propose and will help us to consider the proposed location and these are the trade offs and we need to figure out how to move forward on that proposal and to take that to do design work on that so we have design drawings. right now the current plan is to use in our cip, the mta cip we have $150 million set aside to fund these first 10 corridors with capital money. $150 million. so we want this money to go for not only going to do the outreach but to finalize the design and take advantage of that money and pursue this. >> i think wr continuing this item and also want to know what the negative impacts are for

short-term so more discussion happens. i proposed this question and director chang as well. if you want to address that. >> good morning, director chang, this process is very important, a high priority process for the city and it's working it's way around public comment and we are going to support the mta in having those meetings and conversations to address community concerns that are still outstanding. i would say to move this project forward through the design phase, i would be comfortable we do that with asking the mta come to these meetings to see how they are making progress on their equity analysis and to have more details presentations on specific lines and specific parts of the network, for example the 8 segment, the valley second degree --

segment and not necessarily the china segment. i would like to see this continue. >> i don't have a lot of confidence in the public outreach process of the mta because of passed experience. i'm trying to i guess understand how where doing design work and outreach simultaneously because the money is being asked for. so you are talking about doing design work while the outreach process is happening as well from what i guess i'm hearing from you and mta. i don't know, what's the point of public outreach if that's the case? >> can i just add to that. with what outreach you've had we are getting negative food back in

terms of, the presentations are done in the community, now we are getting negative food back on what the plans are looking like. yet there have been no modifications to this process. one of my big issues is that i think sf mta does a great job of organizing meetings in the community but you never see modifications to the plans afterwards. this is also with parking meters. there is so much of the process that we go through with sf mta. i don't want an outreach where it's just a listening session. i would like to continue this until we get lots more information. >> john, with the mta. i will try to address a couple concerns that were brought up. as the executive director, this is one of the top priority projects. the request today, the prop k allocation request has to do with what we call a

travel time reduction process. those are physical capital improvement, things like transit authority and things like better accessibility and bicycle improvement that help people get to transit easier. so the physical component of the transit project. the reason we are moving forward to try to address some of the conditions that were stated is we do the public outreach and do the planning and get feedback but we don't have physical engineering projects to show the public. i think you might have seen some of that with the van ness project. we do want to do some preliminary engineering and design so we have feedback for the public. instead of saying this will what you will need as a 5-minute time. we want to show them what it's like to actually experience

riding the system. which is why we want to do it currently. the environment talks about the environmental impact and what we are talking about is the service impact. this is our engineers and staff at the mta to prepare real physical plans and drawings to get reactions from the public. which is like concurrently we also did that outreach from the contract that we funned the mta to do at one time so we get comments and feedback on the physical improvement we are talking about making to the environment. that's why this component is coming to you now based on the timeline of the eir and the public outreach having this work done so we can make real changes. what we don't want is go through a public process, do a design and go back and to have design again because that's when you start losing your coordination opportunities and start to have cost increases on the project. we are trying to do the best we can at coordination and trying to do the best with outreach

and this does reflect what i high priority this is for us. >> so is anyone talking to the transit drivers? >> yes. actually two things: i will answer that first. yes, we have, with the 5 l, we started the driver outreach and classes and talked with them about how to 50 would be working and now following up with this many on a monthly basis on how to performance is going and how we can tweak it from their perspective an that is going to be a model as we move forward and that's what the outreach consultant is helping us on and reaching out to our 1200 operators and figuring out how to best share these proposals with them again because it's been since 2009 and 2006 and dropped off in 2009 and kind of

silent then. we need refresh what the proposals are now and see any alternative dwladz -- ideas that we can proceed with. i would like to go back to john's point and supervisor kim's point, our view has been a level of environmental process. it sets a bar. we can't construct anything higher than that bar but we don't have to construct anything up to that bar. meaning this is the point, now is the time in the next 6-8 months where we'll be making specific decisions on what gets built and what doesn't and we'll be making changes to the proposal as we go forward based on the community feedback and this

preliminary engineering level. detailed design won't be overlapping what it's called permanent engineering but it's outreach looking at how long will the bus bulb beand the drive way and what kind of utilities we need to move and that gets played out in the engineering phase and that can be moved into design once we get the questions answers. >> last points? >> i realize we have several more items. i think we should continue this. i think we need more detailed presentation at the next committee meeting. i read your report and it does answer a lot of questions, but i think the public deserves more of an explanation. i get that you are primarily looking at physical design to speed up tep. i understand tht mta's priority, i'm just not sure

it's my priority. we need to be clear on that. if we are going to allocate dollars, i need to understand better why this is important and what we are going to do to speed up these lines. they are all important. i get it. i would just like to ask a lot more questions about what you are considering and what portions of the lines you think are going to help in speeding up. >> we have preliminary project descriptions for all of those and i think we can work with the authorities come back with a more detailed presentation. >> and the urgency from the mta and mta's recommendation. let's bring this forward to the next committee meeting and the outreach is going to be meaningful and deeper. i do think there is a perception that the tep is about cuts and

