dedicated, i would expect the political leaders this city would increase the baseline. >> one more question, for the vehicle license fee, you mentioned that that used to be used for health and welfare service, but we got that same amount from the state as part of property tax? i missed that clarification. >> it's complicated. the govern took the money that used to go to the counties and gave it to the counties to fund the via left and took money from education to back fund the property tax and used his money to fund the edges and it took three years to balance everything out, but the point of the comment is the health and welfare programs and health human services programs were

made whole even though the car tax was cut. >> okay. thank you. >> other members of the board. councilmemeber ramos. >> i appreciate the update and i wish we could have had more of that and i wish i cad -- i wish i was apart of that task force. people are looking at this from an equity prospect and they want to know to get any kind of support that could demonstrate that's was an equity lens put over this so we can work toward like what you said earlier, restoring service or expanding service and what has been lost and i understand wholly that even if we throw money at service and operations right now, it would burn up because of the lack of the course system, the functionality and what have you. i want to make sure that

there is an intent to explain that and to demonstrate how you looked at that time and then to address the concerns that have been raised. two examples of the concerns that kind of pop up for me in your presentation was a lack of clarity as to how you came up with the idea of what was over crowded or not. from my experience on this, this map that you've got here on fly 10, there's so much more over crowding from my experience. i'd love to understand -- miami -- there's over crowding and there's a matrix or definition that you all have that i would hope that you could articulate. then we can get more into frequency and

span and things of that nature, but this is one that jumps out because there's a slide here. >> the slides came from the transportation authority and their plan and the red line signify over capacity, so in some of those instances, the buses go by and they don't stop because there is no room and in other instances, there just isn't enough of them there. many, many more people than there is available throughout to meet that need, but i can get back to you as to exactly the metric that the transportation authority has been using. >> i regularly been seeing them pass me back. that seems a little off. so things like that, i think it would be good to get an idea. the other thing i'm wondering with respect to page 5, i think that

it's interesting that you've got bicycle racks charted out which is 3,060 bicycle racks, but where do the bus shelters fit into this. there's so many places where bus shelt ters are needed and it's a key part of our infrastructure to help people be comfortable while waiting for buses, particularly in places where we have pretty high volumes, there's a few spots throughout the city that could use that. >> we provided this slide. this doesn't encompass our -- it's a sampling. i guess the other distinction of bike shelters is we have a plan and program to continue to install them, but it's not an asset that we main than because we

have a contract mechanism that the advertising pays for the maintenance but this wasn't meant to be an exhausting list. >> it's tough out there and if we're going to track ridership, we need to address that. the other thing i want to talk about is this concern over these overall funding mechanisms and how there's no mention yet of operations at all. the one that i'm particularly concerned of is concern about a sale's tax measure without any operations or talk about operations. sales tax seem to be aggressive. >> with the nature of sale's tax, although i think that's basically correct, in san

francisco we're more lucky than many other jurisdictions because over 51 percent of all of our sales tax is paid by people other than our resident because we have so many visitors and there's so much to business purchasing that is done. 51 percent of our sales tax comes from businesses. although the people who live here will have to pay a greater sales tax that is paid, $2 will be brought back and invested into the people's transportation system. that's why in the end, this particular revenue source because it brings in a lot of money and the people who live here don't have to pay for all of it is why it's on the list. >> i wanted to make sure we addressed that as we're going for support because we're going to -- especially if we got to go for a super majority with

that particular issue. >> correct. thank you. >> if i could just clarify or add. with regard to equity and service restoration, i believe that number of hours of service we're providing greater than what we were providing before the service cuts of three or four years ago. so when people talk about service restoration, we've already done that. with regard to equity, i think monique mentioned that from a look, 85 percent of the projects funded here are city wide or neighborhood projects but i wanted to note also that transportation authority commission has directed the transportation authority staff to perform some sort of equity analysis on this overall packet, so we and the controllers office will work with them because i think it is important and our next item is talking about the adopting a

tightal 6 program. that's extremely important that we can demonstrate and we're serving our neighborhoods especially that's that's transit dependent. >> let's get that out. >> any work that results from the money that is raised through this process would have to go through a title 6. anything, anything that we do with the money, all of those projects would go through a title 6 review. >> i might leave that to the next item. generally as an agency, we're subject to the requirements of title 6 and generally although this obviously would be local money that we're talking about, generally the way that we expend local money is we match

it and when you have the -- any project with federal money is subject to title 6, but our service is provided with operating dollars that's not federal. that's subject to title 6. anything that we're doing in the transportation is in the realm of title 6. >> [inaudible]. i'm thinking about other improvements and i'm wondering if the elevators at the downtown would be addressed in any of this, either adding elevators or

