the other side to access a community program can be dangerous unfortunately. for elders up on the hill who are isolated it's a challenge to get to doctors and food, etc. by way of this process of bringing folks together we've been able to develop this plan that we think will address a big appease -- piece of our need. it doesn't address all the needs. this is a great start. we hope you will support it. >> thank you. next speaker? >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is christina with the public health department and i manage the healthy eating zone in the bay view. i want to thank the transportation authority for really guiding this process and bringing consultants to the

table for a plan. it's very clear that access to nutrition is important for health. i don't mean just being able to get to the hospital or clinic but also health an wellness programs in the community. i think this process that we've been through can really get to us that place where community members have better access to health and wellness centers in their community. dpa is going to continue to support the work. we'll support it in anyway the community asks us to support them and we'll help by also looking at additional fupd fund ing to fund that first pilot. i want to thank our partners and for the community for stepping up. >> thank you. next speaker? >> good morning commissioners, i'm veronica shepherd with the bay view health and wellness

center. i think the bay view is one of the most amazing neighborhoods in san francisco. i was born and raised there and i have four generations of family there so i'm very invested and connected. i also want to recognize our partner, matt with bca is also part of this working group. i think your support of giving this as commissioner breed said it's really just amazing what we are doing to try to connect people. i'm one of those people that are always called in my neighborhood and my community, could you pick up this person, pick up that person. my nephew got out of school late. i have disabled family members. it's a challenge. a real challenge. in developing this partnership, working with dpa and people in the community, we just need better options and safe choices. i think this as

roberto says is a step and i do hope we can model this in other communities. we appreciate your support and funding, we like that too. thank you. next speaker? is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> thank you. everyone. thank you for the presentation. >> miss chang, i think that was other than informational item? action item? okay, colleagues. commissioner campos move forward with the recommendation let's do that without objection. miss change please call the next item. >> item 7: recommend approval of the fiscal year 2013/2014 transportation fund for clean air program of projects action* attachment the transportation fund for clean air tfcaa program was established to fund the most effective transportation projects that achieve emission reductions from motor vehicles in accordance with the bay area air quality management district's air district'ss clean air plan. funds are generated from a $4 surcharge on the vehicle registration fee collected by the department of

motor vehicles. as the san francisco tfca county program manager, the authority annually develops the program of projects for the tfca program manager funds. on february 4, 2013, we issued the call for fiscal year 2013/2014 tfca applications to san francisco project sponsors. we received eight project applications by the april 1, 2013 deadline, requesting approximately $1 million in tfca funds compared to $762,000 in available funds. we reviewed the projects for eligibility, then evaluated eligible projects following the authority's adopted local expenditure criteria which includes project type e.g., first priority to zero emission projectss, cost effectiveness of emissions reduced, program diversity, project delivery i.e., readinesss, and other considerations e.g., a sponsor's track record for delivering prior tfca projectss. based on this review, we are recommending funding the six projects shown in attachment 3, which include three transportation demand management projects, two short-term bicycle parking projects, and one bicycle sharing project. our recommendations are shown in attachments 2 and 3. we recommend fully funding two projects, partially funding four projects, and creating a wait list for two projects should additional funding become available due to cancelled projects or cost savings from completed projects. we are seeking a recommendation to approve the fiscal year 2013/14 tfca program >> sf 73 >> this is an action item. >> good morning, my name is bill bacon with the transportation authority. this begins on page one of your packet. the transportation for clean air is fund ed by a regional fee. 40 percent is returned to source by the bay area quality management district for the authority to fund eligible project. at the conclusion of our tfca project this spring we received eight applications requesting $1 million in funding. we look at criteria in projects that are first eligible and develop a program of projects. one of the programs is that projects must made a cost-effective of $90. there is an attachment on page one with this information.

