intersections in our city which is why we decided to put a camera in that location to help address that particular issue, but i'm sure we are tracking that and i was wondering the time between installing the camera and the accidents being measured during that time in comparison to accidents that have happened before, has that data been gathered or has there been time to gather that data? >> we have the data. i don't have it on my head. we have it on collisions as well as citations issued for camera violations. i think the numbers are very low. i don't believe we've had a serious or fatal since the cameras went up. >> i think what's important because we are going to be having these discussions, there will be on going discussions and the information you are providing

us about how modes of transportation and how people get around and income levels, all of that is definitely very helpful to understanding exactly what we are dealing with as it relates to our over all transit system in san francisco. but i also think that we should put some things into perspective too, because there have been improvements. there is data i'm assuming that could help us understand when we add or change a specific intersection whether it be using bulb outs or cameras or other things. we are measuring what the change is in terms of the number of accidents in that particular area. so that information in moving forward in these discussions is really helpful as well. >> yeah, absolutely, i think that's a great point through the chair. i think the transportation authority or

your commission has established an add hoc commission and i think there is a presentation on that tomorrow. >> do you know if that information will be available during that time? >> i haven't seen what they are presenting tomorrow. in terms of the market octavia, we'll try to get that information. but more generally, the whole approach of walk first in particular is doing exactly what you are saying. it's looking at data, understanding which counter measures meaning a bulb out versus a signal, versus more time to cross the street, whatever it is. understanding what the effectiveness of each of those counter measures are for each mode of collision whether it's a failure to yield or left turn. it's very much driven to the point where we can reasonably predict at this intersection knowing

it's history if we do x counter measure we'll get results. that's what the counter walk street is based on. >>supervisor london breed: something we talk about on a regular basis. we are making changes all over the city. there are changes in the area that are not in the 6 percent number and i'm trying to understand why our efforts aren't specifically concentrated to address that small 6 percent very aggressively. of course not at the spend -- expense of the other things we need to do as a city but these corridors that we can identify are some of the deadliest corners in san francisco, why are we not taking aggressive steps to making those things a priority along with everything else that we are working on as a

city. >> that's exactly what we are doing. the analysis that got us to this point was just completed in the last couple of months and we specifically drove that work to get completed in time to inform our capital budget development. so our capital budget as well as other parts of the city family are oriented directly around addressing this so the dollars that we are putting in for example our capital budget for walk first will be absolutely doing this kind of targeting. last year we kind of reformed our traffic calming program to be more data driven where the needs are greatest. we are absolutely trying to focus where the needs are precisely for the reasons you identify. >> okay. i had that information last year and you are saying that we are focusing on that now? >> that's what we are

proposing to focus on this upcoming 2-year budget. >> all right. thank you. >> in terms of our fastest growing mode of transportation and we have a whole section on this in the next item, we do have a network that is fragmented. so while cycling at least one measure has doubled in the last six or 7 years there are different levels of quality in terms of the bike network and perceived safety that while it's great that we have all this increase in cycling, what we are not seeing that many others are seeing is a decrease in collisions. the general pattern, the higher mode share of cycling, the lower the number of collisions because of more awareness of cycling and the familiarity for

motorist and cyclist and coexisting. we haven't seen that decrease. so to supervisor breed's early point, there is a lot that has been done and despite having a lot more people in the streets of san francisco, our incidents of collision are not going up and they are not going down. we should be driving those down. people should not be dying just driving on the streets or walking or riding their bikes. this slide shows the starting point of our baseline for the upcoming 2 years. you will see for the first time in recent memory we have a positive starting point. so taking more or less our existing services we provide, our existing muni service plan, existing levels of traffic signal

maintenance, everything we do in just advancing it into next two 2 fiscal years and as well as the basis on the general fund contribution, we start at a positive place which is great. that's the level of service that we were just talking about and the challenges that's with slow vehicles, vehicles that breakdown often, streets that aren't as safe as we would like them to be. there is a lot of work to do to close that that would cost more than the couple of percentage points of surplus that we are starting with but at least we are starting from a good place. so just kind of a snapshot of past years what we are looking at in terms of our current year-end projection and the baseline. this gives you a little bit of a break down. transit fares are about a quarter of the

