>> if we can get them to take it with them, take it out of the cars, it helps. good morning, welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority for today's meeting of may 8, 2018. our clerk, could you please call the roll. >> roll call, breed present. cohen absent. fewer present. kim present. peskin present. ronen present.

safai present. sheehy absent. stefani present. tang absent. yee absent. we have quorum. >> next item please. this is information item. >> good morning. >> good morning, i'm john larson, chair of the citizens advisory committee and i'll be presenting the report of the april 25, citizens advisory committee meeting. begin with item 5, the cac recommended adopting a motion of support for lifeline transportation programs as recommended. there was interesting in knowing if the bus routes could or should be shortened as sfmta replied the frequency of service on some routes was dependent on funding, that they were

east-west and that north-south was lacking. the caa recommended approval as presented. members had a number of questions about the relocation, demand management program, including the branding effort. how it would be evaluated. the cac as more assured after the condition of the funds were on evaluation methodology in the phase one research portion. the cac was strongly supportive of the vision zero ramp intersection study item 7 on the agenda. the cac remains committed seeing

vision zero as a priority in san francisco, given the density in the city and the growing transportation modes and conflicts on the city's roads. one longtime member of the cac, district 8 member, said he traveled across the country by bicycle and the condition at the freeway ramp intersection south of market are some of the scariest encountered anywhere. he looked forward to the implementation of the improvements. lastly, the item 9 on agenda, generated a great deal of discussion. members reiterated their displeasure about the lack of data-sharing by ride hailing companies and the puc. a question was asked about the ability of the san francisco puc to pursue local permit or impact fees and the sudden proliferation of scooters on the

goals. the main thrust of the conversation reinforced concerns about equities with regard to newer modes like bike share. there were only eight bike share docks in the entire excelsior for example. the district 10 monitoring bikes say there were only eight bikes available in the area of the city, even though the permit required 20% of the bicycles to be in communities of concern. he inquired about this issue and had not received a response. the cac looks forward to monitoring the outcomes and the recommendations in the report. that concludes my report, thank you. >> thank you, mr. larsson, any questions for him? seeing none, any public comment on this item? seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. next item. >> item 3, approve the minutes of the april 24, 2018 meeting,

this is action item. >> supervisor peskin: any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, public comment is closed. motion to approve the minutes. on that item, roll call, please. >> on item 3, breed aye. fewer aye. kim aye. peskin aye. ronen aye. safai aye. stefani aye. we have approval. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, next item. >> i'm sorry, item 4, state and federal legislation update, this is action item. >> supervisor peskin: mr. watts? >> happy to be here today, sorry i missed last month. things are moving and pro-bresing rapidly -- progressing rapidly as most of the bills are sitting in or

going to file on appropriations which will be dealt with at the end of the month. for today, ta staff has recommended four items that require action. two are bills which would require support and one recommending a propose and in addition, there is proposition i would cover first, that recommending support. proposition 69 was as part of the sb 1 package is on the june ballot. and the staff is recommending support of those three essential things. first, it protects the increased increment on the sales tax that is dedicated to transit. secondly, the transportation improvement fund will be treated like article 19. in other words, they'll be prohibited for being used for purposes other than what is in article 19.

the measure would relieve the new revenues from the state appropriations limit, similar to what happened in 1990 when sca 1 was approved by the voters. so that would be a summary of the proposition for you to consider. the bills for support, recommendations are two. there is mr. holden's a b2304. in prior years, he has tried to provide reduced transit passes for typically school-aged rider. and one time was vetoed. the second bill was held back. so now he's taken a new approach, asking the university of california to prepare a report, analytical report, to look at the state of the art of reduced fare passes, do they work, how do they work? what is the best samples throughout the world where they

