no bike left? >> as i said earlier, as bicycle sharing individual tend to be safer than your average or rogue warrior. in terms of educating users on how to use the bicycles, how to ride bikes on the street. with our annual members, we will definitely be sending the material. there will be materials on our website. they are limited to pretty much what we can convey to them at the kiosk. but we will have safety information available. helmets is not something you brought up. home and use one not be required for this system. it is not really practical. people who rent bicycles usually rent elements as well, but there is a person there to make sure that the helmet fits,

that it is not damaged. short of a vending machine, which could be in development, there is not really a practical way to do it. i think people would be reluctant to put on a home and worn by so many other people. what has been done in other cities is members are offered -- they are steered to a local retailer for a helmet. you can buy a fully useful helmut for $6. it does not need to be an expensive model. we will make them affordable for those that want to use them. to remark on the incident that happened on the embarcadero. my sense is the collision happened with someone at random and red light and ran into a pedestrian. i do not think that will be your typical bicycle sharing user. a phenomenon that we have seen

worldwide, definitely in this country, again, counter intuitively come as the number of cyclists on city streets increase, safety also increases, and definitely in terms of the collision right. what we're also seeing in other cities is the number of overall collisions also go down in places where you have high bicycle youuse. by inviting more bicycles, you may think that we are inviting more trouble, but time and again, research out there has proved what we call safety in numbers. >> my second question was, is it a first-come first-served or do you reserve? when you go to that station, when you punch whatever do at 80

am station, you have a code or something. how do you actually get the bite? >> i am sure technology exists to reserve the bikes, but my sense is a first-come, first- served basis. in terms of making sure they are available, when they're needed, peak times -- is literally a balancing act. i think we are fortunate to not be the first city rolling this out and we can learn from other cities. washington, d.c., for example, after a successful rollout, the first wave of expansion was not about putting more bikes on the street, but more stations. we can learn from other cities. we will be hiring a vendor that had done this summer else, so they have all the experience that comes with that. a lot of it is just paying attention and acting quickly.

>> any more questions? commissioners? thank you very much. a very exciting program. i am looking forward to the outcome. thank you. >> item 11. new business. >> is there any public comment on new business? >> item 12. public comment. >> we do have some speaker currents. curtis lynn. >> i represent some of the pier 38 tenants. we are trying to work with the port for a resolution of pier 38 issues to try to save the largest business and job incubator on the west coast. we would like to become the developer of pier 38. we would like to do the

following. we would immediately repair all of the code and safety problems. we would deliver the required plans and proposals to the ports. we would enter into a long-term agreement with the port. and we would develop new maritime uses. we have experience, financial capability, and the business tenants, which means immediate income. we understand there are problems which include code and safety violations, pier apron replacement, bcdc issues, the ada issues, and other issues. we would also consider repairing the 1.2 $5 million loan to the state department of waterways. -- $1.25 million loan to the state department of waterways. >> thank you. >> hello.

i represent a lot of petitioners. i started a petition to save pier 38. when i started to mention that it was going to be close, it raised a lot of concern with people. they have been looking at pier 36 for a decade and they are murren that we are going to end up with another location like that. these are some of the questioner that the petitioners raised. there is a space where the company used to occupy. that space, according to my knowledge, has been done with all of the permits, inspected by the port. the latest rumor i have heard is there are toxic gases trapped in the walls. can you answer what kind of gases you suspect? we had pg&e expect a place for

gas leaks and other toxic gases. they could not find anything. another question is why did the port close the rolling door on the south side of the public access area? why did the port direct offenses on the north side to limit public access as well? another question i have is why the port has done absolutely nothing about safety problems in a timely matter. most of it is easy to fix. the original report came out on august 16, 2011. town hall meetings took place september 11. notice of repairs came out on to the 212011 but the report patrician started to install on a september 26. why did it take 40 days, media attention? those immediate problems needed

to be addressed. my question is, are we tenants on the waterfront a casualty of the legal problem that the port has? those are the questions that come up when i speak to petitioners' spirit it would be nice to have those questions answered. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? ok, no more public comment. can i have a motion to adjourn? >> motion to adjourn. >> second. >> all in favor? aye. meeting adjourned at 4:26 p.m.

