>> good morning, everyone. the meeting will come to order. this is tuesday may 14, meeting of the programs committee of the san francisco county transportation authority. can we have a roll call. our clerk is erica chang. >> commissioner breed? present, commissioner campos, absent. kim absent, march

present. yee, are we have a quorum. >> thank you. i would like to thank jessie larson from sfgtv for televising us today. >> item 2. approve the minutes of the april 16, 2013 meeting sf 23 please call the next item. >> item 3. item 3: citizens advisory committee report sf 33 >> good morning. commissioners

my name is joseph flan gan and i'm the vice-chair for the committee. there are three items on your agenda that the cac took action on in april. item 6, cac an approved the bay view hunters point mobile study final report and business plan unanimously after a discussion regarding the source of funding that will include both public and private funding. staff

informed the cac that their expectation is private funding will pick up the majority of cost. cac was interested in the amount of responsibility of community advisory board would have in the organizations. going operations such as their role in allocating funds and evaluations of mobile manager. these details were yet to be determined at the time of the april cac meeting. item 7, the

tfca program project items passed unanimously with the discussion focused on stability of funding which the cac was told disable year to year to automobile purchases in san francisco. item 8.. the discussion of cac prop questions of concern that one block demonstration program

would be too small in scope and unable to build consensus on design of establishment throughout conclusions of potential benefits mta staff responded that they were working closely with the community and that this project was the best method to help the mta confirm it's assumptions to move forward in the best way possible to accommodate the needs of the businesses item 9

passed prop k request unanimously but did have some concern regarding the impact project would have. the staff say the studies found was appropriate because of intent of those two streets of high

volume of vehicle traffic and would be serving their original attempt. the staff informed the cac that polk street project was done in an anti-participation of van ness project. so both would not be under construction at the same time. however it is still somewhat vague. thank you very

much. that concludes my report. >> thank you, mr. flangan. that item is informational item. do we need to open this up for public comment. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> could you please call item no. 4. item 4:recommend appointment of one member to the citizens advisory committee action* attachment the authority has an eleven-member citizens advisory committee cacc. cac members serve two-year terms. per the authority's administrative code, the plans and programs committee recommends and the authority board appoints individuals to fill any cac vacancies. neither authority staff nor the cac make any recommendations on cac appointments, but we maintain an up-to-date database of applications for cac membership. a chart with information about current cac members is attached, showing ethnicity, gender, neighborhood of residence, and affiliation. there is one vacancy on the cac requiring committee action. the vacancy resulted from the term expiration of wendy tran. we are seeking a recommendation to appoint one member >> could you please call item no. 4. sf 44 >> good morning. this item begins on page 19. on page 22 of your packet you can see a

list of people who applied for the position. to qualified for appointment for the citizens advisory committee you must attend. we currently have one vacancy on the committee requiring action. this is distribution 3 we understand district 3 maybe present. >> thank you. there are no questions, let's open to public comment. sir, please come forward. are you the district 3 resident? >> i am, indeed. i'm wells. i lived here for 40 years. a resident oftelegraph mill, married, 5 children, ph.d.

scientist and retired for 15 years and now have a consulting business. i have worked with supervisor chiu for many years in district three. i'm currently on the board of s f and green belt alliance and the international institute and telegraph neighborhood center. i am a member of cac for the central subway and for the crews -- cruise terminal. the one potential conflict is that i'm married to an and she's on the committee. >> any questions? >> no. thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner campos?

>> thank you, mr. chairman. just a quick question for staff. have we measured -- heard from the district 3 supervisor on this item >> we have. >> thank you. i just want to thank mr. whitney for coming forward and want to go serve the city and county of san francisco. i have had the pleasure to serve with an. i think being married to an is a very good thing. congratulations. given that we have the district supervisor who is also supportive, i make a motion to move this item forward with a recommendation. >> thank you, colleagues can we do this without objection? >> commissioner yee? >> before we move this, my only comment is that going forth and i will be supportive of this

candidate, going forth i hope that we can all take the responsibility to make sure that there is diversity in this committee because i'm not seeing especially with wendy tran leaving, i don't see any diversity, anything at all. and that's really disturbing for the city that we live in. so, i just wanted to point that out. >> great point. >> i agree with that fully. >> thank you. so colleagues can we move this forward without objection? thank you. thank you mr. whitney. please call the next item. >> item no. 5. san francisco transportation plan update: core network circulation study recommendations and draft equity analysis information* enclosure 01 enclosure 02 a key component of the san francisco transportation plan sftpp is a financially constrained and one or more "vision" investment scenarios that assume a certain level of new revenues. the scenarios will be designed to respond to current and future transportation needs and to advance the four goal areas of the sftp. in response to authority board and stakeholder input, the scenarios will also

