Auto%20LOS%20is%20Ruining%20our%20City%20Needed%20Reforms%20for%20Safer%20Streets,%20More%20Sustainable%20Travel,%20and%20Greater%20Efficiency%20of%20Transportation%20System

1
Auto LOS is Ruining our City Needed Reforms for
Safer Streets,More Sustainable Travel,
andGreater Efficiency of Transportation System

• Presentation to the Bicycle Advisory Committee
• by SFBC TLC
• 5/6/05

2
Overview of todays presentation

• What is LOS? Who does it? How is it done?
• Why is LOS a problem Bad science, bad results
• Methodological flaws
• Negative counterproductive outcomes
• Real world examples The city that LOS built
• Recommendations Next Steps
• Questions discussion?

3
What is LOS?

• LOS (Level of Service) is
• A measure of the performance of the
  transportation system for autos (seconds of delay
  a score of A to F)
• Estimated for almost every new development
  project, area plan, or roadway change
• Has its roots in 1950s-era traffic engineering
• Often used in CEQA environmental analysis
• Rationale was that idling autos stuck in traffic
  congestion lead to increased CO air pollution
• Auto pollution-control technology has improved
• Other pollutants (micro particulates) and other
  problems (cold starts, hot soaks) not captured by
  LOS

4
Who does LOS how is it done?

• Planning Department
• CEQA analysis of auto LOS for new development
  proposals neighborhood plans
• How many new auto/total trips vs. current
  capacity?
• MTA
• CEQA analysis of auto LOS for proposed multimodal
  facilities, safety enhancements, and traffic
  calming measures
• How much delay for autos would be caused by using
  some of the street capacity for other modes
  and/or improved safety?
• Other city agencies (SFRA, TA, DPW, etc)
• Nearly any time anybody wants to improve safety
  or efficiency of roads, auto LOS must be
  satisfied

5
A word about CEQA LOS

• Although LOS measures are commonly used in CEQA
  analysis, there is no legal requirement that
  cities mitigate auto LOS (we control our
  destiny!)
• CEQA law gives cities wide latitude
  flexibility in measuring mitigating
  environmental impacts based on local values
  policies
• Example SF analyzes parking deficits as a
  self-correcting social phenomenon (not env.
  impact) research shows same effect for auto
  congestion
• Question If we wanted to measure and reduce air
  pollution, why not measure and mitigate vehicle
  trips and/or VMT?

6
LOS Fatal Methodological Flaws

• Auto-centric
• Only measures AUTO DELAY
• NO performance measures for peds/bikes
• Incomplete measures for transit
• Intersection-centric
• Only looks at localized impacts at isolated
  intersections (not corridor or network effects)
• Doesnt account for modal shifts (supply/demand)
• Reducing roadway capacity (supply) raises
  time/money cost of auto trip and reduces these
  trips (demand)
• Auto trips shift to another times, route, or
  modes

7
More Fatal Flaws of LOS

• Doesnt recognize that multimodal projects may
  reduce auto LOS but act to mitigate those impacts
• Bus-only lanes (increasing transit speeds works!)
• Bike lanes (avg. 50 increase in bike trips 144
  on Valencia)
• Sidewalk widening/traffic calming (people vote
  with their feet ped. volumes higher on Market
  than Mission)
• Prioritizes use of the most inefficient mode of
  travel on our Citys constrained street network
• SF should emphasize total person delay or
  total person throughput rather than seconds of
  delay to space-inefficient cars usually with just
  one occupant

8
Still More Fatal Flaws of LOS

• No analysis of qualitative impacts on ALL users
• Safety (real and perceived)
• Trip quality
• Ignores impact of the price and availability of
  parking and different levels of transit access
• Assumes 2 buildings of similar size and use will
  generate same number of auto trips regardless of
  parking
• Assumes a development in 16th/Mission will
  generate the same number of auto trips as same
  size/type development on the city line with Daly
  City

9
Yet One More Fatal Flaw of LOS

• Not sustainable in long-term as a planning tool
• Most common mitigation for LOS impacts is to
  reduce the size or type of use, assume cars will
  drive in bus-only lane, or make a slight
  adjustment to traffic signals
• Do we really want to limit critically-needed
  housing or economically-productive commercial
  uses simply to avoid delays to cars?
• Planning should immediately stop their practice
  of undermining effectiveness of bus-only lanes
• Retiming signals wont accommodate the 500K new
  person trips (250K by auto) projected for SF
  streets by 2025

