presentation. i just want to really personally thank the staff at the transportation authority and sfmta for working really closely with our office on how we can fully implement this plan. as many of my colleagues may remember, prior to my time on the board, the tenderloin like [speaker not understood] transportation was formulated through back stud any 2006 and was finally approved in 2007. however, since then a lot of the long-term pedestrian improvement streetscaping and traffic calming that was prioritized in this plan were not able to be seen as fully implemented over the last couple of years. and i know that there has been some other obstacles, mainly around some of the folks that we had around cpmc and speed at which that might happen. so, since that conversation, since the slow down, you've had some really good conversationsst both with staff and also members of our community and the tenderloin on how we could secure funds to

help continue these pedestrian safety efforts and really one of the most dangerous neighborhoods to be a pedestrian. so, really excited. i think that this project is really good candidate for the life line transportation program and will go a long way towards fulfilling the promise of the eddy ellis traffic calming improvement project which is a key part of this plan. and just also want to recognize when director reiskin came into office last year, he really did find a way to make sure we start the two-way efforts. went ahead on mc allister and immediately worked to get things back on track. we're still looking forward to build outs and signals on leavenworth and jones and cost-effective sidewalk widening options like [speaker not understood] acknowledging that sidewalk widening can be very expensive here in the city. and, so, just extremely pleased that we are able to use some of our regional dollars to support some local planning efforts and really some of our low-income

and most impacted neighborhoods. and, so, yesterday we did -- supervisor yee, wiener and i did hold a hearing on pedestrian safety where we talked a lot about how we needed -- we had a need for our agencies to work together more and communicate more, deliver projects. but i think this is really an instance over the last several months where our office was able to work really closely with a variety of different agencies to hammer out a solution to these funding gaps. so, i just wanted to appreciate that that was able to occur and it really did happen. and i also want to recognize the southeast asian community center, asian neighborhood design and tenderloin housing clinics who helped do planning and outreach for this project. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor. >> thank you, commissioner, for the introduction. [speaker not understood] with the authority. this item starts on page [speaker not understood] of your packet. and the recommended action is to program the federal transportation funds or stp

funds with [speaker not understood] funding source for life line transportation program as shown in attach. ~ attachment 1 on page 33 of your packet. many of you know from the previous action from this program, the life line program supports as supervisor kim mentioned, supports the project that benefited low-income residents as guided by the metropolitan transportation commission. [speaker not understood]. the life line program for the first time [speaker not understood] agencies have advocated for the [speaker not understood] funding source that can fund bicycling improvements [speaker not understood]. so, we are really excited this funding source has been added to the mix. and as you can see from the slide, [speaker not understood] fund transit related projects.

[speaker not understood] received one application for referral amount of life line funds for construction phase of the eddy and ellis project. [speaker not understood] starting page 35 of your packet and the full application in the enclosure. [speaker not understood] the two way conversion of the one way [speaker not understood] on eddy and ellis which [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood]. and you may also recognize this

project again as commissioner kim explained from the [speaker not understood] discussion because it was submitted for [speaker not understood] but not included for various reasons. the [speaker not understood] was adopted with special condition committing us to reconsider the [speaker not understood] pending the project discussion among stakeholders. [speaker not understood] we have been working with commissioner kim's office, sfmta members and other stakeholders to develop funding strategies [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood]. as early as july 2013. [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood]. i'm happy to answer any questions and i believe mta

staff is here to answer. any questions? >> thank you. i see no questions from my colleagues. let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? and we have ms. saks from the cac. one thing this item was brought up at the last cac meeting and one item -- one thing that i brought -- one point that i brought up was with the conversion of eddy and ellis being two way streets, whether that would interfere with the way the buses are running now. with the overheads and this sort of thing, you have to take that into the station. the buses are running now and the overhead wiring, you have to take that into consideration

as well. but thank you very much. >> thank you, ms. saks. is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, can we move this forward without objection? >> so moved. >> [gavel] >> thank you. ms. cheng, please call the next item. >> item number 6, recommend approval of the designation of lead agencies for the 2013 prop k 5-year prioritization program updates, allocation of $193,000 in prop k funds, with conditions, to the san francisco municipal transportation agency for development of eleven 2013 5ypp updates, and amendment of the relevant 2009 5ypp's. this is an action item. >> thank you. we have a staff report. >> good morning, chair and committee members. chad raft man with the transportation authority. at the march plans and programs committee meeting we presented the 2013 prop k strategic plan and five-year prioritization plan update approaching schedule. that included a presentation on the key components of the prop k program such as the purpose and requirements of the strategic plan in the five-year

