data, the turning around of the mini rail cars and be able to look at that geographically and how different neighborhoods are experiencing those and that's one example but many other types of reliability data such as on time performance there is not a geographic data set that we can use for that. so again, in summary, what i would say is that communities of concern tend to have disproportionate experience of some of the safety issues as far as bike pedestrian collisions. other than that we didn't find that the poor transportation conditions are particularly concentrated in communities of concern. there are geographic patterns, but and we can use that though help guide the plan but not necessarily something

we call inequity. so i'm happy to take any guess that and there is also a part two that miss bryce on will present. >> shall we hold questions until miss bryce son finished. >> good morning. i'm here to represent the item on correlation study. this is a study analysis that we formed for the transportation plan. here we have defined the core as generally the south of market area thinking about it in the context of mission bay, market -- there are some areas, you know from the land use side we have from the transbay to even neighborhood co4th street corridor e

and there is tremendous work on the transportation side where there are existing communities and plans for a lot of additional residents and john's. -- jobs. how can we make this area more livable. so there has been a lot of work done but never been a comprehensive look at if we do all of these land use transportation things together, what will things look like and how will transportation performance be. that's critical on the part to do this san francisco plan because it's a part of the city where so much is going on and it's where our main job centers are. i did also want to note, we've been doing this with a lot of input from other san francisco agencies and there is a nice interaction between this work and the central corridor work the planning department has been leading and the

transportation ideas they are rolling out through that plan has been informed by this work. so, the approach was to look at a future year 2040 with all of land use transportation with several transportation performance metrics. the focus of today's presentation is on a few of them which we reveal some sort of a problem. i should not there is a lot of things that go into the note for making the better area for people who are wanting to bike and walk to this area. we have three bills remains and require additional work to address. i will recap them quickly and have a couple slides on each of them and what the findings and recommendations are. the first problem relates to what was the impact in terms of an increase in trip making on the actual network and at

that the increase in demand to make auto trips on the limited supply leads to a break down of the scenario. the second problem has to do with transit issues and even if we were to address this grid lock issue, there is performance issues present. the third problem relates to the non-motorized modes. a lot of improvements to the facility there but there is going to be conflicts at intersection because of the share increase of more trips by all modes of transportation. so starting on that first problem, the problem of breaking the core network, what we found is that during the p.m. peak hour, the demand for auto trip making would be significantly more than the amount of space than

is available. we worked with some of our consultants who did an analysis well how much less traffic would we need in order to not have a broken network. >> i see karma -- karma >> it's a real challenging problem. >> so what they found out through some analysis on their behalf is we would need to actually reduce auto volumes on the streets by 27 percent to get to not even what you call maybe a well functioning network but not broken network. what do we do about this problem? it's a challenging one. we looked at a whole range of strategies, everything from demand management strategies like like having

very strict limitations on new parking supply on this part of town and looking more on the side of increasing transit, reliability or frequency or improving our biking and walking modes. the challenges that it's none of that seems to be enough to really tip the needle. the demand management had the greatest impact especially when paired with mobility i am improvements. the reality is if we are making soma such an attractive place to people might want to be there the congestion is a reality. handout you -- how can we get people there by other mode. we need a package of demand management and mobility improvement. that might not be enough to address the congestion issue so then the question becomes what are the types of things that we can do to improve the conditions for the other modes and can

sort of imagine increasing challenging things and the easier end improving our signals to make them the best they can be to prioritize the speeds of transit and walker's and bikers can enhance the speed and sidewalks another step up from that would be making the entire streets only for walking, biking and transit and the holy grail, is there underground transit and additional subways in the other parts of the city. that's problem one. problem two relates to transit and this analysis assumes what if we were to get to that 27 percent reduction that we would need. well, transit issues still remain and one of the reasons we are so concerned about that first problem is because of it's impact to motorist because

