we are calling 2030, it's an infrastructure investment plan that comes out of the mayor's 2030 task force recommendations. before i talk about the program itself, i want to provide some context what we are addressing here. most people if you ask them how they feel about trying to move around san francisco, will respond that it can be stressful. we have streets full of pot holes. and we find that muni is often crowded and sometimes reliable. and congestion on our streets impacts people no matter how they are choosing to travel. we are in this situation largely because we have suffered from many decades of underinvestment in our infrastructure. and as we look towards the future and know that we expect hundreds of thousands of workers and residents in the city in the next 20 years, we can assume

that the situation can only get more acute. even though we had great deal of success after 2011 adoption of street bonds of fixing our streets. we are still in a situation that over 50% of our streets are in need of paving. that has impact in safety and costs. people spend several hundreds dollars a year repairing their cars from our streets. and as people move around on foot and bicycle they have difficulty. on the transit side we know that our reliability issues stem from the infrastructure. we have many facilities over 100 years old. they have never had a full complete overhaul to accommodate

today's fleet. we have a situation where our fleets don't fit in our facilities. what would be most efficient is to raise a vehicle on a lift, to get underneath it to fix it. instead we have pits in the facility that people have to climb in and work to fix it, and when it rains the pit floods and that causes additional challenges. we are not efficient getting maintenance done. and impounding that, we have old fleets. i know you are aware that we are in the process of updating our fleet. but the issue that is we have taken us where we are today. our breakdowns in service are more than other peers in other cities. and largely every the past years to fund the overhaul to keep our

fleet in running order for the extent of their useful life. we know that we put a lot of pressure on our fleet, because of the topography in san francisco and heavy ridership and without resourcing the care and maintenance of our fleet, we won't get the performance that should out of it. and the congestion is the impact muni service and our system is slower than others, averaging 8 purpo miles per hour. and is there a lot of things to protect muni but we need the resources to implement those. and in the news and i am sure you aware of a number of tragic situations that people have died on our streets, either walking or bicycling. we know that people are

vulnerable on our streets and we have done collective work to make our streets safer, and we know what those are and need resources to implement them. in terms of how we got to this situation with a significant infrastructure, we have had difficulty on all levels securing sufficient funding for these purposes. at the federal level the gas tax has not been modified since 1993, and losing its purchasing power. and state funding for infrastructure is very uneven over the years. we had a bond pass fairly recently and most of that funding has been spent. at the local level we have had prop k sales tax that is a critical source for us to do core, maintenance on our system. but it's not sufficient given the vast need that we have. and how much the capital investment really costs. the last time that the city --

and the city does fairly routinely issue general obligation bonds asset for parks and library, etc. the last time that one was put forward to the voters to fund the transportation system was in 1996. and it didn't pass at that time and we haven't had a pool for the needs of the system. this is not unique to san francisco, this is a nationwide issue, and we are facing similar circumstances. the federal government estimates as a nation we need to invest $250 billion a year to do the basic maintenance on our streets and transit systems to get this grade up from "d." in facing all of that and looking at that as the context, the mayor in 2013 pulled

together a 2030 task force and where we are today and what we need to do to prepare our transportation system. and he put together a group of 45 people, really wide array of stakeholders, representing everyone from big business to community advocacy groups and policy makers, and transportation experts, etc. and the group spent almost a year evaluating and based on a lot of existing work that the city has done, where we are today and what we need to do to make the system really function. the task force found that in order to get the system on the right course over the next 15 years, we need invest about $10 billion. it took a while for the task force to get comfortable with that number, because it's sort of a scary number, it's pretty

big. but having reviewed all the work they land on $10 billion, and we have sources that are existing state and federal and some local and that leaves a $6 billion gap. and the task force looked at various revenue measures that the city could pursue to fill that gap. the task force ultimately recommended three different types of funding sources. and taking those into consideration, in january of this year in the state of the city address mayor lee called for pursuing two sources that the task force identified, and they would generate $15 billion to improve our rootads.

the measure includes a general obligation bond and restoring the rate to 2%. the vehicle license fee can only be approved as a general tax that means it goes into the city's general fund. the proposaal is to pursue both and go to the voters, and with a policy statement that it's the policy of people of san francisco to use increase from a vehicle license fee to fund transportation infrastructure improvements. this shows the approval process for putting those items on the ballot. both the general obligation bond and the vlf. and requiring a majority on the ballot, and the bond requires

two-third vote. for the money approved, we have approximated here the level of investments in the three categories. but one thing i will point out, there is so much overlap because our streets are interconnected and it's hard to distinguish one type of user is taking advantage versus another. is there a lot of improvement for example in pedestrian safety, that is categorized under transit because it's part of the transit effective investment and there is a lot of pedestrian improvements there. is there -- there is a lot of overlap of the three. one thing we expect to see if

