current fiscal year. but extra from the year to date number on a straight line basis would indicate that still fewer will be constructed during this fiscal year than in 2017. dpw has the expertise and talent to do the job, but it and mod do not have sufficient resources. this is a matter of political will and prioritization. considering san francisco's $10 billion annual budget and the other considerations mentioned in my e-mail of december 9, 2017, there is simply no excuse for continuing the current state of affairs. dpw must be allocating more money and additional permanent staff to complete the job and make the sidewalks and intersections of san francisco fully accessible to people with mobility and vision disabilities. i won't be able to attend the meeting, marcy, if you have flies i would appreciate a copy

after the meeting. i'm submitting this as public comment. i will try to call in on the bridge line, but if i'm unable to do so, i request that someone from mod read this into the record. cordially, howard. >> that's great, appreciate you reading, that's a good letter. if there is not any more comment from the public, we're going to close the item out and take a 15-minute break. my watch says 2:01. let's come back at 2:15.

>> co-chair blacksten: all right, we're going on to information item number 8. vision zero. san francisco. >> the interpreter, control room, we need the interpreter bubble, please. thank you. >> co-chair blacksten: all right, information item number 8, vision zero san francisco. and we have presentations by megan wier, san francisco department of public health, director, program on health, equity and sustainability and vision zero co-chair and the or speaker is patrick golier, san francisco municipal transportation agency, senior transportation planner. welcome. >> good afternoon, thank you so

much for the opportunity to be here today. >> you have the right presentation in front of you? >> looks like i do. thank you. so as you might remember, i was here i believe toward the end of november to give an overview on vision zero and i'm excited to be here today to share the analysis we've been able to conduct on people with disabilities and injury to help inform the vision zero initiative. this it is the first time we're presenting this data publicly, so really excited to be here today to share what we're learning. and also patrick golier from mta will be sharing the work. mta will be advancing to help improve transportation. >> would it be possible for you to get closer to the microphone? >> better? great. i'm megan wier, i co-chair our

city vision zero efforts and i'm the lead on the work for data and evaluation. thank you. vision zero is the city's commitment to safer streets, eliminating traffic dust and eliminating severe injuries. 2017 was our lowest year for traffic deaths in our recorded history of over 100 years, but we know we have a lot more work to do and that's why i'm here today. and core principles of vision zero is preventing severe and fatal injuries, saving lives and

addressing equity, ensuring that vision zero benefits all people. we're working to create safe streets, safe people and vehicles and fundamental to vision zero is addressing speed which because there is a leading predictor of whether someone survives a traffic crash. we work to define what inequities and severe and fatal injuries mean, injury outcomes that result from unfair differences in social, economic and political conditions. and people with disabilities are among the communities that we're addressing for particular risk of experiencing injuries inequity. as i mentioned last time, we currently have a safe street for seniors program that is led by my colleague from the department of public health that has been focused on educating seniors and service providers about vision

zero, including conducting multilingual presentations, thus far the program reach is 730 seniors and staff at 25 locations. they've been funding community based organizations to do outreach and educational outreach and targeted locations, including eight, which includes lighthouse for the blind. my presentation is going to focus on a summary of the geographic areas we identified where targeted safety investments can help improve safety for seniors and people with disabilities, using our police, and hospital data. and then also, patrick golier is talking about the recommendations prioritizing locations. as i mentioned, seniors are at increased risk of death and severe injury. they're five times more likely

to die in a traffic crash than younger adults. we found among people in traffic crashes, seniors are disproportionately represented relative to younger adults and even to senior motorists. people with disabilities are a particular concern. people with disabilities comprise 6% of people that are admitted for transportation-related injuries. and disability defined as having mobility, hearing or visual disability. we heard a lot of concerns related to those issues and navigating the street and the potentially limited visibility of people in wheelchairs. today is the day that i'm talking about disability data from the trauma registry. that is abstracted from medical records of the people most severely injured. it's part of a linked data

system, linking data for vision zero. before we didn't have access to data because it had been not routinely collected in police data. the data that we have to share today is from 13 and 14, because abstraction was not possible in 2015, due to staffing shortages, so retro abstraction is still possible. i want to take a moment to acknowledge the historic advocacy around the issue and how helpful it has been. increasing awareness of the importance of disability and understanding traffic injury, and just thank everyone for their continued engagement so we can continue to understand and advance this work. so, among the people with disabilities in 2013-14 data, 59% of those injured were using a wheelchair, walker or cane. approximately one quarter had

hearing impairment and 20% had visual impairment. again, these are people seen at our trauma center for a severe traffic injury. about 70% of those injured were pedestrians. and similar proportions, 13% were drivers and 11% were bicyclists which is notable also. >> sorry, those are the people injured? >> correct, we're talking about people with disabilities seen at the trauma center of san francisco general hospital for severe injury. among those treated at the trauma center, over half were seniors, age 65 and older. 34% were aged 45-64 and 10% were less. >> i'm sorry -- [inaudible] . >> i'm sorry were less than 44 years and under. thank you. 10%. thank you.