it's about expanding more services as well. there is a motion to continue not only the escalators but also to continue the tep part of this. i don't think i need to clarify that anymore. can we take the continueing the escalators without objection to the next meeting? we'll do that without objection. thank you. on the item before us, can we take this with a positive recommendation without objection? >> so moved. >> thank you. >> miss chang, please call the next item. item no. 6. item 6: the budget and legislative analyst's office report on equitable uses for the vehicle license fee information at the request of plans and programs committee chair mar, the budget and legislative analyst's office has prepared a report on equitable uses for the vehicle license fee vlff. the budget and legislative analyst's office will present the finding of the reports at the committee meeting. this is an item no. 6. sf 612341234 this is an information item. >> it's 11:41. i know

supervisor avalos should be on his way here. i asked the budget analyst office to review from the city and san francisco county to the schwarzenegger level and we want to ensure the san franciscans get the most bang for their bucks. we want to make sure the transportation system needs to be improved but with limited resources i thought it would be better to have both analysis together which is really helpful for us. i know the mayor's transportation task force presented at our last board meeting has done a lot of work where this funded is needed. i think it's consistent in many

ways with the mayor's task force is concerned about as well. also the need to expand the service and keep affordable so equity is a strong voice from the communities. the report from the budget legislative analyst office is really complimentary to the mayor's task force goals. with that fred bruce oh is from the budget legislative analyst office and he's going to give the presentation. >> ken mar, members. >> from the budget analyst office. dan will walk you through the report. for this report request we identified funding options to achieve various transportation public policy objectives assuming the vehicle license fee is restored to 2 percent with the current

level of 65 percent. it requires voter approval before that can be done and be before san francisco. we worked with the department of motor vehicles from the san francisco license fee and that enabled us to provide projection and we'll walk you through what will be included. we also worked with the sf mta to identify funding alternatives that will allow for service improvements to achieve the transportation public policy objectives that you can outline in the request. with that i'm turn it over to gacher. >> thank you, mr. bruce oh and

mr. gacher for the work. i would like to satisfy -- say the budget analyst office has provided these reports in great detail. i know we throw a lot of request at you and we really appreciate it. >> good morning, commissioners. as fred mentioned i will be presenting highlights on the policy on the expansion of the vehicle license fee. so, supervisor mar's office asked us to make a projection of the revenues that the city would realize if it raised and vlf level to 2 percent and how it would impact income levels and asked to allocation of the impact of levels including the

expansion of munis service providing more runs, investment in the maintenance of the munis fleet, street repaving, bicycle improvements, and pedestrian safety improvements. these five funding areas were analyzed based on 5 policy objectives including changing transportation mode chair from private vehicle use, improvement to munis on time performance and reduction in carbon emissions and impact on the safety and traffic of the public and capital cost. on slide 3 you will see our projections on the amount of revenue if the vlf is increased to 5.to 2 percent. it's important to note that these

projections don't include certain factors that will likely affect it and these include one time administrative cost that sb 1492 requires that the city and county pay to the dmv to set up this fee in their system. in discussions with dmv. they said it would be in the neighborhood of a half million dollars but they don't have a full analysis of what that would cost and the impact on revenue with the expected increase on the value of the private vehicle fleet due to inflation. we did look at historical rates of inflation that the cost of rising vehicles raises about -- per year. this is not including

inflation from 2013. as well we assumed that the number of vehicles in the private vehicle fleet in the city would remain constant and we don't know whether the number of vehicles would actually stay constant or decrease or increase. finally, we do not have a solid estimate of the potential for what some term leakage which is that some individuals and businesses may choose to or attempt to let reregister their vehicles in other counties because they may have a second home or other address or business address that's in a location outside of the county. and, san francisco county is the only county in state law that is able to raise the vof. there might be an impact on the number of

vehicles purchased maybe slightly based on the increased cost. below the table with the projections you will see our analysis of the impact of residents on the different income levels. on two 2 percent of the annual average fee of the average vehicle which we estimated 11$11 million or $150 more than the current $72 fee of the average very value. what residents at all income levels would be affected by the increase. the extent of the impact will depend on the number of vehicles and value owned by the residents. those making $23,000 a year would share a larger income for an average valued vehicle. we should note that only 35

percent in the households own one or more vehicle. houses own vehicles that are valued than the value. although higher income would pay a smaller percentage on the average vehicle. they maybe likely to pay moreover all as they are likely to own more vehicles and they are valued higher than the average vehicle. i should add there has been some research that indicates higher income households are able to pay less vlf by claim of deduction from their taxable income which lower income households are less likely to do and this research has concluded that the vlf is a regret of tax. >> can i ask you that that was a lot of information on that

