walked san francisco. i wanted to thank you for holding this conversation about pedestrian safety in the city. there has been a lot of attention to this city lightly, well-deserved, and i am hoping the energy around this issue will translate into action and real visible change on the street with 800 people a year being hit by cars and our city, three people this week killed by cars, we really do not have time to waste. enforcement is a big issue in the city. i was glad to hear it given attention in this conversation, really looking at where people are being hit and targeting enforcement to those areas seems like a basic need, and one that we still do not have, and one that will help the please be more effective with their limited resources. the idea of having shared data between city agencies, sfpd,

sfmta, dph, and agencies with more analysis capacity looking at that, helping the police where to do the enforcement problem, i think, is something that should not wait and is not that complicated. we need to focus on city hot spots. there has been a lot of looking at city hot spots, planning, and what we are missing is implementation. we have known for a long time, as jamie said, sixth street is dangerous. we had a whole project along sixth street but it really did not fix it. what we need to do is have implementation of the plan that we have in place, making folsom two-way, eddie two-way, tackling speeds on the arterial. this will be good in school zones. commissioner campos: thank you.

next speaker please. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we continue this item to call of the chair? commissioner chiu: i know we have a representative from dph, if you have anything to say on the matter. >> director of environmental health. maybe i will make one point and just to give you a brief outline of where we are focusing our energy in this effort. i think the point about needing to understand the causes, i want to elaborate on that. needs to be a consensus about the causes and solutions. there is a lot of data to tell us, because as our, lots of best practices in europe and other places that show what the affect of solutions are. those solutions are generally not applied in the u.s. we are going to need to be the

leader in the country in order to apply some of these solutions, and it will take a big public conversation, where these trade-offs are explicit. from the standpoint of causes, the department of public health, has, for about four years, been analyzing the traffic data, trying to understand causes from an holistic, citywide perspective. it is important to make the distinction between the causes of the collision, causes of cars and people begin to each other, and the cause of human harm. the causes of the collision on both environmental and a girl, but all of those behaviors have been in the context of the environment. the most important cause of the collisions are the number of cars, number of people, and speed. the range of injuries, from the lowest traffic neighborhoods to the highest, is something like five fold.

you see something smaller from the range of the most walking neighborhoods to the least walking neighborhoods. we have calculated serious injuries could be reduced by over 50% from a five-mile per hour mean a reduction in the traveling speed. the causes of the harm to humans -- once the collision happens, there are two factors. the mass of the vehicle, size, and speed. those are the only factors responsible for the human injury. once the collision happens. my view, not the department's view, and a busy city where we are going to increase walking, where there will be traffic, we will never be able to entirely eliminate conflicts between cars and people. people will bump into each other. but we can do things to reduce human harm from those

collisions with speed reduction being one of them. there are many solutions, there are legal obstacles, traffic design standards that are obstacles to implementing these solutions. i think there is a good effort going on from all city agencies to address this. we will have a few rolls. one will be to bring all the data together from the agencies and to the comprehensive analysis, using international best practices and pedestrian safety analysis. we are on the way to do that. we will also have an important role in out reach to the community through our many relations with community groups. but it is an exciting and timely effort. commissioner chiu: could i ask what the time line is for this research and when you expect the conclusions to be delivered? we do not have any time to waste. >> there is some research that

has been published and peer- reviewed. it was peer-reviewed in 2009, published. i can send you that paper. that demonstrates the environmental causes of the injuries that vary between census tract and census tract. we were able to explain 70% of the variation in the injury frequency, from a series of about six or seven environmental conditions, road traffic, land use type, which are proxy's for people, and the road considerations -- configurations. we have additional research on how much speed contributes to the injuries and injury fatalities that will be finished -- that will be finished this year. we are doing a comprehensive model that looks and all the environmental factors, like pedestrian countdown safety

signals, to all of the safety factors we looked at before at the intersection level. that should be done by the end of the year. i agree, we know these answers from other research in other cities. there is not necessarily a reason to wait for this research to be validated again in san francisco before we embark on pursuing a policy solutions. commissioner chiu: out of respect for the fact that we have other agenda items to move through, here is what i would like to propose. tim, if your agency is possible for pulling people together, i want to convene a meeting with city staffers. if you could help me to set that up. then in the next few months, bring this back to the committee to talk about progress. i do not want to lose any time more momentum here. commissioner campos: great, if we could have a motion to continue to the call of the chair.

