advocate for a general obligation bond which would insure the effective project which works for the debt trament and the seriously ill. the later parties will walk a quarter of a miles. it will increase accessibility and consolidation of bus stops. it favors the addition of transportation vehicles to wrap network lines but remove vehicles from the neighborhood. in essence this favors the northeast section of the city, nejtsing the -- neglecting the rest of san francisco. the downtown sector and the

bicyclist who have enough bike lanes. reject the proposed lines. and it's debt tra mennal to city resident. tet stands for trashing elderly people period and it also stands for tormenting every passenger: >> next speaker, please. >> michael barrette followed by bob allen. >> yes, i wanted to comment on item 12 that has been covered. number one, i think it's great that the mayor is the transportation task force was put together but it's people fighting for the might'e dollar. what the recommendations were was pretty good and on the last part of

their recommendation, there were $3 billion listed for allocations for fleet replace enhancement which is much off the mark. too much money in this is for street beauty and not addressing san francisco on range needs. a relatively minor but outlines bus lines and way too much money allocated to defined capital items a transit guidelines and faa core improvements, facility enhancement and transit system accessibility. we're going to run out of $85 million bonds. thank you. >> thank you. >> another speaker.

>> last speaker, bob allen. >> good afternoon. >> thank you members of the board today. we'll forward a letter from a number of groups in our coalition trying to catch up. we're going to reach out vejly. some of the folks weren't able to be here so i'll summarize comments quickly. i'm disappointed with the process. we can discuss that and we have discussed that in our letter and the approach in general, i think, i've worked on other measures around the bay area. i think a more balanced approach that had some creditable improvements would likely garner more support from the people that's going to be asked to pay for especially around the sales tax benefit. it's going to make the case for

the voters to support this package which again i think particularly concerns around money for more service. we won't use operations right now. that's the term that i find interesting when i talk to those in the state. they say we have an exspeck tags -- expectations. when we bring up service improvements, we're told to look at the trade company. and what's the real clear measure of services package can add. i ask that question and haven't gotten an answer. our questions are the fact that investments go city wide and benefit communities that's impacted and we like to see equity now. it's a baseline service system and it has oversight and we'll include those in the letter. finally,

i have to go. around title 6 and the next item, i want to thank the staff for working with us and we've submitted some information around their work. >> looking forward to receiving your letter. anyone else want to address the board. seeing none. >> one more. >> good afternoon, leah from san francisco coalition. as a member of that task force, i want to speak in the recommendations. i want to thank them for recognizing the need for transportation. we have not been in line for these funding measures and its reflected in the state of our facilities at such and such. i want to recognize their work. not only citizens but city groups like myself and disability communities. i think this is an important step

and transportation is a means to an end. we're about getting those to their jobs and support the local economy and connecting neighborhoods and meeting the strategic goals. so i look forward to being apart of this and hope the funding comes in. >> seeing none. the informational report, is that correct. >> okay. thank you very much. >> i wanted to acknowledge there's been a lot of really good staff work done to make this whole process possible and data driven and some of the public comments were points well taken to articulate improvements and do a more equity analysis. there are vehicle increases and increase service, the tep for recommending increase service, so the continued statements that the tep is reducing service is into the

neighborhoods and transit dependent neighborhoods are wrong. i want to thank jonathan and his team from our finance division, a lot of good staff work that's gone into this and particular alisha, our chief and staff who was the lead staffer for this project. a lot of people working hard to put this together and you have the city on the verge of coming together for $3 billion worth of transportation improvements. that's pretty phenomenal and a great opportunity for us. >> next item. >> item 13 approving the sfmta's 2013 title vi program, and results of the system-wide monitoring of service standards and policies.. >> yeah, jeff, service planning manager is going to present our program for your consideration

