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 great research. does anyone have any

questions because we should move on to the equity analysis. thank you. >> thank you. >> let me ask if commissioner avalos has any comments. >> thank you chair mar. i appreciate you bringing this item forward. to me i think it's best we continue this item to see what is being proposed out of the transportation task force 2030. i believe there could be very different scenarios coming out of that and compare what the recommendations are there in the months to company. i think that effort is gearing up

towards the november 2014 ballot and i think it would be important to have an on going dialogue about how we shape our investments on we approve the ballot. >> i should have called item 6 and 7 together because of so much overlap. i'm wondering if we can call no. 7 at this point. >> the clerk: item 7: proposed approach to equity analysis of the mayor's 2030 transportation task force draft expenditure plan information* enclosure a enclosure b at the october 22, 2013 meeting of the transportation authority board, the controller's office presented the mayor's 2030 transportation task force t20300 draft recommendations which feature a proposed capital expenditure plan to be funded by existing revenues and nearly $3 billion in proposed new local revenue sources including an increase in the local vehicle license fee, general obligation bonds, and asking voters to approve a ½ cent sales tax increase all of which require voter approval. the task force's final report is scheduled for adoption at a final meeting now scheduled for november 25, 2013. at the october board meeting, chair avalos requested an equity analysis of the draft t2030 recommendations. in response to this request, we are preparing a proposed framework for an equity analysis. we are still working on drafting the framework, but anticipate that it will include three elements: first, a

comparison of documented geographic and socioeconomic equity needs to expenditure plan line items; second, policy principles to support equitable distribution of t2030 investments; and third, a look at equity issues related to the proposed new revenue measures. we are coordinating with task force staff on the proposed framework and will provide a presentation on it at the november 19 plans and programs committee meeting. we anticipate presenting the results of the equity analysis to the transportation authority board at its december 17 meeting. we are seeking input and guidance from the plans and programs committee. this is an >> the clerk: sf 71234 >> i just now that we have 7 here, i didn't call for the transportation authority to look at what the output of the transportation task force 2030 which will be coming forward tuesday november 25th and for me it's really important that we affirm the work that the task force has done around the equity are committed to that and we need to make sure that we have as many eyes as we can to ensure we are making the best decisions we can based on our transportation system. i believe the transportation authority plays a critical role in that process. welcome miss hyatt's presentation. >> thank you. hyatt. we come back to talk about the equity analysis for task force for 2030 going forward could be analyzed. what we have today is a framework for how the recommendations could be analyzed from the perspective of equity, geographic and

socioeconomic equity. this is a list of some of the equity related concerns that the 2030 staff have identified. we have had conversations with community based organizations interested in the t 2030 recommendations and have been hearing equity related concerns. the first observation we would want to make xia -- is that about 80 percent of the 2030 recommendation are what we call programmatic. they are not geographically designed at this point. they are new vehicles once would be deployed once they are purchased, could be deployed on any part of the city and intended to be deployed throughout the city, street repaving and the locations identified by dpw on

a 5-year plan basis and other citywide investments. so those parts of the 2030 plan that are geographically defined could be over the equity analysis. the tep is an example of that. as mentioned earlier in this meeting, it's to prepare the scope of the equity analysis of the tep. because of the 80 percent of the tep is programmatic, the equity of that program is going to be determined by an on going basis based on how to expenditures are programmed and based on monitoring those expenditures at in realtime or as they are programmed and spent and then reporting back on the outcomes. so that's what we are focusing object and -- on and there is three components, analyzing the

equity on the investments themselves, and the programming, the years of programming on whatever time is being implemented for the program, do these address equity concerns, and monitoring outcomes after investments are made to determine whether equity gaps and efficiencies are being closed and finally continue to get stakeholder input throughout both of these process both on determining programming investments and doing the monitoring on the effects. we want to offer considerations of some ideas of determining equity needs and the goals for what it means to

have an equitable result in those areas. the first thing that would need to be done as sort of an equity analysis or equity monitoring for any program to look at what the needs are. there is a great starting point for establishing what equity needs are for title six that only minority communities are considered as sort of the definition as to the target population. for this case we really need to broaden the definition of the population of concern from the title 6 definition. but, there are ways to do that. the goals or the needs that will be established in the tep equity analysis which the forthcoming, the sf tp worry -- work, baseline

equity needs and the starting points for confirming what the equity needs are and of course input from stake holders and speaking from organizations themselves about what their needs are and continuing to establish what the goals are. there is a couple difference ways to approach that. for each goal area or area of need, you could establish an equity target based on a policy goal, like a certain level of affordability and certain minimum level that we want to make sure that is provided throughout san francisco and we could be monitoring performance and comparing the worst performance to the best and wanting to have no more than a certain ratio of best conditions to worst conditions. maximum levels of crowding, for