can we take that without objection? thank you. we can now move to the next item. >> item 6. recommend affirmation of the authority's funding commitment to the presidio parkway project and approval of a fund swap of $19,722,000 in state-local partnership program funds currently committed to the presidio parkway project with an equivalent amount of regional improvement program funds committed to the central subway project. this is an action item. commissioner campos: again, we do not want to lose a quorum here, so if we could move the item along. >> good morning, deputy director for capital projects. i will make this brief. the funding plan for the doral drive replace the project included $19.7 million of state and local partnership program funds intended to be used in phase two of the project. subsequent to developing the plan, the california transportation commission revised policy for use of slpp

funds, so they could only be used for construction and not for construction support, as you will recall in the project plan. in order to not lose the funding, the transportation authority has arranged a fund swap with the san francisco minutes of the transit agency to exchange the state and local partnership funds for doyle for an equal amount of regional improvement funds from the central subway project. this works to the benefit of both pride is because the state- local project funds were available sooner and would be immediately available to central subway, while regional improvement plans funds are available at a time consistent for doyle drives. so the request is to approve the swap of funds i have just described and to further reaffirm the commitment of the transportation authority to the original funding plan for the

doyle drive replacement project. we are requesting that reaffirmation of previously approved funding, primarily, to provide reassurance to the federal highway administration as they consider an application for a tfia loan. the transportation infrastructure finance innovation act, which is a low interest loan to projects that are inevitably financed. the presidio park when does qualify. -- innovatively financed. commissioner campos: thank you. colleagues, any action on this item? let's open up to public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, this is an action item. can we have a motion? motion by david chiu. seconded by scott wiener. without objection. thank you.

we now have item seven. >> item 7. update on the regional transportation plan/sustainable communities strategy and san francisco transportation plan call for projects. this is an information item. >> in light of the hour, we will go through the early slides and share the presentation with our policy and programming division. we have reported in previous meetings in the regional transportation plan that this time around, it is being conducted as an overall transportation project. we will be talking about the current call for projects, which is this item beginning on page 47 of your packet, describing the significance and process for submitting projects for consideration in to the plan. the rtp and ses emanate from state legislation that calls for integration of land-use and

environmental planning. require a reduction of greenhouse gases in each region. emissions from the transportation sector. as well as a plan to house the need at all income levels. we are at the same time updating our countywide long-range plan, a 25-year vision, as well as a prioritized list of investments to feed into the scs. this call for projects doubles as an sftp call for projects, but we will also have a second call for the sftp in the summer. it is not the only chance the public has to weigh in on local projects. the context for the rtp, call for projects, we are planning a region and as a city for the immense growth, particularly in these areas highlighted in the eastern neighborhoods and along transit corridors. what that means is we need more infrastructure funding from the region. we have been advocating

consistently with a number of city departments for transportation projects that are needed to be recognized and funded by the region as we plan for growth in the city. this time around, there is more potential funding that could flow because the region -- mtc is proposing to double the discretionary funding. that could then be redistributive more toward san francisco and other places that have high performance projects and are growing. the products and policies that reduce greenhouse gases, the city is already in good position. we are competitive already for regional discretionary funding. we hope the trend will be to put more funding toward projects that performs well on a discretionary basis. finally, we see an increase will on the part of the region to advocate for new revenues to achieve the scs goals, in the form potentially of a new gas tax, bridge tolls, particularly to deal with the funding crisis,