>> good morning.

welcome to the san francisco transportation authority. please call the roll call. >> [roll call] we have a quorum. commissioner mirkarimi: very good. please read item two. >> item 2. approval of minutes of july 19, 2011 meeting. this is an action item. any discussion? seeing none, public comment is closed. seconded by commissioner mar. without objection. so moved.

>> [roll call] the item passes. commissioner mirkarimi: items 3 and 4 please. >> item 3. chair's report. this is an information item.item 4. executive director's report. this is an information item. commissioner mirkarimi: there was quite a bit of activity in transportation arena in washington, d.c.. the house move a bill for that would reauthorize the transportation act at a level that is 30% lower than current funding and the center is considering a counterpart measure that would reauthorize the act at current funding levels. the stakes are high and the chance that it will come to reauthorize before the

presidential election appears to be dimming. in context, the role for the local sales tax organization, like our own transportation authority, is bound to continue to grow, but tried to close at least some of the funding gaps created by the lack of resources. i think the prioritization process we have in place will serve us well, not just to guide us through the sales tax expenditures, but also to ensure we are leveraging those dollars with other funding sources, the day local, regional, or federal, so we can still deliver on the promise of proposition k to the voters. i want to remind you that in mid november we are hosting the annual meeting of the election, the organization that brings together all the local sales tax transportation authorities from around california. the executive director has more details on that. i hope that you will be able to

attend and that we will be well represented there. it is an opportunity to meet our counterparts from around the state and highlight the city's attractions and the many things we are doing in transportation and in the bay area. this concludes my report. mr. executive director. >> good morning, mr. chairman. jose moscovich. my report is on your desk. highlights a few things. thanks to commissioners campos and weener for attending and providing clear direction on a meeting that we held last week on the region transportation plans, a communications strategy, which we organized in order to continue to get public input and provide a forum for

discussion. a very important topic, which is the discussion, and in different ways in which the region is likely to grow from now until 2040. in particular, the way that over three-quarters of a million housing communities, over a million jobs will be absorbed in the region over the period, of which, depending on the scenario, san francisco will be handing over 100,000 housing units. he turned rememberthe discussioy

productive, one that shed light on a number of issues. we continue to emphasize the point the community is willing to accept growth need to also be rewarded at the regional level, the commensurate infrastructure. so there is credibility for selling the additional population, and jobs. we have also stressed the point that communities that already have good transit and amenities need to be incentivized in a real way to take more growth in housing, growth in jobs. also, there was a significant

discussion that would continue to highlight the need to reward jurisdictions that have a good track record in producing affordable housing. that is going to be one of the big tests for any of the scenarios that will materialize. we expect to post a fourth leadership roundtable meeting in san francisco with representatives to the mtc and abag. i will continue to update the board on these. we anticipate input to deal with our own comments to mtc on vacant -- financially constrained list, which will start looking more real late this year and early 2012,

leading up to the selection of a preferred alternative scenario. the chair already addressed the issues with the funding levels for safety. we do have a six-month extension of the current bill approved by congress september 12. it will take until march 31, 2012. the situation in the house is very worrisome. 35% cuts suggested in transportation funding. of course, a huge gap with the senate bill, which is proposing to maintain levels of funding where they are now, and an even bigger gap than the president is proposing. i believe we will not see a reauthorization until after the election. it is becoming more and more clear that that seems to be the case. i will keep you posted on this.