prioritization programs or fypps. from the overall update today we're proposing lead agency designations for development of each of the 21 5ypps. that is included in the expansion plan. the [speaker not understood] are shown on page 44 of the agenda packet. there is a 5ypp for each of the 21 programmatic categories within prop k. so, that means specific -- programs like street resurfacing, bike [speaker not understood] programs where there is no specific named project. the lead agency acts in a coordination role as opposed to a veto role and works with the authority and other project sponsors eligible for prop k funds in each of those categories. today's action item on the agenda also includes a request from the sfmta for $193,000 in prop k funds for the development of 11 of those 5ypps for which mta is the lead agency. the expenditure plan allows prop k funds to be allocated to lead agencies for the

development of these 5ypps. the sfmta is the so solo lead agency as part of the 2013 update. tasks include developing the prioritization methodology, projects, describing accomplishments to date with prop k [speaker not understood], and performing outreach. the full allocation request can be found on page 47 of the packet and there is a list of deliverables include with this allocation request on page 63 of the packet. with that, i can take questions on anything presented in the memo. we also have staff from the sfmta to answer questions. >> okay, i see no question. let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, can we accept this with a positive recommendation without objection? >> so moved. >> thank you. [gavel] >> ms. cheng, please call the next item. >> item 7, san francisco safe routes to school program update. this is an information item. >> thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. [speaker not understood],

deputy director for policy and programming. i'll just give some quick introductory remarks and invite [speaker not understood] from the department of public health to give a powerpoint presentation that you should have in front of you as well. when the metropolitan transportation commission approved the 1 bay area grant framework back in may of 2012, they approved the second cycle of the regional safe routes to schools program, the $20 million at a regional level. san francisco's share based on our k through 12 enrollment is about $1.4 million. the first cycle was programmed back in 2010. this funded work that the safe routes to schools coalition under the department of public health and at the san francisco unified school districts, and a large host of partner agencies have implemented in air yawtion schools and you'll hear an update of the status of that program. ~ area the proposal is to use second

cycle funds for [speaker not understood] urging to further develop this program. there are limited resources available for noninfrastructure, safe routes to schools traveling programs and the ultimate goal is reducing vehicle emission. there is a tie to the federal funding sources available. back in 2010 the authority also programmed the $500,000 to the sunset elementary and [speaker not understood] project that you saw the local match allocation earlier in this agenda. so, with that, i would invite anna to speak. you will see this item again in june at the plans and programs committee when we will likely be bringing a recommendation to program the second cycle funds to the further development of the coalition's work. and this will allow us to meet a june 30th deadline of a recommendation to mtc for programming. >> thank you.

ms. belaczek. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is anna [speaker not understood]. i'm with the hep department. -- health department. i'm here to give you a quick overview of the safe routes to school and what we are propose tog do, high level review of what we're propose totion do with the cycle 2 funds. so, just to establish what the program need is, when i was walking to school, almost half of us in the nation were walking to school and now it's down to approximately 15%. ask it has a lot of unintended consequences, particularly from a public health perspective. we have an increase in injuries, we have an increase in childhood obesity. the arrows should be switched. we have a decrease in air quality and an increase in traffic congestion. and we have an increase in crime and violence around the schools because there's no eyes on the street. safe routes to school is only part of that solution, but we're a big part. so, the program overview, the goal is to increase walking and

biking to and from school and make sure that it's safe to do so at the same time. we are working in 15 elementary schools around the city. we have one -- at least one in each supervisorial district, except for district 2 and i'll talk about that in a minute. but we have tried to provide some geographic equity around the city. and we base our program on the international model of the 5es. education, encouragement, enforcement, engineering, and evaluation. this particular funding source actually only funds three of those 5es. the education encouragement and evaluation. it does not allow the funding for traffic enforcement and it does not allow for funding for engineering. i believe the transportation authority has allowed mta and others to apply to the 1 bay area grant to fulfill the engineering piece of that, and we are pursuing other funding for the traffic enforcement piece.

this is a map of the schools that we are operating in right now across the city. as i mentioned, we do not have a school in district 2. there are only two public schools in district 2. sherman and spring valley. this is a city-wide application process and neither one of those schools applied, even after phone calls asking them to join. so, when we have a next round and there is a space available, we will be in a special outreach to district 2. you can see unless -- every other supervisorial district is represented at least once and some of them have two schools. >> [speaker not understood], i think there's a million dollars upper level and then there's marina middle school that's within district 2 as well. >> we are only operating right now in elementary schools [speaker not understood]. and [speaker not understood] according to the data has so few families living within a mile of that school that it's a very hard ask to ask them to walk or bike to school. >> okay.