may be employed? the -- yeah, i'm sorry. i just jumped ahead. january 22020 would be the due date for the report. the second bill for your consideration that is recommended for support is a b2363 by freedman. this would require the transportation secretary to convene a vision zero task force and the task force participants as is written today would include representatives from the highway patrol. local government, bike safety, road safety and labor organizations, as well as the university of california. the bill would require a report by may of 2019. so if there are some actions that could be followed up on, they'd be able to do it in time for the next year, the 19-20

budget. and finally, the bill for your consideration adopt opposed position is a b2989 which deals with standing electric scooters. staff has taken a view of this similar with the mta did concern that these pose a hazard to pedestrians when they're operated on the sidewalks and they do block occasional pedestrians' right of way. >> supervisor peskin: what is the board of supervisors has unanimously voted to oppose 2989. >> thank you. that would conclude my report. i'm available for questions. >> supervisor peskin: can you tell us the status of 2989 and what happened in committee? >> yes. >> supervisor peskin: that republican sponsored bill. >> 2989.

>> supervisor peskin: flora. >> oh. >> supervisor peskin: the one we just talked about. >> give me a second. i'm confusing two different bills. >> supervisor peskin: that was the one to include the scooters on sidewalks. >> i believe it passed handily out of transportation and it's pending in appropriations. >> supervisor peskin: do your magic. thank you. any questions for mr. watts? seeing none, is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner yee. >> supervisor yee: i'm supporting the opposed position. i'm just curious is mta here? something from mta? >> supervisor peskin: dylan is here. >> supervisor yee: so, is mta taking any position on this?

>> through the chair, to the commissioner, i know that we are working -- we are working with the mayor's office and the state legislative committee. we have concerns on the bill as well. and we've also been working directly with chair peskin in his capacity as supervisor: >> supervisor yee: ok. i'm hoping that you'll -- mta will take quicker movement in opposing this. this certainly, even though it gives local control, it certainly doesn't match our goals of vision zero. and i'm seeing -- i mean everybody is focussing these scooters on the sidewalks, they're traveling pretty fast as they are now. i'm urging that mta quickly

adopt opposition stance on ab 2989. >> thank you, point well taken. i'll convey that to folks back at 1 south ns. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: commissioner yee i will communicate with the city lobbyist so they don't allow a repeat of what happened in the assembly of transportation committee and mr. watts will work the floor and the senate side. seeing nor further comment. next item. >> we need to take a vote. >> supervisor peskin: right, on the motion to support prop 69 assembly bills 2304, 2363 and oppose 2989, is there a motion? moved by commissioner yee? seconded by commissioner fewer. roll call. >> breed aye. fewer aye. kim aye. peskin aye.

ronen aye. safai aye. stefani aye. tang aye. yee aye. we have first approval. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, next item. >> item 5 approve san francisco's lifeline transportation program cycle 5 program of projects. this is action item. >> supervisor peskin: ms. smith? >> i'm a senior transportation planner at the transportation authority, today i'm excited to present the lifeline transportation program cycle 5 recommendations and share the creative ways we're recommending the projects. so lifeline, is a regional program that is administered by the transportation commission. it has about $22 million available this cycle. san francisco has about 12% of

the low-income population, so we receive $2.6 million a cycle. the goal of the program is to improve mobility for residents, and focus on communities of concern and projects that come from a community based planning process. all agencies are eligible to apply. 20% local match is required. you'll see attachment 1 to the memo in the packet. so ltp is the only funding source that the transportation authority awards that can be used for operating projects. so a few eligible project types include enhanced transit service, including late night, weekend and shuttle service. most of the criteria are mandated by ncc but we did add criteria specific to san francisco which is attached to the memo. ltp is the only funding source

that can be used for operating projects, so we made that a priority this cycle. we received five applications as shown in this table with a total of $4.8 million available. we screen for eligibility and then convened a panel of four members to evaluate the project according to the prioritization criteria in attachment 2. i'll go into more detail about the project recommended for funding, with you the two -- but the two not recommended for funding, they did score lower because they didn't directly provide transit service which was the highest priority this cycle. you can find details on the evaluation scores and attachment to the memo. with that, i am happy to announce our lifeline recommendations. we are recommending the late

