>> item #5. increase the amount of the authority's professional services contract with parsons transportation group by a maximum of $1,700,000, to a total amount not to exceed $3,972,046, for environmental and preliminary engineering for the van ness avenue bus rapid transit project and authorize the executive director to negotiate the contract terms and conditions. supervisor mirkarimi: comments or questions? any public comment? there are yellow cards here for this item in the next. any public comment? please hurry if you have one. that was not a reference tube. but thank you anyways. >> this is on the geery rapid transit project. supervisor mirkarimi: no, van

ness. >> i want to make this clear. as you all know i am a member of the citizens advisory committee. i have heard this item in committee and have voiced my concerns. 1 com van ness -- one, van ness is a state highway and you cannot mess without without causing other problems. take into consideration the hotel between post and geery has closed because the california pacific medical center is going to take that over in a few years as a medical facility. if you have a medical facility there and a bus rapid transit on the curb, it will be impossible

for the ambulance to get to the facility if there are accidents other than those in the california pacific center with curbside boarding. it will be impossible for the medical people and the emergency people to respond to any accidents. if there is a central thing, a central subway, a central boarding it will be impossible for those of us that block, as well as people with strollers. the way that the times are, you cannot really cross the street in time to make the connection. the lesson is to do your homework. think about the people. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you.

next speaker, please. >> walter paulson. ♪ i hope that you fix van ness and fix the rest. by what the best from you and i want you to fix van ness and make it the best we have seen ♪ supervisor mirkarimi: and the other public comments? seeing no one, public comment disclosed. madam clerk? >> [roll call vote]

the item passes. supervisor mirkarimi: next item, please. >> item #6. increase the amount of the authority's professional services contract with jacobs engineering group by $1,054,565, to a total amount not to exceed $2,854,565, for environmental analysis for the geary bus rapid transit project and authorize the executive director to negotiate contract terms and conditions. supervisor mirkarimi: comments or questions? seeing no one, this is open for public comment. please. >> jackie stocks, member of the cac transportation authority. i have been working on this project since january of 1986.

before they had a transit task force they looked into the feasibility of having a light rail project on that street. that was put on the ballot in 1989 and grandfathered into prope k. thus rapid transit was nowhere to be found. what about the light rail, people asked. there is a stop at union square. there is a spurt for light rail possibilities on geary. before you go forward with this project, i suggest that you all look into the background of this project to see the work that has

been done over the last 20 years to try to make bus rapid transit. you'll have the same problems there that i mentioned you would have with emergency vehicles. supervisor mirkarimi: next speaker, please. >> ♪ we need good services and i hope that you make it to the bus stop and i give it all i hope you give it all you can give and to make it to the bus stop at the top ♪ supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. further public comments? seeing no one, public comment disclosed. can we take this without objection?

will call, please. >> [roll call vote] the item passes. supervisor mirkarimi: next item, please. >> item number 7. award a two-year consultant contract to wmh corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,600,000, for engineering and environmental services for the yerba buena island bridge structures and authorize the executive director to negotiate contract terms and conditions. supervisor mirkarimi: discussion? public comments? public comment is closed. roll-call? >> [roll call vote]

the impasses. supervisor mirkarimi: -- the item passes. supervisor mirkarimi: next item, please. >> by the no. 8. -- item number eight. reappoint glenn davis to the citizens advisory committee. supervisor mirkarimi: any discussion? public comments? >> ♪ he is the friend of a friend that will make it ok ♪ supervisor mirkarimi: very fitting. seeing no more public comments, it is closed.

roll call. >> [roll call vote] the item passes. supervisor mirkarimi: next item, please. >> item #9. appoint jonathan z. goldberg and thea selby to the geary corridor bus rapid transit citizens advisory committee. supervisor mirkarimi: any discussion? seeing no one, public comment? seeing no one, public comment is closed. can we take that in the same house call pamroll cal -- house call? roll call, please. >> [roll call vote]

the item passes. supervisor mirkarimi: congratulations on the appointment, mr. goldberg and ms. shelby. next item, please. >> item #10. appropriate $2,955,000 in prop k funds, with conditions, for environmental analysis and preliminary engineering for the van ness avenue bus rapid transit (brt) project, subject to the attached cash flow distribution schedule, and amend the brt/transit preferential streets/muni metro network 5-year prioritization program, with a commitment to appropriate $574,000 in fiscal year 2010/11 prop k funds to complete this phase of work. supervisor campos: public comments on this particular item? supervisor mirkarimi: -- public comments on this particular item? >> k is extraordinary ♪

supervisor mirkarimi: seeing a more public comments, public comment is closed. without objection, motion proceeds. next item. >> item number 11. appropriate $1,647,515 in prop k funds, with conditions, for environmental analysis for the geary bus rapid transit (brt) project, subject to the attached cash flow distribution schedule, and amend the brt/transit preferential streets/muni metro network 5-year prioritization program. supervisor mirkarimi: discussion? public comment? take your time. >> like i told you before, the bus rapid transit project on van ness and the one on geary has been worked on since 1986.

it is all a matter of public record. there is a file a report for the corridor. it was also mentioned in the short range transit plans years ago. the only way to alleviate traffic congestion on geary boulevard is a light rail system. not a bus rapid transit system. go, do your homework before you have these projects go forward. thank you very much. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. additional public comment? seeing no one, public comment is closed. same house? very good. without objection, motion prevails. next item. >> item number 12.

