Transforming The Curbside With Shared Mobility by Shu Pan

FUTURE CITY SHAPED BY SHARING ECONOMY

TRANSFORMING THE CURBSIDE WITH SHARED MOBILITY

SHU PAN MASTER OF CITY PLANNING 2019 URBAN DESIGN CONCENTRATION PROFESSIONAL REPORT COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

[This page is intentionally left blank]

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

1.2 Context 1.2.1 On-Street Parking

1.2.2 Shared Mobility

1.3

Best Practice

1.3.2 Flex Zone

RESEARCH DESIGN

2.1

Research Questions

2.2

Site Selection

2.3

Data Collection

CURB SPACE IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

3.1

Site Study

3.1.1 Commercial District 3.1.2 Street Typology

3.2

Curb Space

1.3.1 Shared Use Mobility (SUM) Zone

3.2.1 Curb Space Allocation 3.2.2 Curb Space Use

3.3 Conclusion

DESIGN PROPOSAL

4.1

3-Step Strategy

4.2

Detailed Design

4.2.1 STEP 1: Street Typology Layout 4.2.2 STEP 2: Curb Allocation 4.2.3 STEP 3: Flex Zone Design

4.3 Recommendations

FIGURES Note: All the photos and figures in this report that do not indicate the sources are produced by the author.

INTRODUCTION Figure 1.1 Workflow

Figure 1.2 Existing On-Street Parking Supply Density and Pilot Meters in San Francisco

Figure 1.3 Means of Transportation to Work, 2000-2017

Figure 1.4 Market Share of Ride Share, 2014-2018

Figure 1.5 Bike Share Trips in The Bay Area, 2017-2018

Figure 1.6 Bike Share Trip Starting Points

Figure 1.7 TNC Pick-up Locations

Figure 1.8 Shared Use Mobility Zone

Figure 1.9 Ranked Curb Use Priorities for Flex Zone

Research Design Figure 2.1 Study Area - Union Square Commercial District

Curb Space in Commercial District Figure 3.1 Built Form and Topography

Figure 3.2 Land Use

Figure 3.3 Transportation - Car Route

Figure 3.4 Transportation – Transit

Figure 3.5 Transportation – Bicycle

Figure 3.6 Transportation – Pedestrian

Figure 3.7 Off-Street Parking

Figure 3.8 Powell Street

Figure 3.9 Geary Street

Figure 3.10 Stockton Street

Figure 3.11 Existing Curb Allocation

Figure 3.12 Existing Curb Allocation of Three Streets

Figure 3.13 Powell Street - Curbside Activities in 20 Minutes on The Weekend

Figure 3.14 Powell Street - Number of Curb Activities at Different Times by Curb Use

Figure 3.15 Powell Street - Number of Curb Activities vs Allocated Curbside

Figure 3.16 Geary Street - Curbside Activities in 20 Minutes on The Weekday

Figure 3.17 Geary Street - Number of Vehicles vs Allocated Curbside

Figure 3.18 Geary Street - Number of People vs Allocated Curbside

Figure 3.19 Geary Street - Number of Curb Activities at Different Times by Curb Use

Figure 3.20 Stockton Street - Curbside Activities in 20 Minutes on The Weekday

Figure 3.21 Stockton Street - Number of Vehicles vs Allocated Curbside

Figure 3.22 Stockton Street - Number of People vs Allocated Curbside

Figure 3.23 Stockton Street - Number of Curb Activities at Different Times by Curb Use

Figure 3.24 Stockton Street - Double Parking

Design Proposal Figure 4.1 3-Step Strategy

Figure 4.2 Evaluation by Curb Use

Figure 4.3 Total Evaluation Score

Figure 4.4 Proposed Layout of Street Typologies

Figure 4.5 Location of Flex Zone

Figure 4.6 Temporal Allocation of Flex Zone

Figure 4.7 Components of Flex Zone

Figure 4.8 Flex Zone at Different Times of The Day

TRANSFORMING THE CURBSIDE WITH SHARED MOBILITY

Executive Summary The curbside is the space along the street between travel lanes and the sidewalk. In American cities, it is usually occupied by on-street parking, which is an outcome of the long-standing idea that automobile movement is the dominant function of streets. However, with the implementation of transit-first policy in San Francisco and the emergence of new transportation modes, the curbside is designated to various uses and much more importance is being attached to it.

How much of curb space is allocated to shared mobility in San Francisco’s Union Square Commercial District?

Shared mobility, which includes ride share (i.e. Uber, Lyft), car share (i.e. Zipcar, automated vehicle), and bike share (i.e. Ford GoBike), is one of the new modes that exert impacts on curb use. It provides not only a convenient and efficient travelling mode for people, but also a possibility of reducing a city’s parking demand and release more street space. Considering the recent spectacular growth of shared mobility, it is time to take into account the growing need it generates and consider how to integrate it within urban space in a more efficient way. The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of shared mobility on the usage of curbside space in a San Francisco commercial district by observing the curbside activities on three types of streets (pedestrian prioritized, transit prioritized, and shared mobility prioritized). The report also introduces the idea of a Flex Zone to make varied curb uses work together better, and provides a three-step strategy to design Flex Zone in the city’s curbside. This report is structured around four primary questions:

•

Approximately 18% of the curbside in the study area is designated to passenger loading, where TNC drivers always stop for ride share pick-ups and drop-offs.

•

There are three Ford GoBike stations in the study area, taking up 1.5% of the total curb space.

•

On-street parking accounts for nearly 4% of the total curbside length and one space is designated to car share use only.

What are the spatial and temporal characteristics of shared mobility pick-ups/drop-offs as well as other curbside activities? •

Shared mobility activities are observed on Geary Street and Stockton Street. Geary Street - Without clear destination or landmarks on the street, TNC drivers wait longer for passengers and tend to occupy commercial loading spaces Stockton Street - TNC events are concentrated in front of hotels and the frequency is relatively low in the morning and high in the afternoon. Double parking for passenger loading is often observed.

•

Parklets without enough seating are used less by pedestrians on Powell Street while the street art works such as sculptures bring vibrancy to the curbs and sidewalks.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

•

Commercial loading spaces are empty during most of daytime while passenger loading is in high demand on all three street typologies.

design strategy is proposed: Step1 - lay out street typologies based on the density of shared mobility activities and street functions

The curb space designated to transit stops is not proportional to its actual use and stops fail to provide enough amenities for people waiting for buses or cable cars.

Step2 - designate curb use priorities for each street typology and suggest the preferable locations of installing Flex Zone Step3 - implement flexible allocation and multi-function curb management by investigating the peak hour of respective curb use

What is Flex Zone? •

•

The 2016 Comprehensive Plan of Seattle established a new framework for right-of-way allocation decisions in which the curb lane is defined as a ‘Flex Zone’ since it is shared by different groups of curb users. The Seattle Department of Transportation has set ranked curb function priorities based on surrounding land use, including commercial or mixed-use, residential and industrial.

Where might Flex Zone be installed? How to design them? •

To introduce Flex Zone into the city’s curbside and integrate multiple uses, a three-step

•

To facilitate the implementation of Flex Zone, policy, technology and funding support should be provided. Policy - Add a new category of Flex Zone into the city’s color curb management and designate on-street parking to car share Technology - Create a Flex Zone information platform with sensors and electronic signage installed into the curbside, and embed it into TNC Apps. Funding - Increase the city’s revenue by raising business tax, parking rate and collecting TNC fees.

[This page is intentionally left blank]

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND 1.2 CONTEXT 1.3 BEST PRACTICE

TRANSFORMING THE CURBSIDE WITH SHARED MOBILITY

1.1 BACKGROUND The curbside is the space along the street between travel lanes and the sidewalk. In American cities, it is usually occupied by on-street parking, which is an outcome of the long-standing idea that automobile movement is the dominant function of streets. Historically, the policies for on-street parking in cities have been inconsistent. The first restriction against on-street parking started from Los Angeles in early 1920s when the city began to impinge the rapid growth of automobile on streets[1]. However, it was not until 1960s and 1970s when the priority of streets was given to through traffic in 1959 National Parking Association report that the idea of limiting on-street parking in the downtown area became prevalent in American cities[2]. Since then, the controversy over whether to ban on-street parking has never been stopped. One of the common reasons for keeping on-street

parking in cities is that existing parking spaces are unable to meet parking demand as car ownership is still growing. Also, on-street parking is widely considered to be supportive for retail business by providing more convenient access[3]. On the other hand, the opponents point out that the more parking space provided, the more private cars the city will have. In terms of land use and user demand, on-street parking compresses space for pedestrians and reduces the street realm for through traffic[4]. It also poses a threat to street safety as it is directly involved with many urban street accidents[2]. Nowadays, an increasing number of cities are taking part into the discussion of this issue, as the emergence of varied road users has increased and diversified the demand for the curbside, one of which is the space for shared mobility.

