town transportation by other modes. two things that i should highlight, we did evaluate multiple different types of sort of charging over the course of the day and found that a peak period feep makes the most sense for san francisco if this program were implemented because we don't have congestion like new york or london where you will see 10 or 1 hours of the day of congestion. mostly it's focused during our peak periods. the other thing i should note is we analyzed a range of discounts or a discount program. we looked add disabled roinlts, low income and we heard feedback of the impacts on people who have to take multiple trips so rather than the $3 fee every time you cross a charging zone, we looked at a

$6 cap, which could be over the course of the day over -- or over a fee period. $3 once in the morning and once in the evening if you do drive during that period. specific to that -- this particular commission we also looked at a fleet program for businesses. we held several different focus groups with different businesses of different sizes and held multiple meetings with community organizations and merchant organizations. the number one thing they said is if you do implement this, not saying whether or not they supported that, i can imagine what the answer is, but if you do implement this, find a way to minimize the administrative burden on businesses. so instead of having to check your balance on a day to day basis, but being able to bulk up fees over the course of a month or months was something we heard pretty strongly from

businesses. the best performer they analyzed was the northeast cordor. -- corridor. we looks at a very, very small zone and then multiple options. this would be bounded by laguna and 18th street as we man -- analyzed it. it would be a $3 fee on crossings in or out of the zone. movements within the zone would not be charged. movements on the edge of the zone would sort of be what's called bubbled out so the zone itself would be marked for a typical traveler at laguna and 18th street but if you live a block or so on the edge of the zone or have a business on -- a block or so on the edged -- edge of the zone, just movements in or out of the zone would not be charged. or you were if you were a resident won be charged --

>> so if you are a resident in the zone you don't pay ever? >> there would be a 50% discount for a resident who crosses the corridor. >> so if i live my life in the zone i don't have to pay? i have to redesign my whole life so i never leave that area? >> or you could simply move around not within the peak periods, which is one of the things that congestion pricing encourages people to do, to platen out the peaks. so instead of driving at 9:00, if you could make your trip at 9:30 or 10:00, that is the sort of thing it would encourage. commissioner o'conner: so the main proposal or alternative right now is to do peak pricing at certain hours, rush hour morning and evening, is that correct? >> it's what we analyzed but i i have to stress that there is no plan to implement it. commissioner o'conner: but

you're saying it's in first place. >> emmitt commissioner o'conner: you could analyze 20 things and say -- >> we analyzed dozened -- commissioner o'conner: what's in first place? >> this northeast corridor. commissioner o'conner: during what hours? >> we analyzed 6 to 9 and 330 to 6 po. the next phase of analysis would need to determine what are the exact edges of that time period. one of the kings in -- things we heard from businesses is we get our deliveries at 8:00 or 9:00 or -- well, businesses getting deliveries of fish, for example. that is important to a lot of people. commissioner o'conner: i personally live half a block away from laguna inside the ghetto zone, this box thing. so when i drive my daughter to school in the morning north of

panhandle i have -- i will have to pay -- i get a 50% discount to leave the ghetto? is that the idea? >> so if you are on the edge of the zone, as i said, what's been done in cities that have implemented congestion pricing is they have established a sort of buffer around the congestion zone for people on either side, recognizing that they are right on the edge of the zone, to keep neighborhoods whole they will -- they've relaxed the detection of those types of families and it has also applied to businesses in the case of london, for example. commissioner o'conner: so is the question i get a 50% discount or i don't pay? >> in your particular case, this is something that would need to be analyzed going forward but we would say it would not be part of the -- it would be part of the edge movement and should not be

charged or have the 50% discount. it would need to be determined. commissioner o'conner: i don't have a lot of -- there is a lot of congestion near the bizarrely designed octavia boulevard, but there is not many -- much in my blfled -- boulevard yet i'd have to pay for congestion pricing? >> one of the reasons that the particular edge was chosen, in analysis we found that if you start at van ness, for example, and draw a line at van ness, then most people who are not willing to pay would potentially move to the next likely street. so that would be franklin and goff. then if we drew a line there, most people would move to october of a yalt commissioner o'conner: what do you mean move there? they would drive? >> right. that we would consider an untenable impact on the

neighborhood. commissioner o'conner: does this mean laguna which say pretty quiet street through the western addition is about to become a freeway? >> it depends on which part you are in. we've heard from people on the southern end of laguna that it does feel pretty packed when octavia is busy. commissioner o'conner: well, that's because of the freeway on-ramps. but i'm talking about more northern, in the western addition area. i thin -- mean everything -- i saw the city design octavia boulevard. it's a mess. this looks like a bigger mess. >> i understand your feedback. commissioner o'conner: looks like a gouge for us to pay more money the >> it's certainly the type of feedback we've included in the study report when we talk about outreach and the comments we've concerned, concern about living on the edge of the zone is the

number one feed bblingt i'm going to continue but come back for more questions. so when we look at -- thank you. when we look at the performance of this particular scenario we imagine that a $3 fee during peak periods, again tapped at $6 per day could deliver pretty significant benefits for travelers in this area as well as sort of quality of life improvements. with about 12% fewer peak period auto trips or car trips, that's a pretty significant reduction in hours of -- vehicle hours of delay. and reduction in greenhouse gases and $60 to $80 million in added revenue that can be invested in improving options for travelers on day one as well as a 20 to 25% improvement in transit speed and a 12% reduction in pedestrian

incidents. we did analyze a range of different types of improvements that could or rather would be part of the program that would complement congestion pricing if it were implemented. part of the reason for this is to understand what the impact on other modes might be, so a lot of people wanted to understand, well, how many more people might be taking transit and what is the impact on transit? what are the impacts on our bicycle network and things like that, and would there be sufficient revenue generated from the program to pay for improvements for travelers on those other modes. we would take a portion of the knelt revenue and bond against that revenue to deliver those improvements up front. we also think the program could be competitive for grant funding from the federal government for example and other potential sources to deliver transit priority

improvements and signal priority improvements on key corridors as well as bike lanes citywide and way signage so people understand where they're going on the edge of the zone as well as access improvement for regional travelers was the number one thing we heard in terms of course sort of improving access to the regional transit hubs. additionally, the program could generate revenue that could be used for funding more frequent transit services whether express bus or muni or others. when we spoke with drivers or motorists during our outreach, the number one thing people said was if you're going to charge me money, i want a nice, smooth ride, so please invest funds in street repair, pothole repair, and resurfacing.

