>> commissioner chan? chan absent. >> supervisor chan: present. >> i'm sorry, chan is present. >> supervisor dorsey: present. >> supervisor mandelman: present. >> supervisor mar: present. ronen -- >> commissioner ronen: i'm present. >> ronen is present. safai is absent. >> commissioner stefani: present. >> commissioner walton: present. >> we have quorum. >> and i am excusing him and i believe you have a public comment announcement and i do want to thank jason kaleena at sfgovtv. >> yes, chair. one moment. for members of the public interested in participating in this board meeting, we welcome your attendance here in person in the legislative chamber, room 250 in city hall, or you may watch channel 26 or 99 depending on provider or stream the meeting live at www.sfgovtv.org. for those wishing to make public comment remotely, the best way to do so is by dialing 1-415-655-0001. and when prompted, entering access code 2488 127 9818 # #. you'll be able to listen to the meeting in realtime. when public comment is called for the item you wish to speak on, press star 3 to be added to the queue to speak. do not press star 3 again or you'll be removed from the queue. the live operator will advise you will be allowed two minutes to speak. calls will be taken in the order in which they are received. best practices are to speak slowly, clearly and turn down the volume of any televisions or radios around you. public comment for items on this agenda will be taken first from members of the public in attendance in the legislative chamber and then afterwards from the remote speaker's queue on the remote telephone line. >> thank you, madame clerk. before calling the next item, as chair, i'm invoking rule 3.26 from the rules of order to limit total public comment per item to 30 minutes for today's meeting. and now, madame clerk, will you call the next item? >> item 2, chair's report. this is an information item. >> chair mandelman: all right. thank you, madame clerk. well, colleagues, notwithstanding the supreme court's massive turd in the punch bowl they delivered, this has been a month of celebration. juneteenth holiday, the first pride parade and party in three years, as well as many other pride events in the castro and elsewhere, all of this reminds us of the public roll our places hold. i want to thank all the public safety personnel and transit operators and maintenance crews and community organizations that put in the hard work to make these gatherings possible the last couple of years. covid has been hard on all these folks and they really came through this weekend for which i -- and i know we are all -- profoundly grateful. earlier this month, we had an election which saw the narrow loss of the $400 million safe streets bond measure. this measure would have funded critical infrastructure for reaching our vision zero goals as well as muni and transit facilities. this was certainly a disappointing result and i look forward to inviting m.t.a. to discuss with us the impact the bond measure failure will have on important programs and what we can do to help them plug some of the gaps they face. meanwhile, we here' t.a. will need to learn from the experience and consider implications and lessons as we look forward to our half cent sales tax we hope on the november ballot. the sales tax expenditure plan would determine how that renewed sales tax revenue would be spent was guided by two dozen civic and community groups. and we've heard from them citizens advisory committee and others. not only do we need to fund muni, bart and caltrain projects and provide local matching funds to projects seeking federal and state grants, we need to ensure funding of enable programs like street repaving, crosswalks and signals and paratransit for seniors and people with disabilities. as we look to gain support for the reauthorization this fall, i am pleased to confirm this is the second consecutive, they confirmed a triple-a rating on the debt. the t.a. continued high credit rating is good news for san franciscans. it translates into cost effective borrowing as we deliver transit projects city-wide and underscores the transportation authority sound stewardship that voters entrust to us. thank you to the t.a. management team and the finance team, cynthia fong. with that, i conclude my remarks. and we should open this item to public comment. >> operator, is there anyone on the queue for public comment? >> yes. welcome, caller, your two minutes begins now. caller? >> caller: hello. >> go ahead, caller. >> okay. so what i wanted to say was that -- can you hear me? >> yes. yes, go ahead. >> okay. great. so what i wanted to say was we lost bond measure because we did not do the sound and meaningful outreach in the best spot of san francisco. and this was because of the arrogance of the municipal transportation agency. you cannot fool the waters -- voters all the time. the services in the western side of our city is pathetic. now having said that, earlier on without giving due notice. making this meeting illegal. and if anybody proceeds, you all will find out stop having meetings like that. this meeting, the main meeting first and then the that meeting, but not the other way around. so the san francisco county transportation authority is responsible. you have been hood winking us for a long time and the time has come to put them on notice. as i said, several times, this city is a very corrupt city. you all chat on some of the issues, but don't do due diligence because you don't follow the brown act. again, this city is very corrupt. [bell ringing] very, very corrupt. >> thank you, your two minutes are up. >> there are no additional callers on this item. >> chair mandelman: all right. public comment on item 2 is closed. can you call item 3? >> yes. item 3 is executive director's report, this is an information item. >> good morning, chair and commissioners. happy to report this month on a few updates. earlier this month, i was honored to join the metropolitan transportation commission's trip, advocacy trip, annual delegation to washington d.c. to advocate for the region and san francisco's top priorities for the infrastructure bill that was passed last year. for san francisco m.t.c. adopted priorities include muni and bart, core capacity projects, the caltrain electrification project as well as the downtown extension. i was pleased to join meetings with nancy pelosi office and staff from the department of transportation. we discussed the rail extensions seeking capital improvement grant program funds as well as other day area priorities. i had the opportunity to speak with staff from the federal transit administration, capital investment grant programs, including we met with the administrator, we want to appreciate her and her staff's time to meet with all of us. and want to pass on their kudos to our travel demand modelling team who worked with t.j.p.a. staff and the model for that been accepted. at the state level, governor and legislative leaders announced a funding package over the weekend and this includes significant investment in public transit and clean transit projects. i want to appreciate budget chair ting and skinner working on the package over the weekend. some of the highlights include $4 billion for transit capital project statewide which will be allocated via population-based