improvements would be deliffed. one of the ways to do that is to create service warrants that have performance standards attached to them where if the provider is not able to meet those performance standards, then the program operator has the ability to find another provider for those and that's something that the legislative authority should include as well. there are a couple of examples of sort of governance structures that have addressed different types of pricing programs. there is a joint powers authority i am manied or in place now for the 580 express lanes or high occupancy toll lanes on the peninsula today. so here is a potential timeline. i know there is a lot of concern about congestion pricing being implemented tomorrow. that is certainly not the case. there are several institutional considerations and milestones that need to be addressed moving forward. however, we are presenting the

board, to the board the study reports. in the next year or two, we would want to evaluate a couple of related or associated programs. one is s.f. park which i am sure you are all familiar with to look at peak period pricing and other forms of pricing to understand the impact on parking demand as well as the impact on congestion management and also for example the peak period of pricing on the bay bridge and other sorts of pricing programs. we have launched our san francisco transportation plan which is a 25-year look at transportation indevelopments and conditions over time. we would need to track how the different types of policies fit into that plan moving forward. if there is a decision to continue study of congestion pricing, that study would include environmental analysis, system design, and then at that time we could also pursue legislative authority if that decision were made.

the earliest that congestion pricing could be i am manied if that decision is made at the end of the next phase of analysis is 2015. again, that's the earliest, but it remains to be seen what the decision is on next steps. so i'll close just by saying the actions that the board will consider tomorrow, as i mentioned, there is no implementation decision at this time. there is also no selection of a particular alternative. we would say if there is a next phase of analysis, that next phase should include the top performing scenarios and also any additional scenarios that may come up as part of public outreach, either through this process or in the next couple of months and potentially at the start of that next study. what we will ask the board to consider is adopting the study report. the study report does not have

specific recommendations but simply says congestion pricing is technically feasible and explains how or to what level or magnitude that the congestion pricing could continue toward goals of improvement or reduced impact on climate change. it also describes the public opinion and sort of responses and feedback that we have gotten throughout the study and so far there is certainly a feeling that public opinion is evenly split on the decision on whether to implement congestion pricing. there does seem to be some support to further study on congestion pricing. that really does vary across the different groups that you talk with. some people say i can't believe that you haven't done this yes, why aren't you studying. and some are saying i can't believe you couldn't come up with something better than this scheme. very polarizing. very few people don't have opinion on it. the other action that we'll ask the transportation authority to

consider is whether or not we should consider advancing to the next phase of analysis. so we'll ask them whether or not the study should move to another phase of evaluation. more detail would be needed in that study and the key areas that people have asked us to focus on if the study does move to additional evaluation is more detail on an economic evaluation, an expenditure plan for investment so that there is a very clear connection to the types of improvements that would be made and so there is also sort of a dedication or a lock box created for those funds if the program is implemented. an implementation plan for those improvements, not just the program so people can see that steps are being made to deliver improvements and analysis tools for parking alternatives. there are some people who are interested in seeing parking pricing as an alternative to congestion pricing. it's something that people are more familiar with. people have been introduced to

it in the past. again, the board will not consider an implementation of action or selection of a particular alternative, simply adoption of the report and consideration of additional steps or study. i'm happy to answer any questions that you might have or simply take your comments. president yee riley: thank you. you just published this report about less than two weeks ago? >> correct. president yee riley: and why are the board of supervisors going to vote to accept a report tomorrow so soon because i just got this over the weekend and then most of the business organizations aren't even aware of this until we inform them. >> it's interesting that people are so not aware of it. it is something that -- even though we have been conducting the study for several months and we have done quite a bit of outreach, the closer you get to a decision-making point, irrespective of what that decision, the more people

become involved and it's certainly something that makes sense for more people to get involved. the board is acting on this because the report is ready and we always take our reports to the board simply adopting the report or accepting the report does not constitute an action of any kind. it simply says yes, the report is complete. president yee riley: still it would make sense if you really want input what it would do to the small businesses in the city, we should have this to give people enough time to give people to look at it and give feedback. >> it's certainly a valid concern. i do understand the concern. however, we have been sharing the findings of the study throughout the study process. there is much information on our website. we have met with multiple different organizations including a business advisory committee and different business organizations as well as community organizations and others throughout the process. the information that i presented to you here today we