so we, the remainder of the analysis, we combined seniors and people with disabilities for the analysis to look at pedestrian injuries for seniors and people with disabilities and where they're concentrated on the street network. we worked closely with the privacy officer and the city attorney to make sure that we were able to share data that could be useful for informing traffic safety interventions, but also that protected patient confidentiality, so combining these two populations given the small numbers was important to share the math analysis. i wanted to provide that context. so we looked at three years of data, we considered all injuries, both from police and hospital records and multiplied severe and fatal injuries by three and then mapped all locations with a score of 3 or more. the math i'm about to show you,

100% of severe and fatal injuries for seniors and people with disabilities are represented, and 87% of total injuries for people with disabilities, and a little over half of the senior injuries are represented in the segments. these segments represent 31.5 street miles, approximately half are in the city, vision zero high injury network and third are eligible for the program which patrick is going to talk about next. so this is a city-wide map of the street segments. we can see that a lot of the segments are concentrated in the northea northeast quadrant of the city. 19th avenue. i just wanted to -- i'll pause for a moment so people can take a look at the map. and again, i'm happy to follow up with detailed questions people may have.

is that helpful? next, we identified priority areas, so we have the streets segments throughout the city and wanted to identify priority areas which include where seniors and people with disabilities live. we did that by identifying census tracks that had the

highest one-third of seniors and people with disabilities and conducted a survey to identify priority locations we should target. which includes where might these populations be traveling more often? that includes senior centers, libraries, public health facilities and others that provide targeted services to seniors and people with disabilities. so when we looked at the priority areas, we did a good job overall of prioritizing where the segments. two-thirds of the priority segments we just looked at in the previous map are in the priority areas and that's where 75% of severe and fatal pedestrian injuries were also concentrated. these included 63% of total injuries to people with disabilitiesnd 43% to seniors. that's the next map.

the seniors and people with disabilities are in the tan, and the green areas are around the attractions where people might be go. that includes the senior centers, libraries, public health facilities and meal programs. >> is it possible to make -- >> yeah, and i could also -- is there a particular area you wanted to see more closely? >> the screen is hard to see. >> just hard to see overall? >> yeah. >> do you feel like having -- just having a much bigger map with street names or something like that. >> yeah. >> that's something we can follow up with. >> it would also be helpful if you described the neighborhoods that are being highlighted

because some people can't see at all. >> thank you so much for noting that. again, this really focuses on the northeast quadrant of the city. we have concentrations in chinatown and the south of market area. again, along the geary corridor and the western part of the city. and there is also concentrations in the various southeastern part of the city as well. now that we've completed the maps, an important question is how could they be useful to inform safety traffic improvements. so it includes addressing concerns, how can we overlay that over the city as projects advance and ensure there is

particular attention to the needs of people with disabilities and seniors in those areas? and then broadly considering the segments throughout the city for prioritization as well. again, patrick golier is going to talk about an mta program that is going to be doing that. but before we move to that, i wanted to give a brief highlight of a survey we conducted at the end of 2016 that helped this analysis. we administered it online, in spanish, english and chinese. we were really pleased to receive results nearly 300 responses to the survey. 38 people reported representing people with disabilities and another 80 representing seniors. and just to highlight some of the issues that are important that could be considered more closely in the planning processes, included concerns

crossing safely, with not enough time to cross, with issues with drivers yielding and a lack of crosswalks and then more general issues regarding visibility. and we also asked people, what were locations that were of particular concern to national assembly the city? so just in the survey and we overlaid that data with the priority areas of concern that we identified. and with respect to the intersections that people were concerned about, as well as corridors which people use long definitions, 71% of the intersections that people were concerned about in the survey were included in the priority areas and 55% of the corridors, this is a layer that was not only capturing where injuries were concentrated, but some of the areas that people felt less

safe in. the priority areas did a better job at doing that. 26% of the corridors and 36% of the intersections were in that segment. that concludes my presentation. i welcome any questions or comments or anything clarification that may be helpful. >> one moment, there is a comment on the bridgeline from orkid, i believe. >> ok, yeah, well first of all, you know, i wanted to know, i've been in touch with a deaf-blind individual and there are few groups who i feel like are