formulas. $1.5 billion for high priority transit and rail infrastructure projects to be awarded through a competitive program. and $1.1 billion for the active transportation program. all of which are sorely needed and we're happy to see. in addition, there will be $198 million for local climate adaptation projects and $350 million for grade separation projects. of course, the latter in part will be conditioned on the legislature and the administration reaching agreement on funding high-speed rail throughout the state. the budget also includes $3.5 billion for zero emission transit buses and supporting infrastructure such as charging. the budget bills do not currently contain funding to advance free transit proposals introduced in the assembly bill 19, or do they have much funding to support transit operations. we will be providing an update on this significant program as part of our federal and state legislature update at your july 12 board meeting. i want to thank others for working together with m.t.c. on these issues. finally, our one bay area grant cycle. these are funds that m.t.c. makes available to each county for programming. applications for these are due july 1. in may, following the board's first read of our obag framework, we released a call for projects to nominate $53 million in federal funds over four years to this body. and public agencies are eligible to apply for a variety of project types, from transit to capacity and enhancements to pedestrian and bicycle safety to street resurfacing. applications are due by july 1 and we anticipate bringing the project recommendations to our community advisory committee and the board in september in order to meet m.t.c.'s deadline for these funds. for more information, folks can visit our website. with that, i conclude my report. thank you. >> chair mandelman: thank you, madame executive director. let's open your report to public comment. >> operator, is there anyone on the phone line? >> yes, there is. caller, your two minutes begins now. >> what i wanted to hear from the director was if you are proposing a station at 1800 oakdale. this project has taken over 15 years and now they want they're proposing to build a substation at evans street. i want the director of the san francisco county transportation authority to be very transparent. and the public to know exactly what is happening. and the board of supervisors to pay attention to this. this matter, this process has taken 15 years off and on and now they want to build a brand new substation on 15th -- near 1550 evans, a land that is prone to liquefaction and flooding. who is fooling whom? and this big talk you go to washington, meet nancy pelosi and all, nothing much has happened in san francisco. in san francisco, instead of transportation going forward -- and i've been all over the world -- lived in europe and everywhere -- it's going backwards. stinking people coming to the bus -- we are prone to all kinds of violence and you're talking about millions of dollars, but how are you addressing quality of life issues addressed to transportation? on a scale of 1 to 10? -5. thank you very much. >> there is no additional public comment. >> chair mandelman: public comment on item 3 is closed. please call item 4. >> item 4, approve the minutes of the june 7, 2022 meeting. this is an action item. >> chair mandelman: all right, let's open this item to public comment. >> operator, is there anyone on the phone? >> there is no public comment. >> chair mandelman: public comment on item 4 is closed. is there a motion to approve the minutes, item 4? amoved by peskin, seconded by walton. madame clerk, please call the roll. >> commissioner chan: aye. >> supervisor dorsey: aye. >> commissioner mandelman: aye. >> commissioner mar: aye. >> commissioner melgar: aye. >> commissioner peskin: aye. >> commissioner preston: aye. >> commissioner ronen: aye. commissioner safai is excused. >> commissioner stefani: aye. >> commissioner walton: aye. we have 10 ayes. the minutes are approved. >> chair mandelman: thank you, madame clerk. please call our consent agenda items 5 through 8. >> consent agenda, item 5 through 8, comprise of the consent agenda. staff is not planning to present, but is available for questions. these items have not yet appeared before the board, so we will need to take public comment on the consent agenda -- no, that's not correct. i'm so sorry. my notes are incorrect. we have received several public comments on the bike rack allocation under item 6. the transportation fund for clean air which are posted to the website. and the correction is that this is consent agenda and these items are up for final approval. >> chair mandelman: thank you, madame clerk. is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? moved by melgar, seconded by walton. madame clerk, please call the roll. >> clerk: commissioner chan? >> commissioner chan: aye. >> supervisor dorsey: aye. >> commissioner mandelman: aye. >> commissioner mar: aye. >> commissioner melgar: aye. >> commissioner peskin: aye. >> commissioner preston: aye. >> commissioner ronen: aye. commissioner safai is excused. commissioner stefani? >> commissioner stefani: aye. >> commissioner walton: aye. >> we have 10 ayes, the consent agenda is approved. >> chair mandelman: all right. thank you, madame clerk. please call item 9. item 9, vision zero, 2021 traffic fatality report. this is an information item. >> chair mandelman: thank you. colleagues, this is part two of the vision zero discussion that we started at our last meeting that focused on the progress of the updated action plan and we anticipate that will be the subject of the follow-up hearing this fall. today we're going to hear from department of public health on the 2021 traffic fatality report. while this data covers last year, the numbers are not looking good for 2022. in fact, with the year just halfway over, we've been averaging one traffic facility per week. this is not good and it's a strong signal that we have to bring all the resources we can to move this trend in the opposite direction. i'm looking forward to our discussion today and also to hearing more potentially about the role traffic enforcement could play to ensure that every san franciscan can feel safe on our streets. i think that we have from the department of public health, devon morris? >> updated seth pardo here today. >> chair mandelman: there we go. seth pardo. >> good afternoon, or good morning still, commissioners. so, i have here -- i need to present my own slides here. one moment. can you all see my slides? >> chair mandelman: no. can we help mr. pardo with -- are we -- are we helping? >> sfgovtv, could you please share the camera? >> great. >> thank you. okay. if i forward this, can you see me forwarding the slides here? >> chair mandelman: it looks like it's showing up on teams. it doesn't look like it's getting from teams to sfgovtv. do we know how to fix that? >> no good. >> chair mandelman: do we need to take a couple minutes -- there we go. good job. >> thank you. what a team. >> chair mandelman: thanks, everybody. >> okay. all right. my name is dr. seth pardo, i'm the director for the data science, i'm the co-chair for the vision zero initiative with the city. i work closely with ryan reeves and jimmie parks at sfmta as well as several other partners