department heads that meet monthly. we are pleased to see it before any of several folks in the audience who have been working on this project. the deputy director will speak for most of the presentation. thank you. >> thank you. thank you for this opportunity. we very much appreciate being able to be here to present an update on the project. this body has requested updates at has requested development for rapid transit over all in the city and we appreciate that and recognize the critical integration between the transportation and transit performance in our overall city development goals. we appreciate your leadership and helping us develop our smart

growth plan. i would like to recognize commissioner boredom's support of proposition k. she was the vice chair at time -- i would also like to acknowledge the planning department staff who contributed to the overall development of the policy framework as well as our partners who have been with us since the beginning and will design and build a project. our long time project manager has moved on to another assignment but i am happy to introduce michael schwartz who has taken over and he will be presenting on the at bay, particularly the exciting news about a locally preferred alternative which the two agencies staffs are jointly recommending to our various

boards next week. >> thank you. i may transportation planner with the transportation authority. a few weeks ago, i said i would be back to provide an update. we have more extensive details and i appreciate going back to the expenditure plan. this project has a long history in san francisco. van ness is one of the key links in the rapid network being reviewed as part of the transit effect of this project and this is a key component. it's one of the first out of the gate. in addition to the partnership with an eta, we have been working with a lot of city agencies. puc,dpw.

we have applied for federal funds. many agencies are involved in this project and we are at a very exciting stage. just to go back to what is the purpose of the project? i probably don't need to remind the commission but the main reason is to improve the reliability of the 47 and 49 along van ness ave as luck -- as well as the golden gate buses as well. this shows the frequency of buses as they arrive at market street. they're scheduled to come every seven to eight minutes. you can see as of today, it is pretty flat. you are as likely to get a bus 14 minutes apart for one minute with serious bus bunching. we want to improve the reliability and increase

ridership. we want to install countdown signals come audible signals, reducing left turns. as one of the highest causes of collisions as well is a pedestrian lighting element. we want to enhance the urban design of the street to unify the corridor and because its u.s. 101, we need to accommodate a number of people moving through by transit and other methods. we want to see the multi-modal corridor continue to function. a quick reminder of what this is -- it's a combination of transit features. you have probably seen various bits and pieces like a dedicated transit lane or low floor buses, something we're planning to procure systemwide.

this is level boarding so you can roll straight across onto the bus. when you get all of these features together, you get. this really creates a new mode of transit in san francisco that is much more train-like at a fraction of the cost and delivery time. we did circulate a draft environmental document in november and december of 2011. we are required to evaluate all raise the alternatives. there's a no build alternative that would look a what happened with the project in the future. there were two centerline options and there were designed options as part of the center line alternative that would further reduce the left turns. the design option would reduce

that to one in each direction. a quick look at the visualization -- this is alternative #two. the buses would run in a similar plane as they do today. under alternative no. 2, it would be buses only. the platforms would come 8 feet out from the sidewalk into the street. it would retain parking wherever feasible. transit signal priority -- the branded vehicles and pedestrians save the elements i described previously as well as a replacement of the overhead contact system which represents street lights and you will see the pedestrian lighting element representative in nature. they have action not gone into a state of design. alternative no. 3 as the buses running where the median is today. this would involve full removal of the median and separates the

buses from traffic. it requires reconfiguration of the median and has two smaller medians for all of the corridor which limits the planting of opportunities. it is supposed to show that there is a limited planting palette due to the smaller median. under alternative no. 4, the buses run and the left most troubling. the difference is the buses have doors on both sides. big load from the left side along the van ness corridor and continue into the mission and load again from the right side. the findings show we were able to meet the purpose of the project. we project it will have significant. -- significant improvement in travel time. we are maintaining a person thruput, a similar number of people are moving through the court or. because the buses are able to move more quickly through the

corridor, we can keep the same frequency with your actual vehicles. there's an actual cost savings potential. that's an important thing for mta and all transit riders. finally, the improvement in multi modal safety, less left turns, the pedestrian countdown, we see it achieving many of those goals. there was one area of significant and unavoidable impact and that is traffic circulation. we looked at 140 different intersections. we found in 2015, there were three significant an unavoidable impact. however, there are a similar number of impacts operating at a lower level, so the project isn't having any additional intersections operating. in 2035, due to be significant

background growth, things like the hospital in this area and city-wide, we know we need to look at significant changes to help people get in and around the city. but due to the regulations, we cannot anticipate what those will be. the system is operating close to the brink of what we project for background growth. there are between six and eight sections that would operate in 2035 but we would like to start thinking about how we can change on a larger scale the way people move in and through the city. there are concerns from people living on the street parallel to van ness ave. even if it is not operational yet issue, there may be an increase in traffic on the side streets and we know we want to start planning for what a potential offsets, pedestrian

prove mens and those sorts of things to offset any increase in traffic along the streets. there are couple of other key areas of interest we have heard -- the draft environmental document selection -- one is the removal of left turns and how that may impact versions and circulation. transit stop consolidation -- going from 15 north on stops and 14 north on stops, i removal of six stops in each direction so it averages in -- averages every three blocks. so if you are in the middle, it's about a two and half block walk. we tried to stick with key crosswalk locations said it would be minimal walking for transfers. we tried to account for the grade of the street. parking lots, this project will maintain most of the parking.