Source: Cindy Chew / 2009 S.F. Examiner file photo

1 Shoup D. (2005). The High Cost of Free Parking. Washington, DC: American Planning Association. 2 Highway Research Board, National Research Council et al. (1971). Special Report 125: Parking Principles. 3 Jakle J. & Sculle K. (2004). Lots of Parking, Land Use in a Car Culture. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press. 4 Wilbur Smith and Associates. (1965). Parking in the City Center. New Haven, Conn.

INTRODUCTION Shared mobility, which includes ride share (i.e. Uber, Lyft, etc.), bike share (i.e. Ford GoBike), and car share (i.e. Zipcar, automated cars), provides not only a convenient and efficient traveling mode for people, but also a possibility of reducing cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s parking demand and releasing more street space. Many researchers believe that, as on-demand mobility services (i.e. Uber, Lyft) and automated vehicles become a much larger share of the overall transportation system, vastly less parking will be needed than it is today. In fact, transportation network companies (TNCs) are growing rapidly these years, especially in San Francisco. Bruce Schaller, a transit consultant who served as deputy commissioner for traffic and planning in New York City, released a report examining the effect of TNCs on city traffic in 2018. The report shows that, as TNCs started to spread across U.S. cities in 2012, the growth of ridership accelerated, and annual ridership has reached 3.3 billion in 2017, an increase of 140 percent from 2012. Schaller also estimated that San Franciscans took 75 million trips via ride share Apps, which

Source: Spencer Platt / Getty Images

is approximately 86 rides per person, only second to the TNC ride volume in New York City. Considering the recent spectacular growth of shared mobility which has a particularly high demand for the curbside, on-street parking needs to be reassessed in cities and a new approach of curb allocation needs to be created. However, the study of on-street parking has always been a hard task due to the difficulty of data collection. Most of the available data relied only on human observation which requires a lot of manpower and time. So just a few cities have rough estimates of on-street parking spaces they have, with few accurate statistics. And the actual parking occupancy data are almost blank. However, in 2013, SFpark, the San Franciscoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s system for managing both on and off-street parking, deployed in-ground sensors in over 8200 spaces to monitor on-street parking. This was the first time that the city obtained accurate data of on-street parking occupancy and made it public. A year later, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), which oversees all surface transportation in the city, released a complete citywide parking census that was conducted by manual count to refine the agencyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 2010 estimate. According to the census, the city has 275,450 on-street parking spaces in total by 2014, accounting for 62.3% of all publicly-available parking spaces in the city. The density of on-street parking spaces in downtown areas has reached 35,000 parking spots per square mile, three times large than the average density of citywide registered vehicles. Therefore, as one of the few cities that have accurate data of on-street parking and that are exploring new approaches of curb management, San Francisco is chosen as the context of this report. Recently, the study of curbside spaces has attracted more and more interests in the city.

TRANSFORMING THE CURBSIDE WITH SHARED MOBILITY In September 2018, Fehr & Peers conducted the San Francisco Curb Study to identify trends and behaviors in curbside spaces. Several locations with different transportation and land use characteristics were selected and analysis was carried out on passengers’ loading impact and curb space productivity by different means of transportation. The study concludes that curb space is not adequate to accommodate passenger loading demand, and additional opportunities for passenger loading along curbs would “improve traffic flow, reduce pedestrian exposure to traffic and bring people to and from these areas in a more efficient manner”[1]. Based on the findings of San Francisco Curb Study, this report refers to its research methodology and delineates the study scope as the city’s commercial district where shared motility activities are most concentrated. Chapter 1 introduces the city context and some best practices on curb management from other American cities. After clarifying research questions, Chapter 2 defines the study area and explains the data collection methods that are used in the study. To analyze the impact of shared mobility on the streets with different priorities, three street typologies are discussed in Chapter 3: shared mobility prioritized street, pedestrian prioritized street, and transit prioritized street. For each street, shared mobility events as well as other street activities are observed during different time periods. Finally, Chapter 4 devises proposals for each street typology and provides recommendations for the city’s curbside management.

1 Fehr & Peers. (2018). San Francisco Curb Study.

Transforming The Curbside With Shared Mobility

Context

Shared Mobility

Best Practice

On-Street Parking

SUM Zone Flex Zone

Ride Share Bike Share Car Share

Usage

Distribu�on

Spa�al

Temporal

Site Selection

Design Proposal

Figure 1.1 Workflow

INTRODUCTION

1.2 CONTEXT 1.2.1 On-Street Parking 1.2.1.1 Policies for on-street parking management Public on-street parking in San Francisco is being managed by SFMTA. And it is also responsible for making parking management strategies and parking policies together with San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) and SF Planning Department. In 2012, the SFMTA Board of Directors approved the on-street parking management policy document which articulates long-standing SFMTA policies and provides guidelines for future parking management changes. It also clarifies SFMTA’s different parking management tools which are regarded as the modal of on-street parking management for other U.S. cities. SFpark In 2011, SFpark was launched by SFMTA to manage the availability of both on and off-street parking through smart meters, parking sensors and data management tools. The system adjusts parking meter rates based on occupancy level observed over the previous periods. The rates are changed according to location, time of day, and day of week, known as demand-responsive pricing strategy, with the aim of achieving a per-block occupancy rate between 60 and 80 percent[1]. In pilot areas, meter pricing can range from 50 cents an hour to a maximum of $7 an hour. Now, SFpark has been evaluated as an effective way to improve parking availability with a plenty of secondary benefits and expanded to San Francisco’s 28,000 on street parking meters from the pilot’s 7,000 meters. 1 SFMTA. (2014). SFpark Pilot Project Evaluation Summary.

San Francisco’s On-Street Parking History

19 50 ’s

Minimum Parking Requirement

19 70 ’s

Parking Limits

19 76

Residential Parking Permits (RPP)

19 90 ‘s

Minimum Parking Requirements Elimination

20 11

SFpark Pilot Projects

Since 1950s, minimum parking requirements have been standard practice in U.S. cities. San Francisco established its first residential parking space requirements in 1955. Then more parking requirements were established including the one for the Downtown Commercial (C-3) districts.

With the opening of BART in 1973, the city adopted its first Transit First Policy. To encourage the use of public rights of way by pedestrian, bicyclists, and public transit, on-street parking in the city’s downtown was eliminated on one side of most streets on weekdays from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m..

The city’s residential permit program was created as a way to discourage commuters or visitor from parking long-term in residential areas during the day.

The minimum commercial parking requirements were eliminated in Downtown Plan in 1985. The 1998 Mission Bay Plan was the first neighborhood plan to eliminate minimum residential parking requirements, followed by other neighborhoods’ zoning amendments.

The SFpark Pilot Projects began in seven neighborhoods, deploying underground sensors and demand-responsive pricing parking meters.

TRANSFORMING THE CURBSIDE WITH SHARED MOBILITY

San Francisco’s Curb Practice Parklet

Source: Cesar Rubio / Sunset Parklet

As part of San Francisco Better Street Plan, the parklet was first invented in the city in 2005 by the design studio Rebar and then spread to the city since 2010. On-street parking spaces are repurposed into small public parks that provide amenities like seating, planting, bicycle parking, and aesthetic elements to the overall streetscape. The parklets are always maintained by the businesses that sponsor them and support the businesses in turn. The guidelines and procedures of creating a parklet could be found in the Parklet Manual, which was created by Pavement to Parks Program.

PARK(ing) Day

Source: Jeff Greenwald / Park(ing) Day’s Roadside Attraction

Also inspired by Rebar’s transformation of a metered parking space, PARK(ing) Day creates a more manageable and participatory way and changes people from participants in parklets to inventors of public space. It is an annual global event where individuals can take advantage of a short-term metered parking lease to create a temporary site for experimentation, political and cultural expression, and social interaction. The manual developed by Rebar provides a clear guide about what to install and how to install in PARK project.

Residential Parking Permits (RPP) In 1976, RPP were first implemented as a way to help address the excessive space and period occupied by nonresidents parking their motor vehicles in the neighborhoods[1]. RPP is typically recommended for the residential blocks with relatively high parking demand, especially where significant numbers of commuters and visitors compete with residents for available on-street parking. However, for the residential blocks with consistently high parking occupancy due to the proximity to commercial corridors, RPP might not be the best tool to manage parking. Time Limits Effective parking time limits can increase the turnover of on-street parking and thus improve parking availability. In San Francisco, most meters have a two-hour time limit, though green meters have either a 15- or 30-minute time limit. Posted time limits are used on the streets without meters. For the streets absent of parking restrictions such as permit zones, street sweeping, meters and posted time limits, cars could be parked in one spot for up to 72 hours[1]. Color Curb Regulations Colored curbs are painted by SFMTA to indicate parking restrictions. The existing color curbs include red curbs (no parking), white curbs (passenger loading/unloading), green curbs (short-term parking), yellow curbs (commercial loading/unloading), and blue curbs (parking for people with disabilities)[1]. The colors are determined according to site-specific circumstances. In collaboration with SFMTA, SFCTA also conducted several studies of the City’s parking supply and utilization. Not only were existing parking strategies evaluated, recommendations were also made from the studies about the 1 SFMTA. (2012). Policies for On-Street Parking Management.

