be done. was in the report for 2006. even he recommended, let's have standards. thank you. >> commissioners, mr. ginsburg, i'm grateful for this opportunity to speak. my name is deborah benedict. i am a person that uses san francisco park. i come from a different area and i just moved in the last couple of years to san francisco. and in recognition of the troubles and difficulties that all city governments have with funding, i wanted to offer a possible suggestion that might facilitate the accommodation and needs of the parks and recreation department because quite frankly i think there's a lot of people that have great concern and affection to the city of san francisco that are wonderful gifts to the community. i was going make an offer and a

suggestion because individuals in the community would like to contribute to the park but they don't know where the needs are. the federal communications commission has low-level broadcast station availables, frequencies that are available for short-term broadcasting. if one of those would be taken and utilized by parks and rec to announce four contributors to the parks and rec for clean-up volunteers for equipment volunteers for the types of things that if the community knew about and had the opportunity to contribute money, time, or resources that they could possibly do. but part of the issue is they don't really know what's going on in parks and rec. a short-term broadcast station that was assigned to the needs of parks and reck that anyone

could pick up on any radio that those who would like to make contributions to the park to actually call a number that is listed and have an opportunity to distribute what's needed. thank you. president buell: thank you. good idea. >> is there any other comment under the general manager's report. seeing none, we are on item number nine. at this time members of the public may address the commission on things that are on the general public commission. is there anyone that would like to make comment. if so, please come forward. >> i have a procedural question. we had a number of letters that i know about -- there might have been more submitted about when the agenda was published

and today's meetsing about the water treatment and golden gate park. i was wondering what is the next procedure? will the public have access to these letters. and i have copies but i don't know if they're related to the other agenda. president buell: we'll take your question. >> thank you very much. >> steve courier from the resident's association. this is not a park thing but it is a park thing. one of the pictures came out and it was this structure. the structure was built in

1915. there were 10 of these little parks built around the city. and they were to showcase the ex-position, the rebuilt of san francisco from the earthquake. on the corner you can't see it but it was vacant but it was built as the first safeway in san francisco. we've been begging for a park in this wide median. and ed ripken, the manager of -- director of d.p.w. at our holiday party two years ago. and we were joking about welcome to grandma's own park. since he started his pavement to park product we have now -- the dedication is on saturday at 11:00. and we've got the first permanent pavement to park in san francisco where the four other ones were temporary permit. so i'm inviting you -- and i know gloria, you live in the

neighborhood and we would love to see you. but this is a dream come true of mine and i'm very proud of what we've done. president buell: congratulations. >> is there any other general public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed and we are on item number 10, which is commissioner's matters. as reminder this item is allowed to have commissioners issues that should be raised at future meeting. >> can we put events like this pavement to parks item on our website on short notice so that people know about it? >> that what? >> we can have it up for tomorrow. >> great. thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. number 11 is new business agenda setting. any public comments?

public comment is closed. item 12 is communication. commissioners? any public comment under communications? public comment is closed. we're on item 13 which is adjournment. are >> moved and seconded. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> so moved.

[thinking] glucose...plus oxygen... equals...carbon dioxide plus water... hey, gina, what's up? and energy...

pulmonary artery... coronary artery... teacher: i'd like to pass them back to you now. i'm very pleased with your work. ...two types of endoplasmic reticulum... 3:00 already? [girl's thoughts overlap] announcer: she's got the drive, the energy... the heart... and the talent. pre-med. announcer: but she wouldn't be here without your help. please support the united negro college fund. because a mind is a terrible thing to waste. please stand by.

please stand by. please stand by. so 03 executive directors report. >> since our last meeting on october 14, we continue to make progress. an excavation package is

ongoing. how the court pallia architect is 20% complete with the documents. the request for qualification for the design build construction services trade package was advertised october 4. we received responses to the rfq. we have a value in the responses and will be sending out a notification next week. we have also issued a notice to proceed for the utility relocation contract. the first reconstruction meeting was held on october 21. with respect to the second and third utility relocation visits, we expect to issue those on november 9 with the fourth one being issued november 6. at the terminal we are expected to complete phase two of the terminal for operations to

commence around december 11. i did want to mention with respect to rider request on the benches, we have increased this about 15%. we have all so requested five more benches with armrests for phase two, when it opens. this will result in a 62% increase in the number of benches at the completion of phase two. with respect to the rest rooms, in conjunction with finishing up the face to work at the terminal, we are investigating various options to provide restrooms while also maintaining and addressing the safety concerns we have had. i expect to come back to the board for an update on the various restrooms. we have also met with the mayor's disability council. we looked at issue is focused on

access for personal with disabilities for completion of the phase two temporary facility. with respect to the rail design, we continue to coordinate with caltrain and high speed rail on all aspects. we recently completed a bay bridge corridor study that i wanted to present to the board. we recently completed a study on behalf of the tjpa and transit. we administer the contract for a total cost of $350,000. cambridge systematics and other organizations worked on this to assess future highway situations in the corridor and to see if current systems could work affectively. now i would like to ask tony to present the results of the study.