night transit service for the full $2.6 million available this cycle. given the high scores of the two sfmta projects and the senior and disabled communities, we identified it through the para transit category and funds from a prior grant to fully fund those projects as well. so a little about the projects. the late night transit service project would be a two-year project, including new late night service extending to ll to fisherman's wharf. we are recommending fully funding the project, which means no additional funds would be available for other projects. our project recommendations. you note that the project shown in orange does operate within numerous communities of concern. and the other two projects have city-wide benefits.

for the enhanced service and recreational shuttle service, it provides three years of sfmta service in san francisco, including service to grocery stores, and service to social and recreational events. the baseline presentation will be heard later in the agenda, we did work with sfmta to fully fund this project and the ramp program. for the wheelchair accessible program, this would be a three-year pilot increasing availability of wheelchair access in the city. it would require a minimum of 20 para transit trips per month. this is our list that requires us to adopt this contingency

list in case any additional funds become available from state revenue or grants. if that does happen, we would return them to the para transit category. with that, i can take any questions. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, ms. smith. commissioner cohen? >> supervisor cohen: i'm trying to understand if there is a coordinated team of people working on future technology? i think that commissioner peskin, you actually recently introduced and we all supported regulation of scooters and so also today in item 4, we opposed its only bill 2989 by assembly member flora. my question to the ta and ta staff is what are we doing that is proactive as opposed to reacting to existing -- to the technology that are manifesting on the streets? are we paying attention or

thinking about the technology that is not yett created? i want to be focused on upstream approach as opposed to being reaction. >> i believe the commissioner will be happy -- we're happy to answer that question under number 9 on the emerging mobility topic. this is a lifeline item. >> i'm sorry, what did you say? >> we're on item 5, lifeline grant, but we're taking many proactive steps to respond to the emerging mobility services on the streets, but that is item 9. >> supervisor cohen: ok, thank you. >> supervisor safai: i want to say a few words. i appreciate the presentation. really think that the service to fishermen's wharf as well as the late-night service is really in need and long overdue, so we appreciate the push for funding.

we have a significant number of workers that work in the hotel industry, the service industry as well as the janitorial industry in downtown in that area. and so having this additional late-night service when they're getting out in the wee hours of the night, in the ability to get on public transportation is something we heard in the industry for years when i worked there. so we're really appreciative as well as the inaccessibility or need to drive your car from one end of the town to the other to get to fishermen's wharf in that area and to access your job. this is a really important service. we appreciate you all taking this step and we hope that the funding comes through. it is allocated and then will be utilized in this way, so we appreciate that. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, commissioner. commission yee? >> supervisor yee: i appreciate this whole thing, in particular the para transit piece.

i have a little concern if we're expanding services using para transit vans, and then we have in the budget committee presentation where i forget who came up to talk about it, but they're saying the vans for the para transit, they're falling apart. and at some point we need to buy -- replace them with new ones and so the combination of that issue and trying to expand services with existing dams doesn't seem to make any logical sense. is there any response to that? are there any attempts for ta to support maybe the purchase of additional vans?

>> hi. amber crabbe with the transportation authority. this specific fund source was really refocused on the operations of the service and so we didn't really look at the mechanisms of which vehicles would be used, but i believe from sfmta, tim can maybe talk a little bit as to the vehicles that would be used in the service. >> supervisor peskin: tim? >> good morning, commissioners, sfmta, so the question was regarding the vans for the ramp taxi subsidies? is that the question? >> supervisor yee: i guess there is conflicting issues here i think. today, we heard that we wanted to expand the services using para transit, i'm supportive of

