it may take two-five years' time. this is to give you an idea of the various area-wide projects around the city. total cost implement all of the measures as $27 million. more demand than resources of this particular moment. this is a visual. you feel like there has been such a late in demand or current demand even for traffic calming, that given various limited resources, that those requests are piling up. we are completing projects that we think our quality projects. we want to make sure those are focusing on where we have the most needs. that was mentioned as good and it is for seeing if we are completing projects in the area of most need. so in this allocation we are requesting there are various areas we want to address.

our program is strong and filled with other best practices. this is the last slide. these are some of the areas we want to address in the current effort. what we want to do is check the current best practices around the nation and see how we can rebalance the effort so we get the most bang for the buck. commissioner cohen: i was wondering what the traffic calming work you are doing around the state, i was wondering if you were in contrast with the state -- is the work being done to get there? >> certainly. we of stuff that is working with dpw to identify overlaps.

-- we have staff that is working with dpw to identify overlaps. >commissioner cohen: i was curious if you find one part of the city of with a greater need for traffic calming. maybe it is where the streets are more narrow. north beach is a little bit older. if there is any way you can add context -- >> sure. one of our goals is geographic and it would cost to the city, but we try to identify where the most issues are. in the past we have found a lot of traffic calming issues in the south and southeast part of the city, and also the middle of the city. what we're finding when you look at the safety directive is a lot of places are havinhappening ona

few key arterioles. we're trying to rebalance where we find the most applications in the most identified collisions. commissioner cohen: i assume this application is under your web site? under which tab? >> sfmta most livable streets, traffic calming. we will be putting the application process on hold. we want to match the application process. we're going to communicate that through your office as appropriate, through our web site come in current applications that we have. commissioner cohen: when will you open a back up? >> probably later this year is

when we will have a better idea of where we're headed. commissioner farrell: a few questions. as the representative of district two, there is not much color and no indust color in dit 3. can you talk about that a little bit more? >> it may be a blessing that we do not get many requests from your district, but we really are applicant-driven. we do not seek out the projects, they come to us. commissioner farrell: fair enough. the second question is, when i hear the word rebalancing, you're taking from peter to get to paul. that is inherently the case that someone will lose. i know one thing that i do a lot

in interaction with my constituents is try to be responsive to them. as we know on the board of supervisors, parking and traffic is at the mta, we cannot dictate anything really. we can advise, just come in traffic calming is something that is a big deal at times. things that i do not realize or stop does that have time to realize, it is no one -- staff does not realize. it strikes me this is moving away from that are being able to address those concerns. i hope is this is not we're going to stop doing that. my question is, how are we going to continue to address those issues? i do not want to be faced with an instance where there are cars are buzzing down my street, making it almost got run over if that happens every week.

i am sorry, there's nothing we can do about it. >> you are correct, there will be a shifting of funds, but there will still be a local program in place. our department is always able to respond to these requests. we will be a front that there will be less funding for local streets and more of a shift to arterial is where we see a lot of collisions happening. we want to be transparent about that, but we will still have a local streets program. commissioner farrell: i am all for getting more bang for our buck in pedestrian safety, but what is the magnitude? are we going from 5 to 1? if we cannot get anything done, that is born to be a problem. ." that remains to be seen, and that is what the process will help us determine. >> i think you probably all

heard from constituents that the program right now is very frustrating as it is. it is very frustrating for stop on our side, too. i think you'll see a number of fte's devoted to traffic calming rise as a result of this, because as we rethink the program, were over half of our severe and fatal head collisions happen on 7% of our streets. it is very obvious if we can focus more of the energy there, we can have a very big impact. we can probably avail ourselves of a wider array of funding sources. as we take a look at how the real problems are -- as we take a look at what the real problems are, and we tinker with a program to people do not feel hopeless and they get clear messages about -- right now the message is you might qualify

five years from now, because we're problem is not the worst in the city. it might be better to really give people a transparent and clear way of when they will qualify, rather than saying we to the q 43 or four years. we're trying to make the message more clear. -- rather than same weigait in e queue for three or four years. we will be coming back to this group at least three or mofour times to talk in detail. we do not want to be in that position more than you do telling people there is nothing more that we can do. commissioner farrell: i think it is great. clarity is terrific. generically hearing it, it is a frustrating process, and i appreciate that from staff, but

if you're going to take more money away from it, then it strikes me will only get worse. i hope that is not the case, because that is certainly a big deal for me. we will look forward to this the future discussions. i want to make sure that is considered as a huge priority going forward. >> absolutely. we would not take any kind of action or solution until we all agree that was the right direction to go. commissioner avalos: i am all for empowerment, and as a supervisor i feel not very empowered when i get presented many real concerns people have a around safety around parks in intersections that are not necessarily arterial, that our local, and i feel responsible to respond and have solutions in place, but do not always feel they are there. i know this is a dynamic process and it will continue,

