yes, they both deal with digestion, but they do it in very different ways. ok, thank you. commissioner chu: just a question for the staff. with regards to congestion management, we have heard a lot about how if we do not apply for federal money, we will lose it potentially to deal with the issue of congested management. what have been some of the other reproaches that other jurisdictions have taken in terms of projects they have proposed? i imagine not everything has gone forward with that pot of money for decongestant toll proposal. >> it is an interesting question. several jurisdictions have applied for high occupancy toll lanes. there is an example of that already implemented in the bay area. it is a lane where you paid to be on that plane.

there are some interesting ideas around that. it has been probably the most popular program in terms of the congestion pricing suite of opportunities that exist, but it is a very suburban-based kind of solution. not the sort of thing that we could very easily applied in san francisco. we have a very constrained system already. in some places, we only have three lanes. reserving a lane for something like that would be very hard to implement. the other flavor we have seen is parking. but parking is a very interesting phenomenon. just to give you a very quick sort of logical helper here, there's 24,000 parking meters in san francisco, and we have several million trips a day. more than half of those are taken with cars. so it is not a one-to-one

correspondence between what you can do with curbside parking and how you can affect meaningfully travel behavior of people who are driving. so what we are looking at is what we think would be most effective and most appropriate to the environment we have. the flavor that it takes, the hours that it happens, the amount of money charge, who is exempted from it, and a host of other things, and especially how the money is used that is collected from the fee, those are all things that are up in the air. what we have done in the feasibility study is just posed one set of potential ideas and how it works for those. the conclusion is it can work. the next stage would be to apply it to something there is consensus about in terms of what services would be improved, who would get what money, what hours and so on and see if it really still works. increasingly believe that that is the way to solve these problems, to really know the details. commissioner chu: thank you very

much. i just want to make a quick comment, with regards to the potential losing federal funding if we do not apply for it, i appreciate that comment. i think that the supervisor and commissioner pointed out earlier, it really is dependent on funding cycles. if we do not have a shot at it this time, we might be able to go forward again at another time, but on another note, it indicates to me that there are potential other approaches to dealing with congestion in the city as opposed to congestion that we are seeing today. there are alternatives with regards to parking. maybe hov lanes if applicable, and maybe something we have not thought of yet. there are potentially other approaches towards dealing with congested management in the city. the other thing that i would say in terms of my concern about the proposal is the lack of regional

support for it. i know that we have received some letters of support, and we have gone and received bay area transportation authority support for it previously, but from some of the comments we have seen from neighboring counties, it is a concern. in particular if we decide this is something we want to move forward with, we would still need state approval for that, and that cannot be done without support of our regional partners, so being able to have a proposal is something that is most important. being able to move forward, it is not just san francisco driving this, but having a regional approach is something that will probably be better. i want to speak in terms of the local impact to the southern gateway approach. district four would be severely

impacted, i think, just thinking from a local district supervisor point of view from the southern gate way. so many parents, families have relatives right across the border, and they do not think about the san francisco/san mateo border. so many citizens just go down there to visit their relatives. their normal course taking kids to and from school, is really all along that corridor. without really understanding that and also understanding that in our district, the outreach has not been as thorough as it should have been, i have some significant concerns with the southern gateway approach. i appreciate the work we have here today. i appreciate the information given, but given all these factors, i would not be supportive of moving forward just yet. commissioner avalos: i'm actually supportive of the study, but i have some concerns, concerns that i have brought

out. the core part of the city close to downtown and the central part of the city drives our trends a policy more than the areas that are more far-flung -- the sunset, excelsior, lake view neighborhoods, and i really think that we're going to look at the study and how that makes congestion pricing feasible if we are going to implement that. it really has to be meaningful to people. a case in point, they have been turning around before getting down to ocean beach. the mission bustline as well. hast 280 going south towards daly city has stopped and turned around. people are not able to get to their final destinations as a common occurrence. if you want to be able to encourage people to get out of their cars and use more transit, we have to make sure that the transit options are being enhanced in those parts of

town, and you really have to make sure that there is going to be a shift, not just in attitude, but in behavior of the mta and the transportation authority that is going to result in real resources going out to those neighborhoods. i want to make sure that is being covered as we're moving forward and looking at how we would make congestion pricing work. commissioner mar: i wanted to also just thank you for your hard work on this and the important findings and the analysis from the study. i'm going to be supportive of the study. i also wanted to say that besides the 63-page report, there are important fact sheets, and the video is useful, especially in breaking down the misinformation about what the study represents. i also understand concerns from residents about potential congestion pricing to be implemented, but it is many years down the road, and my understanding is that the next