sunblocks may have more removal let others. -- some blocks may have more removal than others. the final thing we have heard is a visual impact. particularly around the trees and landscaping. there will be some trees removed in the center option -- alternative three removes all the trees. under alternative to, some of the sidewalk trees would be removed, but we anticipate having median and sidewalk space to replace the trees in other locations. we have done a significant amount of outreach and have been to a number of community groups and commissions and even during this current stage, we're going to more than 10 stakeholder groups who are in from the today. we've got a lot of feedback and

that was a key component to how we selected the recommended alternatives. that was combined with -- we look at a different categories of performance indicators. all performance indicators in each of the categories -- when we worked with the planning department to define those, i realized all performance indicators are created equal. some people are emphasizing performance indicators more than others. we have a project committee the planning department staff is on as well and we said you have about 100 points to divide how you choose among those eight different categories. where are your priorities and how the rate them? this chart shows all three of the group's emphasize transit performance and that's where we

saw people landing. if we are doing the project, the whole point is to improve reliability and transit travel time. as the whole reason that you can see passenger experiences must but the restaurant less than half the amount of the transit -- one of the two cetera alternatives meet the need, showing a stronger liability in transit travel time benefit. design option b that limits the left-hand turns shows twice as much trouble time and reliability benefits. people turning right across the lane corporal parking need to use the light and that erode some of the benefits and allows for violation of the trend line. public comments indicated a preference of alternatives was almost three to one in favor of one of the two center running alternatives. the public understands why the center running alternative would perform better.

unfortunately, there are challenges with the center-ready alternatives. alternative three has a head on configuration. we may be to widen blade which would reduce the media and from what they were or take out parking. you would need to remove all the trees along the corridor and by the transit running over that, there's a potential utility issue and construction risk. hot alternative for comes down to the left-right door vehicles. we aren't talking about one smaller fleet of specialized vehicles but to smaller specialized fleets. there is no 5 door truly coveted existence in north america. there is a diesel hybrid likely to be used in the east bay, but we saw that as a procurement risk and reliability risk that you can't just put any bus out there if you can't get them and

-- if you can't get them maintained. we have put our heads together and said let's find a way to mitigate the risks and what we came up with is this that you see on the screen here. it will operate at flank speed gm's outside and as the buses come toward the station location, it will transition toward the center at the stations which allow for loading and unloading from the right side of the buses will transition back to the outside. is everyone following how that would work? because of the limited left turns come we're selecting the design option that would allow for just one left turn in each direction. it has traffic and transit benefits.

but bit scores of first or second in six of the eight criteria. we have to further refine the designs to know for sure by it will have the best reliability benefit. it will be able to get outside the other bus which is a drawback to alternative three. it maintains much of the center median so we will do everything we can to maintain the median and allow for the planting opportunities. it has a consistent design which we have heard from the accessibility community. the stations closer to the east side are going northbound and those on the west honor going southbound fasso it is very

logical. we have never find the cost estimates yet. we're just -- we know the vehicle cost will go down and we are waiting to see what the infrastructure costs will be. the alternative will fall within the environmental bookends of what we cleared in the draft. we're not anticipating recirculating that document. we have not done their refined cost estimate. we think it's going to be closer than alternative no. 2, but we have $100 million in identified funding. $75 million of the from small part -- from small starts. we are in a very good spot already for the project. that developer agreements, hopefully projects will be contributing as well and we

anticipate being able to close the funding gap. the next steps -- we're doing significant that reached to stakeholders talking about this locally preferred alternative. the authority plant and program committee will review this item as an action item next tuesday. the mta board will be reviewing this as an action. to included in the fire -- the final environmental document and it will be a selection of the design for further design of the implementation that we will certify a gamble final document and the fall and issue a record of decision. at that time, we anticipate coming back to the planning commission for a referral and if the amendments are needed, we would bring that to you after the certification of the

environmental document. the goal is to continue design now that we have the endorsement of the board and get started. under a good scenario, we would be and construction for 2015 in time for 2016. with that, i will open up for questions. president fong: we will open up to public comment first. >> i was on the citizens' advisory board because i understand there are technical requirements and how this is presented, but i think that makes it foggy to exactly what we are talking about. van ness is about 2 miles long. it takes a medium trip of about 50 minutes. we're talking about spending