be designed to address geographic and socioeconomic inequities in transportation system conditions. at the may plans and programs committee meeting, we will present the findings of the core network circulation study and a draft equity analysis. the core study was designed to recommend circulation and demand management strategies for san francisco's "core network" of streets in response to the cumulative effects of the many land use and transportation projects proposed for the core over the next 25 years. the core refers to the downtown, south of market, and mission bay areas. based on the microsimulation analysis conducted in the study's first phase, we sought to identify additional interventions in the core network that would reduce vehicle miles travelled vmtt in the study area by at least 28 a "baseline prime" scenario. the study looked at a range of different strategies' contributions to the reduction in core network traffic e.g., grouped in three categories: making better use of the grid; using price to manage demand; and rationalizing regional accesss. we will present core study recommendations and how they may be incorporated into the financially constrained and "vision" investment scenarios. we will also present the results of the draft equity analysis which looks at both geographic and socioeconomic equity of existing and future baseline transportation system conditions. the equity analysis findings will also be considered in development of the financially constrained and "vision" investment scenarios. more information on the sftp is available on the authority's website at www.movesmartsf.com. we are seeking input and guidance from the plans and programs committee. this is >> item no. 5. sf 54 >> this is an information item. >> good morning principle transportation planner. this is an update of the san francisco transportation plan activities that have been upside way over the last month. two parts, miss risen will present the second part. this is a brief summary of the quit -- equity draft analysis of distribution of performance as well as geographic distribution of transportation conditions and it's looking right now just at the existing conditioning and the future 2040 conditions that we have projected if we don't make any additional investment. the purpose of this analysis is to help support the development of the sf t p investment scenarios. there are particular performance issues that are

concentrated in communities of concern or in parts certain neighborhoods of san francisco that would suggest we should direct investments of one kind or another in those places. i do want to note this methodology is specifically written to address concern and questions that our community advisory committee has had. it's not title six analysis. this is a requirement of the fta federal transit administration to have a title six analysis but with a different methodology. the way we have gone about looking at the way that transportation performance issues affect communities of concern disproportionately to use a definition and a method that is consistent with the region. so the metropolitan transportation commission is the gray shaded neighborhood that you see on

this map. this designation is used to help prioritize funding particularly lifeline transportation programs, planning funds and capital funds and the mtc went through a very extensive process to define these. we are being consistent with them. i can explain more about the methodology of how these are defined but there is a long list of criteria and these neighborhoods to be designated as a coc needs to have certain so-called degrees of disadvantaged. that is having zero car households, having a concentration of racial or ethnic minorities, having low income household and so forth. so what we've done to socioeco equity is take several transportation performance measures. and in this map what is being mapped here is

transfer rate, that is how many transit transfers riders need to make where they are going. we breakdown that data into groups of 20 percent. so we i have the worst 20 percent that is 20 percent of the city that has to make the most transfers to get where they are going and the best 20 percent so parts of the cities that need to make the fewest transfers where they are going and we map that and calculate whether the worst or best 20 percent of performance is concentrated either in a particular neighborhood or in these communities of concern. that's how we try to identify whether there is a potential area that should get special attention because they are disproportionately experiencing worse conditions. so a quick

overview of some of the things we found. we have three different lenses that we look at this. the first is safety measures and we looked at pedestrian safety, both the absolute volumes of collisions and collision race and bicycle collusion and air quality pollutants. this is where we find that community's concern is experiencing some of these safety issues, pedestrian collisions, higher rate of pedestrian collision and there is certainly geographic patterns to collisions as well. so some neighborhoods of san francisco safety problems are concentrated in neighborhoods in san francisco and here is an example. the total number of pedestrian collisions is mapped here and the worst 20 percent

of zones are in the dark red and 20 percent are in the yellow and downtown shows a concentration of pedestrian collisions. then when you look at the rate or the risk for pedestrian collision the picture changes and the sunset and outer part of san francisco has the greatest risk for pedestrian injury. and so what this kind of thing they can do is help inform sftp scenarios to address some of these issues. the second category of performance measures that we looked at have to do with networqu and he find patterns geographically but not necessarily concentrations that ht be inequitable. some of the

concentrations say in access to regional transit have to do with density and topography and may not be an inequity but still something to keep in mind as we are developing the investment scenario. some other measures, although there is a geographic pattern, so pavement quality is an example. every neighborhood in san francisco if you look at the best and the worst pavement conditions, every neighborhood has some of the best and some of the worst pavement conditions, there is not a great geographic concentration in those conditions. >> so the pavement conditions or street conditions aren't dependent on socio economics

factors? >> the worst and best quality are not concentrations in community of concern. if looking at an area of concern, are they experiencing worse transportation conditions than other parts of san francisco in terms of pavement qualities, that is not true. throughout san francisco you see some of the best pavement and some of the worst. as far as pedestrian injury, we would say something different where it does look as though pedestrian injuries are happening in communities of concern. >> so then the last category transit performance we are looking at things like transit speeds, reliability and crowding and travel times. and there are geographic patterns to all of these things, the question we are trying to ask is there such a concentration in conditions that it seems inequitable. that's one of the things we are trying to work

out. and some of these, another thing we've learned in doing this is we are trying to get better data on some of these issues. there is not a great deal of spatial data, geographic data on reliability. there is some, but for instance, we are working on getting some of the switch back 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 experienf meof the safety issues as far as bike

perian that we didn'tfind 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 and mission bay and the planning department corridor along the 4th street corridor 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 what we found is 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 congestion pricing, 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 greatestimpact 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 east west and southwest street that has the 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 th