process is a careful one with the environmental review. i just wanted to add that commissioner daly and i serve on the bay area air quality management district, and we just wanted to highlight that the air pollution district's 2010 -- clean air, since that in many ways, programs like this are important in helping us achieve goals of clean air. the director makes a point that benefits from a potential congestion pricing program could include reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reduce traffic and tailpipe emissions that cause serious illness such as asthma, bronchitis, and heart attacks, and increased revenue to the tune of $60 million to $80 million per year to fund improvements directly to the public transportation system, so i think the study is important and moving forward with the second phase, very careful environmental review, is good for the city. commissioner chiu: i want to address what i know is real

confusion among the public, and i know none of my colleagues and i did not think anyone here is confused, but we are not making the decision today to move forward with congested pricing. for all of us here, my guess is none of us would be prepared to do that because of the fact that we are in the economic recession we are in and, frankly, because of the fact that we do not have enough information. but i, like a number of colleagues here, and supportive of moving forward with the study. anyone who travels through the downtown area during rush our experiences serious gridlock, and projections for what will happen are severe, and i do not think anyone here once san francisco to follow in the path of other cities that have been traffic disasters. i'm not just talking about los angeles. the good of bangkok, paulo, mexico city, moscow -- cities around the world that should be great cities see incredible

negative impact because of lack of planning that occurred at the wrong time -- if you go to bangkok, sao paulo, mexico city, moscow. there are cities that have figured out traffic entrance of policies that work, and it is our responsibility to at least to study what these options are, to figure out how we can move beyond what will be inevitable gridlock, how we can move to become a 21st century livable city that is environmentally health care, that has decent traffic circulation, and will be economically competitive. there are two points i want to make suggestions. first of all, the small business commission had a number of questions when they reviewed this policy, and i think those are questions that need to be explored about the impact of various options on local businesses. i think, though, that there will be some surprises in some of this data. what we found in other cities -- when you free of traffic, more people go to downtown areas to

shop, to spend their money, to work, because it is easier to get into those areas, and i asked staff to focus on that. in response to a point that commissioner chu may, i think there may be other approaches to dealing with congestion that we have not yet considered. i think it is entirely appropriate that we consider them. it is our responsibility, every single one of us, that of the options we are looking at now may not be acceptable to you, each of us has the responsibility for figuring out an option or policy as a body, hopefully we can move in the direction that we can turn this into a truly 21st century city. commissioner chiu: bank -- commissioner campos: thank you. following up, just a question to the chair, to transportation authority staff, because i do think that it is important to underscore that we are not

actually voting today on congestion pricing. how does that work? if we were to go forward with the study, what would be the process that will be followed by which a decision on the actual proposal of doing congested pricing worked? would there be an opportunity for us to get feedback from the public? a lot of interesting points were raised about the impact on small businesses and the local economy. if you could just say a little bit about that because i think it would be good to put that in context in terms of what this vote would mean today. >> what we were suggesting is a follow the rigorous environmental impact reports process and also in process so that we have qualifications for

federal funding, not just for the study, but eventually if the board decides, for implementation, which is really where the big prize is. you heard earlier the comments about the federal government offering new york well over $300 million in funding for transit improvements and so on as part of the condition pricing program. the process is essentially the ceqa process that goes through the definition of alternatives that are prepared through a public participation process with inclusion of the impact that would include not just san mateo, but others, with all of the different sorts of users of the system, diverse and pedestrians and transit users and so on, and you go through that definition of scope, which this board will have to approve, and then move into the actual

environmental analysis, and that is the opportunity to include economic impacts or environmental impact and how this relates to other plans and how it relates to an interesting policy and project list and so on, and then you get to a selection of the alternative, the process that you are really familiar with, and at that point, you can have further debate and further input from the public in general about what the alternative would look like, how it performed, what other concerns might be raised, and only after that do you get to essentially a position where you have a locally preferred design for what the congestion pricing might be. i'm talking about three years from now. and you have the opportunity through the design which includes an expenditure plan, a sense of how the projects will be picked, what the hours will be, who will be charged what, what the exemptions will be, etc. you now have a regional