also presented to you earlier this year as well apart from the summary of feedback, of course. but again, i understand that there is a desire to comment on the report if you would like. president yee riley: well, i just think that -- i don't understand the rush. you came before us before to make a presentation, but then this report, this is the first time i have seen it. so and i'm sure a lot of the business organizations haven't seen it yet. all right, commissioner kasselman. commissioner kasselman: hi. i just wanted to ask, you mentioned quite a bit of performance metrics for the northeast corridor and then the best performing scenario. what is that metric that you're looking for, how are you

gauging, is it environment, is it like, are you trying to increase your revenues or are you trying to decrease congestion? they are counter, they work against themselves also. >> it's absolutely a congestion management program. the goal was to simply make sure that the level of net revenue that's generated from the program could support an investment in improvements that would support, so people would take other travel modes. beyond that, there really wasn't an analysis of we want the highest revenue or the lowest revenue. it was simply is there enough to support the type of investment that was needed. the main metric that we're looking at congestion management. we looked at the number of trips over the course of the day to understand are we losing trips. are people going to start sort of filtering out to other parts of the city or region. we found that is not the case because it is a peek period program, some people choose to

take it a different time of day. other people choose to take transit or ride their bike or what have you. we looked at the impact on delay and then also some, a variety of different economic, environmental and economic impacts as well. we did look again again at the type of benefits. when i say best performing scenario, i don't just mean on the benefit side. we also did look at impact so there were some scenarios that we analyzed at the outset of the study that were very small and did have some benefit in terms of congestion reduction within the zone that was analyzed. for example, if we just drew a cordon around the downtown civic center and south of market area. what we found, however, is that the zone would be so small that people would begin to drive around the edges and create significant diversions for neighborhoods around the edge. we found that to be an untenable impact. by contract we looked at the

citywide corridor which would be a gateway. you are touching so many travelers, it does raise significant revenue. the congestion reduction benefits were not significant because potentially san franciscans would say there is more capacity on the streets, i'm going to begin to drive and erode some of those benefits. we really wanted to combine the performance of the system with the overall co-benefits of the system. commissioner kasselman: do you think the small business in this corridor and they have parks and employees who work 9:00 to 5:00 and they drive in from the richmond and now an hour of their pay almost goes to driving in and out, are they going to start looking for jobs outside of that area? it seems like you're going to lose jobs in that area because they're going to go elsewhere. >> we did analyze that possibility.

if we can go back to the presentation, i can put up another slide that might be helpful. thank you. what we found is because, again it's a peak period program and because people can take advantage of other modes of travel by again the improvement of those modes by the reinvestment revenue, what we're finding is that people would see a benefit of the program. it would be a benefit in terms of travel time improvements in terms of reliability of their travel. again with a 12% reduction in peak period trips, what we expect is that most people would continue to drive and reap the benefits of that program, but we also looked at implement impacts that are expected. we anticipate that it could be 1% and that we think can be mitigated or mitigation including things like an infusion of external capital

costs which in and of itself, the design, the construction of the program, the construction of the improvements that would accompany the program could be an influx of internal capital that could create jobs. and then also the enhancements that would accompany the program itself and not just travel enhancements but also streetscape enhancements or amenities in the downtown areas or the programmatic improvements. the other thing i should mention is that we want to understand the impacts on some of the retail businesses in the area. this is something that a lot of our members on the business advisory council wanted us to analyze and we wanted to understand it as well. one of the first things that we did was, again, look at the number of the trips that were changing over the course of the day and we didn't find a significant change. in fact, it's less than .5% which is within the noise of

our model. what we also looked at is with a shift in trips from auto to transit, how many more trips might we see, increase in foot traffic in the zone. we do expect to see additional foot traffic because people would shift from driving to transit or to walking or biking. the other thing that we looked at is a retail survey. we conducted a survey of a total of almost 1,400 visitors to our downtown retail areas and we supplemented that with what we would call sort of control areas and additional sites. within san francisco, regionally understand how often do people come to the downtown areas, what type of travel or what mode of travel do they use to get there. are they driving, transit riders, walking, biking and then almost how much they spend

on a typical trip, trying to understand what is the sort of on balance, how much are they spending on a typical trip. what we found is that drivers absolutely do come and load up their cars and spend a lot in an individual trip, but what we also found is they are doing that less frequently than transit riders and pedestrians. when you aggregate that or average that over a course of a month, transit riders or pedestrians are spending the same than slightly more. the foot traffic could mitigate some of the concern. one of the reasons that we want to do additional analysis is to understand it in greater detail and to conduct further detail on the economic evaluation. we recognize that it's a considerable concern. president yee riley: commissioner o'brien, do you have a question? commissioner o'brien: i have a couple of concerns or questions

and maybe comments. so if this was something that was going to see itself all the way through, what's the vision of the mechanism for collecting revenues of being inserted to the area? >> that would create more congestion. commissioner o'brien: there are multiple ways that are sort of barrier-free protection can be accomplished. we can certainly have transresponders and leverage our fast track system. one of the things we heard during feedback or outreach rather was to minimize the impacts on the urban factor so there can be camera-based technologies that can be mounted on our existing mast arms or on sign posts and stuff that would be essentially like a red light running camera to detect crossings across the edge of the zone.