impacted the most that don't have guide dogs. they've never had a guide dog. and they have very limited vision, so that does -- a few of them have been hit by a car and some have a problem with, they're saying drivers drive too fast and don't give them a chance to get across the crosswalk, they walk slowly because of balance problems. so how would we train drivers, here in san francisco, more and more drivers are driving for über and lyft and they come from out of the city into the city to do their job and drive around and earn more money. so they're not aware of people living in those low case indication -- locations and they're driving too quickly. that's an issue. i wonder if you would hire a traffic coach, or some kind of

management, specifically for market street. you know, for people trying to cross the street, because drivers are driving too quickly. and the way the sidewalks are designed, it can create confusion as far as where people are going and traffic is moving. so it's just not the best design for people coming from out of the city into the city. especially in regards to speeding. you know, me as a mother, i've seen at my son's school, some serious barriers there and part of the problem is the drivers themselves. so you know, they don't have the right to go through the red light, but ironically, the law sometimes allows that, they may or may not know if they can go through that red light or not. and may or may not end up in jail. how do we resolve that problem with people going through red lights? it's scary. specifically for deaf-blind

individuals who have no or limited vision and they're trying to walk and all of a sudden, they're hit. the emphasis really is on the driver. >> thank you so much for the feedback. i couldn't agree with you more regarding concerns with respect to speeding and red light running. for vision zero, we actually have the sf police department, has a program called focus on the five, where they focus on the top violations that contribute to the most severe traffic injuries in the city. and that includes speeding. as well as red light running along with stop sign running, failure to yield and i always forget one. failure to yield while turning. so i feel like your comments included all of those violations which we have identified as critical issues for the police

department to focus their initiatives on. that includes recently a year long campaign that focused on speeding on the high injury corridors in san francisco. along with education campaign around speeding. vision zero focuses a lot on speed, not only enforcement, but street design. street design is a critical way to help slow traffic speeds. i'm sure that patrick is talking about that next. he's an expert from sfmta, so i don't want to steal his thunder, but he's a lead for the program, which focuses just on doing that. i would also be remiss if i didn't mention our top legislative priority for speed at the state level is automated speed enforcement which would allow for automated enforcement in san francisco of speeding violations. which in other jurisdictions where it's been implemented have been shown to decrease the

fatalities by 50%. i really hear you around those concerns and really welcome the support for vision zero. and for these types of initiatives that will go a long way. we currently were not able to advance the bill for automated speed enforcement in the legislative session this year, but it's something we're committed to long-term. >> co-chair blacksten: thank you. now, we're going to go to patrick in a minute, but there is, i think, a council member here who would like to ask a question. so first is alex and then helen. >> thank you for coming and sharing the updates to us. i just have a question for you.

i this is the first -- i know this is the first publish. what is maybe stats on implementing -- >> that's why i'm so excited. when i was invited to speak, i was asked if patrick would come, because that's what he's going to talk about. through vision zero, our agencies coordinate closely so we can inform improvements and that's one of the things he's going to be talking about today. >> thank you. >> council member smolinski: i'm

curious, what is the thinking behind traffic circles? is this more appropriate for your colleague? >> yes, i'm so excited he's here. helen smolinski that's fine. >> co-chair blacksten: sally. >> council member mcdonald: your data indicates road users are the victims, is that what you're saying? you had pedestrians, people with motorcycles, and people with bicycles. those were defined as road users. >> in the pie chart? >> council member mcdonald: i'm trying to understand if we're after just protecting pedestrians if these two are falling into protected classes, or if your data indicates like when bicycles hit a pedestrian, when motorcycles hit a pedestrian, all those things happen as well. >> sure, so -- are you still seeing the slides i'm looking

at? this one that you're talking about? >> council member mcdonald: yes. i'm trying to figure out who we're talking about. >> for this slide in particular, it's focused on the victim. regardless of falt, this is the person who is injured and came to the hospital. for vision zero broadly we focus on people walking, on people biking, on drivers, on motorcyclists. for this analysis that i shared today, the mapping focuses on pedestrians because our goal for vision zero is eliminating traffic dust. and this past year, 14 of 20 deaths were pedestrians, half of which were seniors. 70% of the people with disabilities were injured as pedestrians and that's why we focused on walking. in terms of if a motorist versus