in our agencies with s.f.p.d., this is a deep collaborative effort around i present here the -- and i present the data from the 2021 fatality report. the center for data which i'm the director, data systems, we're a partner and engage in education for our branch of department of public health and we also participate in the crisis response for victims' families of the d.p.h. crisis team. those both community health equity, promotion and the crisis response team are other divisions within the department of public health. however, for all of the consortium, i serve as co-chair for the vision zero initiative to put that in perspective. vision zero overall is a data driven approach and we abide by certain principles. i'll get to that in a moment. safety is our highest priority and the preservation of human life. according to vision zero, traffic deaths are preventable. the city centers equity in our vision zero efforts. we prioritize traffic safety and investments in the neighborhoods and communities as the most disproportionately impacted by deaths and injuries and we know that speed is a fundamental predictor of crash and survival. the faster someone is going, the less likely they will survive an impact. human error is inevitable at times and unpredictable, depending on several factors, but vision zero initiative -- design for safer transportation on our city streets. so here are the trends since the -- since 2005. you see in the middle, 2014, when vision zero was adopted. the dotted line shows the overall average since 2005. you can see there was a little dip as we got to 2017 and then increase between 2018 and 2020 and then below average in 2021, but regardless, acknowledging that these are too many detectives on our streets. -- deaths on our streets. the blue portion is -- are those who have been killed while walking, or pedestrians. the yellow is those who have been killed while bicycling. and the green are those killed while either riding or driving in vehicles. so, when breaking down our fatalities by travel mode, the pedestrians overall have been the most vulnerable. you can see the pedestrian category are those bars all the way on the left. while they have decreased over time, the lighter bars are 2014-2020 and the darker bar is 2021, so since 2014, number of pedestrians' deaths have been decreasing, but we're still -- anything higher than zero is too many. so there is still too many. we do see by data-wise, we do see there have been more people on the roads and more people in the city. there has been 630,000 mile increase in the daily vehicle miles traveled. we also have an increase in use of transportation network companies such as uber, lyft, et cetera, that are accounting for 40% of the vehicle miles traveled on our streets. in san francisco between 2010 and 2020, there have been approximately 150,000 new residents who have come to san francisco, with 170,000 new jobs in town. but we also know that during the pandemic, despite less people driving on our roadways, people may have been driving faster. less traffic, more speed. that results in a higher level of fatality. combine with those in the age group, 65, plus, i'll show you those stats in the moment. one fifth of the residents in san francisco are seniors. by 2040, the bay area senior population is forecasted to grow 137%. if you would like references for these statistics, i'm happy to provide them. people experiencing homelessness have high exposure to traffic-related risk factors. in 2018 and 2019, we have seen 15% increase in the people living on the streets, combined with physical mental health concerns for those unhoused. they are at risk to some of the crashes on our streets. this is an image of our most recent high injury network. high injury network displays that 75% of all san francisco severe and fatal occur on 31% of the streets. those communities include those from low-income families, communities of color, people who are over the age of 65, people who rely on walking and transit as a primary needs for transportation. and 50%. 5-0. 50% of our high injury network are in these communities of concern. so you can see here where the blue lines are on the image. those are of concern. in 2021, 59% of the traffic fatalities occurred on the vision zero high injury network. and over half occurred in the equity priority neighborhood. our analyst is currently analyzing the latest trends and we hope to have an update sometime this fall. 22%, about a fifth of all crash fatalities, were amongst those 65 and older, though representing only 18% of the demographic. this is an overrepresentation amongst our elder population. some of the top vehicle factors in severe and fatal injuries to people walking include driver's failure to yield and unsafe speed. so here you see -- the detailed data for a number of seniors who have been killed in traffic fatalities in 2021. it is lower than previous years. you can see on the right-hand side we see a lower number of those seniors, also lower than the s.f. population percentage, but that's not sugarcoating anything. we're talking about way too many fatalities on our streets. we can see that most of the age 45-64, the number has severely increased and is relatively low relative to the san francisco population percentage, but we see increase in overrepresentation -- or increase or at representation for those aged 25-34. statistically i can tell you that pedestrian fatalities in the 65 plus category are down 50% from previous years, despite remaining particularly vulnerable. but the number of younger adults, 25-44 are higher in 2021 than any year since vision zero was implemented. that is of concern. when we break down the fatalities by race and ethnicity, what this graph shows here is the proportion of those impacted in our fatality statistics relative to the representation in the population. so those that are latino x or hispanic, there is a representative proportion of those in our fatality counts and there is underrepresentation amongst both asians and whites when looking at race ethnicity. there is a dramatic overrepresentation of those who are black, non-hispanic in our fatality counties. black are overrepresented in our fatality data. when we examined fatality data by sex, males are -- males represent 51% of san francisco's demographic, however, in 2021 and several other periods, males are overrepresented in the fatality statistics. most recently 70%. fatality mode reveals different patterns between males and females. one-third of people walking were male and all those killed while bicycling were also identified as male. when we look at the primary collision factors, apologies if it's hard to differentiate between the grayscale color in the middle and the top. i'll go from top down on the graph. the top-most line that starts at about 3 and goes up to about 9, that -- the reasons the primary collision factors between 2018 and 2021 there are unsafe speed or -- for what is appropriate on the roadway for prevailing conditions. the middle line there that hovers between 3 and 4 is driver or cyclist responsibility to yield at a red signal. and then the latest grayscale line that has this little u-curve is where the pedestrian is supposed to yield the right-of-way outside of the crosswalk. despite a slight increase across each of these primary collision