congestion impact the way buses can move through streets and impact how easy and safe it is to actually cross intersection if you are a walker or biker. so problems remain related to flow bus beads, related to crowding. this assumes the tep moves forward. it has an impact in addressing crowds but we are still seeing remaining issues after that. the recommendations for problems two, how can we improve transit performance. one thing that we think is worth thinking more about is maybe it's time for a larger network of transit only streets in the soma area or lanes on the soma street. right now there is only mission and market as the eaststreet that h

line. maybe we need another north south pair on east west streets and we thought the freeway may make a good candidate for that and we need more higher capacity and more frequent service and i know that mta is working on that. also think about how we can use our on and off ramps in our freeway system to account for better transit. we studied this concept for on and off onramps for car pools only and that's another idea to solve this problem. the third problem relates to the non-motorized modes. this chart shows change in trips by mode between toda and our planned future year and

you can see it for a downtown the south of market mission bay area and market areas. one thing to note the downtown area is not showing any increase in autos in the future but shows increase in transit non-motor rised trips. even though we are seeing more transit in non-auto trips and think about the congestion today and think about another 35,000 more auto vehicles and that could be a problem and that problem manifest itself in i'm a pedestrian, i need to cross the street and this motorist is trying to speed through and that could be a dangerous situation. recommendations for that third problem. they are working through the pedestrian central -- strategy through

their bike to have the highest quality of bike's ability and widen sidewalks and give preference to those modes and that type of things. wrapping up here there is two flavors to the recommendations. a lot of it is to support a lot of work that is already under way. we've been doing a lot of good planning work to address these issues yet challenges remain. i talked about this freeway ramp management study and you heard about the transit performance initiative through previous presentations through the s ftp and regional planning process. another idea is considering the idea of repair and improving the connection because they are sort of can be two points in getting into and out of mission bay since there is only a

couple ways to do so. so wrapping up, you will see this work being folded into the transportation plan and what we call or strategic initiate ifs as well as the investment side. i will be happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. colleagues we've just had the equity analysis update, the draft equity analysis from rachel hyatt from the ta and the core network. any questions? >> i was going to ask for the challenge for the community to concern and lower income communities. many really demanding increased operations funding over potential capital projects and i'm wondering how

especially for miss hyatt what you think about that delicate balance for capital balance for low income but also process in speeding up the lines? >> yes. in the outreach that we've been doing on sftp we hear that people from all neighborhoods in san francisco are interested in the basics reliable transportation serves service and we are working into that investment scenario that we are drafting. we heard that from every neighborhood that we talked to when we've been doing outreach. >> the other part of the equity analysis looked at regional transit in the number of transfers that people and communities have concerned they

have to take and i see that parts of the richmond district pretty much exactly where i live is some of the lowest opportunities for regional transit and i think the golden gate bridge district buses are ones that are in parts of the district. what are ways to cover that lack of regional connection for areas of concern? >> there are capitals such as bart to the bay but what are some more affordable with an it's to do that? there may be a supplemental express but service that connects to the area. but as we found when we did that analysis, there are parts of the city that are

seven-day -- served by those is services and types of buses that are provided by private companies. we can address some of that gap and access through some other ways like with express buses perhaps. >> thank you. commissioner kim? >> thank you. i really appreciate it this presentation just talking about some of the congestion we are seeing particularly in the south of market. i actually did find the comments about how to reduce some of the congestion within the neighborhood to be in incredibly important. i just want to kind of concur with some of the thinking around that i think traditionally the way munis has been set up is a

lot of west east transit because typically that's whenever people are moving, but we don't have a lot in south north. i know in mission bay there is a sense of feeling a little locked into that neighborhood because the only line that serves that neighborhood is the t line and it only goes in one direction. for those who have ridden the t it can be slow for a different number of reasons. i still -- e counter a lot of residents using auto transportation for that mode. given the sense that they are travel and given the lack of alternate transportation kind of mode, that that is what they are forced to do. i think that helping to reduce nts