budget. parking and traffic is about a third of the budget, the general fund transfer is about another quarter and there is some other kind of miscellaneous, particularly a state grant that makes up some of the rest. but, so that's the big picture, everything on the revenue side generally trending up. on the expenditure side, likewise, the salary and benefits line and it's really the benefits. if we were to break that down are what's driving the budget for the most part. so, even with a fairly modest salary increases in the past and that transit operators which are 40 percent of our workforce have had zero increase in the past three 3 years as opposed to the rest of the workforce and most of the rest of the city workforce which have gotten increases,

even with that you can see that these numbers grow a fair bit and as far to the benefits growth. we do of course have all of our labor contracts open for negotiations now all but one very small unit. we are in these projections assuming the baseline figures that were in the last joint report that was just issued a few weeks ago which is zero 0 percent in the first fiscal year, fiscal 15 and a little bit more in 2 percent in the first fiscal year. anything that we end up negotiating beyond that would change these numbers. so these are just the base lines. in terms of the current capital plan -- >>supervisor john avalos: in the last slide a question

about the orders. i thought those had changed the amount of funds that were exiting as expenditures from mta for work orders. i see it going slightly up. can you comment on that and talk with the breakdown of that for the corridors? >> yes. i should have included that in here. i know you asked for this last go around 2 years ago, we can include it when we come back on may 15th what the breakdown is. largely they have been incrementing with. largely these are paying for services of other city departments. in many cases that is labor. just like our labor cost are going up primarily by benefits that's what's driving the increase. the only really significant thing that happened in the last year and it looks in these numbers that it's been offset by some of the growth elsewhere is that the mayor

in his proposed budget last year picked up half of the work order that we paid to the police department to pay for the share of the traffic company. we were paying about $10 million a year for the cost of the traffic company which are the motorcycle police officers doing traffic enforcement. we were paying $10 million which is about 80 percent of their total cost. in the last budget the mayor picked up $5 million of that and dropped our work order by $5 million. the mayor propose the general fund pick it up. the general fund picked up greater share and we are now only paying $5 million of the traffic company's cost. the work orders did slightly go down initially from 13 to 14, but for the reasons of these

other increases like our budget is increasing, it's still, that's what edges it up. our big work orders are for the city attorneys office, the police department, it's our share of, there is a number of general service agency cost such as our rent that we pay to real estate, it cost, department of technology. >> on may 15, when you return can you have that broken down? >> yeah. absolutely. we can send it following this meeting so you have it but we'll make sure we present this on the 15th. >> mr. riskin, can i ask a question. on the expenditures, the committee is looking at the top near term projects, i think they are top 20 or 25

projects. i'm wondering if those near term projects or short-term ones are in the expenditure budget. >> this is our baseline in the operating budget. most are capital cost. we will be proposing in our 2-year capital budget the funding of the start of walk first including those first 24. >> okay. thank you. >> just to the clear on the salary and benefits those are baseline as today not assuming any labor negotiations. >> they assume from the report. 0 percent at 2015 and 2.1 in 2016. >> great, thanks. >> so i apologize. this was our original baseline before the joint report came out.

that report does not include the 2 percent increase which is about $9 million. that would jump up by $9 million where we do include that assumption. >> okay. >> so on the capital side, this is from our last 5-year crp that you saw 2 years ago. these are some of the highlights of the bigger projects in there most of which are well under way. some of which such replacement are complete. some are in progress and some we will be initiating in the next couple months or year. so just some highlights in the three core areas which are the focus areas of the cip which are state of good repair. that is maintaining what we have. the complete streets project which are redesign of streets that work better for all modes of transportation and the things

we are doing to make the streets safer. just some highlights of where the capital money is being spent. so looking forward, our current proposal and us bringing to our board for consideration next tuesday has operating budget of 947 and 969 in their respect ive flooers and capital budget in the next few years. in which case more robust in the next few years. i will talk about how we are able to do that. the goals we are trying to achieve here and really addressing some of those challenges i pointed out before. the consistent quality service, making sure we are stable financially, not the ups and downs that we've had in the past and a strong