that, on the other hand during the budget committee what i heard was that the city needs to invest in the para transit vans themselves because they're old and they need replacement so if you don't do that and you're trying to extend the services, using sort of beat-up vans, just some -- there is no logic between the two issues. >> so i guess i'll address the question in a few ways. for the taxi subsidy use, it's either for replacing existing vans that have ended their useful life or expanding current taxis that want to get these ramps installed in their -- that want to get new ramps installed. that's the first thing. >> supervisor yee: i'm sorry, unless i looked at it wrong, we were talking about the para

transit vans. >> so for the second project, the shop around shuttle and the van gogh shuttle, it's not to expand it per se, it's to maintain the existing fleet. so the shuttles are an existing service we provide and are operated we're going in for grant funding because of the constriction, we may need to discontinue this depending on funding. i don't believe we're expanding these, it's to maintain the existing fleet. in regards to the para transit fleet in general, we have existing grants, there is a grant out there that procure existing vans, so it's something we're looking at. >> supervisor yee: i'm sorry. maybe i'm not getting it. let me go back and ask for the piece of this, i thought we were

increasing the hours of service. >> maybe i can have ms. lefort jump in. >> yeah, we'll work with sfmta over the next few months as we're updating the prioritization programs for probably k because replacing para transit vans is eligible for prop k and we have funded that out of the muni vehicles category in the past. we have done incremental replacement of the vans as they reach the end of their useful lives and they're past their usiveful lives. i can get back to you in the next if you months on that. >> supervisor yee: i appreciate the answer. >> supervisor ronen: i just had a question about the subsidies for taxi drivers to -- i guess, is it to purchase or subsidize fares and disability accessible vehicles?

>> hi. so it is to vehicles, the way it works, we'll provide a subsidy every month about $300 as long as the people -- the taxi drivers who install their taxi maintain certain criteria in terms of number of pickups. so the subsidy for $300 to subsidize the costs to purchase these ramp taxi vehicles. >> supervisor ronen: and have the taxi drivers themselves been consulted? do they feel it will be helpful to them in providing the service and also being competitive in the market? they're suffering so much and they come and speak every board meeting at public comments and i know supervisor fewer and i are really interested in seeing how to help them. have they have given input on this? >> i'm not the project manager, so it's hard to speak about

outreach. i'll have the project manager e-mail you details about outreach. in terms of the ramps, they're few and far between in the city. they're not required to have the ramps installed, so the more we have available the better it is for accessible needs people out there, but i'll have the pms follow up with you. >> supervisor ronen: i would love a follow-up because i believe this is a promising way to fulfill two serious needs in our city, accessible transit for people with disabilities but also a niche for taxi drivers. but i'm not sure $300 a month is going to do it. so i would love to see a solution that gets to the problem. please stand by.

definitely give you updates as part of the project progresses.

>> to fill the gap or does it provide compensation above and beyond that gap? >> right now it's designed to fill the gap, yes. >> supervisor: hmm, so i don't know if it meets that secondary goal of allowing an industry that's been decimated to play a role and be economically sufficient for the drivers themselves. so i would love to look at that further. >> i can follow up with m.t.a. staffing with more information on how they arrived t a those numbers, and what kind of outreach they did to the taxi community. >> supervisor: so kay, because it is a -- okay, because it is a real opportunity, and if ewe're o going to pilot something, we should pilot something that can actually work. and it sounds like we might be almost there but not completely, so i would love to look at this more. thanks. >> thank you, commissioner ronen.

commissioner yee? >> thank you. i am just wondering or not, it's one thing for it to be available, but it is another thing to let users know that it is available. will there be a marketing plan to let people that might need this type of transit know it is available? otherwise you might have these taxis that aren't capable, but no one knows about it. >> yes, the team does do outreach to the community to promote these kinds of things. and i am not sure what the specifics are existing related to this. >> i apologize. that m.t.a. staff who works directly on this weren't able to be here today. so this is -- it's basically building on an existing program. it does exist right now and this is supposed to grow and hoping