and we're really looking forward to working closely with you in planning solutions. commissioner olague: i share a lot of the concerns that commissioner cfarrell and avalos raised. i know was some point, it was mentioned we can go to the website, and i do want to look at district five, because whether it is a community meeting or meeting in office, most of the constituents's concerns directly relate to traffic calming, i think. not the majority, but a big percentage. i would like to see what is in the pipeline for district five. most of it is constituent- driven, but concerns keep on coming up, the same ones come up

there might be times when i might want to request something or engage in some dialogue with you all based on what i am hearing from constituents. where do i get a list? do i meet with you? do i go on liline? >> as part of our application we did put together a list district by district of all the different applications we have it. there are ripped out five different places they could be, and we can provide that to you. we have one for each district. just a little over a month we received $2 million to move forward with implementation, so implementation will not stop. that will be continuing. we're planning to make good on promises we are ready made and move forward with community process and implementation of

speed bumps and other things of that nature. implementation will be continuing. we will figure out how we could traffic calming a little bit better and then we will open up the process again from a bridge towards the end of the year. certainly, we are always open and available to talk with you about traffic issues in your district. >> you have in your package in front of you all of the traffic calming area wide plans. it has a map of the city-wide, map for each of the planning areas, table that and edifies each of the traffic calming solutions identified in the area wide plan, and the current status of that, down to the speed hub level. commissioner olague: that is the level of detail i was looking for. commissioner avalos: if there are no other comments or questions from the committee, we

will go on to public comment. >> a good morning, again. and the parkton with the san francisco bicycle coalition. regarding long-term bike planning, to state the obvious, as more people are bicycling, parking will be more important. we support the mta boss modest allocation request to do some master planning on that. we look forward to the supervisors' committee later this week to take a supervisor at avalos' measure to allow commercial buildings. on traffic calming, we are supportive of this as well. we are most supportive of the process of the mta developing a strategic monitor system. previously, citizens would come and complain about and material -- an arterial.

arterioles and now be regarded as something it has in great need. this great need of a rebalancing interests, we are going to serve more people and help more people and save more lives if we can get some attention on the arterial. so there is a little bit of equity there. also, those are the streets were often bicycle and transit trips are happening. we want to hit multiple policy objectives. let me dwell on that for a second. to commissioner cohen's point about prop b, i hope this will put mta in a position to make sure we combine multiple funding sources, opportunities, so that we do not just drop in and do traffic calming or a bike project, but that we do a complete street projects. further down the agenda, we will

be talking about the one bay area grant and the move to blend the money and to be smarter about it. i am looking for to having traffic, and come forward as a piece of larger projects. we spoke about second street last week. that is a poster child of the kind of project -- commissioner avalos: thank you very much. >> commissioners, at the previous meeting, one of the commissioners, carmen chu, brought up the topic of how applications were forwarded to the mta and other agencies, and how the determination was made as to how money was spent. i heard a couple of people come here and say everything is going to come to a halt, and they are

going to revisit what they have on their list. i would like this list to be posted on the website so that we can review this. what is happening here is, as much as the constituents of san francisco -- and in some areas, we have a focus groups that understand planning and other things. as we submit these plans, we do not have any idea of how it will be implemented. if you have a road, avenue, and you talk about it, but it does that have a lighting, and it does is not incorporated, you see something is missing. we need to have it and holistic approach. at the last meeting, you heard about what was happening at second and folsom st., what was

going to happen on cargo way. there is no way you can address putting a bicycle track on cargo way with millions of vehicles flying down the street. this determination is made by some people who think they are smart, but again and again, -- literally, it is a slap in the face of constituents. we can talk the talk, but we better learn to walk the walk. we need to put that on the website to interact with commissioners. commissioner avalos: thank you. next speaker please. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, this item is before us. motion to approve from

commissioner kim. seconded by commissioner olague. without objection. thank you. next item please. >> item 7. regional transportation plan/sustainable communities strategy update. this is an information item. >> good morning, committee members. i will be presenting this item. this is an update on the regional transportation plan sustainable community strategy. we provided updates to this committee several times over the course of that process but i recognize there are several new committee members here today, so i will give a bit of context before going into the update. regional transportation plan, rtp, is the long-range transportation investment policy for the nine-county region. it died out federal, state, regional discretionary funds are distributed within the area. there is $60 billion expected to be available in the next 25

years, and rtp sets policy for that money goes. there is a new context with this rtp as a result of a state law that was passed. senate bill 355, that requires the transportation process to be linked with a land use and housing process, in order to achieve goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and planning adequate housing for the region. the process has been going on for over a year already. key milestones related to transportation, the first one was a year ago, when mtc ask for project ideas from the nine counties. we hosted that process here in san francisco. the second process that is now wrapping up is an assessment evaluating each of those projects against our goals for the planning project. we now have the results, and that will be used, along with other considerations, to decide the preferred in business strategy.