anything else. >> one of the line items is bart station elevator improvements. carla johnson whose the director of the mayor's office of disabilities have been a participant and she's been a strong voice in advocating for elevator upgrades. i think second elevators in some stations as well as one of bart's priorities is canopies for the escalateers that's outdoors which are uncovered and subject to a lot of environmental conditions that make them unreliable. the programs we're doing day-to-day, we're obligated to those and we have the funds to do those. so these accessibilities improvements are apart of the

bart programs and elevators. >> we have been prioritizing money in the capital plan for accessibility, but an infusion in the amount of money will enhance significantly beyond what we've been able to fund. >> thank you. >> members of the task force. members of the public, want to address this item. >> howard, followed by jerald. >> good afternoon again, howard stressner. i was glad that the sales tax was covered. no one figured out how to tax me. the school department does a good job. that wasn't included. the tax comes even so. ha happens -- when you have a go

bond, my neighbors pay twice as much as i do, but sometimes ten times as i do on the same house because you've owned our house over 40 years so that's not equitable. we can't get around prop 13, but here we use parcel tax. that works for a schools. no one yells and screams about it because the bank of america doesn't pay anymore than i do. they give a 50 percent discount for the seniors. no one screams about it, but it can raise a method of the amount of money every year and people might people comfortable in san francisco paying for the schools and they might feel comfortable paying for their transportation. that's my only thought for today. >> next speaker.

>> jerald coffin. >> i was going to talk about comparing what you and your director put out early this year with the break down today. but from what i heard, i want to say something different. i think that this task force is shooting too short term and too low. we just heard monique say that san francisco's population was going to rise to a million by the year 2026. the projections are roughly the same. in fact the officials -- lead san francisco are trying to get more than their share of the pda's, the transportation housing because they want to people as many people here as possible, which isn't necessarily wrong providing

that infrastructure is keeping up with it and i don't get the impression that they're keeping up. the resident and employees are going to be located downtown or in the southeast part of town. they're not going to be on sunset and north beach. they're going to be in the southeast. i don't get the sense that this plan has taken into account what's needed. i heard board member heinicke improving the subway. that could have more people there in the peak hours. bringing cal train into downtown san francisco is a way of moving people out of their cars and on onto an improved rail system, improving trans. this needs to be apart of this. the cta failed with this congestion pricing a few years ago. ed and i had a discussion about

that, but i think that that has to come up again. it has got to be worked out with san mateo county. there's too many cars coming in from the south. if we don't fill these things, they're going to overwhelm anything that you try to do commuting. you got to get the cars out the way to make it function with some kind of budget. >> next speaker. >> herbert winer. >> mr. winer. >> herbert winer, mta orphan. this is a comment on the mayor's transportation task force. the public wasn't invited to the meeting to formulate the transportation. i was placed against the wall and observed the groups. the

main name the task force is to advocate for a general obligation bond which would insure the effective project which works for the debt trament and the seriously ill. the later parties will walk a quarter of a miles. it will increase accessibility and consolidation of bus stops. it favors the addition of transportation vehicles to wrap network lines but remove vehicles from the neighborhood. in essence this favors the northeast section of the city, nejtsing the -- neglecting the rest of san francisco. the downtown sector and the

bicyclist who have enough bike lanes. reject the proposed lines. and it's debt tra mennal to city resident. tet stands for trashing elderly people period and it also stands for tormenting every passenger: >> next speaker, please. >> michael barrette followed by bob allen. >> yes, i wanted to comment on item 12 that has been covered. number one, i think it's great that the mayor is the transportation task force was put together but it's people fighting for the might'e dollar. what the recommendations were was pretty good and on the last part of

their recommendation, there were $3 billion listed for allocations for fleet replace enhancement which is much off the mark. too much money in this is for street beauty and not addressing san francisco on range needs. a relatively minor but outlines bus lines and way too much money allocated to defined capital items a transit guidelines and faa core improvements, facility enhancement and transit system accessibility. we're going to run out of $85 million bonds. thank you. >> thank you. >> another speaker.

>> last speaker, bob allen. >> good afternoon. >> thank you members of the board today. we'll forward a letter from a number of groups in our coalition trying to catch up. we're going to reach out vejly. some of the folks weren't able to be here so i'll summarize comments quickly. i'm disappointed with the process. we can discuss that and we have discussed that in our letter and the approach in general, i think, i've worked on other measures around the bay area. i think a more balanced approach that had some creditable improvements would likely garner more support from the people that's going to be asked to pay for especially around the sales tax benefit. it's going to make the case for

the voters to support this package which again i think particularly concerns around money for more service. we won't use operations right now. that's the term that i find interesting when i talk to those in the state. they say we have an exspeck tags -- expectations. when we bring up service improvements, we're told to look at the trade company. and what's the real clear measure of services package can add. i ask that question and haven't gotten an answer. our questions are the fact that investments go city wide and benefit communities that's impacted and we like to see equity now. it's a baseline service system and it has oversight and we'll include