also traffic calming for the neighborhoods on the edge of the zone so that people see the sort of options that are most reasonable rather than simply taking advantage of all the additional streets. traffic calming is a huge component as well. then there are other improvements that could be implemented, particularly school and work site. programs to keep people more attracted to the sort of employment centers downtown and also potentially to reinvest or deliver some funds for school access through a ride share program or potentially to develop other ways of getting children to school. so as i mentioned, the northeast corridor is the best performer again -- among the dozens of scenarios we analyzed. however, we did look at other scenarios that could be considered for a potential pilot program or demonstration program. one thing that we started with was how we could minimize the

impacts on the northeast corridor. these two projects were really developed to sort of improve the performance of these projects and also to respond to public comment about about the differ scenarios. the northeast corridor, instead of a $3 fee in the a.m. and p.m. in the inbound and outbound direction, it would be a $6 fee in the evening only in the outbound direction. this was in response to a lot of businesses who were concerned about people coming in in the evening to go to cultural institutions or to come in and have dinner or what have you and businesses said what about a fee only at one time of day and what about a fee to get out rather than get in? we analyzed this and it does seem like a good candidate for a pilot or demonstration program. the other demonstration we analyzed was what we call the

southern gateway. in this case it's a return to the $3 fee in the a.m. and p.m. time periods in both directions and instead of looking at a citywide approach or even a downtown focused approach, to look at the most congested corridor. not the most congested area of san francisco, but the most congested sort of travel core id orr. this would be a fee on crossings at the county line between san francisco and san mateo. in this case rather than investing program revenue for all the trip making in the downtown area to and from the downtown area it would really need to be concentrated in that southern corridor so that again travelers who are paying the fees see a direct benefit from the investment. so i won't talk too much about this scenario comparison bit numbers. it should be in your packet on page eight. but essentially what we wanted to demonstrate here was how the different scenarios compare on

a couple of key metrics. you will note that the northeast is the best performer on multiple different scales. however, again you could see that the different scenarios, the pimet programs, could also deliver some benefit. for the southern gateway we would say if that is a scenario that advances, then it should be evaluated on a citywide performance as well as performance in the southern corridor, particularly because it focuses on the southern corridor. it does not have the same type of benefits and performance in the -- as the northeast corridor and originally our goal was to focus on the most congested part of san francisco. congestion as in the southeast corridor. you can see how they compare, though. so the next thing they wanted to just talk through with you

is some of the feedback that we got from our most recent round of study reach. we conducted three rounds of study outreach. we held public workshops, online webinars, town hall meetings that were focused on getting the regional travelers' feedback and we had multiple presentations at community neighborhood and business groups. for this effort, we launched some new tools. we wanted to engage people who couldn't come out and meet with us, so we also looked at tools like facebook and twitter and sort of increased our online presence as a whole. and people enjoy the opportunity to hear about this to give their feedback on the study. one of the things we note is

it's a very complex concept and what you see here is opinions from our initial questioning and then we also asked the same question at the end during an exit poll. you can see that peoples' opinions change overtime when they see how the program could work, what the potential benefits might be and how the program revenue could be invested. so we asked people to tell us what they thought the top benefits of the program would be, the number one benefits that people perceive makes absolute sense, a reduction in congestion and travel times particularly for motorists but people also see that there is a potential to improve transit speed and performance as well. i'll note that throughout this particular outreach phase, we had a response to all of the questions that included whether

someone disagrees or prefers another solution and there was a consistent response between 11% and 20-odd% from people who thought there should be another solution on the table and that's certainly something that we note here throughout the study. the next slide just shows a couple of poll quotes from some of the feedback that we got on benefits on congestion pricing that people perceive in terms of reduced congestion and the impact it has on their attractiveness to san francisco all the way to look at the ability of the city. in terms of concerns on congestion pricing, many people were concerned about delivery and availability of travel options, particularly on day one making sure that transit would be improved on day one, bike improvements would be there on day one and other things that the program could fund would be there on day one

and then skepticism about the program, particularly since it's so new in san francisco, there is sort of a concern of whether or not it would apply to san francisco well. then the same for a portion of people found that afford ability impacts or business impacts would be a major concern for them. a couple of poll quotes on thoughts on concerns. you can see again that transit availability is a concern and economic impacts as well shows up here. so we also identified considerations and milestones. we know if there is a decision to implement conversion pricing, it would not be made right away. we would neat legislative authority to toll, that would through a local and state authority. the state is part of the california vehicle code has the

full right to control free movement of vehicles. and so we would also need environmental analysis and that at the local and federal level because we would also again hope to be competitive for federal dollars to implement a program like this if that decision remained. the authority has to designate or create an agency to create a program like this. no one agency has the ability to do that today and that basically means that the authority would have to set and control, set toll and discount policy, bonding to approve those improvements up front, to directly produce or contract for services and capital improvements. this is something that has been very important to people who are concerned about the transit investments and the transit improvements, making sure the fund revenue would be directly invested in the transit

improvements and those transit 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 significant diversions for neighborhoods around the edge.