and approval as i mentioned as a federal grantee. we're subject to the previsions of title 6 of the civil rights act. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon directors. i'm here to give you an over view of our title 6 program. mrs. kursh presented back in july. our major service change definition and our impact policies and this portion of burden policies which you approved back in august. as part of those changes, the fta introduced in october of last year, we had to have the board approve the service change in our policies but we have to come to you at least every three years to discuss our title service program and the monitoring results of our program. briefly the title 6 program over view. title of is a civil rights of 1964 to aggress discrimination. it states no person in the united

state should be under discrimination. as director reiskin pointed out, we must keep our services equitable and think about how we're treating minorities. if we don't our federal funding is at risk and that's a large part of our revenues. it is engrained. as a best practice, we're going to do it annually. you'll see me or mrs. kurshbomb and we're going to see this is how we're doing according to our standards and here's how the

minority routes are doing compares to the non minority routes. i'm going to show you the passenger loads and amenities and fleet assignment. it gets to what mr. reiskin was saying if we're going to install shelters and elevators, we have to make sure we follow the lines. how do we define minority fences group in san francisco. we are a minority majority city. 58 percent of our service center is identified -- self identified as minority. any census track around the line exceeded 58 percent is considered a minority line or minority census line and below that is non minority. we have on board survey back in the summertime which will give us a better idea of who is riding the buses

and trains and those results are ready this november, so just this month and with those we'll look at how our demographics change across line. sometimes a route goes through a neighborhood, but maybe those riding around the line aren't around the line. looking at the map of san francisco, dark blue, they're defined as minority. light blue are ones that are below 58 percent minority. proposition e is we're 85 percent on on time and we have a long way to go. as director reiskin pointed out, we have a long way to go and we got to get that across the board. comparing non minority routes and minority routes, they're about equal so we have radio, we have cross towns and community

routes and we have the express routes and the non minority and minority lines pretty much go together. for vehicle head ways, we have policy head ways or minimum head ways that were approved a while back. we have them for radios and cross towns and expressed routes. we did find an impact here. for our cross town routes, 63 percent of minority lines are within those policy head ways and 97 percent of the non minority routes are at those policy head waves. that's a big difference right there. why is that? i know julie has been talking to you about this idea of rapid, local, feeder, express, so our current classification routes is based on a system that was set up 30 years ago and routes are defined if they go downtown

or not and not what roll they fill in the network. we have radios and we have cross towns. but what that means is that we're comparing lines like the 49 which is the cross town and a heavy hitter, the 49 provides a lot of service. two lines like the 18 which i have answered or i raised a question, i said who heard of the 18 and half of the room hasn't heard of the 18. it's a small route and doesn't carry many people, but because the way we categorized the routes in the 80s, we're comparing it to the 18. mrs. reiskin will come to you with the tep and they're going to ask you to reclassify the lines and their purpose. rapid, local, community lines and these

express lines. not based on downtown or not downtown, but based on what role they fill the network. based on that, we'll look at the policy head ways. do they make sense for the locals and for the rapids, for the communities, for the express routes. so that is why we have that impact down there. when we come back in 2014, we'll reassess this and we'll see what roles it's playing in our network and not whether they go downtown or not. vehicle loads, this standard is a standard that says you're getting passed up. based on the data that counts those who get on the bus and the traffic accounts, we see that comparing the radio to the cross towns, the theaters, the express routes to minority and non minority routes that the

minority routes perform better or similar to non minority routes. we have one radio rail route or one rail route that's defined as minority route and that's the t-line. that's less crowded. those are the results there. service availability. we matched the bus routes and say who lives within a quarter mile of the bus route and in yellow the picture isn't that great, but yellow is all areas in the city of a quarter mile of the bus stop which is the distance that a person can walk to a bus stop and the buses are covered within a quarter of a mile. minority or non minority, it doesn't matter. the entire city are residential