as well as the long-term into repairing the infrastructure that is needed for services for new growth. we have been consistent in our activity to date, and it is still early in the overall regional transportation plan process. minutes resources need to be funded, prioritized foreign jurisdictions. this goes to the underlying need in the core cities, but particularly, san francisco, where we have facilities and systems that are in need, as well as visible parts of the transportation system. expansion resources we also believe should be expanded for jurisdictions plan to accommodate growth. particularly, those cities planning for affordable housing. that link needs to be made more transparently and decisively. finally, 3rd lee, regional discretionary funding should be prioritized for products that reduce greenhouse gases,

projects that serve transit- oriented development. we are in pretty good biposition if that is the way it goes. affordable housing growth needs to be distributed more equitably. it is very expensive land cost to build in san francisco. we have been doing a great job building affordable housing compared to our peers in the region, but that needs to be incentivized in other parts of the region. commissioner campos: a quick follow up on that. maybe you can touch on this. how do you make sure that development that is transit- friendly, does not impact affordable housing, for instance? how do you strike that balance? >> i am sorry, i'm not

understanding the question -- commissioner campos: so that there is no displacement. >> this is a key policy question. in order to make sure that this does not undermine our growth policy. others are far more expert in answering this, but i'd think it is insuring we have affordable units that are prioritized and reserved for those families that can benefit from it, but also planning thought police so we have affordable transportation options and that we are not just planning for high cost of living-tight places. let me turn it over to my colleague for the next few slides. >> good morning. i will try to go as quickly as possible. i will talk specifically about the rate of transportation plan call for projects planned. what we are focused on now, because of the external debt bind that mtc has given to us to

submit san francisco priorities to them by september 29. mtc issued a call for projects for the regional transportation plan on february 14, signed the accord with several different tasks. first is to issue a call for projects, which we did on february 18. to perform average to prioritize projects and assigned san francisco's discretionary funding target, which is $6.61 billion, and to court and after that with project sponsors to develop a final list of projects. also wanted to know, we will be submitting san francisco projects a regional, transit operators, caltrans will be reporting directly to mtc. so what needs to be in the rtp? products that are seeking federal or state funds, some kind of federal action before 2017. that sounds really expensive, but essentially, products can be in the rtp in two ways. first is an individual listing, which are only products that

are project enhancing. most categories are flexible. this is a list of examples of individual projects, the wheel drive, central subway, and some of the programmatic programs that we have been using. i wanted to recognize tilly and her team for the average workday have done in the past few months. i wanted to point out for the public that the deadline to submit public ideas too much as march 24. you can go to www.sfmta.org for more. we will be contacting members of the public to put them in touch with sponsors to submit to the mtc. quickly after that, we will go through the evaluation process. after march 24. this is the schedule.

this is the deadline. we will be going through a series of public meetings, board process in april and may. and then submit the draft and final priority to mtc in april and may as well after that, most significantly for you, to weigh in between october and february. after doing an evaluation of the projects submitted, will be going through a discussion about investment priorities. that will be your opportunity to win in an advance san francisco prosperity. you can see the green herriot, where the call for project fits into the scs adoption project. detailed land use in some areas. and a concurrent project that abag and mtc are running right now, bringing to the table different scenarios, starting points, land use scenarios, and they will be providing findings to you through april. with that, i would be happy to

answer any questions. commissioner campos: just a couple of questions. when we are talking about the funds here, is the focus on operational, capital? how does that work? >> this is all the way through 24 it. all the funds that mtc expects to come in the region, including capital, operating -- unfortunately, this is not new money. this is dividing up the money that we already have. commissioner campos: as commissioner wiener indicated, there has been an attempt on the part of some jurisdictions to flex their muscle and increase their powers. how do we make sure that our projects have priority, as this goes forward? >> this cycle, it is looking more optimistic. mtc's goals are much more consistent with investing in urban areas. the prudhoe between october and february will be the time where

