advisers to the system. and how it will help us to an evaluate the effectiveness of reaching the goals of the new student assignment system. it lists a lot of questions. i like the format of lot. -- a lot. we want all members of the board to read that and consult with staff. the second item was the transportation policy, the committee actually recommended to the board a substitute motion which is the changes to the transportation policy from what was first introduced and when it will come to us in september. i want to say that last night, we discussed because of the holidays, we can't have the december meeting on the day that we usually have it, but we

asked the staff when we should have it. today, i received a message saying that they would like to have one particularly for the purpose of further reporting on the specifics of the development of the transportation proposal for next year. and the three year phase-in we are proposing. we have not settled on the date yet, it will be either december 6, 7, or the 13. it looks like a 13 because we have other meetings. that would be the day before the regular board meeting in december. watch for that on the web. are we posting be presentations on all the information that we got last night? we have to oppose that because

throughout the process, as you all know, we have been supportive and we discussed the importance of these proposals being publicized to everybody. changes in transportation and changes of the student assignment system will affect everybody in the system and we need to know that. the last item, we have gotten the beginnings of a proposal about the special education assignment process. i would urge the commissioners to read the presentation and the report that we have and give feedback. there will be other opportunities to discuss this. the staff is proposing to ask that we set aside places in the student assignment process for transitional grades for

inclusion, students that have inclusion of iep's at every school. this is sort of a conclusion, but it became clear that the board is going to have to be supportive of holding places at schools when we have pressure from people when their students cannot have -- do not have iep's. we want to -- this is the beginning of our tryin gg to meet the commitment of having the special education assignment process be like the regular student assignment process. and our commitment to changing the nature of our special education program, particularly an inclusion as was noted in the

audit from a program based to a service based process. i will finish by saying that we definitely want all the members of the board to pay attention to the materials. as we have all along, there were members of the board and i thank them for their time and attention and attendants who were at the meeting. i know everybody is really interested in this. it is essential for us getting the kind of implementation that we are committed to. i would just make another pitch that as much as possible, it will be good if members of the board are at the attendance on saturday because there will be a lot of questions about the new process. thank you.

president kim: item t is a report of the closed session actions. commissioner fewer: -- commissioner maufas: bill meets starting at 5:00. is it wednesday? pardon me. i would not have been here. wednesday, starting at 5:00, it is just three topics. i know that we will try to get to that meeting relatively quickly because the other commissioners have time constraints. we will start promptly at 5:00 tomorrow in a board meeting room. commissioner fewer: i would like to report back on a visit today that commissioner norton and the deputy superintendent and miss

dodge, we went to visit the school and this is a school we have a collaboration with. to serve students who are ill and must be hospitalized. and they can continue the education while there -- while they are in school. there are also students all over the country that come here. some come with their whole families with their siblings. i have to say personally, this school makes me especially proud of our school system in an effort to serve all students. i just wanted to report on that. president kim: thank you. item t is the report of the

closed session actions. the board of education approved one assistant principal and one supervisor. item u is posted in the agenda under informational notice of classified personnel transactions. tonight, we had turned in the memory of three individuals. -- adjourn in the memory of three individuals. one student was an innocent victim of gun violence and one of our gateway to college students. another student passed awway due to an unfortunate chronic medical situation. it to the mother of our superintendent -- and to the mother of our superintendent. our deepest sympathy goes out to the families and the

superintendent and his family for the loss of his mother. she was born in mexico in 1927 and she was a wise mother and grandmother. she was a loving homemaker and raised her family and loss angeles. she returned to spend her sunset years back in mexico where she passed away on sunday, november 7, 2010. the superintendent said she was a kind and a beautiful person that touched many lives. she raised an amazing family. meeting adjourned.

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