-- everyone always seems to be one block away. they want it real close, but they want to catch it. neighbors here certainly have my sympathy on this, and i appreciate their coming out. it obviously made an impact with respect to the parking lane. i am have two questions i will try to keep three. one is when we considered the traffic impact of the project, where we factoring in the fact that the changes at hayes street but above would be made such that there would be more traffic? the explanation i got as to where the cars were going to go when we change the crossover was we are not really sure but we think they will go south and use alternate routes, so i am just wondering if that change was factored in to the traffic evaluation of this project. and if he says yes, that is all i need to hear. i just want to make sure. >> to be honest, i would have to

double check. traffic volumes -- for the study, it was limited to this and a second, and it was clear that an addendum to the market/octavia plan. i would have to look at the volumes used, but i would note that when we did the clearance for this intersection, we have the assumption that there would be general traffic using this approach, and you would have the signal coming up every cycle, whereas under this new plan, they only come up once every three to five minutes. that drastically reduces the amount of time, and we should be able to accommodate the traffic either way. >> ok. my second question -- you say opponents are concerned that the project does not address the congestion, which was created by the octavia project, and that became an artery to the freeway. i want to just make sure -- is there any concern, or did your studies or engineering report that this would make the

congestion worse or that it simply would have no effect on the traffic congestion in that area? >> the project does not intend to address the digestion issues and should not create any additional digestion. all it does is add a transit- only lane. it does not restrict any current movements or add any additional movements except for an eastbound left turn onto northbound octavia, and we have the traffic count or that intersection during the peak hour. >> is there a process for monitoring that after? i realize we do not make these changes willy-nilly and reverse them, but i think we are hearing from some residents a different view on that. at this level, i trust the traffic engineers first, and it turns out the traffic engineers are wrong and neighbors are right, we have created a whole congestion pattern here. is that something we are able to review, or how does that work? >> as you know -- as you note in

the resolution, we are committed to formally do a before and after evaluation, and we will be monitoring the progress and conditions of the street during the implementation right after. if we were wrong, i think we would be first to admit it. >> very good. >> does this in any way reduce the congestion around the area? are we dealing with congested in that area at all? >> directors, the answer is no because as ms. tanner mentioned earlier, this is a transit- enhancement project. it came in to take a couple of heavily used transit lines and move them over away from a

congested corridor, which is a result of having the former central freeway torn down. we know before the freeway was torn down that there would be some extra level of congestion that would result because of the loss of congestion again, but it is something that we would be prepared to live with. we are partnering with the d.a. to look at ways to try to smooth out the flow a little bit through the area, but it is a fact of life now because of the changes that have gone in, but this particular project is not intended to relieve congestion, but to enhance transit.

>> i am frequently one of the writers -- riders. when it is working normally, there's a mob of folks. even without it working, the 71 is still crowded any time of the day, and it is a long and painful ride. i take offense at people who guffaws at the three-minute savings. when you have a busload of people, that is 60 people. multiplied by three minutes each, that turns into our laws, which could turn into days of time of people that are late to work, away from their families, and people that are doing the right thing by not driving and getting out of our cars in this transit first city. i want to make sure that i echo the fact that i do believe that we really will be making things

safer and better. i also ride a bicycle down that, and i frequently have to turn left coming in, and am looking very forward to being able to use that line instead of having to turn and use that. i look forward to seeing you folks move forward on this. we also save money, and we know we are coming up short on funding, big time. i want to see more things like this that will actually increase our efficiency and translate to funding efficiencies can make our system more soluble and also, i love to see folks that are in the audience come up with better ideas to increase our efficiencies. these are the kind of choices we will have to be making not just in this street but on all of our streets in the near future to get a hold of our budget shortfalls and to really reach

our client goals, our climate change goals we are trying to achieve by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, so thank you again, all of you, for all your great efforts. i look forward to seeing these things go through. >> we do have a motion on the floor. all in favor? all opposed? so ordered. we will take about a 10-minute break. when we come back, we will talk about the rest of the agenda. we have a set item at>> good af.