one chart. and just going back to the lowest income category, two-thirds of the people don't own a car and then for the highest income two categories from $88,000 and above income, many own more than one vehicle or two or more vehicles. also, this may raise roughly $73 million per year and an average person with a vehicle currently pays about $70 and this would increase that to about $150 for that person. >> it would actually be $150 increase from $72 to $220. >> is there a projection where that comes from in terms of the

income groups? >> we don't have a break down where that comes from. what we do have is the vehicle types the dmv also breaks down and some of them coming from paying on time. we don't have all the information available. >> i think it would be valuable to get that information. please continue. >> and we are joined by supervisor john avalos, the chair of transportation authority. >> on slide four, you will see a high level summary of our analysis of funding potential transportation related improvements as well as the criteria that we used of the impacts of various vlf funding options. i will go down from top to bottom. the first what

we looked at was expanding munis service, adding more runs. we felt that would likely continue changes in transportation mode chair way from vehicle use which will reduce carbon emission and reduce the city's on time performance and impact on the safety of travel from the public there could be less accidents due to less private vehicle trips. we found that expanding munis service may extend the capital cost by requiring additional funds to maintain vehicles in the vehicles as a result of additional runs. the final cost for more drivers and fewer electricity for these vehicles to run. the second funding option we looked at was investment in the munis fleet maintenance. this primarily rehabilitation of the

bus light rail vehicles and transit mode chair away from the private use and reduce carbon emissions. investment is likely to have an impact on the public. it would not cause an increase from further vlf money. the 3rd is vlf street repaving which is reduce the city's capital cost will you tell unlike to to reduce transportation mode chair from private vehicle use and it's unlikely or uncertain whether a significant investment of road repavement would have impact on munis on time performance and

safety of the public. we also looked at bicycle improvements. assuming they would look at the bicycle improvements there would be a shift way from private vehicle use and possibly way from transit. by providing cyclist with a safer and more connected bicycle network. for instance, a $30 million investment of bicycle improvement could result in 50 miles of painted lanes or 300 miles of bicycle lanes. this could reduce carbon emissions. significant investment in bicycle improvement can significantly increase the cost fof -- vehicle use. and it would have an impact on munis performance thus reducing over crowding, slow boardings and things related to over crowding. the last area we looked at is pedestrian safety.

we found that it's unclear whether significant city investment of the vlf revenue of pedestrian improvement would result in a shift of transportation mode chair away from the city that has already considered pedestrian safety as well as other cities in the nation. however it may have some impact on car use. it is also unclear whether pedestrian improvements would have an impact on immune munis, on time performance or reduce emissions and capital cost. it would result in a marked improvement in pedestrian safety. for instance a $30 million investment in new vlf would result in 150 additional intersections with count down signals and at least 25 additional crosswalks with lines. >> mr. gucher, i know we don't have that much more time. would

you summarize what you think is the biggest bang for the buck of the 5 different revenue items and seems bicycle improvement is a clearly big benefit. but there is a human impact of saving lives and reducing injuries. can you just quickly summarize that before you get to the next very detailed slide? >> sure. we found that, in detail the expansion of munis service would actually result in a significant millions more passengers a year. so, mta provided us with some estimates that if $60 million were put into the expansion, that could

result in 10 percent in increased hours and almost 22 million additional passengers in a year. and also found out that the munis investment would significantly in accrues the average distance between bus failures like vehicle failures and trolley coach failures and those are detailed in the scenarios, but that would require for the entire fleet an investment of $20 million. so i will go through quickly through three scenarios we considered. there is a number of ways that this money could be used, but based on cost provided for by

sf mta and btw, this includes the minimum amounts to achieve certain service and improvements. if you look at the first scenario, this scenario is one where the board can emphasize transportation mode shift away from private vehicles and what we included is the amounts that would be required to rehabilitative each of the munis fleets and then we put in the amount that would be required for a 5 percent increase in transit services which would cost about $30 million and then we put in about $20 million of bicycle and pedestrian improvement. the second season i don't -- scenario in the upper right hand corner to reducing capital cost and if that was the primary goal of the board that street repaving would reduce capital cost by $175 million

over a 10-year period. we put in $45 million which would finish -- fill in the gap left by the gio street bonds and the mayor has plugged in about $40 million in 2014 to make-up for that but there is no secured financing going beyond the next fiscal year. this affects next fiscal improvements. and the long time performance of munis and 100 percent of the funding would go to munis. we put in the amounts necessary to rehabilitate the various fleets and then with the remainder going entirely to expanding munis runs and we can

get an 8 percent increase with a remaining $50 million. and then the last slide summarizes the scenarios in one table. so, i won't go through that. but if there is any questions, i would be happy to address them. >> so i see no questions and the way that i look at your three scenarios, the first one is more of a balance of different transit improvements environmental sustainability improvements. a balance of bicycle and pedestrian improvements as well. no. 2 is focused on improving pavement and scenario no. 3 is heavy on services but other transit maintenance and trolley maintenance and probably mta's preferred item i would get. but i really appreciate the gat