details on this project are recommended for funding begin on page 38 of your packet. this year we are recommending to fully fund the projects. the two projects for which we are recommending the fully request are the regional share biking project which is the air district regional buyer share pilot program within san francisco and along the peninsula. tfca funds are used for additional bicycles as well as 37 additional bike sharing stations. to expand the initial deployment of 350 bicycles. the tfca as local match to leverage nearly $3 million in mtc regional finding. we are funding the biking park project. this project will cover the procurement of 250 biking racks on a san francisco

state campus. the other four projects for partial funding include the short-term bike parking project which is including bike racks. since it has two years of funding for racks. we set this project into two halves within this funding cycle. they have a number of other funds available for this coming fiscal year. we also recommend partial funding for department of the environment and department of transportation management programs which we'll hear about the information item. on your agenda abut i will go into detail about them here. first at the emergency right hoed -- home program. it provides a

free or low cost ride home in cases of emergency. it's provided to employees of alternative modes to reach places of work. the recommended level will fund one year of the two year project. tfa funds with a recommended program for one year with 20 employees or fewer. it offers commuter benefits and incentives to support employees transportation modes and other single occupancy vehicles. finally tfca funds will be allowed to use the school programs with education efforts focusing on a development of cost-effective program for ride share program for students and their families. you can see it on this slide. schools are selected by a number of factors including high driving rates

and the number of families living greater than two miles away from the school. there are a couple districts that do not have any schools located within them. staff will find possible synergy between this program and the public health department safe to school program. we placed two projects on a wait list for funding this year because both projects are cost-effective but we were unable to fully fund or fund the projects in cycle. this maintains project diversity in bike parking project and/or due to the lower ranking in our local expenditure criteria for dependent charging station. while they are eligible for tfca funding are in the local spend you are criteria with all of other projects were priority

type one. it is possible that a project funded last year will be canceled, if that is canceled, we'll have up to $245,000 to fund these pro programs on the project. there is other projects that we are not funding is the program for the department of the environment. this would have funded the procurement for the bicycles under the by the fleet however last year the department of environment still has over $40,000 in fund to spend for bicycles, they will be procured this year and come back into a fit cycle and apply for future funding if necessary. they are also investigating possible synergy in the upcoming bike sharing pilot. i'm happy to take any questions. >> commissioner campos single e

-- thank you. >> have we communicated that with the advocates of the bicycle coalition? >> the city bike fully is an internal program and they are comfortable with this recommendation for this year. i'm not sure that we had any specific contact with the bike coalition with the bikes on this additional bikes are being procured this summer. if the department finds a need for additional bikes they can come ban the back and request more. >> commissioner breed? >> thank you, i have a few concerns over all about the program. i wanted to ask some questions. i know this has been in the works for some time. i wanted to ask about the the cost per bicycle rack at san francisco state versus the cost for the general bikefor

example it comes out to $204 for bike rack versus $900 in general. so i just wanted some explanation of that? >> this is an excellent point. thank you for mentioning it. there are several different reasons why the difference is so great. san francisco state, the rack, the funding is only to procure the racks and for the actual direct staff time of a ground crews staff member to install the rack. whereas mta includes overhead cost procured by the sfmta procures. it's not comparing apples to oranges. that's why it's so different. your point highlights that our money goes a lot farther in

installing racks at s fm t a. >> i'm concerned with the fact that the city is ki on the responsibility of managing bike sharing program and whether or not the capacity exist to not only manage but maintain for this program to be more self sufficient. i know that for example just recently we worked with parks and recreation to introduce a bike sharing program that will exist specifically for the parks. my desire is to see folks pick up bikes from one location, drop them off at another and to have the ability to do that is amazing. i don't think i can support the city doing that and taking on ownership of that responsibility and spending

money to do that when we are still quite far behind in our bicycle improvements and the kinds of things we need to do in order to increase safety for the existing bike population. i think that we are moving a little fast on this and i don't necessarily support the city taking on this responsibility directly. i would like to see this be bided out to a company that can manage and maintain and work with the city to over see it so it doesn't seem like it's something we are spending money on consistently and it's able to pay for itself. i find with the city enters into these agreements and without the capacity to maintain it, it becomes a problem. i don't know necessarily in the information provided see how to program is going to play itself out and

what's to come and i just don't feel comfortable with allocating money at this time for this particular program. i have not been here in the process of putting it together and working out the details and what it all means but maybe you can enlighten me to what's the plan and what's going on and where this is headed because i'm just really not there right now. >> commissioner campos had a question. >> he might be able to answer the question. there is a little confusion. this request before you is to provide additional bicycles for the pilot. it's a regional pilot that's being managed by the air district although half of the project is in san francisco. there are some budgetary issues with the regional project which resulted in reducing the number of bikes. the pilot is not going to succeed. your question is

