minutes. >> just a follow-up to that point -- we are anticipating some of the through traffic currently using franklin will come back to van ness avenue, where it probably should be, since it is the main throughout. delocalize traffic would switch from venice to some of the other streets. that i think that definitely could happen. when you say no lectern's, that includes cabs and unique and everybody? >> that is a good point. transit will still be able to turn on to golden gate ave. they come southbound and turn left. we would have a dedicated trances signaled. -- transit signal. in general, your assumption is correct. >> all you need is a couple of vehicles blocking the lane, and the whole thing backs up. then, i think it will be all

level boarding these raised platforms that would not allow other vehicles. is that correct? >> that is correct. they are 10 or 12 inches off the ground, and that lines up closely with the floor of the new buses, the idea is it is perfectly level boarding. there may need to be a bridge play to help assist, but the goal is to be able to walk across or roll across on to the bus. >> overhead contact systems were wired on the sidelines, and a little but in the system, so this would move the whole system to the street. the 47 would be a diesel hybrid. >> it sounds like this would be convertible to rail in the future, if at such time that was

felt to be more expeditious. you could put the rails in and have a connector with the rest of your muni metro system. >> and yuri -- kiri -- geary has a charge said it needs to be real ready. dealing with in this things will not actually be rail ready, and add to would be a more significant conversion. >> four looked pretty good. i guess the only problems there were that you were not able to run some of the non-electrified buses because of the doors they had. the door loading was difficult? >> yes, basically, there are not a lot of 5-store vehicles in existence, particularly for the electric buses.

-- 5-door vehicles, particularly for the electric buses. we saw that as a key procurement risk. in particular, the diesel hybrid buses, there are five-door vehicles. if it was just that, it might have been a different conversation, but for this stage in time, it was just too big of a challenge. >> ideally, that is probably your best solution. it is something to think about because of a lot of your light rail boarding is usually one platform in the middle. you know, although there are some in subway situations, that probably would be the -- as far as the concern about having medians with trees and planting, maybe that might have

to move more to the sidewalks and less in the media and if you have a problem with space, which we do. that might have to be something that would be sacrificed or minimalize. i think your option you are moving on now is a good one, but i would look at the again if at all possible and see if there is a way to make it work. the idea again on totally electrified, we should get rid of diesel whenever possible because we are trying to be as energy safe as we can, and having the electrified situation and the advantages we have where we have our own power to do that, we should certainly convert some of these other lines to electrify some of the ones that go off into more distant routes and have to go along a non-electric crowd. those are some thoughts i had. commissioner borden: a want to thank you for your nice words,

and it is fun to see it come this far. in 2003, when we were working on the expenditure plan committee, it seemed like a far notion, and it has been talked about for quite some time. it is great to see we are finally in a place where we can make some decisions and move forward. i think the innovative approach of taking the alternative and coming up with an alternate solution -- it sounds like a great one. i do not know what is going on with the cac. i guess we should make sure they get the presentation on what your talking about and they can provide feedback. i believe in order to achieve efficiency -- one of the challenges we all know is there are too many stops. did you look at phil's and slopes and disability access when you chose those particular spot to keep compared to those you eliminated? >> we did look at a number of different factors. the most important factors were

ridership and crossing let's to eliminate walking for people most using the system. as you mentioned, it is a really tough balance. everybody wants their bus to move faster, and nobody wants to move their stock, so we tried to pick the key stops and where there were key transfers so people would have the least amount of walking possible for the majority of riders. also, to follow-up on the cac question, we presented to the van ness brt cac, and they did vote to recommend the alternative. >> i think what is really exciting about this, nine times out of 10, when there is a traffic back up, it is a bus that is not in its bus lane, in the middle of the traffic lane, and people are trying to get around the bus.

