

1.9 miles ( city car)+ 5 miles (MUNI)

23 minutes(5 by City Car+ 17 by MUNI )

1.5 $ (MUNI)+

Rent Price (City Car)

1.25 lbs CO2 (MUNI)

(source:maps.google.com)

(source:maps.google.com)