then that can be tagged to your fast track account and dibted to your fast track account. commissioner o'brien: ok. they would have to be mounted on every single road then leading into a zone and out of every road leading out of the zone, right? >> depending on the scenario, that would have to change. so the southern gateway would be just at the major arterials and some of the minor arterials, the south gateway, the northeast coordinates, the obvious only would only be the obvious streets. we have several one-way streets in that area. commissioner o'brien: right, so bare with me a second then. so we have a segment that you said in the northeast corner, right, so and you're talking about one way so it would only track people leaving? >> exactly. commissioner o'brien: so every single street that egresses out

of the zone would have the mechanism for capturing the traffic through it, right? >> that's the way we analyzed it to be conservative. but the system design might identify some streets where there is a particular where the street sort of diverges so it would make more sense to have one detector. to be conservative, we did calculate each location at this point. commissioner o'brien: so it would have to be every street. i got to believe that every street has got to be monitored. word will get around pretty quick that, hey, this street is not open yet, it will be a disaster then. ok. when you're doing the outreach and yes, you were here before, i remember that you probably remember it better than i do because you got roasted that time as well. >> not at all. commissioner o'brien: so how many groups specifically did you reach to in terms of the outreach and which groups did you reach to?

did you reach to the neighborhood groups such as the merchants association or the ashbury merchants, you know, all of the different groups and the small business networks, san francisco apartment association? i know there is a huge number. i would love to know specifically what number, how many did you reach out to and i would like some statistical feedback from you on the consensus because i'm having a hard time being convinced that there was a general, even a midway point where people were supporting it. the quote that you have where somebody said i can't believe this hasn't happened before, i'm sure there is plenty of examples of that but i'm thinking the prevailing reaction would have been kind of a cold one at least. a lot of people would just say

this is another generate civil jobs, more bureaucracy and another tax fee making san francisco even more expensive >> that has certainly been one of the responses. again i think it's interesting to find that there are many people who are split on the issue. there are very few people who don't have an opinion on this and you can understand why. one of the things that we found is most people felt like everybody else thought the same that they do, but there are significant numbers of people who have thought we can't believe that you haven't done this yet and again others who can't believe that you're analyzing this to begin with. one of the things that i can share with you, the summary from our most recent round of outreach if you could go back to the presentation, although i think this should be in your packet, second to last slide. i will come to your question about who we spoke with. we asked people to tell us what

their opinion of potential implementation would be, not tomorrow, but in the next three to five years. we asked them to tell us if they supported a permanent program, a pilot, if they would support it if it were modified in some way, if they're just not sure yes or if they would prefer something else, in many cases it was anything else. there was somewhat of a split. there does seem to be some support for additional study. with that said, it really does vary depending on the type of group that you speak with. we try to reach out to a cross-section of people and conducted dozens of meetings. i can't tell you the number off the top of my head but i remember in preparing the report, it was more than 60 and multiple times with some groups. the groups that we spoke with ranged quite significantly. we spoke with community groups who were just community groups

but had others who had merchants organizations, hayes valley is one. we spoke with fresherman's wharf, union square, the small business network, council of district merchants and other types of groups. we wanted to get a cross-section. we also had multiple different types of stakeholders, but again we wanted to understand who might have an opinion on this and how the different types of opinions varied. again, some groups were concerned about their impact on the edge of the zone because their neighborhood is right on the edge of the zone. others were concerned about the sort of ramp-up of transit investments particularly and still more were concerned about the economic or business impacts. and we know that the report itself is intended to encapsulate not only the technical analysis but also the public feedback. chapter three of the report does describe that feedback and the decision that the board