instance. and then one final thing, i mentioned which when i was talking about the title six implementation the concern that we are monitoring for, there are starting points for this too. and for instance a definition of communities for concern developed by mtc, metropolitan transportation commission and we want to make sure that definition is right for san francisco and i know the planning department has offered to create a profrs -- process of taking a look at what communities defining in san francisco would take a hook -- look at that collaborative process. we would support that. here are some examples of community goals. these are ways to measure equity, ways to set

goals in these thaers -- areas that we could monitor over time. as the first analysis steps is to determine whether the proposed investment would address these goal areas and monitor over time to see whether the target levels are being reached or disparities are being reduced. this is a summary of this framework for an equity analysis that could apply for t 2030 or any investment program. establishing goals, confirming what the needs are and targets are and monitoring the investment proposals for on going process to lengthen, determine the relationships between the proposed investment, monitoring outcomes over time to see whether gaps are closing and then updating

it every few years as needs change. and then of course stakeholder outreach needs to be part of each step of this. just want to close with a couple thoughts on how to first of all make sure that the benefits of the investment program are distributed equitably and monitoring to make sure that impacts are also distributed equitably. there are a couple models that we could look to for making sure that benefits are distributed equitably. there is the cap and trade program as an example which sets aside a certain percentage of any given line item to communities of concern. that's one thing we can look to. we could prioritize investment towards communities of concern until certain performance targets are reached. and then on the distribution

of impact side as we are monitoring and if trends are not going in the right direction, there are some ways to mitigate that such as perhaps having a rainy day fund set aside going toward investment whatever performance issue is not going in the right direction or considering ways to other sources to subsidize those areas that aren't being addressed perhaps by t 2030 because they can't address everything so identifying other sources that can go towards and compliment t 2030 that will address equity needs. i'm happy to answer any questions and this is paired with pat's last item. so, let me know if you have any

questions about this one. >> great, thank you for your presentation. i know this is kind of thinking a little bit outside of the box as for pathways going along and we haven't seen what the final outcome is going to be and anticipating that with framework would be very helpful for us to help to really consider how we can negotiate balance measures that are going to be successful. thank you very much for your thoughtfulness and thank you for continuing this discussion. >> thank you, now let's open for public comment. please come forward. 2 minutes per person. >> this mayor's transportation, friends of the program, you gave us the scenario of this managing of this system. i think the 8 topic expenditure.

the program beginning initiation and end of completion and completion and further continuation maybe required further based on this scenario of maybe six sets of more definite objective real points. maybe even further, into details of pointing solutions of 10,000 different items solutions to this so we can counter any expected outcomes for this program in terms of timing of the land and the peoples issue would all be helpful. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i'm bob plant ol on behalf

of senior representative. this is in contrast to what little we've been able to i will say wrinkle out from the mta city staff. you are told the process was open and transparent. one of the members appointed this told me, oh, i can't tell you when and where we meet. you have to ask permission to attend. if one of the members of this task force thinks that, that says something about how well or poorly their educated. that is just only process. i think we should talk about content. what are some of the recommendations that come from this task force that seems to say it's not equitable. there is a large diagram or sheet on the proposed spending that we have been given here today. as i have said before in other

forums, some of these don't make sense. they are not logical. when we are told that canopies over munis and bart station entrances will help people with disabilities, i'm saying, huh? they are saying, well, it will prevent more stuff from clocking up the escalator. i say, huh? because people can drop or throw anything over whatever the height of the canopy. it doesn't make sense. there is also the fact that the pedestrian program alone is being charged for redesign of the city streets. even though bicycles in market street benefit from that. there is bias in their allocation of expenses. i'm saying you folks have done a good job in throwing questions of throwing along a bias. thank you. keep it up. >> thank you. next speaker.

>> phil chen on behalf of chinatown transportation research and improvement project. chinatown trip has been around for 37 years. and in those 37 years we've often worked with munis, we often fought with the munis to make sure that our community gets what we need. the mere fact of our existence suggest that there is a strong need for an internal mechanism within city government that assures equity for all communities especially low income communities in san francisco. we strongly support the proposal put forth by the staff and we have confidence in this body to lead the efforts to ensure that equity. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chen. next

speaker? hi, jackie sacs from the cac. i have said this before and i will say it again. i was on the task force regarding this funding process. now, the thing is, before you think about looking into these funds, look in prop k. what has not done in prop k and what has to be done and in a few years you have to go before the voters again to reauthorize the prop k to get it completed. now, there is a bus rapid transit on this blvd, but there is no money there for light rail which is

grandfathered from prop b into prop k years ago. to your homework and look at what is in prop b and prop k and look at what has to be done and what has been done and you have to go before the voters again to authorize the money in prop k to complete the project in the sales tax now before we look 30 years in the future. thank you. >> steve wu from chinatown cdc. i want to thank the ta staff for a great presentation and laying out a great framework for how to achieve equity in discussions about new transportation revenue. i think it's very important as a board you take a step back and really examine how the revenue being discussed today is being reprogrammed especially with