to grow the fleet by another 10 to 15 vehicles being available throughout the city. and part of the outreach that they will be doing because it is lifeline funding will be doing specific outreach focused on concerns as well in particular to make sure that those community members have access to information about the service. >> how do you normally go about letting people know? >> i think that's something the paratransit either if you can answer or we can get -- >> a yeah, the project manager cans reach out to you with more detail about the outreach. >> i just want to say it would be helpful in the future if the appropriate staff were here for these hearings, because otherwise they become kind of meaningless. for what that is worth. which then i will put in subject to public comment in your hands, colleagues, which is rather than

offline p.m.s getting back to you after you have voted for it, if you would like to continue this item, with exdo so and have the appropriate staff answer those questions in front of all of us and the public. so with that, if there are no more questions, is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners, what is your will? would you like to continue this it item? it doesn't sound like we really have any questions with regard to the late night service, so my suggestion would be that we allocate that portion, and then continue the balance. is that acceptable? is there a motion to that effect? commissioner ronen and seconded by commissioner safai. and we have a different house roll call please. >> on the amendment of item

five. -- >> actually, we can take the amendment without objection. and as amended, right? no objection to the amendment? can we take that without objection? on the item as amended, do you want to say something? >> yes, the action before you is just to approve the funding for the late night shuttle. the other two -- the late night service if shuttle and taxis will be addressed through the paratransit and prop k later. >> all right. so in that case we don't have to amend anything. right? so we will just vote on the item as is and deal with the 750 in the prop k category. on the item as not amended, a roll call please. >> on item 5, commissioner breed? aye. >> commissioner cohen? >> aye. >> a commissioner fewer? aye. >> commissioner ronen. >> aye. >> a commissioner safa?

>> aye. >> a commissioner sheehy? >> commissioner stefani? >> commissioner tang. >> aye. >> a commissioner yee? >> aye. the item meets approval. >> a next item please. >> item 6, al gait doctor 2.5 million in prop k sales tax funds and $650,000 in prop aa vehicle registration fee funds for four requests with conditions. this is an action item. >> good morning. this will upgrade signals 15 locations around the city and yup grades by location includes controller, larger headses, pedestrian and countdown indicator, curb ramps and other improvements. this request is for additional funds to cover high eer than anticipated construction cost and the lowest bid came in 17% higher than the time of the previous prop k allegation in july of 2017. funds would come from delayed

projects, projects completed under budget, and an overprogrammed placeholder for the end program. we will work with sfmta to back fill the funds for the delayed projects to insure they have funding in place when they need to move forward. similarly, signals upgrade will include funding for signal visibility equipment such as new master arms and signal heads as well as pedestrian safety improvements and audible pedestrian signals. the improvements vary by location and are listed in the enclosure. again, because of the construction bid environment, it will be necessary to reprogram some prop k funds from other projects in order to meet the expected cost of this work, and we will also work with sfmta to backfill those funds to make sure the projects will be able to move forward when they need the funds. next the transportation demand management program would hire a consultant to develop a consistent brand identity for

t.d.m. programs provided by various san francisco agencies including a program name, logo, as well as graphics and usage standards. the project was recommended from the interagency p.d.m. strategy and t.e.m. partner agencies such as the sfmta, sf environment, and would provide feedback on the brand throughout the development. and it would be similar to the vision zero branding example that is included in your packet. and we are also want to note that the schedule appears kind of long for this project, so we will work with sfmta to see if we can shorten it down. finally, business relocation transportation demand management would identify businesses that have newly relocated to san francisco and encourage the employees not to drive to work. this would be provided around transportation planning

services. and phase one is background research and development and implementation of an evaluation plan. phase two would be initial implementation and evaluation of the strategy. phase three would be implementation of the revised strategy based on the evaluation of phase two. one note, our recommendation is that sfmta may not incur expenses for phases two and three with the viable implementation plan and funds for the phases. with that, i can take any questions. >> this is not really an erequest, but i just have to tell you, i just have a lot of trouble spending $154,000 on a branding campaign. i mean, i say that because we have very talented people in these agencies who are on staff who can work with one another. we have graphics resources. we have all kind of resources in this 30,000 plus person government that this is one of