will make will include not only the technical results, but also that feedback. our recommendation is the study does or if the concept discontinue for additional study is to do additional outreach and to do more outreach even than we did in this state. we know that people are in some cases just beginning to learn about the concept and to learn even about the study and while there are some things that we're concerned about, people are concerned this is something to be implemented tomorrow and a lot of is connected to the media buzz right now, it does raise awareness about the study and people are beginning to understand that there is this analysis going on. however, we would recommend additional outreach as part of the next technical analysis. commissioner o'brien: can i make a suggestion if it does go forward that the next report would list the organizations

that were spoken to. we would ask the organizations can it be recorded for the record what as a group their position was on it, whether they were yay or nay on their support for going forward with the project so we have a very real measure the support for it. because if i see a chart that says there is overwhelming support for this, you'll end up getting my support for it because i'm a great believer in the wisdom of the collective body than my individual whatever. but i would like to see that because it just leaves a little bit of doubt in my mind when i don't see it there, just a little bit more work on the specifics and the statistics and even though it involves a lot more work. so it's just a suggestion. >> i appreciate that feedback. one thing i would say is because it's a conceptual study, a feasibility study, we

were not necessarily as rigorous on that front, but we specifically ask people not necessarily to make a decision about what scenario they would support because the goal was simply to identify whether or not the concept as a whole is feasible and warrants further study. some people did tell us that they would prefer the southern gateway because it sort of deals with the geographic equity concerns, the north bay and the south bay -- i'm sorry, the south bay and the east bay have the golden gate bridge and the bay bridge. the southern gateway has no tolls. that's what people appreciate about the southern gateway. of course, if you're in the southern gateway or below the southern gateway, there is still some sort there is some opposition because it would be a new fee for a group that isn't currently charged. so it really has varied. as i mention there are some people that support the northeast cordon because they

see that the fee is in the obvious direction, it would not have as great an impact as a morning and evening pay. commissioner o'brien: one more question, if i may, president. when you looked at the cases where other cities have implemented this i guess around the world, has it been successful? it seems the goal here is controling people's patterns to a certain degree tore trying to encourage them to travel off-peek times or find alternatives ways. maybe it's not fair, but i think one way to describe this, trying to control a pattern or human behavior it's in the way they travel. assuming that kind of way of a target, has this been successful in your personal opinion from what you have looked at where it was implemented in other cities? has it been seen to be successful or did it change

people's patterns? >> i don't know that i can say that it's been successful in changing people's patterns as a whole. i don't know that in each case the goal to change people's patterns as a whole. i think maybe what you are inferring, there is sort of social engineering that goes along with that. commissioner o'brien: that's the term that i'm looking for. >> the goal is not to change people's patterns every single day or for the rest of their lives what have you, but on a particular day at this particular time, can you make a different decision or do you have a better option available to you? one thing that we noticed on the outset of the study is that 80% of people do feel they have a viable transit option available to them. one of the things we asked is what can we do to improve that option and how can this program improve that option for you. but again, the different programs have had different

goals in mind. in the case of both london and stockholm and reeven rome and milan -- even rome and lillian. they have found -- milan. they have found that after the program is implemented, there are tweaks along the way, but there has been support for it. in stockholm, they ran a trial. they had a demonstration project after seven months. after seven months, they held a referendum. at the end of the referendum, the vote was to bring it back and make it permanent. they implement every single case according to the local conditions and the program we analyzed here is not the same as any of those because we also wanted to look at the local conditions. commissioner o'brien: thank you. president yee riley: commissioner clyde. vice president clyde: thank you for the presentation. >> thank you for having me

back. vice president clyde: i admire your work in this. it's a big project. just i guess i'll talk about the small business concern because there are several discreet neighborhoods within the northeast cordon which seems to be the preferred option at this moment for further study for different reasons. >> can i clarify one thing there? although it is the best performer, we would recommend all of the scenarios move forward for additional analysis. vice president clyde: that's what you're looking at different analysis of this study of congestion pricing. i'm a big fan of using our existing infrastructure like the tolls or the parking system in order to reduce congestion and reduce trips. i know that you have a discreet time of day entering and leaving. there are people who out of economic necessity will adjust their hours. i mean just out of economic,

even at a 50% discount. i have got kind of multiple concerns. i have the concern that wealthy people are going to buy faster, easier trips for themselves at the expense of working class people. it's just is the way it is. if you can afford to pay, you just do what you have to do. if not, you will change your patterns and we saw that in the, when the bridge went down in the earthquake, people shopped more locally and our neighborhoods, chinatown in particular and north beach suffered a great deal with the loss of that freeway because found other patterns so they found alternatives in their neighborhoods for shopping and different trips. i mean, our city is already very expensive even at not congested times. so