of that some of the conversation around north south. i know that with better market street there is conversation of moving the 14th mission to market street to help focus market street to increase the public transit efficiency is there while maybe putting protective bike lanes on mission street but it's around the south of market that gets moved slightly more north and there is a lack of buses moving. west east is not right because it diagonal but you understand what i'm saying from water to van ness. the blocks are really long and there are ways to make the south market more walkable and that is a bigger financial investment, whether we make it two way and have more cross blocks. that's more of a long term solutions. to have munis buses that serve more of the corridor more south

of mission where we are starting to see more residents as well makes a lot of sense. after the presentation there was a couple of pages on this. i -- presentation. i didn't know if you went through it but i need help understanding it. this is the 3 slides we are after. >> so we were trying to commence the presentation because there is some of the analysis we did just understanding trip making happening in this part of the city. this slide shows a break down of both what we would call two trips. either starting or ending in that mission bay area and pass through that area and

don't have in the mission bay area. so the trip ends are the blue ones so the bottom ones shows the trip ends . the green ones show the true trips and we see the are through trips. there are more through trips than trip ends. the other thing you are seeing here is how many trips are starting somewhere else in san francisco versus how many are starting elsewhere in the region. that part is interesting too. you might expect all the through trips to be regional trips but there is quite a few local trips as well. this shows the three scenarios beats 2011 year of baseline in the future and baseline prime is unfriendly way of explaining that adds in

additional assumptions of the land projects . that's the first one and then we did two sets of map that map, well, where are those two trips come to and from and the next one and where are the through trips. they both tell a relatively similar story and this one focuses on the mission bay area and the darker colors indicate more trips. the red is the absolute number in the future and the blue is the change between today and in the future. so see the areas lighting up partly because they are big areas and also include where a lot of the city is planned in the review hunter point shipyard area in the mission eastern neighborhood area and downtown just because

there are so many trips downtown, even though a lot of them happen, there is a lot happening there. >> can i ask a clarifying question around that. if i reading this, the red graph, this is the number of the residents that are driving to the south of market mission bay in pure numbers? >> it wouldn't be just residents, it would be anyone starting or ending a trip. >> it's interesting the larger numbers are the neighborhoods that are closest to the south of market and when you look at the sunset enrichment are driving it doesn't look like they are taking the bus. >> it's how many trips over all are happening between those two places and the others by private vehicle or transit or walking. i would hypothesize there is less volumes happening going to the mission bay area.

but i don't know off the top of my head and the shear amount of that has been planned is going to transform the way it happens. >> so it's a mixture of the density and the nearby neighborhood that contributes versus proportion of residents that drive through. >> you point out about these neighboring districts are the ones with huge amount of other trips and really points opportunities that these are trips that are short enough that could probably accommodated if you make it really attractive to bike, for example, more of those trips can happen by biking instead of driving. >> thank you very much for walking me through that. >> sure. >> i had another inequity question. i know we have a

number of items. i wonder if you are talk about the bicycle and pedestrian accidents. i know you had a couple good slides and it does seem like the lower income you are or the highest density of an area, but especially the socioeconomic disparity seems to be at play in bicycle and resident accidents. can you explain that dynamic and also what solutions there are to look forward in transportation planning? >> part of it happens to be that some of the lower income parts of san francisco are also the most dense parts of san francisco so there is greater number of people in some of these areas that are designated as areas of concern. with more density there is more and greater density of pedestrians ieanns and more collisions happening

in the soma, in the tenderloin, in downtown areas. in the outer neighborhoods, the reason why there is greater risk for collision, i'm not sure that that has been established exactly yet, but there is many possible reasons. there may be autos driving at faster speeds, there may be less pedestrian infrastructure, although we don't have a great spatial data set for pedestrian infrastructure. that's what we have identified too that it would be hopeful to have a better geographic of understanding of what pedestrian conditions are like throughout the city in a data set so we can understand where to target investment. the pedestrian strategy that mta has developed, it does, it's the same data that they used, this collision data. we are

