we have the most significant problems. and district 6 in particular, south of market where you have freeway s crisscrossing this neighborhood. with all of that said, i am looking at this and one thing that strikes me. so it's a $21 million so of investment. so district 8 receives a whopping 1% of that investment. so again i am not in any suggesting it should be each of the 11 districts gets its percent. i want to district 6 and 3 to get their proportionate amount, and they should. and that strikes me extreme. and in district 4, the sunset has challenges, and district 4 is in the same boat as district 8, gets 1% of the total investment.

again i am not advocating for some pure equity among the districts. but taking into account there will be disproportionate amount for 6 and 3, and there should be, but there has to be a rule of reason as well. and we have very significant needs in parts of district 8 as well, in terms of period safety. upper market, before my time, the incorrect decision was made to excise west of octavioiia boulevard and that decision was made and with horrible circumstances. and with bulb outs, $200,000 is not enough to bulb out an intersection. and the problems of that intersection go beyond bulbs

out, and it's a tragic disaster, there and others fall in that category as well. i could go on, but i am wondering in terms of how the decisions were made and how it could be that you have two districts that have pedestrian challenges and each are receiving a grand total of about 1% of the total funds allocated. >> sure. i should note that this is not everything that we are actually doing. this was purely to identify the 24 projects in 24 months. this is not -- not represent. >> i understand, but obviously we are saying, we gave policy directed from the board that we need to be moving on these street safety projects. that they were going too slow. and in 24 months to really make a difference. and is t strikes me

disproportionate. >> yes, i can understand that. one thing -- i am not prepared to speak to that exactly today. can i say one thing. some of the projects are incredibly effective and cost effective. something like daylighting will be very inexpensive. and very effective. so it will reflect a very small portion of the budget, but yet incredibly effective. as opposed to streetscaping where we are widening a sidewalk, it was not identified in the walk-first as a safety treatment but very sensitive to do and that's where some funding goes. >> sure, and frustration on my part, upper market is a mess when it comes to pedestrians.

i feel like we get a lot of lip service from city agencies of improving upper market and nothing happens. the only significant pedestrian improvement in upper market is the shortening of the crossing distance lower in market, that we were able to accomplish because a developer paid for it as in-kind impact fee and because we worked with the planning department to override an attempted veto from the fire department and neighborhood association and got it through. and it's been a universally supported change. but other than that nothing has really happened. and it's a major frustration. and this list, in terms of what our priorities are, says to me that upper market is not a priority. >> jonathan ruse at the mta, i will try to address those comments. first overall the feedback we

are getting back on this list is very good and important. i want to stress that we put "draft" all over it and it's a prototype and to have a discussion and a work plan to work through the projects. and the prioritization and the areas to focus on, those are important comments to get as part of this. i want to remind you commissioners that salynna (inaudible) presented this two quarters ago, when we started this committee. so this is the list we are working off. >> this isn't the first time i have raised this issue, i have said it before privately and publicly. i am saying it in probably the starkest terms now, because i feel that my feedback has not been heard. and certainly not reflected. i don't know how many conversations i need to have

with people about the needs of upper market and the mess in terms of traffic flow and the pedestrian needs. for to get through. >> no so that's good feedback to help how we frame this list. this list was meant to be a bucket of what we think that vision zero is. and it doesn't take away from the projects that we intend to fund in the upper market area. and working with the cac and we have a number of projects in the planning stage that we are woking with the planning department. and the development in that area, we are setting aside mi millions of dollars for that area. the question, commissioner wiener, when you look at a vision zero project or data or effectiveness that mari is talking about. whether or not as a policy matter this committee wants to make that a definition. then we are happy to add the

project. some of those things are funded. it's just moving one thing from one bucket and adding it to this list. i don't want you to get the sense that we don't think it's important. >> my concern i think it's wonderful and so important that we are saying that these are the projects we are prioritizing for a 24-month period. and that is good, because it holds the city family accountable, not just talk with it but deliver them in 24 months and period, and end of story. when i look at a project that is happening supposedly in my district, the diamond embosswell area that is a mess. and tom (inaudible) obtained money for that list, we are in 2014 and no work has been done. and it drags on and on, and i

