to design the t ps. for example, in pedestrian and traffic circles in lanes. one example of which is the pilot on church street. the corridors identified for t prp treatments are those that carry the majority of ridership in the city. the eir may include the program analysis such as a the service policy framework. it's appropriate for the proposals for which designed details has not been developed as shown on the map. the corridors in black are the ones for which the mta has designed specific designs and the gray ones are needing more

processes pr the their involvin others processes. so the culminate effects are known those program level components have gone through research. to the extent that specific information is known to a specific environmental topic for both components it's been addressed in the initial study in its insure it whether or not the details have been developed first year for example, we understand the tools needed to take care of this. for each the 8 promotions the

mta has identified a moderate proposal and the expanded proposals with respect to travel first year by looking at those the sfvt will have neglect to get it approved. they may choose different alternates for example, the motor alternates for the church and the other project. as shown the two alternates have different things like loading and this is for pedestrian and air quality and noise. the expanded part has an impact and with respect to culminate parking one quarter is effected

under each alternate. i want to speak about the two elements for which interest has been expressed. stop consolidation is one of the elements within the tool kit to reduce traffic time in deciding which stops to eliminate or relocate the factors is considered like greater slopes amongst other things. traffic time it reduced with fewer stops, however, stop consolidation would result in he people having to work further but who won't be consider a sequa impact. the c p would result in fewer parking in order to prioritize transit lanes.

the first step in evaluating the parking lot and this demonstration depends upon where they are. for example, in the downtown off street parking facilities impacts many locations so in downtown there would be a much bigger parking loss. the second step or question in determining the significant impacts if the deficit exists would create hazardous conditions or delays for pedestrians and bicycle. however, due to parking removal we would have a parking shortage but the shortfall is only considered substantial in a

couple of locations. improve service for sin he occupancy vehicles. the t p wouldn't have parking impacts. however, in consideration of the land use development in some corridors where parking lot would be significant there would be a significant and unavailable parking impact. in closings i have a few reminders for the record. staff is not here to answer comments today comments will be contributed in the writing document which will be respond

to and make revisions. a court reporter is present as well as interpreters. there's no difference to the writing comments all comments will be treated the same way and those will be provided for your consideration before the certification of the financial eir. this is not a hearing to consider the proceeding of the process and they will be before the board of directors. comments today should be directed for the accuracy and adequacy of the draft eir. the sfmta will address those. commentsors should speak slowly

and clearly so the creditor can produce an accurate record and you should be addressing your name clearly. after hearing comments from the general public we'll take any comments by the drafting commission. this enhance on january 11th and will continue until september a period of three weeks extension. this concludes the presentation on this matter. i represent request the public hearing be opened. thank you >> opening it up for public comment

(calling names). >> good afternoon, commissioners. mark third generation san franciscan. there are a few positive elements to the project one is the line that be with expanded for 5 shopping centers but the effectiveness is that the pedestrians it it for them or the buses themselves. it seems like it will speed up the buses case in the let's take the 2819th avenue bus line one is for you - currently you walk 3 blocks and wait for a bus.

under the t p you have to walk an additional long block then while waiting on 19th after the closest stop the 28 passes you bye so how will that effect getting to your destination quicker. furthermore, eliminating stops doesn't suspend service that much. let's say you have 10 pedestrians at one stop and another stop that's going to be eliminated. at one stop it takes time for those 20 people to board the bus under the t e p you have the same people board at one stop. it basically takes the same

amount of time. i grant you it does take a little bit more time but is that time savings worth eliminating the stop for passengers who have to walk a bloke or two. for those who need did you have the 28 inlimited then you villaraigosa a bull about. it blocks traffic and that will further block traffic and result in dlaifg the next bus for the traffic back up. in closings you are hernd the elderly the very people you're trying to serve. does not element stops, in fact,

your make it harder just to say the bus is moving slightly faster then you can say it got from one - >> sir this hearing is on the draft environmental impact not the service changes. those comments are better suited to be provided to the sfavt board. this is about the adequacy of the board and we'd appreciate it if you limit our comments to that effect. thank you >> i'm herbert i'm a native san franciscan and also an i am paled stakeholder of mta. sadly this hearing addresses the transit effectiveness project

and doesn't include human impact. no physician or professional has rectified this impact upon pedestrians. it is basically flawed because it does talk about bus transportation while the transportation agency claims it's adding new vehicles it's retiring vehicles at the same time and pollution exists while the ridership grows without services increasing. if the mta can spend more money on others facilities why can't it allocate funds for a net increase for transportation vehicles why must it make the

residents surf from discontinued bus runs. it will be less services to the neighborhood. the heart and soul of san franciscans. the elderly and frail will have to walk longer distances to the bus stops. notablely in the chronically terminally ill. while this plan is sound it's humanly a hardship for many. electric muni buses. please send this project and those formulated back to the

board to come up with a better transportation plan and please include human impact. this is throwing the most vulnerable under the wheels. i want to include this in the record >> you can leave it on the podium. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is alex i live here on jackson. i'm part of a group of people who are concerned about the proposed impact of terminateing the quality of life on our riders and second from the congestion we believe will

