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 the budget office and thank you everyone. this is an informational item that we don't need to take action on. so miss chang can you call the next item. >> the clerk: item no. 8. item 8: recommend approval of the scope of work for the strategic analysis report sarr on local and regional bike sharing organizational models and appropriation of $43,000 in prop k funds, with conditions, for the sar, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedule action* attachment at the september 10, 2013 meeting of the san francisco county transportation authority board, chair avalos requested that we initiate a strategic analysis report sarr to investigate possible governance structures of a regional bike sharing program beyond the current bay area bike share pilot, which opened to the public on august 29, 2013. as part of the scoping process, we have consulted with the san francisco municipal transportation agency sfmtaa and other stakeholders on relevant issues that should be addressed in the sar. the proposed sar is scoped to explore various organizational and governance structures for the regional model, from a true regional program to a local program that conforms to regional implementation standards. the sar will describe how different models would work and outline the

advantages, challenges, and risks of each. in addition, the sar will evaluate each model for its ability to advance the local and regional goals for bike sharing, their financial sustainability, and their ability to grow the program quickly, successfully i.e., high usage of the systemm, and equitably. based on our discussions with sfmta and other stakeholders, we have identified the potential need for additional technical work to complement ongoing research efforts, and therefore are requesting additional funds in the event this work needs to be performed in coordination with sfmta and the bay area air quality management district. assuming board approval of the sar scope in november, we anticipate releasing the draft sar in march 2014 and finalizing the sar for board adoption by may 2014. we estimate a cost of $18,000 for development of the sar and up to $25,000 for optional technical tasks, for a total cost of up to $43,000. we are seeking a recommendation to approve the scope of work for the sar on local and regional bike sharing organizational models and to appropriate $43,000 in prop k funds, with conditions, for the sar, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedule bike sharing organizational models and to appropriate $43,000 in prop k funds, with conditions, for the sar, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedule 12341234 >> we have a verien enthusiastic mr. schwartz. >> good afternoon commissioners. michael schwartz. on page 37 of your passionate. -- packet. i'm going to keep the presentation very short. >> sorry, i know how important this is. >> yes, i realize there has been a lot of presentations done. i recognize the need for that. so the first item is about the background -- bike sharing and i would encourage you to look at the meeting and which has been a great presentation and will give more detail on what i'm covering here. for those who don't know what bike sharing is. it's like car sharing. really the goal is to not only increase cycling but really allow for short trips, as well as that first last mile transit issue to allow people to get to and from whenever they need to go. it's

mostly internationally. the one in paris is the most famous recent example in the large scale and u.s. in chicago and there are i number of cities where it's been quite successful. the current pilot is not only in san francisco but along other cites along the peninsula the bikes will be rolled out. the area air equal management district is the lead of the pilot and it's just getting under way. my colleague is here if anyone has any questions about the numbers with those. i'm going to move on from that. for those of you who haven't been 33 -- through

an economic achievement report. supervisor avalos was at the board meeting for the expansion of the bike share as it moves beyond the initial pilot phase to analyze challenging policy issues. some recent once is looking at the pilot industry and a lot of those have resulted in some of the current efforts that you see in changes within the city as well as state policy legislation with respect to the level of service metric. >> the skroep that is in front of you in your packet is looking at the pros and cons of the informational model. there is two questions in mind whether to have a locally or regional model compared to where the district is the lead right now as well as the organization should it be a public agency, non-profit, there is even for profit

models and we'll look at sustained growth and to be able to expand the system and make sure it's operationally sustainable. the funding can be from non-traditional sources such as funding through sponsorship. the goal to allow the decision makers to be informed about how it should be governed and what san francisco stake is in that structure. the request before you today is $18,000 for the sar for the management category. this really covers transportation authority staff cost to complete the sar and the committee month's schedule and the way it would work is we bring the draft up to this body again with the chair sitting in

the role and would be refined through a more regular process for a final approval. in addition as was noted in the cac report. as part of the scope process we've met with the scope networks and a few things have come up. one thing in particular is to look at the standpoint. we know in the long run whether it's a regional system or controlled, there would be sponsorship funds and it's important to get an understanding of what those assets are worth and it might look at how this might work from a financial sustainability. that would come from the bicycle safety and category and they are optional. the funds are separate from sar

and would be approved with sf mta concurrence before the funds are spent and they are separate from the sar and are from a technical task to support the sar as a means request. with that i will turn it over to questions. thank you for your time. >> i serve on the bay area air quality management district. and i would like to hear you talk about your discussions with the staff and any concerns that are raised with what they are doing and done with their blessings? >> we have reached out to staff and with the stakeholder interviews as the key efforts and the performance on the study is happening and they are in the same process of thinking about the evaluation of the current program and the regional structure that may look at a variety of different

stand points and not just san francisco with respect to so some of the evaluation work done for the regional system an they did not receive any bids on the proposal which is why we are having funds to do their own values study. we know their further conversations with the city and we know they need to move forward in locked steps in coordination. >> mr. schwartz, from avalos point, i know that karen shul neck and others from the district office have been riding it and i see some of the glitches that they are working hard to deal with quickly and but i think it would be really good for them to share more with individual commissioners as well. i'm really glad that you are working with the bay

area air quality management district, especially with karen on this. >> thank you. >> miss chang. >> at the risk of prolonging this. i want to say that the they are in the process and the importance of providing a process ahead of the decision that will come to the sf tc. oov -- thank you. if there are no questions. just

>> would it be difficult to fund only the, any sort of problem. you want to use bicycling as a means to replace munis is not a possible way. >> thank you. we have miss hostage from the boiling -- hodge from the bicycle coalition. >> i want to reiterate our strong desire on the focus of equity to make sure it develops an equitable way and the country have experimented with in terms of opening up bike share with many communities