>> thank you. this is the first look at what traffic conditions will be like in future years as traffic grows. we also took have a look at market street traffic to see if we could start cleaning that up. in the bay bridge corridor right now, in the morning, peak hour, we push through about 42,000 people from the east bay to san francisco. about 18,000 of them are on board. 22,000 coming across the bridge. -- bart. in the future, these are the projections that we get.

population in the east pay increases. -- bay increases. population in san francisco also continues to increase. our projections, cambridge gave us the over all travel projections for the bay bridge corridor. if you look at this chart, the capacity of the bay bridge in the four-hour peak period, 36,000 vehicles. the demand is 37,000 vehicles. that is why we have this big queu in the mornine in the morn.

even whip the small increase that is projected in traffic, we end up with a demand of 43,000 vehicles and a capacity of only 36,000. what will happen is the queue at the bay bridge will get really big. we are also dealing with whole corridor. the whole corridor is getting more congested because of more demand. right now we make about 15,000 trips. 42,000 trips. we actually have capacity for about 50,000. we have increases in bart capacity. in bonds us up to over 60,000.

but in 2030, 2035, we eat up almost all the capacity. the point of the study was, in the interim as capacity becomes more important, we want to make sure buses can get through because it is in fort -- important to fill out that capacity requirement. we are looking to push through another 20,000 people per hour. we know bart can take a around 10,000. the transbay transit center has a capacity of almost 20,000, but we have to get the buses there. right now, caltrans has put together a very effective system. our model, we mimic what

caltrans did. the measures that they took were very successful with the current level of traffic. the question is what happens in the future. there is a metering flight which holds the traffic backed so that traffic does not exceed capacity of the bridge. the metering lights are activated around 6:30 every morning. the queue starts spilling back about three-quarters of the way back. as you can see, the hov bypass extends beyond that. so the question is, is that going to work in the future? just a few caveat on what we did

not study. these are all conceptual ideas. there do not seem to be any fatal flaws to the design, but by no means have they been thoroughly analyzed. congestion pricing in our forecast is not considered. on the other hand, bart capacity is also not considered. travel models do not assume that bart has a capacity limit, so of the model keeps on dumping people on to bart, even if they cannot handle them. at the same time, we have not induced traffic. as far as people using it to its

capacity, that has also not been factored in. basically, we modeled out in the system. it is about a 24-mile model that goes from 580, the 80 split in albany, and then down on 880, past the open, beyond the bay bridge, the central freeway. we worked with caltrans to find the parameters of the model. this is just a microbe simulation model. you will be able to see the output. we also monitor the traffic in and 80-block area from market, embarcadero, fifth street, to just beyond the bridge.

we have lots of queueing problems in the afternoon. for the bay bridge corridor, we want to measure these on pieces of performance. caltrans policy is not to allow congestion beyond the junction, what we call the macarthur maze. they call it the distribution center. this and reallocks up and you cannot get anywhere -- area locks up and you cannot get anywhere.

finally, the last measure we had was reliability. we did not want any simple transit trip to take any longer than 14 minutes. the first thing we did is we build a system model and calibrated it against actual positions. we matched the existing conditions. now we have this video that shows 2035 what the traffic will be like on 80 and the toll plaza. it is going to start at the 580/80 junction in albany. it is going to fly over the toll plaza and bridge. as you can see, traffic is running pretty well. no problems at the merge.

we are about to pass university ave. and as we come up to powell street, you will see the traffic begins to bunch up. >> what time is this? >> this is a clock in the morning. -- 8:00 in the morning. as i tell my east bay compatriots, a weekday morning will look like a saturday

afternoon now, which is traffic as far as the eye can see. a different color cars, by the way, we calibrated this model by payment type, so there is fast track, tolls, pools. i think pink is a fast track. i do not remember what the others are. >> so we are coming across the new ramp near treasure island. coming across the bridge. the bridge is pretty free- flowing because everything is

held back at the toll plaza. we do not seem to have any problems at the ramp here. the bottom line is, when we did the measurements, and the future here conditions without any improvements, it failed. we looked at a series of improvements that would mitigate those traffic congestions. essentially, we look at extending the hov system in the east bay. we look at extending it at the west ramp. we also looked at a contra flow lane on the bridge itself. that would basically be a movable barrier that slides over to one side in the morning, where you take the northern most

lane and convert it into a bus lane. if we decided to pursue the hot network, that might be an idea. we could also put trucks on it. we measure 1000 vehicles out of the queue at the toll plaza, but exactly how we do it requires more discussion. so to actually make it work in the design of the transbay terminal system, we need to do some improvements on the essex street ramp and that will allow vehicles to get into the new transit center reps. the good news is it does not affect the current design.

cost estimates for the improvements. these do not include contingencies. including contingencies, near $250 million. again, requires more study. this slide goes through performance metrics. under current conditions, everything is working fine. there is an occasional case where there is a stall, things break down, but on the average day, the system works pretty well. it continues to work well until 2020. then it starts degrading. in 2030, we get degradation where every one of our performance metrics fails. we get congestion all the way back to the distribution structure and slow transit speeds across the bridge.

we looked at just changing the metering rates, which is generally what caltrans does on a saturday when traffic is really bad. you are pumping more cars onto the bridge. that reduces the gridlock in the distribution structure but degrades bridge travel significantly below standards. so we looked at two improvement options. the only difference is the hov lane on 580. we reduced congestion at the toll plaza and increase transit speed at both gates. the summary is, basically, the corridor is approaching capacity. we know we have to push through

another 25,000 people. bus service to the transbay transit center will need to meet our goals and we need to look at improvement to make the highway system as effective as possible. we want to reduce the queue on first street, essex street. we did various models. that is the area. our desired outcomes is to push the queue back to where it does not extend beyond folsom and howard. we also wanted to increase speeds in the area. we only tested the model of a couple of times. we do not have a validated

model, but we have turned it over to the city, and they are excited to be using it to work at some other options. these are the existing conditions which shows queues as far as the eye can see. this is what happens when the giants have a game in the afternoon. we have a proposal to turn up the sixth straight into southbound. the other thing we are doing, we are talking with caltrans. we want to move the hov lanes on the sterling ramp to the north side. we think we can do all of this and keep things in balance and even improve the situation. even improve the situation. what we found working with