excellent. it is not at all clear after this pilot rolls out who will manage this program. sit is it meant to be the last mile, is it able for a regional project to take over. does anyone know in the end what should be the entity that manages the program? >> are we required to spend like, i know it says the money is come from the vehicle license fees to help support this. are we required to spend that money on this particular program? >> not, the tfca on vehicle registration fees for projects that can reduce motor vehicle emissions. >> this is a project that was developed regionally? >> correct. like commissioner campos says it comes from the bay area climate initiative

project. this is a very innovative project. if it works, it's something that can be reapplicablethroughout the region. >> what other recommendation to cut back on for the whole clean air thing that is going on here. were there other alternatives for the bike program that coon could help reduce this. >> the only other project that we weren't able to fund, it shown on the slide. we could fund the short-term parking at mta for public works or additional cycles for the city employee bicycle program. >> we typically don't get a massive response to our calls for project on this program

because you have to demonstrate costeffectiveness using the air district guidelines. >> commissioner campos? >> thank you. mr. chair. i think that what commissioner breed is raising are larger issues about how bike sharing that be run and managed. i think there are very different perspectives on that and frankly there are benefits to a government agency doing it and having a private company doing it. the point is that we believe that regionably it's important for the region, the entire region to have a very sort of one approach if you will. you want to avoid the niep -- nine counties that

make-up this area, you don't want to have a situation where you have san francisco having it's own program, san jose having it's own program n terms for purposes of the regional objective for having uniformity. the region will haveo make decisions and what it does is allows to us make the pilot and the way the pilot is working you are talking about a thousand bikes, 500 of them would be in san francisco and the rest would be distributed around the region. as we have that discussion of what the program should look like beyond the pilot, that's where i think we can take into account the issues around who should manage it. should it be the air district. right now the air district is seen as a potential agency to manage this, but i don't know, but they have decided and i don't know if that's nee best decision at this point.

should it be the ftc and something that is contracted out and outside company or non-profit. what does this look like for the region . those questions remain to be unanswered. but i'm supporting this because i think it allows us to begin at least the pilot. and to be honest, the concern from people like supervisor wiener and myself too has not been doing the pilot, but actual the pilot is too small because in other cities, other regions that have done this, they have done more than a thousand bikes, they have done 10,000 bikes and several thousand bikes. one of the questions they had what was the program is too small and whether it will take off. that

question remains unanswered. but we won't know unless we begin the process. >> thank you. that question and the point about the program being too small is exactly what's driving this request to bring this number of bikes to above 700 to a minimum threshold to have at least hope of having a successful bicycle launch. >> this is another point i wanted to bring up and make sure this was accurate. it comes to about $1,000 a bike. when i think about and i know we are talking about transportation and talking about moving people around and we are talking about clean air an long term stability and regional approach, i think many of those points are well-taken, i just have a real problem with how much money we are spend to

go do it. it's a lot of money for a bike. a thousand dollars for a bike, the amount of money we are spending for the bike share program. the challenges. why not just basically buy people bikes. why not say we are going to reimburse you for your bikes if you agree to commute. in my mind this is a lot of money to spend on a bike sharing program and whether or not it could be sustain able long-term is not clear to memo. i'm not able to enter into agreement to a program that doesn't have a long term plan. in my experience, i feel like i have seen a lot of waste in the community over the years and in the case like this somebody is making money and somebody is not necessarily contributing or working with community like mine that needs the kind of

support that a program could bring. i don't see any of the things that i care about most and i just don't want to continue to go down a path of spending money and not having a long term plan and not seeing how this can make a difference. there is a lot of issues that i think i have with spending money like this, although as someone who worked at national lab, you jump on a bike and you go from one end of the lab to the next. at uc davis, it was a great friendly bike town and i think san francisco has to do more in terms of safety and roads. i realize that sometimes, under our general transportation process, you know, we are not working more

collaboratively together and this is probably a great way to collaborate but i just look at the cost, i look at there has been to be something else more effective that this money could be spent on and i just take issue with spending this much money on a bike sharing program. >> i see no other people from this committee speaking. i will just say that in reading through the mta and strategic sharing the mode an using this as a pilot and even just as the users making short trips connecting with cal trains, it's a well thought out process. it's not any of the district but in that concentrated area, the core that we talked about this meeting and really well thought out about how it maximizes the number of bicycle trips but reduce congestion on our