being able to clear that up will help tremendously. i have taken the van ness buses many times over the years for many reasons. sometimes it is a commute to work. it was davis. some time he did make it in seven minutes and sometimes in 20. when you talk about transit reliability, while we are looking at a snapshot of van ness avenue, we also have to remember that the linkages -- the linkage is to a larger network. what we know about a writer ship is that people are willing to ride transit if it guarantees reliability and certainty. the problem with the van ness bus is it is very uncertain. people who would normally --

normally, could take the bus to the opera house or city hall or other places are not going to rely on an unreliable mode of transportation. therefore, they drive, but i honestly believe you will see rare efficiencies, and i think there would be a lot of people willing to take it because they knew that there was 70 in the time, and then that connecting with the underground system that they could actually get to downtown and the like more quickly. it might even be better for some people than doing the express buses. i think we have to think about it in a larger, connected network. the larger network of how people are able to get to other places, particularly the opportunity to connect at van ness and market to so many other lines to get people from around the city, so i think that is really a great achievement. i think that we obviously need to do a lot more education. there's a lot of people concerned about parking and the

turn lane issue as well. i do agree that it is important to minimize turns for transit purposes, and i do think that a lot more people who are driving would come back to van ness. actually, if you are near lombard -- a lot of people start off on van ness, and it gets back up, and they turn off to get on the of the streets because it is just more congested that way. i look forward to after this project moves forward, looking at how it impacts traffic patterns in the area. that is another important distinction. obviously, we prefer to have a subway, but unfortunately, that is not in the cards for us here, i don't think. but i think this is really great progress on this project. i am really optimistic to hear you say we might even be done by 2015 because that would put us on par with potentially when

cpmc would be opened. but i will leave that to you all the figure out. >> we are working to the expert at the schedule as best we can. to clarify, i too would be a 26 opening. 2015 for the start of construction. commissioner borden: another question -- caltrans. how are they involved? i know they have to approve the project. are there anything -- >> it is like a separate process imbedded within the environment process. they have what is known as a project study report, which is their internal documentation for approving the project. we've been working through the different designs making sure it is compatible. we will still need to continue to get approvals as we go throughout the process, but we have been in lockstep with them.

they see it as part of the complete streets mandate, and we are trying to work with that to make them as comfortable as possible with something that is new ground for them. >> -- commissioner borden: i guess the other thing you could talk more about is i personally think the middle lane is the preferable alternative for achieving efficiency, but the concern, of course, is people crossing the street from the middle lane to get to the sides they need to be on. can you talk about with signaling or other things you are planning on doing with the pedestrian improvement, how that will impact people's ease of getting off the buses and crossing the street? >> certainly, there will be pedestrian and audible signals, as i mentioned, at all intersections, but particular attention will be paid to the station locations. we know we will probably want to put some sort of -- hopefully

aesthetically pleasing -- barrier where there is not the actual crossing some people are not running the cross traffic to try to catch the bus. commissioner borden: that happens all the time right now. >> correct. it is again a trade off. when it is on the side, have the time, you do not cross the street at all, and the other time, you are walking all the way across the street to go in a different direction. it is not a new thing. we certainly will be putting in a corner bu. one of the benefits is we are able to reduce the walking distance. again, not having that left turn signal phase just adds to the amount of time you can give to either the cross or through movement, allowing pedestrians to live at a slower speed to get all the way across -- to move at a slower speed to get all the way across. commissioner borden: i see all the time that buses arrive at approximately the same time at

an intersection, one going west and won going south, but there does not seem to be courtesy given from the bus drivers to ensure that -- i mean, a lot of people getting off a bus may want to get on the other bus -- what is the policy encouraging or getting the drivers to -- i mean, that is another issue that causes people to run across traffic. i do not know what the policy is within muni. >> i do not know if there is a policy specific to that. sydney for key crossruffs, the key rapid transit, there certainly would want to be some sort of emphasis on making this connections -- certainly for key crossing routes. it is something we can look at and design, and if there is a policy to be looked at -- commissioner borden: i think it

makes sense. to many times i see people running after buses because they have come off one to catch another, and the bus drivers ignore them, and it is just a bad scene and, again, discourages people from using transit. commisioner miguel: i would particularly like to thank tilly chan for her work. she knows how far back i go on it as well. in my mind, this was five years ago the only alternative because it was the only logic. it is the second choice. bart is the first choice. but it is not going to happen in my lifetime or probably my grandchildren's lifetime, for that matter. i understand your elimination of stops and am fully in agreement with it. five blocks is pushing the

envelope. i do not know if there is any way of playing with that one. the three works. there's no question on that purified, to me, is pushing the envelope a little bit. i'm pleased that you are able to work so well with caltran. at one time, that was literally impossible. but ever since they came to some agreement when the ball park went in south of market, when octavia boulevard went in, they realized that you do not operate freeways when they touched down in cities or go through cities the same way you do in more open country. in the last 10 to 15 years, there has been a big change there.