these things can be weighed on, to advance priorities. >> thank you. i just wanted to clarify for those try to understand -- this is very complicated. do not hesitate to call us. i also wanted to stress the regional transportation plan, even though it has planned in the name -- it is becoming more plan-like, but it is also very programming-like. the primary place where san francisco products get that it is the seventh disco trott -- project plan. by and large, most of the products are listed in programmatic categories. all existing categories, plan status, are probably there. if you have a brand new idea, that has to go to the san francisco transportation plan first. there will be another call this spring and summer to provide ideas for the plan. commissioner campos: in terms of

process, once you get the projects on the 24th, you're coming back to the committee in may? >> yes, to seek input on the list -- april. as described, the whole summer, the mtc will be going through the evaluation process. the key decision points, where our target is now, is in the fall. we will be coming back to frequently for action then. commissioner campos: in terms of what members of the public can do about this issue, involvement of other members of the board of supervisors, members of the county transportation authority, can you say a little bit about that? >> hearing about specific projects is important, but also hearing about priorities -- this item that we just had on pedestrian safety is perfect. our energy will be high in terms

of advocating for more funding for pedestrians, particularly for pedestrian safety. we are also pushing strongly for mtc to -- the spirit of this so that it is clear that we are doing what we can in terms of growth and development. commissioner campos: will you be meeting with individual supervisors? >> absolutely. we have had some and will be willing to meet with your office. commissioner campos: any questions for staff? one of the opening up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. this is an information item. we do not need to take action. madam court, please call the next item. >> introduction of new items. commissioner campos: colleagues, any new items you would like to introduce? is there anyone from the public

that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. next item. >> the public comment. commissioner campos: this is an opportunity for the public to speak about any item on the agenda but within the jurisdiction of the plans and programs committee. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. oh, yes. sorry. >> i think i may have come in late. i do not know if you have talked about caltrain at all? commissioner campos: any other member of the public? seeing none, public comment is closed. next item. >> adjournment. commissioner campos: meeting adjourned. thank you, colleagues.

captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- supervisor mar: good morning, everyone. this is the finance committee of the sentences county transportation authority. our clerk is arabericka cheng. could you please call item no. 2? >> this is an action item. approval of minutes of the february 8, 2011 meeting. supervisor mar: is there anyone

from the public that would like to speak? seeing no one, public comment is closed. let's move forward without objection. please call item no. 3. >> report on the tel trained fiscal crisis. supervisor mar: this hearing was called by commissioner elsbernd. supervisor ksupervisor elsberndk you. let's go straight to staff. i do not know that we need much of an introduction. you do a pretty fine introduction. >> good morning, commissioners. i am the deputy ceo for cal train. i would like to walk you briefly through what is going on. i am going to talk about tell train service and a little bit about what the hell train is, the history of the partners

contribution, san francisco, santrans, and the county transportation authority. laying out our next steps. caltrans is a 77 mile route from san francisco to gilroy. we are over 40,000 people per day riding that train. we have 32 stations in 19 cities and currently run 86 trains per day, 22 of which are very popular. on the weekend we run 36 trains and are running a pilot for peak service in 2009. caltrans has been through a series of changes.

through those changes, we have seen service increases leading to wider ship increases. funded from the farebox and three member agencies, continuing to face the uncertainty with state funding. santrans has a structural deficit. in fiscal year 2011 they reduced production -- introduced a reduction. they are continuing to propose contributions to fiscal year 2012. so, with the uncertainty for one of the partners, cal train already had a structural issue. they do not have dedicated or stable funding sources. in 2010 and 2011, service was reduced to help with the budget.

we continued to rely on one time funds. our current contract is with amtrak, bringing change to the system. this is a writer should graf in what you see if the bust of 2003 and 2004, then writer ship -- ridership growing again. i think that the 2011 projection is very conservative and i expect it to be higher than that.