don't know why it's not in construction. the concern whether or not there is an attempt to do something or the funding available. if it doesn't make it on the list that we hold ourselves accountable for a 24-month delivery. we see more diamond and bosworth and it continues even though the money is sitting there. that's my concern, i know that the mta and the other agencies have the best intentions. and not disagreement of what needs to happen but to get the momentum to make them a reality. >> good feedback, and we will take that into consideration. and frame that and take into consideration, if you want updates on those projects, we will get you updates on those projects. i am getting a sense from the committee that you want to hold us accountable on this list, whether planned before or in the

future, and we will go month by month and we may need your help to get resources or staffing. >> i don't want consideration, i would like a response today, and also district 4. i mean there are some terrible intersections there, and terrible streets, 19th avenue. and some overlap into district 7 and district 4 is also almost absent from this list. >> we will get back. we will get back to that and come back with an appropriate set of lists for both districts. and have a discussion as a committee which projects you want to add or subplant off the existing list. because we want to deliver something in 24 months. >> thank you, and like i said, often in our office, we are a small office with four people. we think that we have the same understanding of words. and it's often helpful for us to

check in and have the same agreement. i want to make mention that sixth and howard i brought up many times, and frustrated it's on the list. and i understand there is a change in staffing and she knew it wasn't appropriate to be on that list, and i understand a change in staffing. i realize there are some changes made, our work district group made changes and add some things and subplant projects that our residents thought were a higher priority. i want to change the structure, mrs. hunter, instead of all 40, i think that everyone has had an opportunity to read through 40. and we will have an opportunity to ask questions and feedback, i have commissioner mar on the roster. >> thank you, chair kim, i am in

agreement with chair breed. looking at the areas and key intersections with the most conflicts and accidents and deaths is critical. and being equitable from a city-wide level looking at these projects is very important. and i am sensitive to what supervisor wiener is saying to give something to each district. but to me it's looking at the most dangerous areas. and on the list it's masonic and geary. and i am pleased that the small but significant traffic calming is important. but i don't want to knit pick or micro-manage, but item 15 isn't in district 5 at all, it should be just districts 1 and 2. and to supervisor wiener's point, district 2 has nothing on here, but the things on my list share in district 2. you have to include not only for 15, it's included and masonic

and union terrace is district 1 and 2. and that's item 35. and item 36, geary and palm, is districts 1 and 2 as well from my understanding. thank you. >> commissioner breed. >> thank you, i just have a couple of comments. i appreciate supervisor wiener and supervisor mar's feedback on this in terms of relating accidents to how these projects are determined. i think what i had expected when we talked about moving these projects forward is that we would have a clear understanding of the most dangerous intersections. and how they related to the project. i know there is a map here that shows us those particular areas. but i guess the challenge i am experiencing is trying to connect the projects to the map. so my expectation would be that we make sure that we are

addressing those issues with some of the most dangerous intersections throughout our ci city, regardless of the district. and even looking at what is happening in my district. there are intersections they know for certain that are problematic that are not a part of the plan. and my concern is that we are not doing what i expected with vision zero, that is to address those areas most problematic. having a list that lists them out is great. but i guess prioritizing them in a way that explains how it relates to the data of those particular areas. and the accidents that occur in those particular areas. and i guess i can give an example, so i make sure i am being clear. in my district we have webster

street from fulton to sutter. and i want to understand the data for that, as well as understand why that was chosen. rather than turk street and eddie street, that tiknow f-- that i know for sure that there is a lot of collisions on that street. and i know for certain that golden gate is a problem going east down the hill towards steiner. there is areas where there is a number of accidents and bicyclists and pedestrians. just trying to understand how these were prioritized over others. and a comparison of those particular areas based on the numbers. so i can make a better decision about whether or not i can wholeheartedly support these