the things where when you are a member of the public or for that matter a member of this body and just think, that is what my government is spending money on? it doesn't work for me. commissioner breed? >> commissioner breed: my understanding is the branding would take two and a half years. is that accurate and how can we get it done sooner to make it more effective? >> do you mind if i invite sfmta, too? sarah christianson. >> good morning. john knox, the program manager for the sfmta. so essentially for the entire funding, yes, two and a half years. the first six months is the r.p. work to get a consultant in for contracting. the assumption is it will take somewhere between 12 and 18 months to do the research, so beyond just developing a name

and sort of graphic design, we are planning on doing focus groups and engaging stakeholders to figure out a way -- and we use the word transportation demand management, it is not a very good name. we need to find a way to talk about our work in a way that engages the communities that we are trying to engage whether that be employers or residents. and it is our intention to work hard and very diligently to get that work done quicker than the year and a 10 months that we have outlined if for that work, but we didn't want to overpromise we would be done in 12 months and come back for an extension. >> thank you. another question i have is how are we going to prioritize small businesses that are eligible to participate? >> again, that is through the relocation program more and a future program we hope to come back for funding in the future.

i would say all the experiences as a city and county is the business outreach is not incredibly success, so one of the reasons we work with staff to come up with a structure to make sure we get the right outreach and the right people is we want to spend the time talking to small businesses and large businesses about how better to communicate with them and how to bring them into the program so that they have a program they feel they can engage with. our experience is the smaller businesses are often so busy they don't really even want to spend the time engaging with any of the services that we have provided in the past. >> which is why i am hopeful we will do something to make it easier for them to participate. >> that is 100% of the goal of phase one. >> commissioner breed: thank you. >> seeing no other questions from commissioners. is there something you want to add? are there any members of the public who would like to testify on this item? seeing none, public comment is

closed. commissioner yee? >> commissioner breed might have asked this already, but -- when do we need our branding for t.d.m. and why does it cost so much? i am not understanding -- i mean, i get we're trying to give vision zero through branding and so forth, but can you explain really why they need branding and why it is costing so much? >> absolutely. thank you. so about four years ago working with our partners and the department of environment and planning department, we did outreach to cities and academics of and one of the key things that came out of the research is we need to have a unified

program that speaks to people as one voice, so from the user's side, they are interacting with the city's transportation demand management program, not with the t.a. and doing transportation demand management and the m.t.a. and a well-designed and developed brand where we'll develop the way in which the program goes forward. it is it is to insure that what they see is the city and county working together to provide services to help people get around. that was the number one project that came out of the initial t.d.m. strategy and was also one of the top early ideas for the t.d.m. plan. in terms of the cost, it is staff time to manage the contract, to and to engage

multi-city agency effort. we have a lot of agencies that touch and offer t.d.m. that a lot of coordination that goes there. and this is about $60,000 who and to increase the power of our outreach. >> with all due respect, and the committee came l come up to me and say, what is this? and if they don't know what it is. if anything, they just don't know what it is. they keep thinking it's -- the traffic congestion and that is what is existing today. so i'm not understand iing the logic of that department doing t.d.m. and it's like a public --

the public doesn't care about whether it's m.t.a. or t.a. to be straight. so why are we spending money on this? >> an i guess i would say if we are successful, hopefully the public who does need to interact with us would know what it is and who cares about the fact that the public doesn't know what it is and that is the problem that we are trying to solve. so we're engaging in this to give that brand that is something that allows people to interact in a meaningful way and with the set of circumstances and programs and to have that program. >> thank you. i'm not going to support this. >> all right. >> hopefully my colleague can support this. when we don't have crossing guards at every school in san francisco that needs it. why do we need to do branding?

