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 get better, and we can keep acting outside the box. one of the last untried things we will try to start providing transit money we will need that people traveling in the area will need. commissioner mirkarimi: thank you. next speaker please. if i called your name, please come on up.

>> good afternoon. thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. i'm an epidemiologist with the san francisco department of public health and the program of health,by am here because i wano share with you information about a study led by the department of public health to understand congestion pricing. benefits from reduction in driving during peak periods and planned investments for transit and infrastructure for people walking and biking, building on the experience from 2003. funded by the robert wood johnson foundation program. we will assess transportation impacts as well as future conditions. and pedestrian safety conditions and our analysis

includes the assessment of the economic impact of death and injury related to air pollution and policy impact related to factors like geographic location. the health impact assessment of pricing like this can help to make benefits more transparent, allowing them to be inclusive in the health identifying adverse impacts and we anticipate releasing these findings in the spring of 2011. understanding this pricing is an issue of interest not only to us but to international stakeholders in public health and sustainable transportation that recognize fundamentally transportation policy is health policy. determining whether these are environments that support or hurt. demonstrating the traffic related air pollution is related to early death.

[tone] ok, thanks. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i urge you to please put the notion of congestion pricing at rest. it is bad for san francisco. bottom line is that it is a tax. a few years ago proposition e was on the ballot providing a tax on cars. the people of san francisco do not want more taxes on cars. the measure lost 68%. san francisco was not london or stockholm or a city with 10 million people or a huge infrastructure. it does not have a congestion problem. this is solving a problem that does not really exist.

the notion of regional coordination is important. that is the reason that new york's congestion pricing failed. they did not talk to the bronx. this measure has to go to the assembly to get past, ultimately. i agree that more transit is needed, but this is the wrong place to look and the wrong economic climate. go to some of the meetings. i was at the local meetings. people were upset about it. they did not want it. listen to what was already said when people were asked if they wanted their parking taxes to go up. people resoundingly said no. 68%. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. [reads names] >> good afternoon.

i am with at the san francisco bicycle coalition. we have been paying close attention to this study and have been participating. i would like to thank the staff for their excellent work so far. this is a sophisticated idea and i suppose it is not surprising that misapprehensions would arise. but it is simple, this is smart business. there is a very significant private individual value and significant public cost to driving a vehicle in the most congested streets of our city. the city must assign a fair value to the driving, recover the cost, and invest the revenue in measures that will be balance the streets for all users to support our many policy goals. congestion pricing is an essential tool in how we manage density, an essential element in

climate protection, essential to growing a healthy city that is sustainable, prosperous, a city that keeps moving. there will be plenty of time and opportunities for citizens to deliberate on whether or not this tool is employed. for now let's get this question right. carried forward with it does good work for a possible congestion pricing system to keep the city moving. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: next speaker, please. >> my name is michael and i am a progressive. i am a resident of district four. i have lived my life between the two cities. -- excuse me?

>> my fault. [tone] [tone] >> i imagine the $1,500 per year means very little to you, but for the thousands that clout -- crossed the line in the dirt, it means the difference of paying their rent, food for their families, and health care for their children. make no misunderstanding, this is a tax. this proposed tax has little to do with the environmental green and more to do with cash money green. you have squandered our money before. this time you wanted from the working class of your neighbors. this is a burden placed upon the working class while the more affluent residents are given a pass. this is the lead is an addict most transparent. take it into account, this