thank you. i am here to provide a quick update on the boss rapid transit project. before i begin, i would like to have chagn -- chang to provide a few words on this. >> good evening. on behalf of the authority, we want to thank the assistant pa in very much and the rest of the brt team, for their collaboration on this exciting project. we had some very important progress recently. the project ranks very competitively. we are seeing a green light on the operations side, which is good news. you will hear about the imminent release of the eir. we have a website for the public

to check out and that is brt.org. thank you again. >> as she mentioned, the reason we are here is because we have reached a major milestone in the project and with the impending release of the draft and impact report. this is a significant step in the product development process. we want to bring you back up to speed with where we have been with the project and where we will be going in the next several months. in the interest of time, i will hit on the highlights. there is a long history of support for this project, dating back to 1989 with the four quarters study it. reaffirmed during the transit affectionate project analysis.

it was identified as an investment priority as early as the sales tax measure in 1989 and more recently has found support by the fdsa -- fda through their small starts program. this shows the overall network that was identified by the transit affect minister of. in theory, in boss rapid transit projects would be the backbone of the bus system that overlays that rapid network. today, we will be talking about the brt project. right behind it are improvements to the geary corrido , mission corridor, and geneva corridor. the project itself is on van ness between mission and lombardy in. it would continue on to listen

to city college and to route 47 which would continue past van ness and market to the train station. the key goals of the project are to improve travel time and improve the reliability of the service to improve pedestrian safety and integrate street improvements and provide a key north-south plank in the transportation system very we have been working with the transportation authority on the environmental review process, which they have been leading. at the completion of that process, mta will become the project lead to design, construct, and operate the project. the overall time line is shown on this slide. the third bullet is the point that we are reaching out. the information here is a little out of date. the actual, anticipated release of the draft environmental

documents is going to be november 4. he ending date will shift accordingly and. the next significant action is for this board and the transportation authority board to decide on a locally preferred alternative. in a design alternatives current what should the city move forward with? we are targeting data for march of next year. this sly gives you a breakdown of some of the major components of the project budget. we had to revise this slide so i will speak to the key points in this. the information has changed slightly since this slide was originally prepared. the brt improvements have would be made, depending on the

options, it would range from $67 million to $210 million. in are a number of things the need to be implemented, including new bosses, the repaving of the street, the overhead system, in the 49 commission uses as well as upgrading the signaling system. when all of those elements are taking into nomination, the projects range from $162 million to $216 million. we have a variety of funding from many sources, federal, state, and local. totaling about $175 million. depending on the alternative that is chosen, we either have the funding or we have a small gap that we would need to make up as we move through the design process. this is a common level of

funding support for a project that is completing its environmental review phase. quickly, i will walk the three alternatives that are being considered in the environmental document. the first is what we are calling the no project. the improvements and would happen even if we decide not to go for it. replacing our buses on a regular basis, replacing the shelters with the new designs that are going out throughout the system, and possibly considering aldo reporting as a way of speeding the system up. the first project alternative would be to improve the service and a way in that looks and less like what we have today, with the buses running in the curb lane on either side. you can see here -- the red

lines would be dedicated lanes for transit. while there is a dedicated line, there would still be the ability for automobiles or other traffic to enter this link to access parking or make a right turn. for this reason, it tends to perform a little less well than the other alternatives i will share with you. then we have two center-running alternatives, which would reconfigure the existing median to be a combination of transit boarding areas and mediant treatments. in the first example, we use two smaller platforms in the center. this would use a typical boss like we have today. -- typical bus like we have

today. this would provide the most of exclusivity. it would be difficult for any other traffic to enter here. because we would need to reconstruct the entire median, this option is the most expensive to implement. the last alternative we are considering is to have one larger platform in the middle of the median. this would require the purchase of five-door bosses. we would have bosses with three doors on the right-hand side as all of our existing buses, but unique boss with two doors on the left to allow for boarding along the van ness corridor. today, there are only about 50 of these vehicles in the country. we would be using a vehicle that is fairly limited in

availability now. there is also the concern of having a detrick -- having a dedicated fleet for this service. we would need to purchase more vehicles than especially needed for the service desultory -- that is actually needed for the service itself. it would be a little more porous to the traffic. the key issues going forward have to do with a lot of the differences between the options, the operational characteristics, the type of vehicle and vehicle availability, the stations themselves, how this would impact the transportation system, and how confident are we that we can fill a funding gap of one of the more expensive alternatives. these are issues that would feed into that. the selection we are targeting for march of next year.