>> so, what we are currently doing, in terms of the education piece, we are going into the classroom. we do kindergarten lessons and first grade lessons, teaching the kids about the benefits of biking and walking to school why it's so important, both from a health perspective and environmental perspective. we go into the second grade to teach them about walking, especially safety. we actually take a mini field trip around the block, teach them how to cross the streets. and the fourth grade we have partner the presidio y program. they come with vans and bikes and set up a bike skills rodeo on the yard and teach children how to wear their helmets safely and run through an obstacle course. and as you can see in almost every grade we reach about a thousand students. for the encouragement, this is the fun piece of safe routes to school. we have walk to school day which is the first october annually every year, and i believe most of you have participated this past year was

at buena vista horace man. bike to school week is actually next week and we hope you are planning on attending. the highlight school will be groton in district 5. and -- but the main point of this program is to establish what we call walking school buses and bike trained. these are regular occurring events chaperoned by parents and caregivers to have children walking to and from school or biking to and from school on a regular basis. ideally we'd like to see it once a week. that's a little tough so we ask for once a month. and then of course we want to reach parents and caregivers. the first year of the grant our main goal of the program was to educate chill drink and we didn't see any mode shift. and it turns out children, the elementary school children are not the ones making the decisions about how they get to school. so, we've learned our lesson and now the primary focus of our grant should be reaching the parents and the caregivers

on educating them on how to walk with their children to and from school and bikes. ~ and, of course, evaluation, we do an evaluation, the travel tallies and the parent surveys. the travel tallies are an identified validated tool nationally. all national -- in the nation use these travel tallies to evaluate their program and we use the parent surveys to look at what parents think and do about -- think about their children walking and bicycle to and from school. interestingly enough, three of the top five concerns are traffic related for parents. the safety of intersections and crossings, amount of traffic, speed of traffic. the other two are distance and violence and crime. and before we started the program, the violence and crime were remarkv%backerranked number one. now it's the lease. ~ ranked and the traffic concern has bumped higher. we started in 2009, so, we're in our fourth year of operation

. i think that's 4. just so you can see, overall we've had a 1% increase in walking, a half% increase in biking and 1% decrease in single-family vehicle driving. that doesn't sound like a lot, but that is a huge significant shift for us, especially since last year the first year we did some really significant parent caregiver outreach. out of all the 15 schools, 12 out of 15 have seen increased rates of walking, bicycle, three schools have seen 3% drop in vehicle driving. if you're interested i can get the data on the individual schools for you. on top of that, for our grant deliverables ~ we wanted to look at a way to work -- how to figure out how to prioritize the school district because there are so many schools in the city and how do we prioritize our needs. so, partner with ucsf to do a district wide school youth study. this includes i the middle and high school. and this is actually the first

time anyone has ever looked at the school commute data at all. ~ and we've done it three years in a row. we can see a quarter of the children in elementary school walk and bike -- walk and bike to and from school. that 23% of the students live within a half a mile. another 19% live within a half mile to mile buffer, and that is actually over the buffers that are sort of the rule of thumb of how far a child could walk or bike to school. so, we still have a lot more families that we could be working with. >> anna, earlier you said there's about 40 to 50% of the population, 40 years ago walk to school. and then -- >> nationwide. >> and then 15% today nationwide walk. but it looks like san francisco has double -- >> we're higher than the national average for sure. >> okay. >> we're at -- i think due to -- this is my personal opinion. due to san francisco's density, we don't -- we have schools located within the city whereas

a lot of other nations, the schools are being located outside of the city buffers because that's cheaper land and it's harder to walk or bike. >> and i know commissioners campos and former president for the school board yee and kim know that focus more on or proximity to schools and the changes in student assignment will probably lead to even more people walking. >> and that's one of the things we're looking for. we want to try to do this school commute study every year to see as each grade moves through, how does the transportation choices shift. >> i think this is really great. i'd like to also know about parochial and also private schools. i know there's, what, about nine schools in richmond district, 27 i think total including private and parochial schools. >> there's 12 to 15 private independent and 50 to 70 plus parochial. we don't have transportation data on them.

anecdotally, we hear they travel from further distances than the half mile buffer. but we don't have any data for that and we would love to be able to figure out how to reach those, at least the parochial system i hope -- i imagine there is a centralized system. it's been a little difficult to find those, the right contact person for that. if you have any help with that, please let me know. so, based on this data, we saw research article and that was identified as best practice of how do prior advertised schools in a school district look at pedestrian injuries ~ and looking at how to prioritize capital projects around schools. so, i know this is in your packet, but i brought copies anyway. this is both for the noninfrastructure -- these are assistance for noninfrastructure and for capital projects. thank you.