it doesn't make any sense. the employee time, the money, it is a waste. so all right. why don't we sever out the t.d.m. branding matter at $154,200, and is there -- can we sever that out. and by commissioner yee. and seconded by commissioner breed. we will do that without objection. on the balance of item six, is there a motion to move that forward? made by commissioner breed. seconded by commissioner yee. we can take that same house, same call. and now on the balance of item six, $154,000 -- i'm sorry? mr. taylor, the action was that we just approved the allocation of $2.53 million. we just approved the signal modifications at $1.218 million.

the signal upgrades at $175,000 t business relocation, t.d.m. at $383,000 and the signal upgrades at $65 # 5,000 and did not yet consider the transportation demand management program. and which we will now consider is there a motion one way or the other on the main $154,200 of the prop k request. >> i will make a motion to disapprove it. >> motion made to disapprove the $154,200. seconded by commissioner sheehy, and on that item, a roll call please. >> on item 6 to sever the $. >> already been severed. >> it is approved. >> there is a motion to deny. so if you vote yes, you are voting to not fund that

$154,200. if you vote yes. yes means no. >> on the commotion. commissioner breed? >> aye. >> commissioner cohen? >> aye. >> a commissioner fewer? >> aye. commissioner kim? >> aye. >> commissioner feskin? >> aye. >> commissioner ronen? >> commissioner safai? >> commissioner sheehy? >> aye. >> commissioner stefani? >> aye. >> commissioner tang? >> aye. >> a commissioner yee? >> aye. >> that item is disapproved. the item pass which is means the money does not. next item please. >> item 7, adopt the vision zero ramp intersection study phase one. this is an action item. final report. >> all right and we have our speaker today.

>> i am here with t.a. and i will be and to study findings as a recommendation to get the overview of that study this, study is funded by prop k and funds for district six and the purpose of the study is to improve traffic safety at the zuma ramp intersection and develop low cost, easy to implement improvement costs at the location. here are the five examples district and they are on dime and harrison street. at first we took existing conditions to look at what are happening at the locations, and what we found are there are missing bike infrastructure, confusion among drivers and lack of industry. and here you can see a picture

of the ramp intersection where there are multiple lanes going with heavy traffic in multiple directions which creates unsafe environment for almost all modes of transportation. when we concluded the existing condition, we worked on proposed improvement plans to address the issue that we found. for example, to increase the pedestrian visibility, we propose proposed shorten crosswalk or open crosswalk when possible. on the left hand side you can see the collision pattern and the specific improvement at that location. throughout the project we have done outreach with neighborhood and advocacy groups.

some include a commissioner safety advisory committee, bike coalition, and we worked with commissioner kim's office to identify the stake jb holders and where we met the represent tiff and got the with the representative and share the plans and get the feedback. and on the positive feedback, and here is some that we are proposing to include in our construction budget as the study moves forward. and communicate that with the sfmta vision zero team to be included in the broader reach and education and enforcement effort.

project funding and is estimated to be causing about $4.4 million. and sfmta will be the implementing agency who will be constructing this improvement at that location. sfift street improvement mans wi plans are part of the street improvement project and the other three will be included in the draft and just expected to be approved by summer of 2018. as of right now, these improvements are funding to implement the use improvements. >> and phase ii is study 10 new

freeway intersections and you can watch the video and take the survey where we are asking participants on how to improvement the intersections and what are the experiences they have as they use the study of the ramp intersection. we conclude the initial outreach for phase ii with proposed safety improvements and will hold open house in um summer to get public feedback. and we are expecting to con cluz the phase ii by january of 2019. with this, any questions? >> are there any questions from members of the authority? seeing none, thank you for that presentation. any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion to adopt the

vision zero ramp intersection study? made by commissioner sheehy. seconded by commissioner tang. on that item, because commissioner breed -- commissioner breed is in the room. same house, same call. the study is adopted. next item please. >> item 8, adopt the 2019 prop k strategic plan baseline. this is an action item. >> an i am pleased to present the prop k strategic baseline plan to you today. you last month approved the overall approach to updating the strategic plan and five-year priorization plan and i am pleased that we can now with adoption of the baseline pivot to adopting the five-year prior tiization program with the implementing agencies.