INTRODUCTION consideration of other pricing initiatives, including revisiting cordon-based pricing. SF Planning Department also plays an important role in making the city’s parking policies. The San Francisco General Plan’s parking policies seek to develop and implement parking management programs that will provide alternatives encouraging the efficient use of the downtown’s limited parking supply and abundant transit services. Then Better Street program was put forward by the department, one of whose policies is to balance the need for short-term parking with that for pedestrian-oriented design in the city’s commercial districts.

1.2.1.2 Type and distribution Based on SFMTA’s On-Street Parking Census and SFpark’s pilot dataset, Figure 1.2 illustrates a clear distribution pattern of on-street parking

spaces within the city including the supply density (parking spaces per foot) of each street section and SFpark pilot spaces which are shown in red lines. From the comparison among neighborhoods and their dominant land use, the downtown area in the northeast of the city, where the commercial buildings are most densely distributed, have a very low density of on-street parking supply while the residential neighborhoods have the highest ones. In terms of streets, the higher the street level, the larger the vehicle flow, and the less densely parking spaces are distributed. Additionally, the concentration of installed pilot meters in downtown area could also be seen. In general, the on-street parking pattern reflected in the map aligns with city’s on-street parking policy and helps confirm that repurposing on-street parking into flexible curb space tends to be more feasible if started from the city’s downtown. Pilot Meters 0.000 - 0.025 0.025 - 0.046 0.046 - 0.057 0.057 - 0.067 0.067 - 0.46

1: 10,000

Figure 1.2 Existing On-Street Parking Supply Density and Pilot Meters in San Francisco

TRANSFORMING THE CURBSIDE WITH SHARED MOBILITY

1.2.2 Shared Mobility

Figure 1.3 Means of Transportation to Work, 2000-2017 100%

1.2.2.1 Trend of shared mobility People’s travelling behavior is constantly changing with the emergence of new transportation modes. Meanwhile, people’s dependence on private cars is decreasing, especially in San Francisco, where urban space is extremely limited and transit first policy is prevailing. As is shown in Figure 1.3, between 2000 and 2017 the percentage of San Francisco residents who commute to work by private automobile (drive alone, carpool) decreased approximately thirteen percent, from 51.3% to 38.6%. By stark contrast, ride share ridership is growing rapidly. According to the Certify Q1 2018 SpendSmart™ report, ride share now owns more than 70% of the ground transportation market, increasing by 63% in only four years (see Figure 1.4). The study of SFCTA also shows that TNCs drive approximately 570,000 vehicle miles within San Francisco on a typical weekday which accounts for 20% of all local daily VMT[1]. As the first city that Uber goes live, San Francisco is experiencing a boom of ride share development. As another alternative to owning a car, car share, which allows people to rent a vehicle for a few hours or several days, has also experienced a growth. Zipcar, the largest car share company in the U.S. announced in September 2016 that its membership reaches 1 million, five times the number of 210,000 in 2018[2]. Avis, the company purchased Zipcar in 2013, had its market value tripled over the next three years[3]. As another popular car share company, Getaround has also grown and seen a sevenfold increase in booked hours in 2017[4]. Unlike Zipcar, Getaround

80% 60% 10.8%

40% 20% 0%

8.3%

7.9%

6.5%

6.2%

40.5%

39.7%

36.0%

35.3%

32.4%

2000

2005

2010

2015

2017

Drive Alone

Carpool

Public Transportation

Walk

Other

Work At Home

Source: ACS 1-year Estimates 2005-2017, 2000 SF3 Sample Data

Figure 1.4 Market Share of Ride Share, 2014-2018 100% 80%

71% 59%

60% 46% 40% 25% 20%

Q1 2014

Q1 2015

Q1 2016

Q1 2017

Q1 2018

Source: Certify SpendSmart™ Report for Q1 2018

Figure 1.5 Bike Share Trips in the Bay Area, 2017-2018 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 2017-09

2017-12

2018-03

Source: Ford GoBike System Data 2017-2018

1 SFCTA. (2017). TNC’s Today: A Profile of San Francisco Transportation Network Company Activity. 2 Zipcar Press Center. (2016). Zipcar Drives Past Million Member Milestone. 3 Trefis Team. (2011). Zipcar Revs Up Membership Growth, Stock Cruising To $27. Forbes. 4 Phil LeBeau. (2018). Getaround car-share service raises $300 million in new funding round. CNBC.

2018-06

2018-09

INTRODUCTION provides peer-to-peer car share services that allow users to make money by renting out their own private cars. Also, being aware of the growing demand of car share, large car rental companies like Hertz and Enterprise have also started their car sharing services, further expanding the car share market. More and more people benefit from car share by reducing the costs in purchasing vehicles, parking, insurance, fuel and maintenance. Traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emission could also be relieved as car share becomes preferable for a larger amount of population. Bike share is also expanding in the city. All the bike share stations in San Francisco are now installed and managed by Ford GoBike, which is a regional public bicycle sharing system beginning operation in 2013 in the San Francisco Bay Area. Figure 1.5 shows the total number of bike share trips in the Bay Area per month from 2017 to 2018. Despite some fluctuations between months, it is still evident that the number of bike share trips in 2018 is approximately twice that in 2017, demonstrating the great increase of bike share ridership in the Bay Area. Overall, three shared mobility modes have expanded their markets at an alarming rate in recent decade and been proven to help reduce private car use and increase transit ridership. In the meantime, as the number of shared mobility users grows, concerns have been expressed by many groups that new pressure would be created on the limited curbside space.

1.2.2.2 Shared mobility activities To better understand the spatial and temporal characteristics of shared mobility activities in the city of San Francisco, the usage data of each mode is investigated respectively. From Ford Gobike API data, the layout of bike share stations in the city is obtained, and the number

of trips starting from each station is calculated and shown in the heat map in Figure 1.6. Even though bike share service has not been spread out to the whole city yet, the concentration of users in downtown area can still be seen. As for ride share trips, the locations of TNC pick-ups and drop-offs are obtained from SFCTA’s TNC database in 2016 and processed in Python. Figure 1.7 shows where TNC pick-ups happen during afternoon rush hour on the weekday within the city. It also demonstrates the pattern that ride share pick-ups are densely clustering in the downtown. The map of car share is missing because the on-street parking data of car share vehicles are not available. Although both bike share and ride share are bringing an increasing number of people to the city’s downtown, they use the curbside differently. For bike share, the city designates curb space (usually 60-feet long) for Ford Gobike to install stations with parking docks and kiosks. This is a fixed space and doesn’t allow for any other uses. Therefore, to avoid this inefficient curb allocation, many cities around the world are trying dockless bike share and even squeezing sidewalk space for bike parking. But this makes the management more difficult and sometimes causes messy street space. Compared with bike share, ride share uses the curbside more flexibly. TNC or taxi drivers could stop anywhere in passenger loading zone for pick-ups and drop-offs, making the utilization of the curbside very high. However, this is also the reason that ride share is deemed to bring more conflicts to curb space. With the purpose of creating preferable curb space for varied groups of users, the different way of using curb space by each shared mobility mode as well as their distribution in the city should be both taken into account in the subsequent studies.

TRANSFORMING THE CURBSIDE WITH SHARED MOBILITY

1: 8,000

Bike Share Station

Figure 1.6 Bike Share Trip Starting Points

Source: Ekevara Kitpowsong/ S.F. Examiner

1: 8,000

Figure 1.7 TNC Pick-up Locations

TNC Pickup Locations

INTRODUCTION

1.3 BEST PRACTICE 1.3.1 Shared Use Mobility (SUM) Zone The concept of Shared Use Mobility first appeared in Eno Transportation Weekly in Nov 2015 from the Eno Center for Transportation (Eno), which is a non-profit think tank in Washington, D.C. Eno noticed that the existing curb space designations cannot accommodate the booming demand of rideshare and ecommerce deliveries, which has resulted in a series of problems such as congestion, safety risks and driversâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; financial risks of being ticketed for double parking. Thus, the innovation of curbs has been spurred and Eno suggests cities designate a selected amount of curb spaces as SUM Zones where TNCs and taxi drivers could safely conduct pick-ups and drop-offs during peak hours. Similarly, SUM Zones can also be designated as delivery zones where commercial loading is always competing with on-street parking. During off-peak hours, these spaces could be converted back to regular parking spaces. An example is provided by Eno at E 20th St in Gramercy Park in Manhattan, New York City. The street, like many other streets in the city, is a nightmare for rideshare drivers, with a single lane of traffic, a bike lane and two completely full parking. In Enoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposal, 10 of 46 parking spaces would be converted to SUM Zones with a particular painting scheme and signage (See Figure 1.8). The city could also cooperate with rideshare companies to use their platforms to inform both drivers and passengers of the nearest SUM Zones when a ride is requested. Among a large amount of advantages that Eno

mentions by designating SUM Zone, the benefits for the elderly and people with disabilities are emphasized. If rideshare drivers are no longer forced to double park their cars for picking passengers up, this vulnerable group would have a safer access to the rideshare service without obstructing other road users in the process.