factors, one of the things that we did notice in our analyses is that -- that we have seen a dramatic decrease since 2019 for reasons of driver failure to yield right-of-way at crosswalks. while this is not a direct cause-effect, when we talked about city re-entry, there was a lot of talk about quick-build projects and there has been tremendous investment and a lot of emphasis on protecting our pedestrians. what this is showing is that in the crosswalks and protecting our pedestrians in our crosswalks, there has been a two-year, a dramatic improvement, down to zero in 2021 for any driver failure to yield right-of-way at the crosswalks. so i would like to highlight this. i think it's an incredible accomplishment for the vision zero investments and i'm really proud of the team for the work they've done to turn that curve. vision zero also tracks the proportion of fatalities of people with no fixed address. oh, no. okay, i have a technical issue. if you can still hear me, my teams has signed me out. so i'm going to have to -- i can still hear you, but i have to take a moment to refresh my screen to come right back into teams. may i ask for 60 seconds to be able to do that, just interrupt my presentation really quickly? >> chair mandelman: certainly. >> okay, i'll be right back. >> chair mandelman: all right. can you hear me now? >> chair mandelman: we can. >> can you see my screen? >> chair mandelman: we cannot. now we can. there we go. >> okay. apologies for that. >> chair mandelman: no worries. >> so we track those who have no fixed address. in 2021, four people without a fixed address were killed on our city streets. that represents 15% of the data and down from six in 2020. about 14% of those on the freeways fatalities that we've counted also have affected people experiencing an unfixed address. this 14% represents 1 out of 7. so it is relative to the denominator, but again that 15% represents 7 people -- sorry, four people, down from six in 2020. 1 out of 7 who were killed on the freeway was someone who was without a fixed address. relative to the san francisco population, we have approximately less than 1% of the city population recognized as without a fixed address. however, we have 14% represented, 15% represented in our fatality statistics. so that's an overrepresentation of those with an unfixed address. [please stand by] [please stand by] . . . . in 2021, 30% or 8 of our traffic fatalities resulted in the driver leaving the scene with a pedestrian and counted as a hit and run. this is the majority of the pedestrian fatalities or 62% or 8 out of 13. this is plus one from 2020. so what this slide aims to do is put san francisco in context with what is going on nationally. in san francisco compared to 2020, in 2021, we saw 10% decrease overall in the traffic fatalities whereas nationally there was an increase of 10.# a%. pedestrians are overrepresented in our fatality council locally in san francisco despite representing only 17% of all traffic fatalities nationwide. motorists comprise 44% of pedestrian despite 66% nationally. we have an overrepresentation of bicyclists and motorcyclists. okay. this is some familiar information that we presented in our vision zero general update to the board of supervisors a month or two ago. we have this is the proportion of investment that we are, that the city is allocating across the different improvements and policy changes to further improve safety on the streets. there is the major redesign, car free zone, kick build projects, transit only lane. there is an investment in policy and policy change regarding speed safety cameras and mode shift pricing tools. and advanced vehicle technology such as braking or advance driver assisted systems. and discussions around housing density and with the affordable housing for those who are otherwise unstable address or insecure housing and who are vulnerable populations and elder will i pedestrians on our street. there are a number of programs locally that have made huge investments in vision zero activities and vision zero, safe streets to complete all eligible quick builds on the high entry network and this is a suggest cant increase in the quick builds from the 2019 strategy which identify five quick builds over a two-year period. as of april 2021, the speed limit in the tenderloin is 20 miles per hour. and a couple months ago, vision zero posters went up around san francisco to explain the safety-related installments to reach the south korea row accident goal. to learn about bike lane,s by buildouts, pedestrian scramble, daylighting and other improvements that might have been seen for the first time to increase awareness and protective factors. there is a safer crosswalks and a number of these improvements that have already taken place, i showed you the trend downward and we showing that a lot of investments are starting to turn the curve. so a little more for the public-facing database with the police department tracking into the crime data warehouse. and release the annual severe injury trend report towards the end of the year. we will be updating, as i mentioned t high entry map, which links police hospital and emergency medical services data with the most recent data that we have received from the office of medical examiner. and that is also some rise in our annual fatality of report to the city and county. in the high entry network we utilize data from the traffic injury surveillance system which folks who identify the corridors on the streets and that map that i showed you with the lines. with the number of severe and fatal injuries at our streets. we're overdue for a refresh forthcoming. we are resolving some of the technical data interruptions we have had during covid and we're bringing the systems back online and hard at work making sure that is ready by the fall. and some of the 911 integration crash report and crash data and hopefully on data s.f. and that does it for me. thank you very much for your time today. huge shoutout to devin morris, my integrated systems analyst who put the data out. major shoutout to devin morris for the data. >> i have a couple of questions if colleagues will indulge me. all right. can we talk more about the high injury network map which you touch on. my understanding that this data is five or six years old, is that right? i believe the most recent update is 2017 or 18 or thereabouts. yes. >> all right. so four. ideally updating that annually based on new information and what would the tempo at which you would like to be updating that be? >> it updates every three or four years. 