projects or support something else. >> that is good feedback and something that we heard at the task force meeting is telling a story about a project. and that is something that we can do. we have that data, so we know along this corridor what the collision factors were. and so we can definitely bring that information forward. >> and then the last comment i had, and this is probably taken place before regarding the bulb outs. we have especially during rainy seasons a lot of back-up with our sewage. i am not certain what the decision of the bulb out are made and how they are addressed so they are better what exists, to help avoid the back-up that we sometimes experience during the rain. i want to put that out there, as something that i hope can be addressed when making plans to

place these bulb outs in certain locations. >> of course. >> i wanted to add taking a step back to the map, which is some background regarding bicyclists and pedestrian high-traffic corridors that were identified with the collaboration of mta, and include where both cyclists and pedestrian injuries are concentrated and taking into account where the most severe were concentrated. and this includes 60% of the most fatal areas in the city. from that higher level that was a real consideration of respect of where these projects are. >> thank you, and i expect it to be made clear looking at project. they are listed and i appreciate

that was the case. >> communicating it. >> yes. and also because from my perspective i am not certain if what is relevant in my district, for example, based on my experiences actually make sense for the projects chosen. trying to have an understanding of that would be helpful, thank you. >> commissioner yee, did you have any other comments? >> well, it's part of this agenda item, and i know you didn't get there yet. so we have these 40 projects and then you have a section here that talks about add-backs. >> yes. >> and then the add-backs were for this fiscal year and next. there were -- through last year

through the participatory process and we had funding measures, is that reflected anywhere in this presentation? and the question i really have for that is, these are fairly small projects throughout district 7. and this funding for it -- so i am just wondering whether or not the time line on that is going to be -- well, i just wonder what the time line is. we have funding and the project, can we go? >> so you are looking for more information, like scheduled-type information for these add-backs? >> um, yeah, but for last year. >> last year? >> the funding was for last fiscal year. in regards to, by the time that

we selected, we, meaning the community in district 7. selected the projects, there were nine of them. the funding has been allocated and transferred to i believe mta. and then so now i am just wondering whether the time line would be, delayed or what. and whether or not -- to me it also makes sense if we are doing this through our participatory budgeting in each district. these projects should be added, as a project -- not part of the 24, or 40. but just as an addition to. >> to track. >> yeah, because it really, to me these are projects that the neighborhoods that are important to support vision zero. >> of course. so we can look into the add-back

funding you provided last fiscal year and provide an update. >> yeah, and part of this. >> yeah, okay. >> and i really apologize, because i really want to stay for the entire discussion. but i also wanted a break-down of this $21 million. the full $21.2 million and what the source of funding is. so i want to have have a complete understanding of where the money is coming from. and is there a gap -- oh, in the dollars to make sure that we are doing our job, making sure that we fund these projects adequately. and if there is projects under funded as commissioner wiener brought up that we want to be sure that mta is there to deliver. >> with this we have scope and schedule and now an estimated budget for each of the individual projects. part of the consideration with which funding sources would be

used, has to do with the time when that project would happen. as of today with regard to the 40 and $21 million, we are confident that between the revenue bonds and k-sales tax and operating funds for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. plus the add-back money that you supported and the mayor's office that we can fully fund the 21. and in the next cycle, we can provide project-by-project plan, we didn't want to do that yet, and maximize the sales tax versus a revenue bond that can only be used for certain things in a certain period. now that we have clarity on timing and funding amount we can plug in that. and with the sources and prop bonds that the revenue bond can

be fully funded. >> it would be great -- i don't need per project, that is a lot of work, but the breakdown of the total aggregate and that we are funding the projects properly. >> i want to point out something. when we talk about the status of these projects and when i look at what we -- where we are with these things. like predevelopment. design. preconstruction. environmental and all of this. i guess this is a part of me that is wondering really, these are completed projects? in other words, as a layman, when a project is finished. i am trying to design it and now i complete the design. so. what is the impact on the