Existing Street Use 45 Parked Cars 3 Commercial Trucks

SUM Zone Street Use 38 Parked Cars (-7) 3 Commercial Trucks 5 Rideshare Drivers

SUM Zone Commercial Loading Metered Parking

Figure 1.8 Shared Use Mobility Zone

TRANSFORMING THE CURBSIDE WITH SHARED MOBILITY

1.3.1 Flex Zone from hourly meter parking could be recovered. While most cities are still in struggle, Seattle took the lead in incorporating the idea of repurposing curb spaces into its planning document and named it as “Flex Zone”.

6’

5’

3’

8’

11’

3’

5’

8’

6’

bike lane

buffer

FLEX ZONE

travel/ transit lane

buffer

bike lane

FLEX ZONE

landscape/ furniture zone

6’-8’ 0’-6’ frontage zone

6’-8’

pedestrian clear zone

0’-6’

landscape/ furniture zone

The 2016 Comprehensive Plan of Seattle established a new framework for right-of-way allocation decisions in which the curb lane is defined as a ‘Flex Zone’ and a series of ranked curb function priorities are allocated based on street

pedestrian clear zone

Although the conflicts among multiple curb users have been noticed and the concept of Shared Use Mobility Zone has been raised nationwide, there are not many cities taking actions. This is primarily because parking is a political issue in cities. Particularly, it is risky to reduce on-street parking in residential areas and congested urban cores where parking is already in short supply. In addition, parking income is an important source of city’s revenue. It is hard for cities to put this idea into practice unless the loss of revenue

frontage zone

Right of Way Source: Seattle Right-of-Way Improvement Manual

INTRODUCTION Figure 1.9 Ranked Curb Use Priorities For Flex Zone Commercial or Mixed-use Areas Residential Areas Industrial Areas 1

Access for Commerce

Access for People

Public Space Activation

Greening

Private Vehicle Storage

Ranked Priority

Modal Plan Priorities*

Source: NACTO Curb Appeal Curbside Management *Note: Modal Plan Priorities refer to the key infrastructure outlined in citywide modal plans including Bicycle Master Plan, Freight Master Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, and Transit Master Plan.

types (See Figure 1.9). For each curb function, a couple of example uses are also provided in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.

Access for commerce

• Commercial vehicle load zone • Truck load zone

Access for people

• • • • • •

Bus or rail stops Bike parking Curb bulbs Passenger loading zones Short-term parking Taxi zones

Public Space Activation

• • • •

Food trucks Parklets and streateries Public art Street festivals

Greening

• Plantings • Rain gardens and bioswales

Storage

• • • •

Long-term parking Bus layover Reserved spaces Construction

The practice of Flex Zone has changed the conventional curb use allocation which regards cars as the primary mode of transportation on a street and is driven by land use. As a new transit-friendly method of curb allocation, Flex Zone not only serves as a buffer between moving traffic in travel lanes and people in the pedestrian realm, but also incorporates multiple uses for different groups of street users in a more efficient way. However, there are still many other things to be done by the city. First of all, a flex zone manual needs to be issued to provide guidelines for the operation and management of flex zone. Although the city has defined varied curb functions and their priorities, it is still uncertain where a certain function will be located along each type of street to maximize its utilization and how much proportion of curb spaces will be allocated to this function. Secondly, when assigning curb function priorities to three types of streets (commercial or mixed-use, residential and industrial), the city should also take surrounding environment into account, such as building uses, street width, traffic volume, and the distribution of different traffic modes, etc. Finally, there is still not enough evidence showing how the city would address the loss of parking revenue, which is probably the biggest concern of other cities that also want to install flex zone. Inspired by the idea of SUM Zone and Seattle’s practice, this report is trying to introduce the idea of Flex Zone into San Francisco’s commercial district and provide feasible approaches of installing and managing Flex Zone through a series of data analysis on both passenger/freight loading and traffic condition.

2 RESEARCH DESIGN 2.1. 2.2. 2.3.

RESEARCH QUESTION SITE SELECTION DATA COLLECTION

RESEARCH DESIGN

2.1 RESEARCH QUESTION Starting from the analysis of status quo, this report examines the allocation of curbside space within San Franciscoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Union Square Commercial District, with particular attention to the shared mobility activities and their conflict with other curbside spaces. To help analyze the complicated curbside activities, three street typologies (pedestrian prioritized, transit prioritized, and shared mobility prioritized) are defined based on street function and the proportion of passenger loading in curb allocation. Then, field work was done on Powell Street, Geary Street, Stockton Street to evaluate the curb allocation and use for each street typology respectively. Finally, after collecting curb usage data and analyzing problems, a three-step strategy of designing Flex Zone is proposed to better integrate shared mobility into curb space. In summary, the report studies the influence of shared mobility on curb space usage and aims to answer the research questions below:

How much of curb space is utilized by shared mobility in the Union Square Commercial District? Whether the current allocation meets its demand? What are the spatial and temporal characteristics of curbside activities? Where might Flex Zone be installed? How to design them?

TRANSFORMING THE CURBSIDE WITH SHARED MOBILITY

2.2 SITE SELECTION Union Square Commercial District refers to the central shopping, hotel, and theater district that surrounds the Union Square plaza for several blocks in Downtown San Francisco (See Figure 2.1). The boundary of study area is defined based on San Francisco’s Greater Union Square Business Improvement District, which was originally established as Union Square Business Improvement District (BID) in 1999 and expanded in 2009 for a new 10-year period. There are many reasons for selecting the Union Square Commercial District as the study area for the research. Firstly, as analyzed in the previous chapter, the city downtown tends to have the highest population density and busiest traffic, so

1’’ = 4000’

Figure 2.1 Study Area - Union Square Commercial District

the curbside would have more conflicts and the demand for efficient curb use allocation is more urgent. Secondly, the transportation network in the district is very complicated. Most of the streets are one way and the transit are densely distributed and frequently used. Shared mobility ridership is also particularly high in the district. So various curb use situations can be observed and considered in the design proposal. Finally, on-street parking has been greatly reduced from the district, and bike share stations and parklets have been installed in curbside space here, which could help understand the effects of removing on-street parking and different needs of curb space generated by other groups of street users.

1’’ = 1000’

RESEARCH DESIGN

2.3 DATA COLLECTION The data collected for the study include the secondary data on on-street parking and shared mobility describing the overall pattern of the city and the primary data obtained from the field work in the selected site. The data collection methods used in the report are summarized as follows:

Observation data include the occupation and turnover of on-street parking, frequency and location of ride share events, waiting time of TNC passengers and their behaviors, frequency of using bike share and ride share, and usage of parklets (Powell Street segment).

Video & photo documentation Document review Reviewed the related policies and reports and obtained the basic knowledge of the research topic as well as study sites.

API Gathered the open data from the city and shared mobility companies through provided API. Data include on-street parking supply and occupation, bike share capacity and usage, car share ridership, and the spatial and temporal distribution of ride share events.

Data processing Applied data processing tools (i.e. geocoding, geoprocessing, mapping, etc.) to clean and visualize the spatial data gathered through API.

Field observation Recorded the curbside activities on Powell Street, Geary Street and Stockton Street and analyzed the findings by different observation time periods:

Weekday

Weekend

8am-10am, 5pm-7pm 10am-5pm 8am-10am, 5pm-7pm 10am-5pm

Installed video cameras on each street to record curb activities. Videos were used as the supplement of observation. High-resolution photos were also taken throughout the analysis period.

3 CURB SPACE IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 3.1. SITE STUDY 3.2. CURB SPACE 3.3. CONCLUSION

CURB SPACE IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

3.1 SITE STUDY 3.1.1 Commercial District

Montgom ery St

St Kearny

2n d St

Post St

Geary St

ll St

O’Farre

Ellis St

Eddy St

5t St

Turk St

1’’ = 1,000’

Figure 3.1 Built Form and Topography Montgom

ia St

Californ

ery St

Kearny St

n St

Grant St

Stockto

Powell St

Pine St

St Bush St t

d 2n

Sutter St

Post St

d 3r

Geary St

ll St

O’Farre

Ellis St

Residential Commercial Mixed Use

Eddy St

5t St

The analysis of transportation helps inspire the design of the curbside in that it can inform the possible needs of different curb users and their priorities on specific streets. The existing transportation condition of the Union Square commercial district shown in the maps below is very complicated. Firstly, most streets in the district are one-way, which is the outcome of 20th century strategy that converted two-way downtown streets to one-way to create direct access

Sutter St

Mason

3.1.1.3 Transportation

Grant St

St Bush St

3.1.1.2 Land Use The Union Square commercial district is a mixed-use district. It successfully makes a transition between the Financial District to the east and the residential neighborhood to the west. Also, visitor services are concentrated in and around the district, since it is one of the most famous destinations in the city for tourists and the people going shopping. Union Square and Powell Station plaza are the only open space in the district. Thus, streets should play a role in providing leisure and gathering spaces.

n St Stockto

Mason

The streets in San Francisco’s commercial district are arranged in a simple grid pattern with the block size of 300’ x 400’. Compared to the Financial District to the east, the Union Square commercial district has fewer high-rise buildings but higher block coverage. Notably, the district has a steep slope from northwest (high) to southeast (low), providing an unfavorable environment for slow traffic like biking and walking.