2017 was formally the last update. >> is that a best practice or is that because of limits on availability of the data? >> let me -- these are excellent questions. i am currently checking my notes here. this is when we get our data from the interval that we get the registry, from the hospital, and why is that? >> some of that has to do with burden and a lot of that is done manually and systems and koent have the automated systems to push that data out. and pull data from the emergency services connections m.o.u. with the emergency medical systems data annually and cross check it and put it into the linkage system for the upgraded map. so i deally we could do it more frequently as a best practice and technically we would not be able to have the capacity to do it more frequently. what are the resource constraints on that? is that a person or 20 poem? or a new computer system or what are the -- is that like $100,000? and is that like $10 million and whether it -- it seems like it would be a good thing to do. >> i completely agree with you and i appreciate this question and if it is okay with the permission of the board, i would like to potentially discuss the investment with my hospital partners and see what would it take to have the appropriate dedicated staff capacity not just to do this work at the manual state and make an investment in an automated system that could potentially do this without having a manual data industry and push. i appreciate that question. and that would be great and r.t.a. staff can follow up with you. and when this comes back in the fall and not this particular vision zero conversation comes back in the fall. and i would tell you, it would be a dream to be able to build a system that would lower the burden on our hospital staff and lower the burden on the data and having an automated system. two other questions and on -- you cited speed safety cameras and this is an important part of trying to address these fatalities. and this is a little bit going back to presentation last week because we do have m.t.a. here, right? it feels like -- is tom mcdpier here? or somebody. m.t.a., are you there? good morning, commissioner. tom mcgwire is not here, but jamie park at sfmta is here if you have questions. >> jamie parks, why only six speed safety cameras? it seems like such a really good basic way of getting, making our intersection safer. and why are we doing just the six? >> great. and referring to red link cameras? >> yes. and the issue with the red light cameras is really the resource and cost issues and they are a drain on the operating budget as well. they are money losers. it is a cost and resource issue to install more red light cameras, but we first attempt and red light running and design and focussing on building more visible traffic signals with larger signal heads and the last resort and red light problems vf we have invested in the better infrastructure. >> what is the cost of -- well, this is an unfair question because do you happen to know? >> not an exact cost and is half million dollars per intersection. and i don't know the annual operating cost and a cost to operate it as well. >> they do bring in some money in tickets. >> the last question and i don't know who could possibly address this and probably way more than we want to get into in this conversation and the hearing on the board on it. and there is two way of enforcing traffic violations. and there is some ability to do red lights and tickets of variety. and prior to pandemic, supervisor fewer, with my interest in co-sponsorship was pursuing the building of a traffic company. where are we are enforcing the focus on the five? i think we have someone from p.d. here. maybe. maybe not. we do not. thought we did. okay. we will pursue that in another conversation. commissioner melgar. >> thank you, chair mandelman. i find this report really distressing and frustrating. so in district seven we parenting budgeting and half go to vision zero projects. and these are projects that folks identify, the neighbors say this is a dangerous intersection. we want to put resources toward it. we fund it. and the money is there. and it takes forever to get them implemented. and so i want to just put the question to all of us as to whether the way that we're doing it is the right and the moral way of doing it. do we have to have a study that proves that people have been killed at an intersection before we prioritize it and put physical improvements to make it better? so i, as you all know, i'm a bike rider. i ride my bike to city hall. through chair mandelman's district, and when i'm late, which i often am, i take the most direct ride, which is partolla. it is not the most safe route, but after the top of twin peaks, the bike lane disappears. and in a four-lane highway and cars are going 60 miles per hour. and i don't want to be one of those injuries, but we have been talking about a bike lane on that street forever. while there is parking on both side and i understand that there's an issue, but here when are we going to do it? when are we going to have a prioritization of the high injury corridor? but also just put, why are we prior -- why are we waiting for the numbers and fatalities to be proven before we do something about it? that's really not a moral, you know -- that's not consistent with our values. in district seven, we see high injuries on ocean avenue and in front of city college campus and 19th avenue in front of san francisco state university. two of the most important educational institutions in our city. i want to prioritize safety. that is of the utmost importance to the future of the folks who are in those institutions. i don't want to wait and that is important and chair mandelman and we have data that is updated more frequently. i don't want to wait until folks get injured or killed before we prioritize it because we know those intersections are dangerous. and the neighbors are telling us to put resources towards and it still doesn't happen in a timely manner. i want to say that worth the discussion. >> thank you, commissioner melgar. commissioner preston? >> thank you, chair mandelman. and thanks to the folks at d.p.h. and m.t.a. for all the work on this. it is obviously -- i just want to echo and second the concerns raised by supervisor melgar around the ongoing fatalities and the need for us to ramp up the response in a more proactive way. and i think there is some of the numbers that really stand out to me just around this report. and that suggests more of a systemic approach when i see the vehicle miles traveled on our streets and rising and that is a sign that we are doing something or not doing what we should be doing in terms of making streets safe for cyclists and ramping up public transit and move shifting or achieving the mode shift from private vehicles. also, i don't think anyone could look at that presentation and not be extremely concerned and shocked by the extreme overrepresentation of black san franciscans in the fatality counts that relative to any other group on that chart. and that is deeply concerning. i did have some questions on the reference of speed management plan. i want to get clarity on when we're expecting this to be finalized and presented to the t.a. and when and how long of an implementation period we are anticipated for a speed management plan so it's both, when will it be presented to the t.a., and what do we know what the time frame for completion of that time frame will be? i don't know if that is for m.t.a. or mr. parks. >> are you still on the line? >> i can take this. ryan reeves, i am an jamie's team and local streets at sfmta. my colleague noah and i are leading the update to the comprehensive street management plan. we have a draft plan that's in development. a major part of that is the 20 miles per hour work that is understoodway that has been partially funded by t.a. funds. and in terms of specific comprehensive plan and action strategy to have a draft plan this year. we will have something by the end of the year to share part of what we had in