regard to equity. and it's very important to take a look at how new monies will benefit today's everyday transit riders. we haven't seen any analysis of that and i think this lays out a framework of handout you -- how to do that. how new money can benefit transit riders. we look forward to seeing how this framework gets developed and once again, thank the ta staff for producing a great presentation. >> steve, i just wanted to clarify at the last ta board meeting that malcolm was anna pointed member of the task force but you said he was never a ppointed? >> we don't want to elaborate

on that. he was on a communication band and he raised a lot of concerns which he felt were not adequately addressed. he was a member of the task force, he was not able to attend many of the meetings. >> thank you. next speaker? >> good afternoon, bob allen from urban habitat. i want to thank the staff for the thoughtful presentation which gets us to have a better start. i think ultimately the clearest kind of equity metric is are we providing better service or communities that while most on transportation throughout the city an i think i would follow up with maria's dmaents we may want to look beyond the comments. i'm glad they are looking beyond the best

approach. that they exclusive focus on capital vechlts -- investment and they are going to be adequate and we would have concerns again that exclusively capital vechlts would get us to the outcome and final ly with my work at the regional level, we know they have been putting together a panel for the regional funds that they are working with the public to develop those and it's clear they have been talking to the city folks about the task force because we are hearing from the task force that we need to do this for capital reasons. clearly the conversations are happening but we also when we go e to mtv that localities need to raise their fair share. that's another reason when we look at

these funds in capital to directly improve service because there is a little bit of a message. when we get new funds identified and new sources, those should be the sources the do clear transit service improvement and we find out that they are taking this new source of regional funds in a way to access local funds. >> thank you, i just wanted to thank our deputy controller monique who is the cochair of the mayor's task force as well as being here. next speaker. >> good afternoon commissioners, my name is parsons from district two. i realize it has to pass by the voters in order to go through. my request when that legislation is written, that it's going to be tied to transportation functions. i think it will get passed that way. the other thing i was

wondering about free munis whether it could be tied to that program and i don't know what sort of funding is allocated to continue. the pilot program and particularly if vlf has ian impact on other communities would help support them. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker? >> good morning, peter cohen from the housing communications. people wonder why housing is talking about transportation. we have over 25,000 affordable housing units in san francisco that have been built and management by non-property houseers and we know full well that the mg -- majority of those residents are extremely dependent on

transportation and the community organizations that serve those folks have very independent work force. they can't remember the people that work in affordable housing also need to get where they need to go. we understand the point of view from but a technical perspective. the ta has done a great job to at least come up with a conceptual level to adequately in and they laid out a very nice game plan for you. a couple things i would point out is the communities of concern is a device full to focus equity. i would point out, remember transit dependent communities are not always low income communities and we need to think about both of them. and we have entrance the dependent needs across the city, some based on low income and some based on the fact

they don't own cars and second i want to make a point about the previous presentation about the vlf is very impressive work. this is on both ends of service and infrastructure is not mutually independent. you have to invest in both and the underlying point here is at the end of the day use of the transportation system is both rolling stock and the service itself. >> thank you, mr. cohen. >> organizationing low income bus riders and the kind of problem we hear about are over crowding and long waits and

nights and weekends it can take an hour-and-a-half in the bayview and it's really ridiculous and impacts folks trying to get to their families and folks at work. we hear a lot of affordability. and the shift one of the subjects that was addressed in one of the reports and we see with that way of increased fares and there is decreased rider ship. that is an issue we hope to be addressed. our low income communities are being displaced. we are in a real crisis and with this opportunity to invest in our transit system we need to prioritize the needs of the folks that are hardest hit and are really dependent on transit. thank you. >> mr. decost a?

>> my name is francisco decost a. i have been involved with transportation issues for over 35 years. today in this great city and county of san francisco, we are disrespecting that population or that segment of the population that most take public transportation. if you are going in our city, unless you are blind we have 38 planes in the air and a lot of congestion. if you go on san bruno avenue, for the last 6 months, there is congestion impacting women, the children. impacting our seniors, impacting the disabled. when i worked for the national service, the department of interior, i was a program

manager for the americans with disabilities act. i know about traffic management. so analysis can be done. a lot of analysis have been done leading to too much analysis it leads to paralysis. so whatever the reports that are forth come, we want to know the timeline. we want to know the goals. and we want to go to the -- seniors and go to the schools and ask them have they been impacted by this deliberation. we have had two representative that represented the people, no more. no more supervisors. people are pissed off. i'm repeating again, people are pissed off. thank you very much. >> thank you, is there anyone

ems -- else who would like to speak. i think you spoke already, sir, thank you. seeing no other speakers, public comments is closed. supervisor avalos did you want to wrap up? >> thank you, as it comes to this, we can file this hearing and we can just ask the ta staff to come back to us as we are seeing the roll out of the recommendation that come tr ca 2030 and for your item, i believe it would be good perhaps to continue with the budget analyst to assess outcomes as well and work together with the ta if it's possible? >> yeah, i really appreciate miss hyatt's analysis and thanks for the report from