transit system as well. i will say i hadn't read through much of the planning but i think it's well thought out, i think i would support commissioner campos pilot in the way we are looking at other cities and a few other mta's are going to mexico city, i think clear channel runs that but there is different ways of organizing this. i think it's a well thought out project. i also support more bicycles in the key area that are in the city. >> yes, it's a thousand dollars per bike. this is part of solution. these bikes are like gps and they can't be stolen. the cost perspective if you remember this is the last mile

the connection to transit. while bart thankfully they have been listing their bicycle access on board, we can we have still cannot bring bikes on munis, for those that cannot bring their bikes, this offers an option for transit and the san francisco plan, there was a lot of those very short trips within the downtown and maybe those are possible through bike sharing. this is part of the comprehensive package and mta staff has a brief in the office. one of the beauties of the pilot is to be forced to do an evaluation so all of these questions can be answered. >> i appreciate commissioner breed's consistently pointing out how do we reduce cost. i

did see that number and i thought that's a lot of must be per bike and that's an issue that came up at the mtc as well. unfortunately because of the infrastructure that you create with these kinds ogra there are certain cost that increase that. i can only speak from my own experience and san francisco our largest economic driver is tourism. when i have traveled to other cities, they have a travel tourism project and we are so far behind. cities like washington d c and you see other areas that have this program. it provides an at some point to at least try something

out and i am confident that the people involved whether it's at the ta, the m ta, the mtc that they are very mindful of the limited resources we have and they will do everything they can to make sure we maximize every penny. i appreciate the point. >> thank you, let's open this up for public comment. >> good afternoon, i'm with the san francisco bicycle coalition. i would like to add my support. every neighborhood are requested bike racks faster than the city can implement them. the other note, commissioner breed, we are doing all that we can. we are partnering with the mtc and

board of supervisors and the mayor's office to figure out how to implement a wonderful and robust bike program in san francisco. the denver bike system replaced their car traffic and we have seen how other cities can do it. this funding allocation will help us get to a more robust pilot without it. and i think we understand how to get the data and how it works and be able to get this spread out. we have a lot of questions as well and working with partners to figure out what that ideal funding would be. i think this is a really important step to get us closer to implement something on the ground. i would appreciate your. approval. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> can we move this

recommendation forward? >> i will make the motion to move forward with a positive recommendation. can we do this without objection? thank you. miss chang call the next item. item 8: recommend allocation of $1,608,747 in prop k funds, with conditions, to the san francisco municipal transportation agency for three requests, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedules and amendment of the relevant 5-year prioritization programs action* attachment as summarized in attachments 1 and 2, we have received three prop k requests from the san francisco municipal transportation agency sfmtaa totaling $1,608,747 to present to the plans and programs committee. the sfmta has requested $1,390,000 in prop k funds for the construction of new pedestrian countdown and accessible audiblee signals, and related curb ramps and signal upgrades at 12 locations citywide. the sfmta has also requested $153,747 in prop k funds for construction of a landscaped island and bulb-out to improve pedestrian safety and shorten the crossing distance between augusta and waterville streets on silver avenue. this project will be constructed through the department of public works' silver avenue sewer, water, and pavement renovation project. lastly, the sfmta has requested $65,000 in prop k funds to install and evaluate a demonstration bikeway and pedestrian safety project on one yet to be determined block of polk street between union and post streets. improvements would be in place by september 2013 and may include temporary designated bikeways, curb extensions created with pavement markings, traffic barriers, and modular seating as a way to validate how these types of permanent treatments would enhance the safety and attractiveness of the street for pedestrians and cyclists, and to evaluate the potential impacts to transit, parking and commercial loading. evaluation of this project is intended to inform the design of the larger polk street improvement project currently in the planning phase and funded by the prop b streets bond. we are seeking a recommendation to allocate $1,608,747 in prop k funds,

with conditions, to sfmta for three requests, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedules, and to amend the relevant 5-year prioritization programs. 4 >> good afternoon commissioners. this item begins on page 43 of your packet. we are recommending allocations for prop k funds for the project. the first project is to install new pedestrian signals. there are 6 pedestrian count down signals with timers and six accessible and audio signals. the locations of these signals is shown on page 57 of your packet. there are also associated with other improvements that will be provided with this. the prop k funds funded the design phase which is a hundred percent complete. next project is the polk street demonstration project. the fta requested $5,000 to construct and evaluate a demonstration on polk in different locations. the demonstration project will install improvements like by ways and temporary curb extensions with pavement marking. this will allow mta to study the potential impacts of these types of treatments, these types of bicycle and