our continuing to build out that comprehensive management plan tied to future revenue measures which we aren't going to be getting. we are going to doing rethinking about what that looks like? >> does the draft plan set forth a time frame for completion or are we not yet at the point in that plan where we know the time frame? >> it doesn't really specify the completion of every single component. it is more outlining the tools that we have and our plans to maximize the tools. so it includes a range of things like our traffic calming work, the work to reduce speed limits, our education outreach work. high disability enforcement, as well as our other programs. >> i would add to that that i think the implementation time frame will be independent on funding availability as well, and so we'll flesh that out. and i think going back to commissioner melgar talking about not waiting and this is an example with a comprehensive plan and we are actually not waiting to implement speet management controls around san francisco and leading the state on implementing 20 miles per hour zones and maximizing authority. we are developing a comprehensive plan and working in the meantime to implement changes on the streets as quickly as we can. >> thank you. what is the price tag for the comprehensive plan? >> sorry. i can go ahead. we had originally estimated five to six million in our cip plus to deliver the comprehensive plan. over the course of three to four years. i understand that we're all certainly frustrated by the recent bond and i am not getting why we would not have five to six million dollars -- that is a relatively small sum in terms of for a comprehensive speed management plan when we know that speed is the number one cause of traffic related fatalities. so i think my request and suggestion would be that we just get more concrete about presenting that plan and implementing it and i don't know why it takes three years to implement and i don't think it's the funding at a five to six million price tag that should be standing in the way of doing that. a couple other questions on the quick build and this is something we talked about and i don't want to go back over this because we talked about with m.t.a. at a prior hearing. and so i want to both commend m.t.a. on the quick build work which has been transformative for person blocks, certain neighborhoods, but also recognize that we continue to do this on a black by block basis and we continue to run up against delays and i will say within my district, i am extremely frustrated that the paid slow street has been delayed in getting to the m.t.a. board for a necessary improvements and now some of that has been paired down and fighting to make that as strong as possible. the oak street bike lane we proved some design funds for and may be threatened with delay and the golden gate greenway and the tenderloin with broad community support has been the subject of a lot of coverage and interest and hopefully there's a past through but each of these we approach on a project and project by project basis. and then negotiate to make them work and advocate for them. what i identified last time and just want to re-bump up is the absolute need for a comprehensive city wide plan so that people can get on a bike and go from point a to point b without getting hit by a car. and we should not be doing that block by block despite the great work happening block by block. i think it is a problem that we don't have a city wide plan and network that we can look at and so we are working on that with m.t.a. but i just want to in any of the conversations bump that up because we will never get there in terms of eliminating the fatalities if we are dealing with intersection block by block and instead of comprehensive plan and two other things, one, i just wanted to mention to thank my colleague supervisor mar for his partnership on the traffic fatalities and town hall resolution that reintroduced that will be going to committee and looking forward to working with d.p.h. and m.t.a. and the t.a. further on that. i think it is essential that we have a public meeting and at the board of supervisors and just wanted to bring that into our conversation as well. that will be moving forward and i think it's important that we have that forum to meet with and talk with the public whenever there is a fatality in the aftermath. and then the last thing i wanted to -- that is the question and i am struck by when you look at that map, the high injury map, there are certain things that stand out and i have the pleasure of representing the tenderloin over the last two months and pretty much the entire tenderloin is blue on that map. it is high injury. i just want to hear what -- i am struck by the fact that a tiny percentage of residents in the tenderloin, tiny percentage own cars or rely on vehicles to get to and from their home. and yet that there is a concentration of deaths on the street in the tenderloin. and so beyond the work that's been done, are there any bigger, more radical proposals in the works to dramaticcally decrease if not eliminate vehicle traffic in the tenderloin? it's unique in the city in that way. that i think we have 10, maybe 15% of residents that even use a car, and yet if you look at that map, every block of the tenderloin is on the high injury network. i know there's been good work and the predecessor and when he represented the tenderloin did good work around right turns and speed reductions in the tenderloin. i just find myself looking at that neighborhood a little differently than others around whether we should start from a presumption of commercial vehicles that may need to get in to deliver something. we have cars speeding through the tenderloin. it seems to be of no benefit to residents of the tenderloin and where a disproportionate number of the deaths are occurring. i am wondering if there are any particular plans that would address that. >> that is a great question. and looking at the map for the first time in 2017 and seeing every single block line up, and we know this and there is no neighbor where that has seen more investment in street safety investments and i think one reason why we are interested in seeing a new high injury network is to see whether the investments are paying off in actual changes to the data we are seeing. and there is in our last capital program two years ago we also committed to a quick program to do quick build project on every single street in the tenderloin. we are 2/3 of the way through that now. but whereas five or six years ago and in the tenderloin and three lanes and one-way streets and down to two streets and three lanes and two conversions on eddie and ellis. and lane reductions on golden gate and taylor and making their way through comprehensively changing every street in the tenderloin and a lot more is needed in the tenderloin and open to bold changes there as well. >> thanks so much. looking forward to continue to work with you on that. >> commissioner preston. all right. let's open this item to public comment and how many folks do we have on the line, madam clerk? >> there is one hand raised so far. >> we will do two minutes. >> reminder, we are taking public comment on this item, and if you are speaking, please turn off any noise you have behind you. thank you. >> welcome, caller. your