a cyclist, it's just someone injured. >> council member mcdonald: that's what i wanted to know. one other question, you said you sent the survey to all these groups and only 30 people representing disabled? >> 38, correct. >> council member mcdonald: thank you. >> co-chair blacksten: thank you. your colleague, would you like to have him make a few comments? because we need to go to staff, too. >> i would suggest that we move patrick's presentation and go back to questions and public comment. >> co-chair blacksten: great. patrick, you're on. >> thank you very much for having me. again, my name is patrick

gloelier, i'm from sfmta, one of the hats that i wear is on the traffic calming program manager, so today i'm excited to talk to you all about a new capital program that we're launching at the mta, called safe streets for vulnerable populations. sorry for the formatting of the presentation. first, just a little bit of background. as many are aware, the sfmta is laser focussed on safety. we're focus on the high injury network. many of the capital programs are and resources are allocated toward the high injury network and this is based on previous efforts of the department of

public health and the mta to data crunch and come out with a list of corridors and a map where collisions are happening across the city. on the other hand, the city's traffic calming program is at the other end of the spectrum. it addresses residential vehicle speeds on residential streets. it's application based. so it's a customer service program for citizens across san francisco, but it is reactive in nature. so residents on their local streets are applying to the mta for traffic calming. they initial engineering review and result in a certain number of traffic calming projects annually across the city. the scope is limited. and we've got a limited range of tools in order to address speeding. largely, it's a speed hump program. and that is primarily because speed humps are the most

effective way of addressing speeds on residential streets. but for a number of years i've been advocating for a new program that bridges these two programs. and i have been initially scoping it as a proactive calming program where the city identifies streets across the city that could benefit from speed reduction. when my staff and i started to thinking about this and scoping it, one of the things that came out was the need to address vulnerable populations in the program. megan and i became aware of the initiatives and started collaborating a bit more on what the program might look like. and the result is a new capital program which would provide annual stream of funding for engineering solutions that will address collisions involving vulnerable populations across san francisco. including seniors, people with

disabilities and youth. the program goals of this new capital program would be to reduce the disparities among vulnerable populations and traffic injuries and deaths. we want to address safety issues taking place off the high injury network. that's important, because these are streets that otherwise may not be prioritized for capital improvements and yet these are streets where people live, where they walk, where they're crossing the street and where we are hear ago lot -- hearing a lot of concern from people and yet many of the capital resources are allocated toward the high injury network today. we want to improve comfort for those traveling by foot or bicycle. what is important, while megan's data is extremely valuable in identifying where injuries are occurring, that sense of comfort is also important to residents

and these are things that we learn about as we engage with communities and various populations about areas where people don't feel safe crossing the street. my library or bus stop is over there and i avoid this intersection because of a number of different factors. so these are issues that we want to identify as part of the program as well. we want to improve neighborhood connections to some of the key destinations that megan identified and would be identified through a robust engagement process. our approach is to be data driven, so thanks to megan and her team for helping us to identify locations across san francisco and patterns of collisions among these vulnerable populations. and then the outreach is the other big piece. we want to work directly with neighborhoods and stakeholder groups representing vulnerable populations in order to identify

these issues. the first step besides getting funding of course, is to identify some of the focus areas. megan's information and data will weigh heavily in that, but there are other factors in considering which neighborhoods should be prioritized for these types of improvements. land use analysis, geographic equity is important, whether there is support in the community for the improvements and whether there are other capital projects in the area we can piggy back off of. our planning process, heavily involved in outreach and engagement. we want to be able to go into the neighborhoods, talk to the people that live there, get input from the senior groups and other stakeholder groups representing people with disabilities.

talking to the school district, doing walking audits around the schools to try to identify these issues. and then going out to the broader community. this is duplicate of the previous one, but this outlines what a process might look like from identifying a focus area to construction. data collection, of course is something that megan will help us out on. data input. coming up with project proposals for traffic calming and other capital improvements to address safety. going back into the community with open houses, opening up the discussion with a broader community. tweaking that design as necessary. and then moving into construction. this is very, very similplistic but outlines what a program might look like.

one of the benefits of the program is that the tools in our tool kit are expanded. i mentioned that for the traffic calming program, we're fairly limited and largely it's a speed hump program, but i'm envisioning for this program a number of different tools depending on the issues. it's definitely not a one size fits all. every community is different, every community has different issues, but the solutions could range from traditional speed humps and other types of traditional traffic calming to signal timing improvement, crosswalk improvements, bulb outs, painted safety zones, et cetera. this map is just an example of a project that is being worked on today from the mta in the excelsior district and what it is meant to illustrate is how this process might play itself out.