Pine St

Powell St

3.1.1.1 Built Form & Topography

ia St

Californ

Turk St

Figure 3.2 Land Use

Cultural, Institutional, Education Hotels & Visitor Services Medical Open Space

1’’ = 1,000’

Industrial Vacant / Missing Data

TRANSFORMING THE CURBSIDE WITH SHARED MOBILITY to urban freeways[1]. This strategy resulted in the underutilization of one-way lanes, more double parking and the high traffic speed on

St Kearny

Bush St

t on

Sutter St

Grant St

Mason

Bush St

Powell St

Pine St

n St Stockto

ery St Montgom

St Kearny

Grant St

n St Stockto

Mason

Powell St

Pine St

ia St

Californ

ery St Montgom

ia St

Californ

wide travel lanes. To deal with these problems as well as accommodate heavy bus traffic into downtown, some lanes in the district have been

M Post St

Post St

ll St

Geary St

ll St

O’Farre

Eddy St

l d

Bus

Turk St

Ellis St

Bus (> 3 routes)

Turk St

Muni Rapid Bus Muni Metro Rail Two-Way Road

1’’ = 1,000’

Figure 3.3 Transportation - Car Route

ia St

ery St

Kearny St

Grant St

Sutter St

2n St

Post St

Sutter St

n St

Powell St

Mason

Bush St

Stockto

ery St

Pine St

Grant St

n St

Mason

Powell St

Stockto

Kearny

Montgom

Californ

Montgom

ia St

Bush St

Cable Car

Figure 3.4 Transportation - Transit

Californ

Pine St

BART

1’’ = 1,000’

One-Way Road

Post St

ll St

d 3r

Geary St

d 3r

Geary St

ll St

O’Farre

O’Farre on

h 4t

Ellis St

Eddy St

H h 5t

h 5t

Turk St

1’’ = 1,000’

Turk St

Bicycle Route Ford GoBike Station

Figure 3.5 Transportation - Bicycle 1 NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide - Downtown 1-way Street.

1’’ = 1,000’

Figure 3.6 Transportation - Pedestrian

Pedestrian Route

CURB SPACE IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Study Area

San Francisco

Public Transit To Work

45.7%

33.6%

Travel Time To Work (less than 25 minutes)

51.8%

39.1%

Source: 2012-2016 ACS 5-Year Estimates

Exits from Garate

1000 500 0

2012

2013

2014

Japan Center

2015

2016

Sutter-Stockton

Uber Trips Starting Near Parking Garages

2012

2013

2014

Japan Center

2015

2016

Sutter-Stockton

Source: Managing the Parking Transition — A Call for More Data

Montgom

ia St

Californ

ery St

Kearny St

n St

Grant St

Stockto

Powell St

Pine St

St Bush St t

d 2n

Sutter St

Post St

Geary St

ll St

O’Farre

Ellis St

Eddy St

5t St

3.1.1.4 Off-Street Parking The impacts that shared mobility has on parking demand are not limited to on-street parking, off-street parking has also been influenced. Santosh Rao, a policy researcher at Uber, collaborated with Smarking to study two public parking garages, Sutter-Stockton and Japan Center, one of which is located in the Union Square commercial district. They compared the exits from two garages with the Uber trips

WeekendLate LateNight NightExits Exits Weekend 1500

Mason

However, the district is not an ideal place for cyclists. The roads in the northern part have a very high slope, making cycling a tough task. Perhaps due to the unfavorable terrain conditions for riding bicycles, there is no separate bike lane in the district and the bike share trips starting from or ending in the stations on Post Street are few. In terms of the distribution of pedestrians, they are concentrated on Market Street and Powell Street where retail buildings are located and more public transit as well as pedestrian amenities are provided.

starting near them during weekend late nights, as shown below. While there is no causal relationship between two diagrams, they still imply the evolvement of personal travel behavior to some extent.

Uber Pickups

turned into bus-only lanes and sidewalks have been widened to eliminate potential conflicts and improve pedestrian experience. In fact, the Union Square commercial district has the busiest public transportation network in the city. There are 12 bus routes with stops in the district. Other choices of transit to/from the district include BART, cable car, MUNI metro, and MUNI rapid bus. Thus, there are significantly more residents taking transit to work. Also, because the district is adjacent to the high-density office neighborhood, people’s travel time to work is much shorter than the average in San Francisco County (See table below).

Turk St

1’’ = 1,000’

Figure 3.7 Off-Street Parking

Garage Parking Lot

TRANSFORMING THE CURBSIDE WITH SHARED MOBILITY

3.1.2 Street Typology 3.1.2.1 Powell Street - Pedestrian Prioritized Powell Street is a two-way north-south street connecting the west side of the Union Square. The studied segment does not allow for automobile vehicles except commercial vehicles and vehicles loading on the street. The central two lanes painted red are run by Powell-Hyde line of the San Francisco Cable Car. On-street parking was removed from this segment in 2011. Then sidewalks have been expanded to 15 feet and curbside parklets have been installed at 8-feet-wide loading lanes. Considering that Powell Street is clustered by retail buildings and crowded with people all year round, it is categorized as the pedestrian prioritized street to be studied in the report.

Figure 3.8 Powell Street

15’

8’

Sidewalk

Loading /Seating

10’

66’

3.1.2.2 Geary Street - Transit Prioritized Geary Street is a one-way street running westbound through downtown. There are two Muni bus lines (38R and 38) running on the 11-feet-wide bus/taxi only lane of the street. Correspondingly, the 130 feet of northern curbside are designated for bus stop. The drive lane is only 9-feet wide, separated from the parking lane on the south side by a 3-feet-wide buffer. The segment is selected as an instance of the transit-prioritized street category.

3.1.2.3 Stockton Street - Shared Mobility Prioritized Stockton Street is a southbound one-way street. A large number of TNC vehicles frequently stop at the studied segment due to the two hotels on both sides. A curb extension is used on the western curbside and the width of the road is narrowed down to the south. Because the curbside is shared by passenger loading, commercial loading and hotel parking, which always results in conflicts, the Stockton Street segment is a good case for the shared mobility prioritized street.

10’

Cable Car Cable Car

1’’ = 25’

8’

15’

Loading /Seating

Sidewalk

CURB SPACE IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Figure 3.9 Geary Street

Figure 3.10 Stockton Street

12’

11’

9’

Sidewalk

Parking

Drive Lane

11’

9’

Bus Lane Parking

12’

7’

Sidewalk

Loading /Parking

64’

11’

70’

STOP BUS

ONLY

TAXI STOP

BUS

1’’ = 25’

11’

BUS

1’’ = 25’

5’

7’

Drive Lane Drive Lane Buffer Loading

17’ Sidewalk

TRANSFORMING THE CURBSIDE WITH SHARED MOBILITY

3.2 CURB SPACE 3.2.1 Curb Space Allocation

is mostly designated for commercial loading (33.8%), which corresponds to the curb use rank of Seattle’s Flex Zone that prioritizes access for commerce in commercial areas. Also, there are 17.8% of curbside allocated for passenger loading and 8.7% for transit stops. The distribution of these two kinds of curb uses always depends on the layout of other urban elements such as building uses and bus stops. Pedestrian amenities like parklets or seating can only be seen on the two-block segment of Powell Street. And three bike share stations are installed on Powell Street, Post Street and Cyril Magnin St, accounting for 1.5% of the total curbside.