focus on affordability and social equity. the factors at play here that are current strong local economy are really fuelling a lot of what we can do on operating side. again, about a quarter of our budget operating budget comes from the general fund. so as the city's economy does well and the city does well it's a direct impact to us. similarly some of the state revenues that we get particularly from the state gas tax have been sending higher than projected revenues to us which have been helpful. other big factor we mentioned is a labor contracts. the way the charter time lines work. we will still be in the process of negotiating those by the time we are required to send our budget to you on may first. this is how it works every 2 years. this is the way the charter is set up. we may know

more when we are here on may 15th. but by the time the mta board acts, the labor negotiations will still be unknown so when we come back we'll have to make some adjustments based on the outcomes of those negotiations. then the big factor on the capital side we talked about which you are concerned with are the revenue measures that the mayor called for in the city's speech this year. in terms of the capital budget, we developed a 5-year cip every year from which comes our 2-year capital budget were guided by a number of different policy priorities including a bike and ped strategies, but also other agency and city plans. then we used that cip to not just develop the 2-year budget but to feed into the city's capital plan, to feed into our prop k 5-year expenditure plan

to guide the work at epic which is the group that manages some of the development fees that come out of the area plans. so it's really a pretty corner stone document for us. one thing i want to point out that there has been a lot of focus on particular line items. we have 16 programs. each one is essentially aligned in our capital program, but there are many crosscutting benefits that cut across the different lines. these being two of them, safe and complete streets which is where a lot of the bike and ped safety issues come up as well as accessible and reliable transportation. one example of this would be, we have one of our big lines now is transit optimization which is where the line from which we would proep to make some of the big improvements would

help muni run more efficiently. there are investments but they don't show on the line. i want you to keep in mind as we are talking about our capital plan and budget, that looking on a line item that says bicycle doesn't fully convey the investments that we are making and would benefit cycling as an example. these are those 16 lines and how they look for the next 5 years. obviously the central subway remains the kind of single biggest stand out, butts you will see the entrance the transit guide way which is the rails, the overhead wires, the transit signals, switches, it's a big chunk largely with federal funds. but you also see big

numbers in here for fleet and as i said for transit optimization which is really implementing aspects of the tep. those are really the big drivers. in many of those cases there aren't discretionary dollars. there are federal dollars for those specific uses. the discretionary portion of this whole $3 billion total is relatively small. so the 2-year view which we would be bringing forward for appropriation -- >>supervisor john avalos: sorry to interrupt the flow. could you again in slide 20, the difference between what would be a line item for bicycle, a line item for pedestrian versus a line item for traffic calming. i can

see that. can you touch upon it because it could have an impact on safety. how would you differentiate. >> thank you, that's correct. we just try to fit things where the majority of the benefit accrues. even the central subway, the changes that we'll be making on fourth street on the south of market will be making benefits. the core of the project in the central subway. they show on the subway line, not pedestrian line. it has a separate secrete program and we are talking about combining it with the pedestrian safety program. obviously the pedestrians are the biggest beneficiaries there. the traffic calming line is the city's calming program. it is

really all pedestrian benefit. same with the school programs so things like safe route to school which are largely pedestrian oriented benefit. we have traditionally called that out as a separate category. we can easily lump that in with a pedestrian category. as i have said much of what we do in transit optimization, will provide bicycle benefits. many pedestrian benefits. when you look at a project like masonic street which will be helpful, really all modes of traffic will be significant, safety benefits for bike and pedestrians, it will make muni run much better and safer for motorist. we have to make a call about what line to put it in for accounting purposes. >>supervisor john avalos: on a rule of thumb, what would bicycles be in terms of you talking about dedicated lanes?