the project area is identified in yellow on the map. and the red dots are key land uses and destinations within that district, including schools, parks and so on. in this case, very sight specific pedestrian safety improvements are identified with a little pedestrian icon, and then corridors are identified as well for traffic calming improvements. again, we're really excited to be able to launch this program with the mta. we feel like it's greatly needed and appreciate your support. and any questions that you might have. >> co-chair blacksten: thank you for your presentation. so, i know time is moving a little bit away from us. i want to go back to my colleagues on the council. are there any additional questions that you would have of

either one or both of these people? helen? >> council member smolinski: patrick, thank you for the presentation and this new initiative. it's very exciting and i think good news for all san franciscans. question about traffic circles. i noticed more of them popping up in the city. and specifically i'm speaking about tuk lid consider door. i noticed while they slow drivers down, pedestrians, and i'm included among them, i'm confused by them when i'm crossing. and i certainly feel safer in a crosswalk than i do crossing at a four-corner traffic circle. what is the rationale behind them? i imagine this is recently installed and we imagine that it was put there to improve

pedestrian safety? >> traffic circles can be put in a number of ways. people think of roundabouts that are more european and help to facilitate large numbers of vehicles safely. roundabouts -- >> are they the same thing? >> no, they're not. so what we're installing at some locations across san francisco, we consider them to be traffic calming circles. so the intersections that you're referring to are always stop-controlled. meaning that vehicles do have to stop at that intersection. that the circle in the middle is meant to visually slow traffic down and there is deflection for vehicles. the input i'm getting from the community around the corridor is as pedestrians, people don't feel as safe. we've installed a number of other traffic circles, similar to this in other neighborhoods

across san francisco and have not gotten that same feedback, so we're doing a formal evaluation of the circles on euclid. we're evaluating it against things like yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk and stop sign compliance. >> council member smolinski: that's good to hear. and that specific one, drivers slow down, which is terrific. but i can tell drivers are confused and it's a very heavy pedestrian neighborhood. and then the pedestrians were halfway through the intersection, and then you notice the car that you thought was going to turn around the circle is actually go straight. it's just -- it slows every down for sure. so that's great. >> that's good [laughter]. >> council member smolinski: that's good to know it's being

evaluated. >> co-chair blacksten: any other comments from the counsel, including orkid? alex? >> co-chair blacksten: who was first? let's go with orkid. >> council member sassouni: i know there are some neighborhoods that try to add those signs, you know, i don't know if you've seen the deaf child at play signs and usually that comes up because there is a disabled person or deaf child in the area and it's like a warning sign. i was a survivor of a car accident as a young deaf girl and the only problem is identification process. how do we make drivers not only slow but pay attention to what is around them on the road? because every time i go to a corner i know as a pedestrian that i have to wait until i get a visual confirmation that the driver sees me, but if i don't

have someone make that eye contact, i'm afraid i'll be hit. if they don't know i'm in the area, it can lead to an issue. i think we should consider educating drivers to make eye contact with people like me who can't hear them. >> i think that's a great comment and something that megan will take away as part of the education component of vision zero. it's also important for us at the mta to think about. visibility at intersections and perhaps relates back to the traffic circle question about as a pedestrian, am i visible? do i feel safe? if i can't see the driver. >> council member sassouni: yeah, it helps so much. as someone from new york, i know what it's like to be in a busy intersection. i think we could -- [inaudible] -- and just look for one another so we don't have shortstops or

misunderstandings and that eye contact is key, just an idea. >> co-chair blacksten: now, alex, coming to you. >> circle back to my question. i have two questions. one the original question, what are the improvements they made after the analysis? and second, do you have a targeted location that you follow to improve? >> i think the first question was what type of improvements -- >> that gets done after the analysis? >> that goes back to this slide, where i mentioned a broadening

of the different type of engineering solutions that we might install as part of the program. i don't think there is a one size fits all. we have a broad sense of solutions here that would be determined as part of outreach process with the community. recognizing that every community is a little bit different and the destinations are a little different and the populations. >> help to clarify through the chair, i want to make sure that the council understands this data has just been put together, so this project is brand new. and so my understanding from these presentations, they're ideas that have been generated, but we don't have data on changes yet. but the traffic calming projects have been in for some time. >> implementing?

>> this particular project that patrick is talking about today has not been implemented. >> i'm trying to get funding as part of the program. i have requested an annual stream of funding for this program. >> thank you. >> sure. >> co-chair blacksten: thank you. so, i just want to make one brief final comment. you made a great presentation. lots of information to digest. and you know, you've got a lot of good work to do and we're here to collaborate with you. as a blind person with a guide dog, i'm also hard of hearing. and so i'm concerned about what is going on the streets as well. we had not with my current dog, but my past dog, we almost got hit one time.