the top sheet is for programming and the second sheet is for the capital projects. the way we -- for programming we have a different way of looking at the prioritization projects. for programming our goal to s to increase biking and walking. we're not going to be working in a school that already has really high rates of walking and biking. that defeats the purpose. we actually look at this column called nonwalkers within a mile. we look at a mid range of walker -- you know, children that are not as much walking, but still we also want to look at the column students living within a mile. we want to know that it's realistic to ask them to walk and bike. so, we try to look at -- we ask for a majority of families living within a mile and looking at low to mid range numbers of walkers. that's how we pick our schools for our programs. but for the capital projects,

the way our partner at mta look at that, they look at schools that have really high numbers of children walking and high numbers of injuries happening within a buffer of the school. so, that's the second page -- you can see jean parker is ranked number 1. that's at the foot of the broadway tunnel. >> did you go there, commissioner yee? >> yes. >> yes. >> so -- then you know firsthand. [laughter] >> and actually has done really well competitively for grants because we pulled this data together. and we can see all the different -- we can help pull all this data together for jean parker. for tier 1, the top nine schools, i think about half of these have already received a grant application and it's in process of being set up, or have received some kind of capital improvements. i know gordon lau and [speaker

not understood] received grants several years ago. i know tenderloin was just awarded one but it's in the process of going through, i believe environmental review and all of that. so, that's a quick snapshot of how we look at the school of district 1. i also want to point out this is also public elementary schools only. again, we don't have the data on the parochials and privates. and because we're only working in elementary we started this. but with this new funding we would like to look at middle and high. >> can i -- >> commissioner kim. >> thank you. by the way, thank you so much for this data. i've been wanting to see it and i appreciate being able to look at it now. it's very -- it's really interesting to see. i was curious in terms of the, the blue columns on the third page when you talk about the fatal injury collision and the severe -- is this done over a period -- a number of years? >> this is for a five-year period.

>> five-year period. >> and if i recall correctly, the last year was 2009. so, 2004 to 2009. >> and the fatal injury collisions, are these students, is that -- >> all ages, all ages. >> they might not have been walking to school, but it was a collision in front of that school? >> right. yes, our philosophy is that if a parent -- i'm a parent. if there was a fatal near my child's school regardless of how it happened, i would be lessen clydectionv less inclined to have them walk or bike to school. these are all traffic, but -- that's why we look at the pedestrian only involved collisions as well. and these are collisions. thea aren't injuries. >> this is really striking. ~ some of the numbers are super high. >> um-hm. >> and are in areas or with schools where clearly the proportion of students that

walk to school are also -- >> [speaker not understood], this is actually two years old now. we would actually like to refresh this in a year or so to see if the patterns have changed. may not have, but we would like to take a look. >> and you had mentioned yesterday that jean parker had gotten some funding for pedestrian safety improvements. would you talk about what they were and what maybe some of the outcomes [speaker not understood]? >> i cannot, but i'm going to ask rita reynolds from mta. i believe it's part of the streetscape project as well. >> yes, good morning, rita reynold from the sfmta. so, jean parker, the the planning department had a broadway streetscape project that they worked with the community to come up with several improvements. most of the capital improvements were curb extensions and some sidewalk widening and some improvements of the median. and, so, for those improvements that were closest to jean

parker, those were included in a [speaker not understood] application. i think that's one of the schools that's going to be considered for abag funding under that [speaker not understood] sort of umbrella. so, i would say the improvements haven't been in or not all the improvements are in yet. so we don't have before and after data yet. >> i'll be really curious to see what the impact of the improvements are. obviously we want to see reduction from the dollars we spend on capital improvement. so, looking forward to that. >> commissioner breed. >> thank you. i just wanted to know, did you have any information as to how many people are using public transportation and other modes of transportation to get to schools? >> the school commute study that ucsf has done is every single mode. it includes transit, it includes the school bus, it includes car pooling and single-family vehicle. >> do you know how we can get

or i can get a copy of that? >> i can send that to you. >> and also is that only elementary schools? >> no, that's the entire school district, elementary, middle, and high school. >> okay. i just -- i just find these statistics really interesting, but also a little alarming that -- >> it doesn't include the injury data. it just includes how -- what ucsf did was just looked at how children get to and from school. >> yeah, that's the data i'm talking about because not necessarily the injury and the issues there, although those are quite alarming as well. i know that -- i mean, i went to school here in the city, and we in large groups walked to school. and i look at rosa parks which is the school that i went to, and i see that only 87 kids

from that 395 actually walk to school and that's just really, really unfortunate. i know that there are recent issues with parents who are dropping their kids off to school and some issues with traffic and the cars and we -- i just -- we never had kids dropped off to school in a car and we had just a few buses and walkers. i don't think many of the kids even caught muni to elementary school. so, i'm just really concerned about that. i think it may have something to do with this new -- in recent years how kids are assigned to schools. and in many cases can't get into schools that are immediately across the street or within walking distance of their home, which i think is really unfortunate. >> it's true. and i think the school assignment system is