>> i have some specifics on that coming up in the next presentation if not the next slide. it's things that are very specifically identifiable to bicycles such as new bicycle facilities, different striping for facilities also could be things like bike racks and parking and bike education, very bike specific stuff. that's not maybe part of a larger project. avalos >>supervisor john avalos: thank you. >> this is the 2-year view. i should point out that both on the previous slide and this slide, we are assuming in these numbers the first two revenue measures recommended by the mayor's transportation task force, meaning the $1.5 billion over the next 15 years that are recommended for this november ballot is half of what the task force is recommending at all. these

numbers are including the first few years of the revenues. if that doesn't get to the ballot, that would change. i will get to what that would specifically pay for in our budget. in terms of the capital, this is what the mayor's transportation task force identified as the need in the next 15 years. it's a $10 billion need for which we have identified a little bit less than 40 percent of the funding from kind of our traditional funding sources, federal funds, the prop k sales tax, our own revenue bonds and other funds. that's left more than a $6 billion gap. what again we are including in our assumptions are what the task force has recommended in terms of nearly $3 billion with new local revenue to go to transportation needs, not just mta needs but transportation

needs. specifically what the task force recommended to close a big chunk of the gap is these $3 million in terms of new revenue with bonds of $500 million each. one in november and 2024 and registration for license fees which over 15 years would generate about a billion dollars. then a new additional half cent sales tax which would generate about a billion dollars. what the mayor has proposed in the assumptions that we are including for this november's ballot are the $500 million general obligation bond and put into the general fund but then we are assuming what

would fund part of our capital program. >>supervisor london breed: mr. riskin, what's your back up plan if voters say no to the vehicle license fee? >> we don't have a back up plan. the $3.7 billion is what we have identified. i think at some point later i may have a slide on other potential revenues. there is no real back up plan. the whole reason the mayor convened this is that we have a significant need. this is the best consensus approach on addressing that need. >> so, i just had a couple of other questions because i know there was discussion around increasing the sales tax as well which is included as part of the plan in the long-term and there is a possibility that, i mean, we are looking at things that are very

uncertain. so i think i'm just a little concerned about a couple of things. no. 1, we are asking drivers to basically foot the bill for all the improvements and we are taking away parking spaces and we are making things a lot more what they believe and what drivers have expressed specifically in my district more difficult for them in a lot of areas for loading and unloading and parking. it's really been a challenge and i have gotten a lot of complaints as you and i have discussed before. i guess i'm just trying to understand how are we going to convince voters to support that especially drivers and to agree to pay a lot of money

that they don't necessarily have to pay but specifically for improvements. the bureaucratic answer i know is one that internally we understand the need, but how do you tell the average everyday person, you know, why this is so important and how this is going to make things better for them? >> yes, so through the chair, i appreciate that concern and i think it's a very valid and legitimate. i don't think it would be appropriate for me to talk about how to convince voters to do one thing or another. to clarify the at least the current proposed use of the additional general fund revenues that increase in the vehicle license fee would create would be the majority would be for street resurfacing. the balance would be for improving muni and improving bike and pedestrian

safety. not to convince anybody but everybody benefits from smoother streets in terms of why there is an impact and to the cost to your vehicle to the unsafety of having deteriorating crosswalks for pedestrians and also everybody including drivers benefit from a stronger muni system and safer streets for bikes and pedestrians. the more people that are riding muni or riding a bike or choosing to get around on foot that is you as a driver competing for that space or parking space as well as the fact that safer we can make our streets, the more we can rationalize and better allocate the space so we are reducing conflicts. that benefits everyone. no one wants to get behind the wheel of a car that hits --

>>supervisor london breed: i got that and by not having an alternative plan, it sounds like we are taking this for granted that this is going to actually pass. i'm concerned about the uncertainty and making sure we are prepared as a city for either situation. clearly, we are prepared to spend the money, but we are not prepared to do what's necessary if we don't get the money. so that's what i'm most concerned about. >> yeah, i hear your point. it's something we discussed with the transportation committee and some of the other city assets that we are responsible for stewarding. before the mayor convened this task force we didn't have a plan a for how we are going to close this gap. now we have a plan a and we have some leveraging dollars to take this further such as regional