just as a recap, the five-year plans and the strategic plans to determine what projects will be funding with prop k over the next five years. and it is an community and from the funding landscapes and to insure local match available to leverage discretionary grants and the early phases of work for future funding sources. from year four and the need to engage the board and the public and to identify the projects on july 1, 2019. the recap of the process is the iterative process, the sick circular arrow, but first, we are in step one to establish the baseline. and and to determine by the end

of the program and what goes into it is the revenues and expenditures since the last update. we have updated revenue forecast and debt assumptions and to the packets and update the strategic plan policies and from the paratransit and the categories do not have multiple eligible projects and only one project that can request funds to take care in the strategic baseline. and with three policies and on the policy side, this is the third update and now in 2019. and minor updates are proposed with clarifications purposes and reiterate guiding principles which guide our process to optimize the leveraging of

non-prop k funds that support timely and cost effective project delivery and maximizing the cost effectiveness of financing so we can make sure as much money is available for projects as possible. on the revenue side, it is made up of sales tax primarily and investment income. and to recap of where we thought we would go over the last five years and where we have gone over the last five years. it should help boost this slide and shows how good we were with the revenue forecast. we are outside of conservative and so the orange line is lower tharn the green line to have enough money for projects and we don't want to deline projects like hahs done at the state level in the past. and we forecast $28 million in revenue coming in than what we estimated. but as you will notice, the revenue increases are tapering over the last few years. and not -- the growth is slowing. so how that is reflected in the

long-term projections is over the next few year, we have a conservative growth estimate in the ball park of 2.1%. and we are expecting that we are overdue for some type of a decline. however, in the long term we expect robust growth in revenues. and back to more historical averages of around 3%. and the expenditure side, our expenditures of the prop k program are made up of operating expenditures which are percent of revenues and taper off at the end of the program. capital reserve which is what i will talk about in a moment. and project costs and financing costs. these are the expenditures that we see. a recap of where we thought we would be and where we have been the last five years. and this is very demonstrative of what we have seen in the last strategic plans and agencies have come in for less money than they thought they would in the strategic plan and they have requested reimbursement at a

slower pace than they thought they would. that does not niecely mean projects are not being delivered. and they might be delivered with the general obligation bond funds which have become available during this period and as far as slower than anticipated expenditure, it reduces our financing costs when reimbursements come in slower. which ultimately makes more money available for projects. on this side, this is a comparison of where we where and where we are in the baseline. this is over the 34 years of the program. and on the revenue side, the revenue projections are $50 million less than in 2014. so out of 3.3 billion and holding steady on the revenue

projections. and it's lower and to stay constant and on the long-term proceed side, we thought we would bond a long time ago. we thought we would be bonding in 14-15 and just issued the first bond this past fall. on the expenditure side, program administration is a function of revenue, so revenue is from the program administration is slightly down. i will come back and available for projects. and with the financing costs down as a result of lower bond proceeds expected. and the costs is lowered as maturing in the program and will be a mere 15 of the 30-year expenditure plan period. the capital reserve is 10% of annual revenues. in 2014, the last 20 years of revenue as well. we are anticipating we are five years in and five years more of 10% freed up, and we are also

recommending to the second to last year and the net result is a lower capital reserve and the long-term debt is down. package that up and it means there is $50 million over 30 years of a there are 3 billion program for $50 million more for projects. so we're holding constant. we're holding steady is what this says. also in the baseline, we take care of the major products in the paratransit category. central subway, these are the four major projects and these are the categories and prop k that have the big, big ones. and central subway, we have allocated all the funds available and updated the strategic plan with cash