allocate $828,353 in prop k funds, with conditions, for seven requests, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedules, and amend the relevant 5-year prioritization programs. supervisor mirkarimi: public comments on this item? seeing no one, public comment is closed. same house call? so moved. motion prevails. please call items 13 and 14. >> item number 13. approve the final report of the mobility, access and pricing study. item number 14. authorize the executive director to advance further study of congestion pricing options and to pursue funds for the authority to conduct environmental review and alternatives analysis for this purpose. supervisor mirkarimi: director, would you like to instigate? >> a quick introduction to clarify these actions. the first that we have is the simple approval of the final

report on a federally funded study that we have been doing for years on the concept of congestion pricing. the report before you was posted on our web site with a short power point presentation so that you could understand the full contents. this is simply a feasibility study. the action today is necessary for us to move closer to a federal grant and is also a way to memorialize the results of the feasibility analysis that was done by the transportation authority. this second item is an authorization for me to advance further study of the concept. including seeking additional federal funding for that purpose.

it is not an authorization to implement anything. essentially it is a conclusion of the first study from item 13. leading to eventual implementation in the timeframe we have analyzed not happening until at least 2015. we are talking about more analysis, discussion, and more of an opportunity to educate ourselves as tuesday issues in potential the implementation. i would like to invite a principal planner to make a quick presentation on the contents of the report. supervisor mirkarimi: welcome. >> thank you.

one of the first things that we want to share with you is that the definition of ingestion pricing, many people are aware of the seeds that moderates would pay including reinvestment and transportation improvements. as you can see here, there are many examples in the benefits that can be achieved through both to give an understanding about where it occurs the most in san francisco. looking forward we want to understand how it might impact the growth plans that we could expect from this particular presentation. looking at the sheer number of

buildings in this area, there is no silver bullet. obviously there is one strategy that we can analyze to which he plans and we will look at multiple strategies moving forward. when we look at the goals for the future, much of the development is focused downtown but we also want to look at how transportation investment and strategy can focus and strengthen our cities regional competitiveness, making it more livable and delivering as a way to combine managing demand and increasing revenue to make sure that efforts being made are efficient and lead to dole's. supervisor campos: supervisor

alioto-pier, did you want to speak or wait? very good. let the feasibility in the context of the city's goals, what are the scenarios that might be feasible? what range of improvements might be necessary on the next step that would need to be followed. we wanted to analyze steps that might be configured in this is more like the other complication fees in the city and region. the other aspect that we look that was how and when the team

might be charged. not like london, but more and peak periods. we do not have congestion for 10 to 12 hours per day. this would be a few dollars in each direction each weekday only during that time. we looked at disabled and low- income drivers, as well as the $6 daily capture. developed in response to feedback of parents from police children, prompted to take their kids to after school programs and in response to feedback on commercial transportation needs. we also look that a rebate for existing bridge tolls and a sweet program for businesses to help minimize the administrative burden, taking a look at fees

over the course of a month. in the context of the analysis we analyze dozens of those scenarios and found that one- third would perform the best. this scenario could deliver a 12%. reduction. a 15% reduction by and greenhouse gas emissions. 25% improvement in transit fees. when we look that the scenario we look at the range of improvements that could be delivered. looking at the funding, would it be sufficient? we split the potential revenue against a bonding with

improvements to deliver this up front. one of the major concerns heard in public feedback locally and regionally. people often ask what the next step is in addition to the northeast in the next phase. one thing that we look that was a more measured approach. rather than a permanent program, perhaps this is a candidate for a trial. looking at the northeast, this was an evening outbound only trips in response to businesses concerned about people coming in in the evening to meet friends for dinner and what have you and asking about a charge to get out of the city. this scenario could be a

demonstration about that idea. the other option we looked at with this southern gateway. the most congested areas would be looking at the most congested corridor. this would be looking at the program for three investments in the south bay corridor. these two ideas to demonstrate how the pricing of work and demonstrates the public feedback. comparison of the different scenarios, when we look at the northeast quadrant it delivers more and more to san francisco in the downtown area. looking at these pilot programs, they also have substantial benefits that should be analyzed.

just a quick review on out reach that has been conducted in addition to the multiple meetings in our most recent round we had public workshops and online town halls. we gave new social media tools for the people that could not participate in person. we have had a positive response on the use of those electronic and on-line tools. the feedback we have received, cut benefits as expected was the automatic ingestion that most

people see with a significant number of people seeing an improvement in fees because of of a program like this. throughout the most recent read about condition second problem for the types of goals we are trying to achieve, a consistent number of people disagree with its effectiveness. which is also recommended in this feedback and concerns are over affordability and economic impact. we have tried to design the program to look at the peak periods to transfer concerns

that people head with an environmental analysis, that authority needs to designate an agency that can manage and operate this program. no one agency can manage a responded improvement with program operators. we talked about the potential timeline of 2015 but only after additional study and out reach being made. finally, one of the questions that we asked about people's opinions on potential growth --

potential programs, for those that support there is some willingness to test the idea through a pilot. that has been the dominant response. again, there is a sizable portion of people concerned to prefer another solution. i will conclude by reiterating our first request, item number 13. to summarize the report indicates that congressional prices should contribute to our cities with further support appreciated for moving forward. as the director mentioned,

further funds for the analysis would not be needed, simply adoption of the technological process. supervisor mirkarimi: i believe that we have some questions. supervisor alioto-pier: thank you. have we call items 13 and 14? or do you know the cost of the study? >> it depends on the scope of the study. we expect of the could -- with

management categories that can be applied to local matches depending on the scope. and while we might go out there to spend on something like this just to find that because of 26 it cannot be implemented without a huge majority willing to go along with this. i think that part of my concern here is getting answers to that before we decide and it is considering whether or not for this particular study with multiple plans if there is an

impact. it is anticipated that it will take several months in -- >> except we will be using potentially city funds to move forward. why not ask them to expedite their funding? >> i wanted to mention that we are investigating in seeking answers. but is still a