$100 million to save one-third of the time, four or five minutes. in terms of reliability, and i've lived in san francisco for over 30 years and taken the bus, what we're talking about is waiting an extra four minutes. i want you to keep in that context. i look back at the history of this concept and according to my research, it started in brazil and works best in the city's that are dilapidated and have a long commute time. it worked well in detroit and cleveland. frankly, i don't see it working well on that bus in san francisco. cost when you think about the amount of money involved, for $20 million or $30 million, we could utilize all the efficiency members -- we could time the lighting and have your bus

stops and expedited fare collection and easier boarding. if you want to go further, promoting parking during peak rush hours -- during peak rush hours, the big traffic is from california street south and he could restrict prohibited parking to that. the hope we did talk about this of the citizens advisory committee but we did not been heavily talk about the funding and the other alternatives and the right lane alternative, all of which would remove a laid off from their nests. we should keep six late, save $70 billion or $80 million and do all of these other steps keeping the six lanes and when you are talking about a five minute savings in commute time and reliability, it would seem

to be the city could do other things with the money. i would also like to mention since i have read buses for over 30 years, nobody seems to talk too much about problem of trucks and cars double parking which is very hard to enforce them to get on and so you are talking about a one late alternative at times. thank you. cost>> i claim no expertise on s subject but the people i know who are critics of this approach say brt is an effort to be rapid transit on the cheap that it doesn't do very well and is expensive and we should consider incremental improvements which is more like some of what i heard.

my own concerns are as you know, i care about the van ness plan and it was to beautify the street as much as you could on a major highway and have the media and hopefully heavily planted, which it is not now. this is the option they are choosing wipes out. the issue of driving traffic on to the side streets, as i recall, the interception was supposed to be gridlock. maybe i'm wrong, but that's what i recall. now we're going to throw more traffic off on their. somebody needs to consider these things. when i was a kid growing up here, there was total gridlock

and they had to build under the street. are we going to have to do that over here? the main issue i am kind of an expert in has to do the people who are disabled and elderly. the principal thing that makes a living at home and being independent possible is whether or not there is public transit that's easy and accessible to use. they plan to eliminate lots of bus stops. the gentleman said if there are five blocks apart, it's only two and a half blocks to walk away. easy for him. it's also a few blocks to go from that nest to your home. it's fine to have some express buses but they eliminated bus stops on the locals and my friend with a walker use to take the bus -- when the mason

stopped was gone, she had to take the taxi every time and people can't all do that. this is a huge issue and it's going to become a huge community issue, the eliminating of the bus stops. somebody was waiting to hours for the paratransit that didn't show up. that's a common issue. san francisco has a wonderful ability to get people out -- [tone] president fong: thank you very much. >> what disturbs me about this is the cac voted on three plants

and a fourth plan was decided without the citizens' advisory committee. behathat disturbs me, but what disturbs me more is what this lady just said -- some days i can walk and some days i can't. it depends on the day. always a crapshoot. i don't think senior citizens were thought about in this plan. i'm also extraordinarily concerned about franklin's and lombard. we've got those issues coming up master plan committee and i don't think this i plan had been presented to the public with the right public input. that the serbs may in the united states of america -- that disturbs me in the united states

america. president fong: is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini: interesting comments -- the one person who said there were 15 in a bus rides on van ness, that's assuming the buses there when you first get to the stop and if you're really lucky, it's 15 minutes. i think it's a lot longer in heavy traffic. in fact, there are times when the buses don't run as often and i can walk the 2 miles quicker than the bus can get me there. part of it is that congested is really bad on that ness that we have to eliminate that. i think this is a good plan. i would think that ultimately a subway would be the way to go. we don't have the money but

other dense cities like new york and others have created some ways had you can't put two things in the same space. if you put the dedicated plains, you will eliminate something else. it's a good plan trying not to do that but a few comments and questions. this would assume that with this in place you will get rid of the other buses on van ness or the buses will run strictly in the center lanes, correct? >> that is correct. 47 and 49 would become the vehicles and continue on their normal routes. the golden gate transit buses would also operate in the center. >> good. >> the 19 would still stay on its local route, one block over. >>commissioner antonini: some of

the concerns about their being more stops -- people who don't want to go or are unable to go to or three blocks could take the local on franklin if a local was run there. van ness should be expressed. when you say no left turn lanes -- are they going to be eliminated entirely? >> they would be eliminated entirely. if you're between lombard admission headed southbound, you're only left turn opportunity would be broadway. northbound, there be no left turn between mission at lombard street. >> that makes sense. you get used to it on mission street. you get used to it on 19th avenue. you know that's what you've got and you have to anticipate and that's the price you pay for moving quicker along that s h