those in the letter. finally, i have to go. around title 6 and the next item, i want to thank the staff for working with us and we've submitted some information around their work. >> looking forward to receiving your letter. anyone else want to address the board. seeing none. >> one more. >> good afternoon, leah from san francisco coalition. as a member of that task force, i want to speak in the recommendations. i want to thank them for recognizing the need for transportation. we have not been in line for these funding measures and its reflected in the state of our facilities at such and such. i want to recognize their work. not only citizens but city groups like myself and disability communities. i think this is an important step

and transportation is a means to an end. we're about getting those to their jobs and support the local economy and connecting neighborhoods and meeting the strategic goals. so i look forward to being apart of this and hope the funding comes in. >> seeing none. the informational report, is that correct. >> okay. thank you very much. >> i wanted to acknowledge there's been a lot of really good staff work done to make this whole process possible and data driven and some of the public comments were points well taken to articulate improvements and do a more equity analysis. there are vehicle increases and increase service, the tep for recommending increase service, so the continued statements that the tep is reducing service is into the

neighborhoods and transit dependent neighborhoods are wrong. i want to thank jonathan and his team from our finance division, a lot of good staff work that's gone into this and particular alisha, our chief and staff who was the lead staffer for this project. a lot of people working hard to put this together and you have the city on the verge of coming together for $3 billion worth of transportation improvements. that's pretty phenomenal and a great opportunity for us. >> next item. >> item 13 approving the sfmta's 2013 title vi program, and results of the system-wide monitoring of service standards and policies.. >> yeah, jeff, service planning manager is going to present our program for your consideration

and approval as i mentioned as a federal grantee. we're subject to the previsions of title 6 of the civil rights act. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon directors. i'm here to give you an over view of our title 6 program. mrs. kursh presented back in july. our major service change definition and our impact policies and this portion of burden policies which you approved back in august. as part of those changes, the fta introduced in october of last year, we had to have the board approve the service change in our policies but we have to come to you at least every three years to discuss our title service program and the monitoring results of our program. briefly the title 6 program over view. title of is a civil rights of 1964 to aggress discrimination. it states no person in the united

state should be under discrimination. as director reiskin pointed out, we must keep our services equitable and think about how we're treating minorities. if we don't our federal funding is at risk and that's a large part of our revenues. it is engrained. as a best practice, we're going to do it annually. you'll see me or mrs. kurshbomb and we're going to see this is how we're doing according to our standards and here's how the

minority routes are doing compares to the non minority routes. i'm going to show you the passenger loads and amenities and fleet assignment. it gets to what mr. reiskin was saying if we're going to install shelters and elevators, we have to make sure we follow the lines. how do we define minority fences group in san francisco. we are a minority majority city. 58 percent of our service center is identified -- self identified as minority. any census track around the line exceeded 58 percent is considered a minority line or minority census line and below that is non minority. we have on board survey back in the summertime which will give us a better

idea of who is riding the buses and trains and those results are ready this november, so just this month and with those we'll look at how our demographics change across line. sometimes a route goes through a neighborhood, but maybe those riding around the line aren't around the line. looking at the map of san francisco, dark blue, they're defined as minority. light blue are ones that are below 58 percent minority. proposition e is we're 85 percent on on time and we have a long way to go. as director reiskin pointed out, we have a long way to go and we got to get that across the board. comparing non minority routes and minority routes, they're about equal so we have radio, we have

cross towns and community routes and we have the express routes and the non minority and minority lines pretty much go together. for vehicle head ways, we have policy head ways or minimum head ways that were approved a while back. we have them for radios and cross towns and expressed routes. we did find an impact here. for our cross town routes, 63 percent of minority lines are within those policy head ways and 97 percent of the non minority routes are at those policy head waves. that's a big difference right there. why is that? i know julie has been talking to you about this idea of rapid, local, feeder, express, so our current classification routes is based on a system that was set up 30 years ago and routes are defined if they go downtown

or not and not what roll they fill in the network. we have radios and we have cross towns. but what that means is that we're comparing lines like the 49 which is the cross town and a heavy hitter, the 49 provides a lot of service. two lines like the 18 which i have answered or i raised a question, i said who heard of the 18 and half of the room hasn't heard of the 18. it's a small route and doesn't carry many people, but because the way we categorized the routes in the 80s, we're comparing it to the 18. mrs. reiskin will come to you with the tep and they're going to ask you to reclassify the lines and their purpose. rapid, local,

community lines and these express lines. not based on downtown or not downtown, but based on what role they fill the network. based on that, we'll look at the policy head ways. do they make sense for the locals and for the rapids, for the communities, for the express routes. so that is why we have that impact down there. when we come back in 2014, we'll reassess this and we'll see what roles it's playing in our network and not whether they go downtown or not. vehicle loads, this standard is a standard that says you're getting passed up. based on the data that counts those who get on the bus and the traffic accounts, we see that comparing the radio to the cross towns, the theaters, the express routes to minority and non minority routes