Since parking limits were implemented in downtown San Francisco in 1970s, on-street parking spaces have been dramatically decreased in the district, taking up only 4% of the total curbside now (See Figure 3.11). And some of them are disabled parking, with only one space designated for car share parking. Because the district has heavy traffic but narrow roads (20 to 30 feet wide), nearly 30% of the curbside are not allowed for any parking or stopping. They are just used as a drive lane without any functions for other road users. Currently, the curbside

0.3% 4.8%

3.8%

8.7%

d 3r

Geary S

17.8%

O’F

arrell St

Ellis St

5t St

Turk St

Figure 3.11 Existing Curb Allocation

33.8%

1’’ = 800’

26.8%

Eddy St

Under Construction

Passenger Loading

On-Street Parking

Motorcycle Parking

Transit Stop

2.5%

Post St

1.5%

mery St

St t

Sutter S

Bike Share/Car Share

Montgo

Pedestrian Amenities

Commercial Loading

No Parking/Stopping

Kearny

n St

Grant S

Stockto

Powell S

Mason Bush St

CURB SPACE IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Powell Street

Geary Street

Stockton Street

1’’ = 150’

Curb Allocation No Parking/Stopping Commercial Loading Pedestrian Amenities Transit Stop Bike Share Station On-Street Parking Passenger Loading Under Construction

Building Use

Commercial Commercial + Residential Hotels & Visitor Services

Figure 3.12 Existing Curb Allocation of Three Streets

TRANSFORMING THE CURBSIDE WITH SHARED MOBILITY

3.2.2 Curb Space Use 3.2.2.1 Powell Street

1’’ = 25’

Figure 3.13 Curbside Activities in 20 Minutes on the Weekend According to the observations at different times, the parklets on Powell Street are not fully used. At 11 a.m. on the weekend, only 4 people were observed staying in parklets while 54 people were walking on the sidewalk. Also, there are very few benches installed in parklets so that some people have to sit on the narrow edges around the plants. Usually, some visitors just stood there for a better view of cable cars and took photos. More surprisingly, there seemed to be an invisible barrier between parklets and the sidewalk. Even if the sidewalk was crowded, few people walked on parklets. This means even wide enough, the parklet is still regarded by most people as a place to take a break rather than an extension of sidewalks. Compared with the parklet, the sculpture next to it attracted more visitors to stop. Five groups of people were observed taking pictures and hanging out here within 20 minutes on the weekend, half of whom are families with children. So art works do play an important role in bringing vibrancy to the curbs and streets. Among the three curb uses on this street segment, the most crowded curbside space is the waiting area of cable car, especially between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. on weekends,

CURB SPACE IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Existing Color Curb Management

Parklet Activity Commercial Loading Cable Car Passenger

Commercial Loading No Parking/Stopping

Figure 3.14 Number of Curb Activities at Different Times by Curb Use 50

45 40

35 30

10 5

Commercial Loading

Cable Car Weekday Offpeak

Weekday Peak

Figure 3.15 Number of Curb Activities vs Allocated Curbside 50

Cable Car

Number of Activities

40 35 30

Parklet

25 20 15 10 5 0

Commercial Loading 0

100

150

200

250

Allocated Curbside (Feet)

300

350

400

Weekend Peak

Parklet Weekend Offpeak

which is shown in Figure 3.13 and 3.14. In this 25-feet long space, there are no pedestrian facilities like benches at all, and the stop sign is too small to recognize. But it accommodated 47 people in total within one hour, which is not proportional to the curb space allocated to itself, as shown in Figure 3.15. Conversely, commercial loading space only had one commercial vehicle per hour during most time except early morning. It is also sometimes occupied by taxis in the afternoon. Therefore, not only do parklets need improvement, other curbside spaces here also need to be allocated in a more efficient way.

TRANSFORMING THE CURBSIDE WITH SHARED MOBILITY 3.2.2.2 Geary Street

1’’ = 25’

Figure 3.16 Curbside Activities in 20 Minutes on the Weekday

In terms of passenger loading, the number of observed TNC vehicles was much larger than that of taxis, as shown in Figure 3.19. And TNC pick-ups and drop-offs often gathered at the entrance of hotels (See Figure 3.16). Additionally, TNC drivers on Geary Street tended to wait longer time for passengers (1.6 minutes on

Figure 3.17 Number of Vehicles vs Allocated Curbside 50

Passenger Loading

45 40 Number of Vehicles

Bus Route 38 and 38R have a stop on this Geary Street segment, and there were many people waiting in the stop. During one-hour observation, there were 15 buses coming to the stop, with 216 people getting on and 53 people getting off in total. And people’s average waiting time is 3 to 4 minutes. The crowded people waiting around the bus stop often caused congestions on the sidewalk. Also, the bus stop doesn’t have enough seats so that many people leaned on the building walls. Considering that 130 feet of the curbside has been allocated to bus stops, which can accommodate two buses parking at the same time, there is not much curbside space to install pedestrian amenities. In this case, sidewalks could be designed to match the curb function on the premise of ensuring the width for passing.

35 30 25 20

Bus

15 10 5 0

Commercial Loading

Parking 0

100

125

Allocated Curbside (Feet)

150

175

200

Figure 3.18 Number of People vs Allocated Curbside 250 225

Bus

200 175 Number of People

150 125 100 75

Passenger Loading

50 25 0 Parking 0

100

125

Allocated Curbside (Feet)

150

175

200

BUS

STOP

BUS

TAXI

ONLY

BUS

STOP

CURB SPACE IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Existing Color Curb Management Passenger Loading Commercial Loading No Parking/Stopping

TNC Pick-Up & Drop-Off On-Street Parking Taxi Commercial Loading Bus

Figure 3.19 Number of Curb Activities at Different Times by Curb Use 45

40 35 30 25

33 29

15 10

5 0

TNC

6 2

Taxi Weekday Peak

16 15 15

Commercial Loading Weekday Offpeak

2 Bus Stop Weekend Peak

Parking

Scooter

Weekend Offpeak

average) than those on the streets with the largest number of TNC events and there were more cases of failing to pick passengers up. Double parking was observed three times in one hour at the hotel entrance, which caused a short period of traffic congestion due to the busy traffic on the next narrow driveway. Also, because the retail street is nearby, some TNC drivers occupied the commercial loading spaces close to the intersection with Powell street, even though there is no stopping allowed from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. except metered commercial loading for trucks with six wheel or more.

TRANSFORMING THE CURBSIDE WITH SHARED MOBILITY 3.2.2.3 Stockton Street

1’’ = 25’

Figure 3.20 Curbside Activities in 20 Minutes on the Weekday Figure 3.21 Number of Vehicles vs Allocated Curbside 100 90 Passenger Loading

80 Number of Vehicles

It can be seen from Figure 3.21 and 3.22 that, 60% of the curbside space has been allocated to passenger loading (white color). Correspondingly, passenger loading was observed to account for 85% of curbside activities in total and 88% of people involved. It happened the most frequently between 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on weekdays and reduced during weekends (See Figure 3.23). So some spaces are taken up by valet parking on weekends and they are managed by the hotel.

70 60 50 40 30 20

Parking Scooter Commercial Loading 0 0 50 100 150 200

250

Allocated Curbside (Feet)

300

350

400

Figure 3.22 Number of People vs Allocated Curbside 150

Compared with the passenger loading on Geary Street, the concentration of TNC vehicles at the entrances of two hotels is more evident on Stockton Street. Also, the average time of stopping is shorter (1.1 minutes) and the cases of failing to pick up passengers are fewer. This is primarily because passenger loading on Stockton Street is almost exclusively for hotel pick-ups or drop-offs, which is easy for drivers and passengers to find each other.

135

Passenger Loading

120 Number of People

105 90 75 60 45 30 15 0

Parking Scooter 0

100

150

200

250

Allocated Curbside (Feet)

300

350

400

CURB SPACE IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Existing Color Curb Management Passenger Loading Commercial Loading No Parking/Stopping

TNC Pick-Up & Drop-Off On-Street Parking Taxi Commercial Loading Scooter

Figure 3.23 Number of Curb Activities at Different Times by Curb Use 80 70

70 58

60 50 41

40 30 20 10

TNC

Taxi Weekday Peak

Commercial Loading Weekday Offpeak

Weekend Peak

Parking

Scooter

Weekend Offpeak

Figure 3.24 Double Parking 100

100% 87

90%

Number of Vehicles

80% 68

70% 60%

50%

40 30

40% 24

30%

21 9

10 0

8am-10am 10am-12pm

TNC

3pm-5pm

Double Parking

5pm-7pm

Percentage

20% 10% 0%

Percentage of Double Parking

As the number of passenger loading increases, double parking is more likely to happen. But its percentage decreased from morning to night (See Figure 3.24). The reason for this might be that there are more pick-ups in the morning where drivers need to stay on the curbside for more time to wait for passengers. But drop-off, which tends to happen more frequently in the afternoon only takes a few seconds.

TRANSFORMING THE CURBSIDE WITH SHARED MOBILITY

3.3 CONCLUSION Chapter 3 introduces the overall condition of the Union Square Commercial District in terms of built form, land use, traffic condition, and existing curb allocation. Based on the different distribution of curbside space and its usage, the streets in the study area are categorized into three typologies. For each typology, one representative street segment is selected. After analyzing the building uses and street conditions, field work was conducted for each street segment on different days and at different times. Based on observations and data analysis, the following problems are summarized regarding the curb allocation and usage on each segment, which would inspire the design proposal in the next chapter.

Powell Street (Pedestrian Prioritized) •

Parklets that don’t have enough seating are rarely used, and paving helps people distinguish the functions of different street spaces.

•

Commercial loading spaces are empty during most of the time while passenger loading is in high demand on retail street.

•

Street art works, like sculptures, play an important role in bringing vibrancy to the curbs and streets.

•

The curbside space designated to the cable car stop is not proportional to its actual use.

Geary Street (Transit Prioritized) •

Without amenities provided for people waiting for buses, they often lean against the building walls, blocking the sidewalks.

•

Commercial loading spaces are often occupied by TNC vehicles for passenger loading.

•

Without clear destination or landmark, TNC drivers are more likely to wait longer for passengers and fail to pick them up.