two minutes begins now. >> first and foremost, the gentleman who gave this presentation gave a presentation that is very convoluted. there is an acronym called kiss. keep it simple, stupid. and that applies to the supervisors. how many times has it come to their attention that we need superior digital platform, that we need to address the broadband and how many times has it come to the attention that the dispatch center, communication, has not been upgraded? so we have a presentation that doesn't even give you the latest data. how can you do a needs assessment? we have a budget of $14 billion and traffic fatality, then an san bruno and i made some suggestions. it is now 2022. instead of including san bruno avenue, it moves up parking meters. and the crosswalks have been painted. our seniors are putting in harm's way and give the public two minutes to explain to something that needs 10 minutes. and i tell you -- awe thank you. your two minutes are up. >> welcome caller. your two minutes begins now. >> good morning, chair mandelman, commissioners. my name is brian and i am walk san francisco's vision zero organizer. i want to thank d.p.h. for being here to present the data on traffic violence because it's really tragic how many people lost their lives to traffic violence last year and even worse to know that we're in course for it to be one of the worst years with 19 fatalities in only half the year. and what i think is most alarming is that pedestrians year after year continue to be in the most danger just trying to get around our city. the rate at which pedestrians are dying on the streets is more than double the national average, and yet there continues to be a lack of urgency and coordination among the city agencies that have the mandate to end traffic crashes to the vision zero program. and there is 15 city agencies that have a role to play. and should be part of conversation with only 30 months before we get to the vision zero 2024 goal, commissioners, please use the power of this commission to hear [inaudible] on what they are doing to achieve vision zero. and because we need transparency from whether it's the fire department and use street design plans and veto plans and as the commissioner mentioned which is responsible for enforcing the five most dangerous driving behaves. let's hear from the public works who got 50 # o miles of repavement work approved by mayor breed. and with the pedestrian speed zones and we need an updated high injury map from the d.p.h. to always be aware of improvements and recent years and agencies and this is a priority for the next two years. we know that without every solution and we keep seeing as many tragedies. >> welcome, caller. your two minutes begins now. >> caller, hello. >> go ahead. >> yes. i have some static on the line. >> go ahead, caller. >> yeah, i am having static on the line and can you hear me? >> yes. >> my comment, my comment is that is to close the upper grade highway permanently would be a huge mistake by not allowing traffic on the upper great highway and what has happened is that the tragedy loads in other sunset areas have been increasing greatly. so if you really believe in the importance of your vision zero program, you will keep the upper great highway open to traffic. it is a very safe, one of the safest streets in san francisco because there is no cross traffic and no turns. so please, when the time comes to make that decision about the upper grade highway, remember vision zero and the benefit that having that highway opened is for the lives of elderly and the disabled and the pedestrian. thank you. >> thank you, caller. >> welcome, caller, your two minutes begins now. >> thank, chair mandelman. commissioners and city staff, this is organized mapping related to division zero and as supervisor melgar and preston highlighted the current approach of addressing individual blocks when someone is killed isn't fast or effective enough. we have a crisis on our hands. and there are far to many obstacles to make way the streets and that jamie ant his team want to know and are effective and the hurdles and obstacles are the fire department most any safe street change through the task meeting which aren't public and very hard for anyone to know what happened there. they actually don't have a veto power there but influence designs directly. and i think we really need to bring more awareness to the meetings and how projects are being watered down and obstructed and delayed and influenced by the fire department both directly and indirectly. and the other hurdle that i commonly see with safe streets is the reactive pushback from people who fear change. and that includes people who are used to driving inconvenience around our city and so when something like a parking spot being removed is being proposed to create the parking spot for daylighting or a bulb out or just a road diet from a three-lane or five lane dangerous streets to four lane. there is tremendous pushback and unfortunately, far too often, that pushback eats up -- >> thank you -- your two minutes are up. >> checking for additional public comment. >> i see no more comment, chair. public comment on item 9 is closed. thank you. we will look forward to hearing from you again soon. madam clerk, please call item 10. >> item 10, streets and freeway strategy update. this is an information item. >> is alyssa passe around. >> hello. good morning, chair and commissioners. my name is alyssa passe and i will be giving an update on the street and freeway strategy. i want to make sure you can see the deck. >> we can. i think. >> great. okay. next slide please. >> the streets and freeway strategy is part of connect sf which is the multiagency process to build an effective, equitable and sustainable transportation system for san francisco's future. it is guided by five goal areas and equity, economic vitality, environmental sustainability, safety and livability and accountability and engagement. and next slide please. >> this strategy identified key challenges to the street and freeway network which are that we have limited street space and need to move more people in the same space that we have today and pass investments in freeways and major roads and transportation safety barriers and contribute to poor air quality in a climate crisis where private transportation makes up a significant portion of san francisco greenhouse gas emission. and these challenges guided the five recommendations of the streets and freeway strategy which are to maintain and re-investment in transportation system, prioritize transit and car pulling on the streets and freeways and build a complete network for walking and biking. prioritize safety and all of our investments and through targeted programs and to repair harms and reconnect communities. next slide please. the streets and freeway strategy has three elements. the first was to identify priority segment based on the connect sf goal areas. an example of this would be where major roads and freeway segments run through equity priority communitiessor have congestion or uses that impede transit reliability. we conducted outreach earlier this year and in the summer of 2021 and included partnerships with community-based organizations and online survey and a town hall meeting. and the third piece is the concept