unfortunately, there is not good news on that front. as far as local activity, we have entered a third round up of reach in the transportation plan. that may make a pitch for the significance of this document. this is a comprehensive look at transportation in relation to land use. that is something that no other organization does in san francisco and is likely to have some significant outcomes because of the context of the sustainable communities. we have not reached efforts now including a second project, lunchtime webinars, surveys, and also, one survey on school

transportation, which is becoming a hot topic as well. as well as presentation to community groups. the dates have not been sent but i will make sure that you are aware of them. at that point, we will share with those committees and results of the surveys that we have done and starting to use that information as the basis for the framework for an alternative which would be in the next several months. we have submitted the draft staff legal eir eis. i believe yesterday there was a letter submitted by n reiskin

supporting the contents of the document. it further enhances the chances of the project getting an expedited review by the ta and further support. a schedule right now for the public draft eir/eis to be circulated in mid-october. we're looking forward to hear public comment at that point. we are preparing in coordination with the mta, materials, for the moment in the report is released, to get comments, and of course, we fully expect to be able to address those in the comment period. we will make a more formal presentation of the findings to the public draft to the authority board and committees during the public circulation period. the other important thing, we

met with caltrans. we got the ok on the feasibility on the brt project on van ness. that clears the way of sorting through the final design exception with them. as you recall, van ness avenue is a state group. that is another major milestone. unfortunately, i had to miss that. some great ideas coming out of the netherlands. some good news on -- boulevard. that is also a state route. caltrans is restricting the boulevard to turn it into two lanes instead of three.

bike lanes and safer crosswalks. matter warnings for drivers for people crossing the street. caltrans has already issued a procurement on that. this is between everglade and 19th avenue. we are reaching some milestones on some other studies. the bay shore intermodal access study has also seen a complete draft report. the final report of the study that was presented to the city council, which has a major stake in terms of land use position that will affect areas surrounding the station. of course, the station is intended to be the terminal of the -- in connecting to caltrain. we will bring you a final report this fall. we have had some interesting out -- results of the western soma neighborhood transportation

plan. there are some comments and solutions beginning to emerge, like providing crosswalks for some of those ballets that are truly real streets with people living on them, but they are not very safe right now. particularly, mina and natoma. we will bring you a final report after the plans that step, which is to generate some refined designs. also, on the by county transportation study, the southeast quadrant of the city, a significant study. we presented a final list of projects and likely cost ranges, which are fairly significant to our counterparts, san the tail county, other parties, and a milestone agreement that these are the right cost of

agreements. this is something that has been in the works for decades. as a given milestone. -- a significant milestone. we will be issuing debt in the fall. to conclude my report, i am pleased to let you know that we have filled two transportation planner positions and we have both of the planners are here. colin interned with us a year or so ago. he had a focus of transportation from uc-berkeley. he worked for the city of oakland, worked for the new york regional plan association, and for arlington county in virginia. he also served as a legislative intern for then-senator joe

biden. he is probably the best connected member of staff we have to. and then a bill -- also an intern with the authorities since january. he granted in december with a master's in urban economics, urban planning from the london school of economics. he researched, among other things, how public-private projects have been used for light rail projects, and what u.s. policy makers can draw from that. before that, he was a special assistant to the transportation director of houston. i am pleased to have worked with them. they are both right and dedicated and a look forward to working with them. commissioner mirkarimi: i think we have some questions for you. commissioner cohen: thank you. a question about the bay shore intermodal access study, your final report.

you mentioned you made out rich to the visitation valley neighbors. if i'm not mistaken, i think we had a conversation several months ago about possibly forming a cac. as my memory serves me correct? -- does my memory serves me correct? >> there are several groups advising the study there. commissioner cohen: [inaudible] >> good morning, tilly chang. you are correct. our cac member did make a request, and they ask the authority to consider ways to increase the involvement of the community in the whole program of transportation improvements that are connected to the area. our thoughts are still forming

on that, providing different options to the commission, to the authority board. one of them would be to conduct a feasibility study of brt common that we anticipate to be one of the first projects out of the block. we are working on a consensus plan with san mateo to finish up what the composition may be there. there is some thought that it ought to be another by-county type of cac. commissioner cohen: thank you. commissioner mirkarimi: mr. executive director, since sometimes it is pertinent to hear from our representatives on the mtc, those items are rarely, if not ever again dies. i know we rely on the border supervisors to hear those reports. -- agendized. but there are some ms