Stockton Street (Shared Mobility Prioritized) •

TNC events are concentrated at the entrance of hotels and the frequency is relatively low in the morning and high in the afternoon.

•

The percentage of double parking is high on the street that has dense TNC activities

•

TNC drivers have to take up commercial loading spaces to do pickups and drop-offs.

•

Hotels have some flexible use for passenger loading spaces based on the demand at different times, i.e. allowing hotel parking at night and on weekends.

4 DESIGN PROPOSAL 4.1. 3-STEP STRATEGY 4.2. DETAILED DESIGN 4.3. RECOMMENDATIONS

TRANSFORMING THE CURBSIDE WITH SHARED MOBILITY

4.1 3-STEP STRATEGY Based on the research results of the previous chapter, a three-step strategy is proposed to improve and design the curbside in the Union Square Commercial District. The analysis of three street typologies shows that the demands for the curbside are different on each street. Also, the number and the distribution of shared mobility activities varies greatly. Therefore, the first step is to categorize the streets in the district. In addition to the amount and types of shared mobility activities, other main factors that are taken into account include traffic lane designations, building uses, number of pedestrians, number of bus lines and passengers, business types and corresponding commercial loading schedules. Thus, the layout of street typologies in the district based on curbside need can be obtained.

3-Step Design Strategy STEP 1 Lay out street typologies based on shared mobility activities and street functions STEP 2 Designate curb use priorities for each street typology STEP 3 Implement flexible allocation and multi-function curb management

Secondly, inspired by Flex Zone in Seattle, the curb use priorities are ranked for each street typology in the commercial district. Then, the allocation of curb uses is proposed based on the proportion of observed curb activities and the layout of other urban elements. Finally, for the curb spaces with particularly high demand for different uses, a more flexible method of curb allocation and management is devised. One single curb space could be shared by different curb users. The designation could even be changed at different times of the day according to the varied peak hours of curb uses. By implementing this method, the traditional single-function curb allocation is abandoned, and the efficiency of the curbside could be increased to minimize the waste of street space.

Figure 4.1 3-Step Strategy

DESIGN PROPOSAL

4.2 DETAILED DESIGN 4.2.1 STEP 1: Street Typology Layout The layout of pedestrian-prioritized streets and transit-prioritized streets is primarily influenced by the concentration of retail buildings and bus stops, which is easy to define. However, the selection of shared mobility prioritized streets depends on the data research for shared Number of Bike Share Trips

mobility activities. The following analysis demonstrates how to determine which streets should be defined as shared mobility prioritized streets. Firstly, each Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) was evaluated by three curb uses (bike share, ride share, metered parking) respectively, and the results are illustrated in Figure 4.2. The Density of Metered Parking

Feet / Mile2 (*1015) 0 - 5,500

5,501 - 11,000

1 - 5,600

11,001 - 16,500

5,601 - 25,000

16,501 - 22,000

25,001 - 46,000

22,001 - 27,500

46,001 - 85,000

27,501 - 33,000

85,001 - 115,000

33,001 - 38,500

115,001 - 140,000

38,501 - 44,000

140,001 - 170,000

44,001 - 49,500

170,001 - 210,000

49,501 - 55,000

210,001 - 340,000

Data Source: Ford GoBike API

Data Source: SFPark API

Density of Uber/Lyft Pick-ups & Drop-offs, Weekday

Density of Uber/Lyft Pick-ups & Drop-offs, Weekend

Number / Mile2 (*1015)

Data Source: SFCTA TNC Database

Figure 4.2 Evaluation by Curb Use

Number / Mile2 (*1015)

0 - 55

56 - 80

81 - 130

131 - 200

201 - 350

351 - 550

551 - 900

901 - 1,400

1,401 - 2,000

2,001 - 7,400

Data Source: SFCTA TNC Database 1: 10,000

TRANSFORMING THE CURBSIDE WITH SHARED MOBILITY

Score

Number of Bike Share Trips

Density of Metered Parking (1015 Feet/Mile2)

Density of TNC Pick- Density of TNC Pickups & Drop-offs, ups & Drop-offs, Score Weekday Weekend (1015 Feet/Mile2)

(1015 Feet/Mile2)

5,463.70

33,634.57

713.07

735.31

10,927.40

67,269.14

1,426.13

1,470.62

16,391.10

100,903.70

2,139.20

2,205.92

21,854.80

134,538.27

2,852.26

2,941.23

27,318.50

168,172.84

3,565.33

3,676.54

32,782.20

201,807.41

4,278.40

4,411.85

38,245.90

235,441.98

4,991.46

5,147.16

43,709.60

269,076.54

5,704.53

5,882.46

49,173.30

302,711.11

6,417.59

6,617.77

100

54,637.00

336,345.68

7,130.66

7,353.08

number of bike share trips include the trips starting from and ending in the Ford GoBike station. The density of ride share activities was calculated by dividing the sum of TNC pick-ups and drop-offs by the area of TAZ. The density of metered parking was also calculated because the commercial loading spaces, where the meters are mostly used in the district, were observed to be used by passenger loading frequently. Then, in order to give three metrics the same weight, they were standardized by assigning a score of 100 to maximum value (See the table above). Particularly, the maximum density of ride share activities was assigned 50 for both weekday and weekend results, so that the sum of them could be comparable to other two metrics. Finally, a total evaluation score was calculated for each TAZ by adding up three scores. The standardized result is shown in Figure 4.3. The darker the color of the TAZ, the more shared mobility activities tend to happen within it. This evaluation method worked well because the

potential streets for shared mobility prioritized typology need to have at least two features. One is the high demand for shared mobility, the other is the diverse needs of shared mobility. Either of these two is met, the street can be proved to be shared mobility prioritized street. If both of them are met, it means the street would be the most suitable one. In this evaluation, the total score of TAZ could get higher if any single score of three is particularly high (showing the high demand) or three moderate scores add up to be very high (showing the diverse use). Both situations reflect the validity of being defined as shared mobility prioritized street. Based on the results of evaluation, those segments with more shared mobility activities are defined as shared mobility prioritized street. The streets with more bus lines running on them or more passengers waiting in bus stops are defined as transit prioritized street. Then, the southern segment of Powell Street and Stockton Street are designated as pedestrian prioritized streets due to the amount of pedestrians and amenities provided for them. The layout of street typologies is demonstrated in Figure 4.4.

DESIGN PROPOSAL

mery St Montgo

St Kearny

t Grant S

n St Stockto

t Powell S

Mason Bush St t

Sutter S

d St

Post St d 3r St

t Geary S St ll e rr a O’F Ellis St

Eddy St Turk St

h St

0 - 20 20 - 40 40 - 60 60 - 80 80 - 100

1: 25,000

Figure 4.3 Total Evaluation Score Kearny St Montgo

n St

Grant S

Stockto

Powell S t

Mason

mery St

Bush St

d 2n

Sutter S

Post St

Geary S

ll St

O’Farre

h 4t St

Ellis St

Eddy St h 5t

1’’ = 800’

Figure 4.4 Proposed Layout of Street Typologies

Turk St

Pedestrian Prioritized Transit Prioritized Shared Mobility Prioritized

TRANSFORMING THE CURBSIDE WITH SHARED MOBILITY

4.2.2 STEP 2: Curb Allocation

Figure 4.5 Location of Flex Zone Pedestrian Prioritized

Shared Mobility Prioritized

Passenger Loading

Commercial Loading

Pedestrian Amenities

Bike/Scooter Amenities

Public Transit

Greening

On-Street Parking

TAXI

BUS

Shared Mobility Prioritized

In order to make multiple functions work together better, Flex Zone could be introduced to the district. It is observed that better experience could be gained if some curb uses are installed adjacent to each other. With this idea, Figure 4.5 illustrates the preferable position of Flex Zone on respective type of street. On the pedestrian prioritized street, Flex Zone could be placed next to parklets which could provide seating for passengers waiting for ride share. On the transit prioritized street, it is better to install Flex Zone next to the space designated to bus stop so that the use of both public transit and ride share could be facilitated. On shared mobility prioritized street, installing Flex Zone at both ends of street will neither interrupt the continuity of passenger loading zone nor bother the pick-ups/drop-offs at the entrance of buildings. Also, Flex Zone could provide additional space for ride share during peak hours. The next step will design the Flex Zone itself and show how to allocate the functions in one single space at different times of the day.

ONLY

FLEX ZONE

Transit Prioritized

Pedestrian Prioritized

Curb Use

FLEX ZONE

A layout of three street typologies is proposed based on the shared mobility usage study in Step 1. To figure out a reasonable curb allocation according to different demands, the table below provides ranked curb use priorities for each type of street. The higher a use ranks, the more space should be designated to it, and the more importance should be attached to it when designing the street curb. Because the study area is a commercial district where the access for commerce is of high priority, the use of commercial loading ranks high in all three street typologies. On the contrary, on-street parking is at the bottom of the table. It is also suggested that some parking spaces for private cars along the curbs should be replaced with car share on-street parking. In terms of the location of each curb use, it should be coordinated with other urban elements such as building uses.