10
LOS Negative Outcomes

• Delays/prevents projects that improve public
  health/safety
• Limits transportation choices, widens modal
  inequity, discriminates against the car-free (by
  poverty or principle)
• Constrains access to jobs, education (car becomes
  life necessity)
• Degrades quality of the streetscape as public
  space (commons)
• Decreases system efficiency (auto delay vs.
  person throughput)
• Emphasizes local impacts, neglects network
  citywide benefits
• Undermines the Citys Transit First Policy
• Ignores transportation research as well as common
  sense
• Improving both quality quantity (network
  effect) of infrastructure for bikes, peds, and
  transit prompts modal shifts and contributes to a
  higher quality of life in all city neighborhoods
• Thus, improvements for sustainable transportation
  modes are environmentally beneficial in the
  long-term and can serve as mitigation for
  estimated short-term auto delays

11
LOS Negative Outcomes

• From the perspective of the 28 car-free
  households and 49 of car-free commuters in this
  City (and the community groups that advocate on
  their behalf), LOS is a problem because
• Delays prevents critically-needed improvements
  that will create safer, more vibrant streets
  increase transportation choice and equity
  encourage a greater number of trips by
  sustainable modes and promote more efficient use
  of our transportation system.
• Prevents San Franciscans from exercising their
  basic human and legal right to full use
  enjoyment of all City streets as both public
  right-of-way public commons.

12
Real World ExamplesThe city that LOS built

• Oak Fell LOS used as basis for turning
  two-way, multimodal residential streets into
  one-way traffic sewers for exclusive use of cars
• Oak St (1910) Oak St. today

13
Real World ExamplesThe city that LOS built

• Mission Creek Bikeway A dedicated ped/bike
  crossing at Potrero Bryant cant happen because
  of LOS impacts, determined by DPT

14
Real World ExamplesThe city that LOS built

• Removal of dangerous unneeded double turn lanes
  is prevented because of auto LOS, even when DPT
  analysis finds no impacts

15
Real World ExamplesThe city that LOS built

• 2nd 5th Sts. bike lanes require auto lane
  removal
• Bicycle Plan vs. Central Freeway
• LOS can be a barrier to higher-density,
  affordable, and reduced parking housing projects,
  even along transit corridors
• Creates and/or perpetuates known dangerous
  conditions which exposes the City to liability

16
500,000 new trips in SF by 2025?
17
Recommendations Next Steps

• Recommendation 1 Adopt policy statement that
  establishes the following transportation
  priorities
• Human safety for all road users trumps auto LOS
• Completing ped/bike/transit networks trumps auto
  LOS
• Increasing overall system efficiency trumps auto
  LOS
• Localized traffic congestion at isolated
  intersections is a self-correcting social
  phenomenon (ala parking deficits)
• Next Steps Implementers
• BAC PSAC pass resolution advocate for
• BOS passes resolution
• All city agencies required to follow this policy

18
Recommendations Next Steps

• Recommendation 2 Adopt legislative ordinance
  that exempts ped, bike, transit network projects
  from auto LOS-based environmental review
• Expansion completion of citywide multimodal
  networks should be considered mitigation for
  localized auto LOS impacts
• Next Steps Implementers
• BAC PSAC pass resolution / advocate for BOS
  ord.
• Planning BOS passes ordinance
• Planning MTA implement

19
Recommendations Next Steps

• Recommendation 3 Create stakeholder task force
  to develop multimodal standards for peds, bikes,
  and transit to have same weight as auto LOS
• 6-month deadline PC BOS to adopt standards
• Next Steps and Implementers
• BAC PSAC pass resolution advocate for task
  force
• BOS creates task force consisting of
• Residents of nhoods (low rates of car ownership,
  high use of other modes, and high rates of
  injury/fatality from cars)
• Multimodal transportation advocates
• Staffed by relevant agencies TA, Planning, MTA

20
Recommendations Next Steps

• Recommendation 4 Direct MTA to develop a
  citywide street typology and assign range of
  acceptable service standards for each mode
• LOS for each mode based on priority modes for
  different street types and/or travel timed
• Seattle is well underway with developing this
  typology
• Next Steps and Implementers
• BAC PSAC pass resolution advocate for
• BOS passes resolution directing MTA to develop
  citywide street typology assign modal service
  stds.

21
Recommendations Next Steps

• Recommendation 5 Direct Planning to revise SF
  Model used in LOS analysis to estimate number of
  vehicle trips caused by new development
• Abandon MTCs oversized superdistricts
• Use geographic area that accounts for highly
  localized/variable factors (transit, bike lanes,
  etc)
• Link estimates of trips to parking supply/price,
  not just the type and intensity of the proposed
  use
• Next Steps and Implementers
• BAC PSAC pass resolution advocate for
• BOS passes resolution directing Planning to
  revise SF Model

22
Questions and discussion?

• For more info contact
• Josh Hart, Program Director
• San Francisco Bicycle Coalition
• josh_at_sfbike.org
• [phone] ext. 303
• www.sfbike.org
• Jeremy Nelson, Policy Director
• Transportation for a Livable City
• jeremy_at_livablecity.org
• [phone] ext. 2
• www.livablecity.org
• Questions and discussion?