these funds are approved is the ability to use our operating money differently. we currently use operating resources to handle emergency repairs than to send emergency crews out for an broken down bus we could use on maintenance or striping the streets or etc. more specifically how the funding would be allocated if approved. we would see about two-thirds of the city's streets repaved over the course of 10 years. this would be building again on the great work that has been done as a result of the 2011 streets bonds. and one critical factor of the streets, we know it's less to

payche take care of a street in good condition than bad. if you start with a street in okay condition it costs $350,000 per block to repave. if you start with a street that is deteriorating it's $2 million a block, it's a significant difference. to the degree that we can raise the average condition of our streets we can use this money more effectively. in the paving program we also would be able to build about 1,000 curb ramps annually. on the transit side there is a significant amount of making the right-of-way improvements that protect muni service as it runs through the congested streets. we have seen through the dpt what needs to be done, and this would allow us to make those investment to provide relief to

50% of our riders on those specific heavy ridership routes. we also would be in a position to expand and upgrade our fleet. so we currently have funding from the federal government that allows us to replace vehicles on a 1:1 basis, but no funding available for the agency to expand to upgrade the bus. we know that two concerns with muni is crowding. and we know that to upgrade to a longer bus but we haven't had the funds. and as you are aware to put together the 2% increase, and as we meet the demands of the city, we will need the ability to expand our fleet accordingly.

this program would also include again very important accessibility improvementes on the muni system, we have improved the (inaudible) and we will improve escalators and elevators, etc.. and many of the improvements called out in tep are on travel time production, and we are running at 8 miles per hour today and we would see those implemented as well. and our facilities are in need of desperate repair, as i mentioned earlier, this funding would allow us to start the process of overhauling our facilities. we have a complicated structure of our facilities, because they are so much at capacity of the -- capacity. we need to do it step by step, and this allows us to get moving

on that. and then as we look towards the future and understand that the city will continue to grow and change, and that we will continue to see changing travel patterns. this program will allow some funding to start to plan for the new way that the people are moving around the city. we see for example, a lot more people trying to move from the southeast to the southwest of the city. this would allow us to start the planning process to implement those types of corridor changes. on the street side, there is a fairly significant amount of money that would go into pedestrian safety improvements from this program currently proposed. we would be able to triple our program walk first program to prevent 90% of the injuries we see on the streets. we have close to $570 million in funding that would go to vision zero. this looks at all traffic

fatalities, regardless of mode. so this covers pedestrian safety and bicycle safety, etc., included in here. and then finally we would be able to build better defined, better connected and safer bike ways, which is something we have heard about from this board and the community. the program itself includes some strict accountability measures. there is independent oversight committee that would be doing aud auditing, reporting would provide a safety net for any variation from what was programmed to terms of the use of funds. on the project selection sides are because so many of these programs are built on many years of community process, building things like the bicycle strategy and the pedestrian strategy, we have existing project criteria that we would build on specific

projects. and a lot of data analysis with walk first, and we propose to add an equity overlay. so we ensure when we look at this program equitable, that we have goals specific to each program. and we have to consider the funding eligibility, some projects would not be eligible for go-bonds. and throughout this process we will engage with the community to be sure that we meet the needs of the city. i will point out that the date on here is incorrect. but in terms of our next steps we have a deadline at the board of supervisor of may 13, which is next tuesday for the go-bond to be introduced, if it's going to be able to be on the ballot this november. the vls has a deadline of june 10. so we are expecting that those ordinances will be get

introduced. clearly the bond would need to be introduced next week. the board of supervisors has until july 22, to vote to put these items on the ballot. and assuming they did go on the ballot, they would be on the november 4 election. and we are as you are aware, beginning community outreach. we have a number of meetings in each supervisor district, may 12 in district 5 at the african-american arts cand culture center. and looking forward to get out in the public and educate what this program entails, etc. i think that's it. >> thank you for an excellent presentation. members of the board? questions? comments? board member rabke.

>> i understand of the 3.5 billion and that these are steps to get there. is there a plan to get the rest of the money? or is this going to help us getting that moneyi? >> it will, to the degree we can raise local money will be better than the state or federal. and the mtc was part of the mayor's task force, at the conclusion of the task force process the mtc proposed their core capacity challenge grant. that requires a higher level of local match. but opens up more funding

available for fleet and facilities. if these sources were to pass we would be eligible for another $5.5 million from the mtc, that gets us closer to the $2 billion. and this november we could become part of the city's capital program of issuing structure. the parks are on a regular cycle and the proposal that transportation is part of that cycle. we anticipate a bond in 2024. and the committee had proposal to increase sales tax, and not moving forward but it's

something that the policy maker could consider. together if we took all of those, it could get us to $3.5 billion, and if not $6 billion. we have the opportunity to review and identify other potential revenue options going forward. and i will say that -- closing that gap by 50% would be such a significant achievement. and the impact to the street would be very widely felt. even if we got to that point. >> thanks. >> yes, that was one of my questions, thank you, direct. the bonds is two-thirds and the vls is majority, what is the review of vls increase? >> it's $17 million a year.

