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 look at geographic and socioeconomic 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 network quality. and here we do find patterns geographically but not necessarily concentrations that might 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 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 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 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 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 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 today 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 prentype 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 p 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. r those whhave 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 the residents circulating around the neighborhood is really important for some of that north south. i know that with some of the conversation around 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 onmiion stit'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 he 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 then 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 and vehicles and more opportunities for collisions 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