consensus with the other counties that would be affected by this. they understand what project would be funded, what services would be funded affecting their counties so that people would have their choices. with all that together, you have what was referred to as a more regional consensus that would allow you to go jointly to sacramento to look for enabling legislation, which is a must in noted to even put together a pilot, so then you have a pilot. you spend a year debating the legislation in sacramento. i think that getting to the point of a jointly develop expenditure plan is really the key because then people would understand. the question that has been posed to me so many times is how can i assure people that the money would only be used for transportation and would not be used to plug some hole in the general fund? it is very simple. the same legislation that would

allow us to do the pilot program could include the requirement that all the money be used for transportation. there are simple ways to actually insure that this is about transportation only. commissioner campos: thank you for that. i just wanted to get clarity on the process. it looks like we are talking about a number of years before there is an actual decision made, and i imagine the issues that have been raised here -- one question that i have is -- is this a regressive tax? all of that we will have an opportunity to consider those factors. by voting for this, we could still decide that this is not the way to go. >> absolutely. that is the point of an environmental process. you get to the bottom of it, and you have some real information to be able to make those sorts of big policy decisions. commissioner campos: thank you. commissioner mirkarimi: right

before we bring a public comment, i have been listening very closely to what my colleagues have said, and i'm curious. i'm sure staff is also registering strong comments about the potential if in fact we do proceed with further study, what that shape and scope the of the study will look like. if i'm not mistaken, the southern gate way alternative was an alternative that had been proffered by the chamber. is that not the case? >> well, it is -- let me put it this way -- is an alternative that we designed to address issues that were raised. it is difficult to separate the situation today from the decision years from now about doing the condition program. we never would dream in a million years to suggest that in the middle of a recession, you put together a congestion pricing program to implement

today. but with the intent of accommodating the concerns the chamber had just focusing on downtown, there is another way you could look at it -- the other two gateways already exists. it is the southern border. but it was not and is not a choice that we are making for advocacy in any way. it is just another potential alternative. we are not wedded to it. we understand that it is an alternative that generates some concern, and the origin of it is precisely to try to make everybody happy, which is always difficult to do. commissioner mirkarimi: also, gleaning from the comments of commissioners chiu, dufty, and alioto-pier who are concerned about how the information may lead to something else or may be incomplete, with the question of

parking pricing component, could that also be attached to the furtherance of more study? >> certainly. we believe that that has to be part of the study. we have not focused on that because most of the debate has been on roadway pricing, but we believe there is a whole fleet of pricing mechanisms that need to be looked at in concert. very much so. there needs to be a pricing component to the study. commissioner mirkarimi: very good. we are going to go public comment. i would like to thank everybody for your patience. i would like to first welcome and asked to join us assembly member jerry hill. thank you for your patience. and for participating in today's hearing. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. i appreciate being here. it is a great privilege to be here and speak to you regarding the mobility access and pricing study that you are contemplating

today. i think we all support sustainable growth. we all support reducing greenhouse gas emissions. i also think we all support looking at the feasibility of congestion pricing options that are in existence and potential for the bay area. examples might include a downtown san francisco pricing strategy or a regional pricing system with the goal of reducing congestion and providing greater funding for public transportation, just as we have seen through the metropolitan transportation commission and their efforts in highway 680, crossing alameda county with the hot lines, and turning an hov lane into a congested pricing method and ability and a way of reducing congestion in that area, but it was done at the metropolitan transportation commission. listening to the comments

related to our reach, related to what were the plans for the future, and at no time in his initial comments did he mention out reach to the neighbors to the southeast or to the north. he did mention that we were having a conversation. we were having a conversation that has not been a conversation with san mateo county. has been a monologue, and that has not produced anything of any significance we could move forward with. unfortunately, one of the components in the final draft of the study is the southern gateway design, which would create an arbitrary told for residents in the district that i represent in san mateo county. those who drive to and from san francisco county. i'm here today to urge you to reject the southern gateway design and any congestion pricing option that charges motorists at the border -- commissioner mirkarimi: just a little trick of our process -- would you please tell me more