moving towards the preferred investment strategy is what you want to touch on today briefly. the project performance assessment is something that mtc conducts for all of the projects that are seeking discretionary funding through the regional transportation plan. there are two components to it. for the projects on the more expensive side, greater than $50 million, there is a quantitative where the impacts and benefits are quantified and compared against costs to calculate a benefit to cost ratio. and then a qualitative look at how the project will advance the 10 performance objectives of the plan. the goal of this planning process, testament, is not to read all the projects under consideration. rather, it is to identify out liars. on a high performing out wire side, let's make sure as we move into the preferred investment strategies, these are included

if there is a financial way to do so. on the low performing side, it is not an automatic you are out of the rtp, but let's look more carefully at the project and ask the project sponsor or congestion management agency to make a compelling case if the project is desired to continue to be included in the rtp. the result for san francisco, on a high performing side, we fare very well. out of 13 projects in the region that were identified as high performers, seven are in san francisco, including some of our local transit projects, van ness, of brt project, more regional projects, caltrain electrification, and also some of the pricing initiatives that san francisco is developing locally. with respect to low performers, there was just one project in san francisco.

that is the historic streetcar expansion program. this project has two components to it. the first is building a turnaround at fourth and king that would enable creation of a new line, e line, and would operate between fourth and came and to the fisherman's wharf. the second component is extending the f line from its current terminus to fort mason. mtc has said that project is at the cusp of a low performer. added benefit to cost ratio of 0.9, with a cup threshold of being one. there have also given cmas information about how to move forward from here. in particular, three criteria that we might use to make a compelling case as to why the project should continue to be considered for the rtp. we are confident that will not be an issue for this project. the project has a significant

benefits to recreational and tourist trips, given the fishermen fourth area. the mtc model, there is a noted limitation and not being able to represent visitor tourist trips very well. we have been working closely with the sfmta and the national parks service to whip together a letter that puts together our case to the mtc. we would also present that at the march planning committee meeting. other low performers -- there were 31 in the region. we are feeling pretty good about having only one in san francisco. they run the gamut from transit expansion to roadway expansion. a parallel effort to the performance assessment was an equity analysis. it can be paraphrased as some bad news, some good news. there was a scenario level

looking at a set of transportation projects, if they are implemented, changing how future land use is distributed, what direction are we headed? one of the metrics they looked at was the share of income spent on housing and transportation for low-income households. for this metric, the trend was a bit alarming. the share of income increases from 77% to 89% in the future. the purpose of doing the equity analysis at this phase in the process is that we can identify that issue, and as the planning effort moves forward, abag will come back with some strategies on how to mitigate that. the second component of the analysis was a project-level of an individual projects. today advance three equity measures that mtc has defined? and do they support a community of concern? with respect to that analysis,

san francisco is looking very good. 80% of our projects are identified as ones that have strong equity outcomes and support community concerns. that is good news as well. commissioner olague: can i have more detail with that? >> at the project level or scenario level? commissioner olague: to see that it was actually meeting the equity outcome. >> we can also forward to your office more information. they looked at three specific targets for equity. one was related to whether a particular project would help support housing and additional, affordable housing. the second was whether the project would reduce vehicle travel in the areas that have a high concentration of particulate matter. the third was whether it would

have an impact on the low income household transportation costs, making it less expensive. those three targets, there was a reading of the their adverse impact, minimal impact, moderate, or strong. in the case of the san francisco project, almost all of them came out at least with moderate or strong support. almost all of them serve a community of concern. commissioner olague: i would love to see that information. >commissioner avalos: commissioner kim? commissioner kim: i just wanted to follow up on commissioner olague's question. you say that they read each project their behalf -- each project that we have. >> what is the question? commissioner kim: i am asking

you how they evaluate for the moderate, strong impact. >> i do not think i can give you a good answer, but i can get back to you more on this methodology. it is something they just released to us on friday. commissioner kim: there are specific goals they want us to meet around a low income housing, a transit hubs. it is not that we are meeting the goal, it is that we are achieving a far better than any county. >> there are two statutory goals required as a result of senate bill 355. those relate to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50% per capita by 2040. the second is to identify a strategy to house 100% of the region's housing in by income level. you are right. so far, in the planning process, there has not been a strategy identified to achieve either of those goals.

it is not something that they break down by county. in addition to that, big picture, we cannot get the individual transportation products that may go into the plan and say this one is not making things worse. this is information that can inform the policy makers in coming to the rtp investment strategy. >> to commissioner kim's question, you are correct. we are not necessarily meeting the goals today, but when you compare san francisco's situation with the region and you remembered transit share in the rest of the region is about 4%, and here is about 30%, higher than that at rush hour, and you look at the density that already exists in the city, then of course, we do better than the rest of the region by an order of magnitude. but also remember we are talking

about samaras for a long-range plan. we are talking about the next 30 years. it is not about achieving these things tomorrow. what helps the city is a requirement for affordable housing where there is submitted in amounts of development, particularly on the eastern side of the city. that brings of the correspondence between land use and transportation, planning, the same area where we provide affordable housing. that explains why products to better in other parts of the region. commissioner kim: i am aware we are doing better than other counties around transit, making sure we have a diversity of household incomes new transit hubs, but as commissioner olague mentioned, it would be nice to get the specifics. i know we may not need a pro rated goal each year, a goal that want to reach by 24 a, others will do better. but it is a good idea of where we are at.