safety? i design something. so i am just questioning whether we should define completed project differently. in my mind a completed project is when it's done, actually going to help the situation. and people will see that it's done. i don't know how other people feel on this -- >> that point, that's a good point. the difference between something that is complete and an intersection is fixed. we won't have any other collisions there. versus something is implemented and we need to evaluate it and make sure that is actually going to address the problems we have identified. is what we think are the collision factors. am i understanding you correctly, something that is complete and how we evaluate it? >> yeah, again you are designing

something that is predeveloped to be preconstruction to be finished. >> right. >> for me, when it's finished, that's completed. >> right. so the status column is where we are right now, where the project is. and the estimated completion is when it would actually be in the ground. >> excuse me, what you are saying the phase it's in. when it says, complete, the project is completed. there is nothing else to do. the status is the phase that the project is in. so it goes in the planning design phase, the construction phase, and when it's finished it's complete. that's how we do all of our construction projects in the city. >> okay, for instance, if i take any item. say item 19. and right now, today it's in the predevelopment. but we are anticipating that the whole project would be finished

by june. >> june of next year. in between now and june of next year, you will see three more phases of status update. >> thank you very much, that is helpful. >> sorry that wasn't clear. >> i don't see anymore questions or comments from this commission. i mean right now. so we can go back, if there are more. but at this time i want to open up for public comment on this item. >> good morning, commissioners, my name is nicole snyder, the executive director of walk san francisco. i want to thank mta for the progress they presented. and to take a step back to january of this year, when we worked with you all to shape a vision zero resolution.

and then worked with mta and other agencies. at that time we were advocating for a crisis intervention team to correct intersections where collisions had happened and react to the collisions and do engineering at those intersections. i think we have shifted a little bit to take more of a long-term approach to look at not just immediate responses. but collisions over the last five years or 10 years, and where those intersections are. and the main thing we were ad advocating for and there was an item that we couldn't tackle to our level and to go above the

projects to add 24 projects. and i think again in april -- no, in june when we worked with all on add-backs to create new projects, those were meant to be new projects [bell] i want to highlight that we really appreciate the vision zero list and appreciate all the hard work. and we know that the city is putting a lot of work and effort in this. and this is a perfect venue to ask the question, what do we need to advance new projects? what can the cta board help and provide to the mta or who needs it to create new projects. to really help us achieve our goal of ending deaths. thanks. >> any other -- please come up. just as a speaker finishes. mrs. gold thank you for being here. >> thank you, i was hoping there would be an answer to the last

part of her question. >> we will answer her question, public comment doesn't allow a response. >> real fast, this is new to me, i would like sfta to address what exactly is a road diet and what does leading pedestrian interval mean. and also in conjunction to what the last speaker asked, are these projects written in stone. are there additional projects that are not yet on the table yet. thank you. >> thank you, mrs. gold. >> my name is debbie gold and i live in district 6. >> to the committee project for the san francisco city with the pedestrian safety and without

furthermore just like california (inaudible) accident, thursday. (inaudible) although it's related to the city, and richmond district, and (inaudible) but action related to the city. just accident and (inaudible) 10 weeks ago, see, in the morning like (inaudible) in the morning, like 70 years lady and a lovely son and chinese lady get killed. (inaudible) traffic. so the only way to resolve such a conflict is to please make a decision (inaudible) i mean in the street you have to have ultimate (inaudible) of your thinking and thought and how you apply yourself. your pathway. even for older people and in

chinatown grocery, you have to consider good objective and don't (inaudible) consider traffic and waste time for people going out to places. no sense to go randomly without a real objective. (inaudible) without good concern. so it should lead to (inaudible) for that person (inaudible) [bell] >> thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. i am leah, with the san francisco bicycle coalition. i want to build on the comments of nicole snyder, with walk san francisco. we work closely with you and staff from various departments, and thank you for taking seriously the goals of vision ze zero, elevating that. and i think that we have strayed and moved away from the urgency.