development work which is what we're presenting today. the concepts are intended to identify transportation challenges, opportunities and multimodal connections. and will set a range of medium and long-term high level direction to guide future efforts. all of the concepts will need formal planning processes, community engagement and technical analysis processes as funding becomes available to advance individual concepts. next slide. >> concepts are grouped into four categories, maintenance and resilience, transit, and high occupancy vehicle priority, safety and active transportation network. and concepts to reconnect communities and repair arms. each of the concepted that will go over addresses the combination of the strategies recommend dagss and combined the concepts to help address the challenges of the streets and freeway network and connect advance sf vision goals. next slide. the first category is maintenance and resilience and the first concept is to maintain road structure to keep the signs, signals, streets and bike lanes in overall good condition. the next three concepts are ongoing resilience efforts in san francisco and the streets and freeway strategy recognize that these efforts are important to transportation assets in the city and threat of sea level rise. and the embarcadero seawall program is an effort to create a more sustainable and resilient waterfront to protect economic activity and the bart, cal-tran and muni stations. and improve public infrastructure to the post. and ways to adapt and enhance strategy efforts and southeast part of the city. next slide. the second category is transit and high occupancy vehicle priorities shown in blue and the arterial high occupancy vehicle concept which would dedicate one travel lane for use by vehicles like 19th avenue, lombard and park persidio. and highlighting arterial h.o.v. lanes on lombard and planning for additional pilots. in green is the managed lanes and express sites on the freeway network concept to dedicate one lane for high occupancy vehicles paired with express bus, such as transit and car pool, to make transit and car pooling more reliable. and close gaps in the region's managed lane network. shown in orange is the bay bridge transit only lane which would dedicate westbound lane for transit vehicles to support more reliable transit speed and increase the amount of people move on the bridge. eastbound lanes are recommended further study to support transit access from the sales force transit center. also shown in orange is the i-80 ramp mitigation concept which supports the bay bridge transit only lanes by potential ramps to support transit priority and reduce safety conflicts in soma. next slide please. the next category is safe and active transportation network. the complete network for walking and biking concept is a high level commission of a city wide pedestrian and bike network that includes improving about 200 miles of the bike and pedestrian network by closing gaps and creating mobility hubs with regional connections as well as implementing vision zero improvements for all the vision zero strategies across the city. the freeway ramp safety concept identifies 14 with the history of crashes that are on or near the high injury network for near-term safety ramp improvements. and the work previously done and identified improvements for ramps in the soma area. the bayview circulation concept identifies the need to build on recent studies in the area to develop a combination of infrastructure and policy changes to improve safety for all people traveling within the neighborhood and to other parts of the city or region. the new and improved freeway crossing concept builds on a cal-tran freeway crossing comfort to assess and identify the areas and freeway crossings can be improve and new crossings may be needed. it would reconfigure ramps and surrounding intersections and improved safety anding is sesz for large vehicles and crossing the freeway by walking or biking. the west side circulation concept would improve traffic circulation on the west side with intersection redesign and complete street improvement and to improve access for all modes. next slide please. the last category is to reconnect communities and repair past harms and concepts in this category brings together transportation and land use to begin to repair harms from past major freeway. the brotherhood concept with need to improve circulation and community and connecttivety to regional transit and creating space for mu land use opportunities. the balboa concept identifies transit and connections with i-80 and potential for land uses. the alemany will consolidate into a vertical structure to create more space for greening and community priorities. the geary fillmore underpass concept is the need to re-imagine underpass in coordination with long-term transit planning and land use planning for the corridor which would improve connections and safety between the japan town and lesser addition neighborhoods. and i wanted to note concepts in the streets and freeway strategy to work towards reconnecting along the freeway network that have been impacted by freeway and for example, with the alemany and the circulation concepts and health address connectivity on the southern segment of the 101. next slide, to co-conclude with the steps and freeway strategy will be released in coming months as part of act sf, long-term concepts for major roads and freeways in the city. is sftp are the city's long-range transportation plan and will use the streets and freeway strategy as an input to identify our investment priorities and position the city for federal, state, and local funding opportunities. and update to the transportation element led by the planning department will codify strategist and concepts in the san francisco general plan. and next slide please. that concludes the presentation and i am happy to take any questions and m.t.a. and planning staff is also available to answer questions. >> thank you. seeing if there is any comments or questions. let's open this item to public comment. >> checking for public comment on this item, i see no hands raised, chair. i see public comment that is closed and thank you for the update. and we'll look forward to seeing the plan over the summer. and madam clerk, please call the next item. >> item 11, introduction of new items. this is an information item. >> i don't see anyone popping up on my queue. madam clerk, please call the next item. >> item 12, general public comment. >> and how many folks do we have in the queue? >> checking for public comment on item 12. general public comment. there are no hands raised. >> all right. we will open and close public comment on item 12. madam clerk, please call item 13. >> item 13 is adjournment. >> we are adjourned. >> welcome to the chase center arena. you guys feel that? [cheers and applause] >> that's that winning energy. okay. [applause] >> let's give a round of applause for the gold letter warriors for last night's performance. that was amazing! [cheers and applause] >> still confetti on the floor over here. well, welcome to the

Related Keywords

Japan , Bayview , California , United States , South Korea , City College , Embarcadero , Washington , San Francisco , Devin Morris , Cynthia Fong , Ryan Reeves , Seth Pardo , Geary Fillmore ,