>> and if the bond passed that's not bonded against our revenue. so we wouldn't have it in our budgets as something we are servicing, it would be serviced by the city. but the money would be in the muni budget for all of these projects we talked about? so i guess the comment i have is more one of informing the public. and i suspect this is maybe in the presentations. but the presentations and the discussions we have had here focused a lot on the need. and a lot on what this will do particularly increasing, you know, the capacity of the system with newer buses and trains. something that is of particular interest to me. there is another component, and if sonali were here she could

echo, now is a time for the city to borrow money. the interest rates low, and the city is about to be influxed with folks. it makes a lot of financial sense to borrow money and bond like this. when we are trying to explain something like this to the public, they want to know that the money is well watched, have the safeguards and what the money is used for, and whether this makes financial sense. we might want to work with sonali and others to explain there is many factors that makes it this is a wise time for the city to borrow this money. >> thank you, chairman nolan, i had the question about remaining balance and why not a higher

ballot measure, and there is an $8 billion ballot in alameda county, they are going for a huge thing, and not that many more than we are serving. i want to express my interest in making sure we are learning as much as possible from the folks doing transportation measures around the region. in addition to just financial timing, there is also good political timing in respect with the campaigns around the region. and there may be synergies that we capitalize to make sure that the processes are informed and leveraged off of each other. i like this and especially like the equity lens on this and look forward to the next few months. >> thank you, if i can make a point on the size of the general

obligation bond. that was in part determined by the city's policy not to raise property tax rates. the maximum rate without raising property tax rates. >> got it, thank you. >> thank you, good presentation. i know we can't understate how important this is to the people moving to the city, and with the building and mid-market and the downtown area. i guess what i want to focus on, i am looking slide 10, the last times there were bonding measures, 66 failed. 93 the last time that was the federal gas tax was raised. and 2006, which was a statewide. because i know as we roll this out to the public, i think what is going to be most fresh in

everyone's memory is the prop-k sales tax, which was how many years ago? that was a number of years ago. i think we can show a good picture on how that money is spent. and also prop-b, which i think that people forget is a dpw street resurfacing bond. i think that people in their minds equate that with our agency and i think it will be important to what director re reiskin said, to be responsible with money. and to build on that question, if these measures are approved, by the board of supervisors to place on the ballot. what then is our responsibility and ability and commitment to actually going out and making sure that people understand? i know for other measures in the past, there have been outside

consulting firms hired. and i believe that the soda tax on the ballot has a consultant working on it. are we going to depend on ourselves and this amazing board and our amazing staff and the city family to make the arguments for these? or are we going on broaden that and bring in outside help? i am looking at everyone in general. >> up until the point that these are placed on the ballot by the board of supervisors, premably in july. what we can do at least as government employees and with government resources is provide information in support of people's understanding of the needs of the mechanisms of the uses and the fiscal benefit. once these go on the ballot, once these are placed on the ballot by the board of supervisors, we can still

provide information but we cannot advocate with government resources. that's not legal. at that point or any point between now and then, it's likely that outside, that someone on the outside would create a campaign committee. and hire the professionals to actually run a campaign. i will say there will always be a role for leadership from this board, from the board of supervisors and from the mayor, in terms of being the spokes people for understanding the need. i think the leaders of transportation in this city will have that role. but to answer your question, yes, it's likely not with government dollars but privately raised dollars there would be a campaign that is professionally staffed. >> thank you, i know that we all feel the urgency of this. i think that's my last question.

>> members of the public? >> yes, mr. chairman, howard stressna. if members of the public wish to address the board, fill out a card. >> mr. director, this is urgent and the part that you are offering to provide extra service, and that's great. and for service from (inaudible) and faster, and some will because you are doing more maintenance better, and that will be good. but some of it might not be enough. and i want you to look at the a campaign with the supervisors if is there a possibility if any service can't be made, we can use vlf, it can be used for this service. and help get votes. you have to generate the people that normally come out to vote.

you can say this will help muni service, and that will get people out to support this thing. people if they only, the dumbest, oldest car, they think they have to pay something, you have to show that they get something for it. and the car drivers to get something. and i understand as a pedestrian advocate also that we have to do the road repair to put the corner balls in and the bus balls. and you want to sell them on how sensible this is and we do it together and cheaply. this is a big project and if you do it well, get the other million. >> next speaker. >> peter strauss. >> good afternoon, directors. peter strauss and here on behalf of san francisco transit riders

union. has been working as part of a broad coalition addressing the issues of the vlf and the issues proposed to be on the ballot this fall. we have had a number of very productive meetings with mta staff as well as among ourselves. and the equity analysis that is your next calendar item, you know resulted in a large part out of those discussions. it's positive and many will be supporting this on the next measure. that said, the number of issues which i believe remain unresolved. supervisor avalos has statement that embodies our concerns. and it does it better than