other than that, i look forward to moving along as quickly as possible. when google and matt quest and the little lady that resides in your car on your gps system tells you to take van nest -- when google and mapquest and the little lady that resides in your car on your gps system tells you to take van ness, she is wrong, but this could very well change that. i look forward to some changes there. i personally do not think it is going to have as much and have on the streets east of van ness as it will on the streets west of it. that is something that is going to have to play out as people

get used to the new system, but i have found it starts in at about three months, takes six months, and by a year, everyone knows where they are going. just look forward to that. commissioner wu: in response to some of the public comments, i do not believe that incremental changes can achieve the same efficiencies, and that also want to point out that on the small studs money, i did not believe it is transferable. i share the same concern about the five blocks and a pedestrian safety. i appreciate seeing the pedestrian improvement and public realm is, i think, in the top three of criteria, but i

think that the five blocs is really long. especially at broadway. broadway is in the middle of that five blocks. i know for sure there is a 200- unit senior housing building. i do not know if there are other senior housing buildings around there, but i know that a ninth critically. i would encourage the ta to look at the concentrations of senior housing and see what may be appropriate. i have the question about why not pass market, and that's may have been answered in the past, but why not south of market -- that may have been answered in the past, but why not south of market? >> the van ness brt has its own utility, and that is where the two routes are running to get there. we know that the mission corridor is also a very important route, and the transit

effectiveness project is looking at mission as one of its eight project level improvements as part of its environmental clearance. we know the 14 and 14l run along there, and there are a lot of additional considerations. commissioner wu: i understand the administrative constraints of the project, but i want to make sure the spot as to all the good will who are crossing going from the north side to the south side of the city. i think that is probably an important connector. and then, also wanted to ask and encourage a ta to look at what the traffic impacts -- the only a left turn is on broadway, correct?

broadway is already a very high- traffic street. there's a lot of pedestrian safety concerns. want to make sure that it is not creating more danger along broadway while improving van ness. ok, thank you. commissioner antonini: a couple of other items i wanted to mention. discussion about pedestrian safety is a really important one, and then ness is a really wide street, as we know. i do not know if you have explored the possibility of putting passageways under van ness. you only have, i think, seven stops, not counting market, which already has passageways. maybe eight if you count mission. while it would add to the cost, and of course, you have to remove utility lines, which we have seen takes a while, but that would be a wonderful solution to allow pedestrians to move under the street, stop,

come up at the median to board, or continue on to cross the street, or at least some of those at the heaviest intersections might make a lot of sense, since you are doing so much, cutting a trench and putting those in the makes sense. and i know you are coordinating this with the plans for the geary brt. while i think this bus rapid transit might work on van ness because it is such a broad street, but the idea that it is going to work on geary, i think it is such a small street in not see how that will work. i think that is where you will have to figure out a weighted funding. but because that brings us to the question of what is going to happen at geary and van ness, if it is all above grade, the whole

system might come to a grinding halt if he tried to have these lines fighting with each other. i encourage the work with other agencies to try to see if you can figure out a way to find funding to run at least a partial subway past then tested franklin or to laguna, and then you would have a broad street beyond that, and you have plenty of room for me in transportation -- median transportation. commissioner moore: i am concerned, picking up on it, and which resonates with me from commissioner gordon, that i think -- commissioner borden, that i think a multi modal transportation system has to be in place in order to make this,

which does not really elevate. we all know that the majority of transit lines in san francisco go east/west rather than north/south direction. we are all clear on that. my second point is picking up on commissioner wu's comment. i'm concerned we are choosing the worst street. i think there is another pattern by which perhaps one alternative needs to be looked at or needs to be put into two corridors. trying to reinvent broadway, particularly with the waterfront lower part of broadway becoming more residential. the center part becoming more

restaurant, quieted down, and then china town now having its own cohesive need to bridge across broadway for lots of people walking because the commercial activity of chinatown is really on the north and south side of broadway. i think we need to be very careful not to push highway one on to broadway. that is what i see happening. you will have the same group of people trying to turn onto van ness and going into lombard. i think there are major constraints we are causing, which i hope you are looking at it as comprehensible way as possible. i am still interested to see

that the original plan of then s as being a residential boulevard can still be realized in the way you were designing -- the original plan of van ness. so that the street itself creates a more residential boulevard. >> thank you. commissioners, if that is the last comment, we can -- commissioner fong: we will take a short recess and then reconvened. thank you. >> thank you. commission is in recess.