about your thoughts of the southern gateway design? >> thoughts of the gateway design? certainly. a couple of items. it creates a problem related to neighboring communities. it also could create the border wars that we may see and hear from jurisdictions in the south who have already claimed that they are going to establish their own tolls and fees at the border. this is the last thing that we need right now, especially in this time of economic climate when we are adding $5,000 potentially to the cost of commuting and driving from our residents, so that is another issue. this is not the time, especially during this unemployment. if the southern gateway design option we hear today is approved and moves forward, i will be introducing legislation to prohibit local governments from charging tolls at the border between cities. this is a regional issue and deserves regional consideration

where everyone has a seat at the table. i feel strongly that local government throughout the state should not implement punitive policies like this as a way to raise revenue. we should look at it regionally, as i mentioned. san francisco and san mateo county's share a great history, that we heard early this morning, and depend on each other for many services, so i look forward to continuing that tradition of partnership, and i appreciate the opportunity to be here today and speak with you. commissioner mirkarimi: thank you. appreciate you sharing those concerns with us. i'm going to call up a few names. we are obviously under some tight constraints because we have a board meeting soon. [reading names] please, one after the other, come on up as i call your name. >> thank you, mr. chairman,

members of the commission. in with the bay area air quality management district. we wanted to talk to you today about the study that is before you and encourage you to accept that study and go on to the next phase of the congested pricing study that san francisco or that the authority is looking into right now. in our 2010 clean air plan, we have transportation control measures that encourage the region to take on congestion pricing and other pricing strategies in a regional context, but also at the local level. we think what you're doing here by authorizing staff to move forward with the second part of the study is moving the ball forward in the bay area to really look at the feasibility of congestion pricing on a regional scale. transportation remissions, mobile sources are our number one sources of air pollution in the bay area. they have regional impacts and

localize impacts, and congestion pricing strategies along with other demand managers throughout the area, can really address the localized impact and the regional impact. our air quality standards keep getting more stringent every year. we have new standards that we are going to have to develop an implementation plan to attain those standards, and i think congested pricing, and we think new transportation demand management measures in the bay area are going to be critical for us to obtain these air quality standards and protect the health of the citizens in the bay area. thank you. commissioner mirkarimi: thank you. next speaker please. if i have called your name in the cards,, 1 up after the other. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm the president of the rincon hill neighborhood association. the question is -- do we have a

problem and do we want to start thinking about the problem now, or do we want to kick the can down the road and let the future generations deal with it, as we have done with many other problems? i think we should start dealing with this problem right now. who enjoys sitting in traffic for an hour from the financial district to the bay bridge? i do not think anybody does. that is what this does. it makes it take an hour to sit in a car polluting our air. i think the option be the outbound weekday evening only option is a good option for everybody. when i go to the movies, i go on saturday or sunday morning before noon, and i only have to pay $6 because the demand is not very high. other folks choose to go in the evenings. they pay $11. it may be a full movie theater,

and they will not be able to get in. we have seen similar things at the bay bridge. they have been implementing digestion charges. it makes for less congestion. i want to talk about emergency response. if you go to youtube, do a search for soma traffic congestion. i have a video of what a fire engine had to go through to get to a building in my neighborhood. emergency response is important to those that live there, of course. once they get to the building, they have another 400 or 500 feet to go up the building to get to someone having a heart attack or other problem. please keep this going. thank you. commissioner mirkarimi: thank you. i'm going to read some more names. [reading names]

>> i'm representing environmental defense fund's. it is a national environmental organization with california headquarters in san francisco. both research and experience in other countries have shown that the type of congestion pricing and allies in this study has the great potential to lead to improving traffic, reducing emissions, and supporting improvements to other mass- transit options. we encourage the board to accept this pricing steady and direct sfcta to go on to the next step in the process and go on to environmental review. thank you. >> i work on world-class transportation and walk ability

community issues. you have a chance to move forward a policy that does something that these types of bodies do not often get to do, which is start thinking outside of the box. done right, it creates multiple wins, raising important necessary transportation money, including environmental impact reductions. it can create strong multi modal options, create ongoing operational money for transit, which is a constant and growing concern, provides strong social justice outcomes when applied correctly, and create a vibrant and livable downtown for san francisco. today, your choice is pretty clear -- you can continue to move forward or do nothing with the fear that there may be some negative outcomes, contrary to the evidence in other cities, and therefore stopped the study, or we can start moving forward with a proactive policy that will be implemented after much public discourse and communication. we can keep hoping that doing things the same way, things will getbe