FLEX ZONE

DESIGN PROPOSAL

4.2.3 STEP 3: Flex Zone Design Currently, the allocation and management of the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s curbside are implemented through color curbs, that is, each curb segment is designated one function by painted a corresponding color. Most of the designated functions cannot be changed at different times of the day and the only possible change is the allowable parking time in some metered parking spaces. This leads to a waste of street space because some curb spaces are empty during a certain period, while the allocated space for other uses may fall far short of peak demand. This can be evidently demonstrated in the conflicts between commercial loading and passenger loading. Because commercial loading is much less frequent then passenger loading, ride share drivers usually have to occupy commercial loading spaces or even no stopping spaces. Sometimes, they have to double park, which always causes congestion and safety problems. Therefore, a more flexible way of curb allocation is needed not only for the whole street, but also for every single space.

areas. Another distinct feature from the previous two is that the occupancy rate is particularly high during weekends while shared mobility activities are more vibrant during weekdays. Figure 4.6 Temporal Allocation of Flex Zone Number of bike share trips that starts from/ends in TAZ #747 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Monday

Friday

Saturday

Sunday

Source: Ford GoBike API

Number of ride share pick-ups and drop-offs in TAZ #747 200 150 100 50 0 Monday

Figure 4.6 provides an example of how to allocate curb uses temporally by investigating their respective peak hours. The selected TAZ #747, bordered by Powell, Sutter, Stockton and Post Street, incorporates multiple curb uses including passenger loading, on-street parking, commercial loading and a bike share station. By analyzing their usage every hour in a week, we can see that the line graphs of bike share and ride share both present periodic characteristics. The number of bike share trips reaches the highest at 5 p.m., while the peak hour of ride share activities is at 8 a.m. Compared to these two, the occupancy rate of on-street parking doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have an obvious periodic change. But it still could be seen that it goes up around 12 p.m. and keeps low during late night, which is different from the parking pattern in residential

Tuesday Wednesday Thursday

Friday

Saturday

Sunday

Source: SFCTA TNC Database

Percentage of occupied time by metered parking in TAZ #747 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

Monday

Tuesday Wednesday Thursday

Friday

Saturday

Sunday

Source: SFpark Sensor Data

Prevailing Curb Use

Monday

Tuesday Wednesday Thursday

WEEKDAY

Friday

Saturday

Sunday

WEEKEND

TRANSFORMING THE CURBSIDE WITH SHARED MOBILITY By standardizing and overlapping the lines, a preliminary result could be obtained for the sequence of curb use change within TAZ #747. Considering that commercial loading is usually in high demand in the early morning or at noon, the flex zone could be used for passenger loading after 8 a.m. and prioritized for bike share users in the afternoon. On-street parking could be allowed during night and weekends. In addition to the above way of allocation, there are many other components that could

BIKE SHARE STATION

RIDE SHARE LOADING

COMMERCIAL LOADING

SEATING

FOOD TRUCKS

STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE

METERED ON-STREET PARKING

Figure 4.7 Components of Flex Zone

Sha

CAR SHARE PARKING

SHORT-TERM STORAGE USES

Car

VALUABLE PUBLIC SPACE USES

MOBILE BIKE AMENITIES

MOBILITY USES

BUS STOP

TRANSIT- AND BUSINESSSUPPORTIVE USES

PARKLET

be added into flex zones. A toolkit is created in Figure 4.7 to provide possible flexible curb uses, which includes mobility uses like transit stops/ islands, dockless bike amenities, transit- and business-supportive uses such as bike share stations, ride share loading and commercial loading, public space uses like parklets, seating, food trucks and stormwater infrastructure, and short-term storage uses like metered on-street parking and car share parking. When designing these components, movability should be given priority to ensure they can take turns to function.

DESIGN PROPOSAL 06:00 AM

08:00 AM

UBER

12:00 PM

06:00 PM

Figure 4.8 Flex Zone at Different Times of The Day Figure 4.8 provides a possibility of incorporating a movable parklet into a flex zone which also allows for commercial loading, ride share and on-street parking at different times of the day. The implementation of Flex Zone needs a lot of technology, labor and funding support to maintain the efficient allocation, management and the movement of amenities. Also, the frequent change of functions might confuse drivers without an advanced communication platform. Therefore, before fully achieving the flexible management of the curbside, shared zone could

be adopted that two or three groups of curb users (i.e. commercial loading and TNC drivers) share a certain length of curbs, in order to solve the inefficient allocation caused by the difference in respective peak hours.

TRANSFORMING THE CURBSIDE WITH SHARED MOBILITY

4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the design proposal above, the following recommendations are provided to support and facilitate the implementation of Flex Zone.

Funding: •

Increase business tax as the installation of flex zone could benefit business owners by bringing more people.

•

Increase parking rate to raise the city’s revenue and discourage on-street parking in the commercial district

•

Collect fees from TNC, like SFO does, to get funding support

Policy: •

Add a new category of Flex Zone into the city’s color curb management and amend the corresponding policies

•

Reduce on-street parking in cities’ commercial district by designating parking to car share and developing automated vehicles

•

Prioritize shared mobility, transit, bicycles in the street design of city’s commercial district

Technology: •

Install sensors underground to get the occupancy status of Flex Zone

•

Install an electronic signage to notify the current Flex Zone function as well as the timing, which can be integrated with urban art projects

•

Create a Flex Zone information platform and embed it into TNC Apps to inform drivers where to stop. For ride share trips, Apps automatically select the nearest Flex Zone around the destination to reduce navigating time and increase security.

•

Use TNC Apps or create a similar one to move Flex Zone amenities like parklets. With the development of automated vehicle technology, parklets could also realize self-handling.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES 1 Cohen A. & Shaheen S. (2018). Planning for Shared Mobility. American Planning Association, PAS Report 583. 2 Fehr & Peers. (2018, September). San Francisco Curb Study. Retrieved from http://www.fehrandpeers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/SF_Curb_Study_2018-10-19_web-download.pdf 3 Highway Research Board, National Research Council et al. (1971). Special Report 125: Parking Principles. Retrieved from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr125.pdf 4 Jakle J. & Sculle K. (2004). Lots of Parking, Land Use in a Car Culture. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press. 5 Jin S.T., Kong H., Wu R., Sui D.Z. (2018). Ridesourcing, the sharing economy, and the future of cities. Cities, 76, 96-104. 6 Marshall, W. E., Garrick N. W., and Hansen G. (2008). Reassessing On-Street Parking. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2046(1), 45-52. 7 Phelan A.H. (2015, November 30). Shared-Use Mobility Zones: Fighting Congestion with a Home for Rideshare. Eno Transportation Weekly. Retrieved from https://www.enotrans.org/article/ shared-use-mobility-zones-fighting-congestion-home-rideshare/ 8 Phil LeBeau. (2018, August 21). Getaround car-share service raises $300 million in new funding round. CNBC. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/21/getaround-carshare-service-raises300-million-in-new-funding-round.html 9 Ruijter, T. (2015). A Big Data Review of On-street Parking (Masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s thesis). Retrieved from https:// www.ru.nl/publish/pages/769526/z05_tom_de_ruijter.pdf 10 San Francisco County Transportation Authority. (2017, June). TNCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Today: A Profile of San Francisco Transportation Network Company Activity. Retrieved from https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/ files/content/Planning/TNCs/TNCs_Today_112917.pdf 11 San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. (2012, August 28). Policies for On-Street Parking Management. Retrieved from https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-documents/2017/12/20120828sfmtapoliciesforon-streetparkingmanagement.pdf 12 San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. (2014, June) SFpark Pilot Project Evaluation Summary. Retrieved from http://sfpark.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/SFpark_Eval_Summary_2014. pdf 13 San Francisco Planning Department. (2018). San Francisco Parklet Manual. Retrieved from http:// pavementtoparks.org/wp-content/uploads/Parklet_Manual_2018-FINAL_upload.pdf

TRANSFORMING THE CURBSIDE WITH SHARED MOBILITY

14 Schaller Consulting. (2018, July 25). The New Automobility: Lyft, Uber and the Future of American Cities. Retrieved from http://www.schallerconsult.com/rideservices/automobility.pdf 15 Shoup D. (2018). Parking and the City. New York, NY: Routledge. 16 Shoup D. (2005). The High Cost of Free Parking. Washington, DC: American Planning Association. 17 The City of Seattle. (2017). The Right-of-Way Improvements Manual. Retrieved from https://streetsillustrated.seattle.gov/ 18 Trefis Team. (2011, September 14). Zipcar Revs Up Membership Growth, Stock Cruising To $27. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2011/09/14/ zipcar-revs-up-membership-growth-stock-cruising-to-27/#10742a81f6f5 19 Wilbur Smith and Associates. (1965). Parking in the City Center. New Haven, Conn. 20 Zipcar Press Center. (2016, September 8). Zipcar Drives Past Million Member Milestone. Retrieved from https://www.zipcar.com/press/releases/millionmembers

[This page is intentionally left blank]