areas are covered. what's not covered is in golf courses, so in the city of golf course isn't covered so if you want to take a bus between hoels, it isn't going to work for you. and on the extreme edges of the bay, and the southeast earn part of the city, as the development grows in those places and as resident move in, we'll provide services to meet those service needs. transit and amenities. all of our shelters and bus stops distributed and for shelters, we found they're not. if you look -- we don't install that many new shelters in a year. we have to go through public process to do it. out of the last nine that were installed last year, seven were installed in minority census track. that was good. we just got to get better. we got to close that

gap. the next place to expand shelters or install bus folds in the commission, those are minority fences block groups. we're going to look to install shelters there. we have the customer first grants which are for the san bruno corridor and commission corridor. also in minority blocks and we're going to expand shelters to close that gap which we need to do. vehicle assignment. we perform well. all the buses have been sent to the wood's division and they have 62 lines which are minority. for flynn, they have the lowest amount of fleets in our overall fleet. we met with the cac in october 3rd and we're meeting with you to get

your approval. we are submit this program update by december 1st. we'll be back in a year to share results of the monitoring program again and we hope to have closed those gaps and have no impacts the next time we come to see you. >> thank you very much. i especially the fact that we're going to do this annually. that's important and thank you for the report. >> members of the boards, questions or comments. >> i have a question. >> lee. >> i thought it was excellent report. what i want to ask, when you look at minority and non minority, do we look at the impact of switch backs and where they're occurring? do we look at that too? >> as part of this program, we do not. we do know where the switch backs are occurring. it's reason currently as one of the title 6 requirements. >> the program is looking at our service plan not really about how we deliver the

service. we have been -- john and his folks have been spending a lot of time on the switch backs. we do know that we are equitable in terms of switch back so i think jeff mentioned that the t-line is the line that runs through primarily minority districts. we do know that we're not switching back the t-line, not from this analysis but from an analysis of switch back. we're not switching that back more than the n-line or the l or the other lines but we recognize the difficulty or the frustration that switch backs cause and has taken steps in the last few months that should if they haven't already reduced switch backs. >> okay. so that's not a requirement, but we just monitor internally ourselves? >> because we've gotten complaints from across the city about switch backs and one of the things we looked at was

making sure before we made changes that should reduce switch back, to make sure we weren't disproportionally switching back. >> thank you for this report. i like the service availability map. i think it's going to help us inform the previous process that we were just talking about. i would like to hope that we could particularly emphasize that there has been efforts to deliberately provide service to places where it's most needed for people with disabilities and seniors. most people who are out to get us or hate us or forever reason wants us to fail, they'll fail. if i'm a wheelchair for a quarter of a mile, that's fine for you but not someone with a walker.

it's important that we articulate that we say we're trying to deliver this service to four people with disabilities and we're addressing this concern as well. this is fantastic. thank you. >> thank you mr. flynn. we have a resolution. is there a motion on that? >> mr. chairman, the person who did want to address you have left but it appropriate to see if we have anyone. >> we have a resolution before you. is there a motion. >> second. >> all in favor say i. >> i. >> thank you very much. >> next item. >> it would be appropriate for you to have closed session. >> second. >> move. >> all in favor say i. >> we'll have closed session. thank you.

programs. we are here to learn more from one of the resident artists. welcome to the show, deborah. tell us how this program began 20 years ago. >> the program began 20 years ago. our founder was an environmentalist and an activist and an artist in the 1970's. she started these street sweeping campaigns in the city. she started with kids. they had an exhibition at city hall. city officials heard about her efforts and they invited her to this facility. we thought it would coincide with our efforts to get folks to

recycle, it is a great educational tool. since then, we have had 95 professional artists come through. >> how has the program changed over the years? how has the program -- what can the public has an artist engage with? >> for the most part, we worked with metal and wood, what you would expect from a program like ours. over the years, we tried to include artists and all types of mediums. conceptual artists, at installation, photographers, videographers. >> that has really expanded the program out. it is becoming so dynamic right now with your vision of interesting artists in gauging here. why would an artist when to come here? >> mainly, access to the materials. we also give them a lot of support. wheth