result from more car uncle. i'd like to provided a little bit of background from our neighborhood. my colleagues will then talk about the environmental concerns we have about this impact. to understand our neighborhood you have to realize we're primarily a residential community not a designation community and therefore the majority of our ridership is in the morning and afternoon from downtown into our area. we have 20 to 25 percent of our riders of the age of 65 or older and finally, we're a very hilly community. the number 3 bus goes through the spine of our community and

it goes downtown if it's terminated what do we do then we have number 2 but in our neighborhood it's 7 blocks away and somewhere between 1 hundred and two hundred feet in elevation change. we can use the 22 or 34 or 33 which runs perpendicular. however, to take that requires additional walking and a bus ride and a requires a transfer. what is the result for our riders especially the elderly atkins and the young. we believe it to be a serious inconvenience associated with changing buses especially at night. will the exciting 3 riders

continue to be muni riders if you terminate their service. thank you >> thank you. >> i'm barbara and i live on jackson street and i'm following up with alex on say environmental impact of the plan. the goals set out to enhance accessibility and railways traffic time and improve reliability b will not be achieved. we estimate that half of the passengers about 2 hundred and 35 a day about 6 hundred people will be stranded and forced to use taxis. this adds 5 hundred miles of auto traffic and another 3 hundred and 25 cars and a taxis driving and parking downtown

near union square. there are no benefits from the t e p instead we add 2 hundred and 25 metric tons of greenhouse gas. it's a negative impact on san francisco's goal for a green city. will they're there be a cost savings. the number 3 is not the most under used lines. thirty to 35 have lower use and 20 of the lines have lower use in the night time hours. the eir plans to expand buses on the number 2 and 22 and 34. if 50 percent of our riders go over to their buses they would have to add considerable 76 percent of the eliminated buses

would have to add and that's a case of robbing he peter to help paul. we'll be hurting those who cannot afford cars and the elderly and hurt those people who can't afford to hire taxis and sealed it will push those people who are doing the right thing for the environment by taking the bus thank you. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners i live on jackson street. isn't there a positive fix to this? rather than cutting service and forcing more use of private transportation can't we

work to take muni in and out of our neighborhood. there are 7 schools in our neighborhood. this would possibly reduce the congestion during pickup and drop off. i don't know if you've been through our neighborhood but there's long lines of cars at the 3 o'clock waiting to pick up their kids and filling the air with greenhouse gases. we can coordinate with culture centers. and during the day when the ridership is lower we can element the frequency of some of those buses >> as the next speaker comes up i'll call more speakers

(calling names). >> good afternoon. my name is jean kelly. i live on jackson street. this is the second time i've come down here in the last 5 years to plead for the savior of the 3 jackson which is the only bus that come into our neighborhood that will take us to our jobs in the financial district and back. the 3 jackson is often crowded even when i ride it durable the day. i'm getting older i don't want to hike up and down hills with the number 1 or 2 that involves a transfer.

i want to let everyone know we count on this bus service. many of us don't drive and many of us are too old to drive and we really need to keep this. we can't use the union street buses they don't take us to where we want to go. the number 2 goes to union square but it goes gown to market street this is not convenient. thank you >> thank you. >> those members waiting in line to speak can you move to this side your blocking the doors. appreciate it. >> i'm adam i live on 22nd

street in harrison. i want to point out the discussion of folsom 27 line does not this the fact that the main artery for bicycle traffic and in doing so it fails to recognize that it will create hazard ooze environment for bicycle traffic. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm maria clyde. i love the neighborhood despite the fact we're crowded with churches go schools and hospitals. i love the street and i beg you

to keep the line thank you. thank you >> if the members of the public could please silence their mobile devises just simply turn it off. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> yeah, i'm william kelly i'm on jackson. first thing i'd like to do is respectfully obtain to the character that's given on say pieces of paper reduction of traffic times we're talking about the 3 jackson this seems possible it's the exact opposite of what's being proposed. i don't have had any more statistics to over is jackson i live on jackson and i guess this

is a map the east, west lines there's nothing between california and my own street which is absolutely incredible. i never understood or why this is attempted it's not the most sparesly used line in the city. i'm 65 it gets - there's the alternatives. it occurred to me if it weren't for the 3 jackson i'd have to walk up the hill back to jackson and it would be walking all the way home myself maybe that's what everyone's intending. i'm getting older and walks like

this are becoming extremely inn. >> (speaking foreign language). >> good afternoon. i'm the president of the an association. we're the largest orientation in the city and our members are low income members. >> (speaking foreign language).

>> public transit is a necessity not our choose most you have us are transit dependent. those are simply a reduction in services >> (speaking foreign language). >> we absolutely does not need any chinatown transit i discourage u encourage all the commissioners to take the climate lines and see how it is to commute in our neighborhood. >> (speaking foreign language).

>> mta should be thinking about how to address services such as an overcrowded buses eliminating buses is an inappealing thing for our residents. thank you >> thank you. >> (speaking foreign language).

>> good afternoon commissioner i'm the vice president of the improvement association high-rise as established. public housing in san francisco chinatown. we have over 4 hundred low income speaking families >> (speaking foreign language).

>> i'm here today to share my concerns on say route to the fisherman's wharf. this is going to change the life of our residents we rely heavy on this i take the bus to safe way to buy food. this will impact our community and please keep it the way it is. thank you >> thank