using the same data here that they used to develop the pedestrian strategy. it's very aligned in the sense of targeting those parts of the city that are experiencing the greatest volumes of collision as well as the greatest risk for collisions. >> thank you. >> good morning. thank you for the questions, the community and staff who have been serving in the pedestrian safety task force are getting to the point where we can answer the questions more confidently. we understand there is a need. there is going to be a follow up effort to the mayor's task force with a strategy taking into this next form a prioritization exercise to take on capital improvement projects following on the hearings. one

of the things that we've identified in our strategies is potentially identifying through the five year prioritization coming up any of these categories, pedestrian circulation and bicycle circulation and that's an at some point to really bright advertise those -- prioritize those i am improvements and maybe they deserve extra consideration or assistance. another use potential ly of some funds of these processes. a lot of people don't know how to engage the city through various planning processes. just building capacity and helping communities to advocate and identify their needs and the public process getting into the pipeline is a huge part of the solution. >> thank you. any other questions? let's open this up for public comment. anyone who

would like to speak? >> please come forward, miss sacs. >> good morning, chairman, members of the committee. i'm a members of the members advisory committee as well as on this subcommittee. i have sat in on the meetings for the subcommittee as well. at the last subcommittee meeting we had, one thing that i brought up is that prop b which i helped write, it was passed by the voters in 1989, was extended into prop k which i was also involved with which was a 30 year project. there are items in prop b that was carried over into prop k, there were new things in prop k like traffic calming. they were up

for review and up for voter extension in a few years. you have to take that into consideration before you figure out what you are going to do in 2040 and 2035. another thing you have to remember the transit project people were against it. you talk about the south of market, the soma area, commissioner kim, i will have you know the one california during the day went down to howard to service the people because of the tip, they took it out. you have to see how the tip has peemz -- penalized the transportation city. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. next speaker? is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is

closed. >> this was an informational item. please call the next item, miss chang. >> item no. 6. item 6: recommend approval of the bayview hunters point mobility study final report and business plan action* attachment enclosure 01 enclosure 02 in 2010, the authority's bayview hunters point neighborhood transportation plan recommended undertaking a focused, in-depth technical and community study to advance a community-based pilot program concept for implementation grant-ready statuss. in 2011, the authority received an $180,000 environmental justice transportation planning grant from caltrans to work on the bayview hunters point mobility solutions study studyy. a prop k appropriation resolution 11-233 provided the required $20,000 in local match. through the study, we have worked closely with a group of community-based organizations cboss that has expanded from the original group assembled through the office of the public defender's bayview hunters point mobilization for adolescent growth in our communities bmagicc program to a larger set of organizations which are participating in the department of public health's dph'ss bayview heal zone program. working in partnership with dph, the department of children, youth and their families, san francisco health improvement partnerships through the university of california, san francisco and a transportation working group comprised of representatives of 18 cbos and community leaders, we have conducted a needs assessment of cbos' program access needs and a review of their transportation operations and resources. the working group considered alternative ways to deliver needed transportation services and worked with the study team to create a business plan to pilot a vehicle-sharing program. this memorandum details the final business plan and provides an overview of the pilot project. we are seeking a recommendation to approve the bayview hunters point mobility study final report >> item no. 6. sf 63 >> this is an action item. >> thank you. >> good morning, senior transportation planner. i will

keep this brief. i know we briefed you on this a couple months ago. he's now moved onto a different agency. this item begins on page 23 on your packet. so, just for the study background, the main thing here is there has been a lot of planning including that recommended creating a business plan and also non-planas transportation issues. there are some other efforts in the area. the key activities were to do an assessment of the transportation resources and needs convene a working and come up with a business plan that is a main part of this final report. the needs assessment shows that a significant amount of funds are spent annually by the community base organization area however and it's actually a key part of success. however it's not really a key part of what they do as their core mission or confidence and often times providing that can be created at the expense of having staff available of providing some other core programming and services. the working group comprised