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 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 di