the last slide has some updates. these are the near term targets. the public review, in comment, as i mentioned, would kick off november 4, wrapping up around december 19 and current within that period, there would be a public hearing scheduled for a november 30 at. he had over the course of december and january, we would be working with the transportation authority to review and prepare presentations for this to the authority board to lead up to the locally preferred alternative selection in march of 2012. with that decision, we would be able to commence the conceptual engineering phase of the project. that concludes my presentation. >> members of the board, questions or comments. >> a very good presentation and an exciting project. brt is exciting to me because,

as i've said before, our metro customers enjoy the most efficient ride. this is bridging our bus service to that sort of model. i like that. without digging up the streets and incurring all the costs. in a couple of issues. one would-be taking back to a discussion we had a couple of meetings ago, whether we are going to allow cash affairs in the brt corridor. this might be one area of where we would simply than cash and say you need a card or, because it is a confined corridor, it would be a good place to compile machines to allow people to convert cash to a fair instrument as they come aboard. we want the driver driving, not collecting cash fares,

especially for a line that would be more of a commuter line than a tourist line. i could be wrong. the other issue is signal priority. i did not hear any hesitation about that. it is a controversial issue on a street like this, which called in -- which crosses some many east-west arteries. parts of the corridor, perhaps once or over the hill and looking at the water, that is an area where signal priority would be put in. i urge that that be considered, too. we want people to get to market street from the top of the street as quickly as we can. those are ideas we can pile on the brt corridor and rest of the system as well. director ramos: thank you very much for the presentation. at one of my first jobs was working as a waiter. i learned how to bone fish at

your table. i can always go back. i cannot do it like that anymore, but when i was making that commute, it was at 1:00 in the morning. i had to stand on the corner of market and van ness is waiting for something to come by and pick me up. i am wondering what kind of improvements we're going to see for the late-night service. have you talked about that at all? >> there are two alternatives that will work with any of our vehicles, because the service changes in the late-night hours. he would have to see how that would integrate, depending on which alternative is chosen. if we choose any of the alternatives that use a standard three-store bus, there should not be an issue.

if we go with centerboard in, there may be a concern with running those unique vehicles throughout the city 24 hours a day, having adequate time to do maintenance and overall activity in. director ramos: i want to make sure we focus on accommodating the work force in fisherman's wharf. because it is so slow, if i had less than an hour to get to my job, i would drive. that would lead to parking. i would take precious parking spaces nearby from other people who do not need them as much as i do it. i am really eager to see how things will turn out to make a trend -- to make transportation faster and more efficient in this area. keep of the great work. >> on your outreach, please communicate with our first responders and emergency people. i think it will have some

interesting input on how these lang configurations might help or hurt them, and particularly help them use this as a corridor to respond to emergencies more quickly. i did not see any of that. >> i am very supportive of this project so far. i am surprised to see it is coming up to march, where we selected the preferred alternative. just a suggestion, when we get close to that point, a grid of laying out the positives and the negatives, the configuration of the street, the first responders. one quick question -- will golden gate transit get to use those lines? >> we have been working closely with them on accommodating them to some degree in any alternatives. it will depend a little bit on the option chosen. they are not in a position to acquire a fleet of left-door

boarding the rebels. -- boarding vehicles. >> having the support of the golden gate transit riders could help move this forward as a regional idea and get everybody a taste of what brt can do, which i think will be amazing. >> members of the public have indicated an interest in addressing you on the matter. chariman nolan: i understand it is a very quick one, right? >> we can do it quickly, or give you an idea of what we're doing in the board were shot. -- board workshop. we will continue that until the next meeting.

secretary boomer: special order at 4:00. discussion regarding the youth pass. chariman nolan: director reiskin, the one to do a presentation? director reiskin: we do have a presentation for a baseline of understanding. we expect a lively round of public comment. i will say that i gave a brief update on this at the last meeting. at the board of supervisors committee on neighborhood services, and they held a hearing this last week and i believe they are voting today as a full board on the resolution. i want to give great credit to power in the community, working

with supervisor campos for a good grass-roots effort behind this. there is a lot of public discussion to have. there are certainly some challenges to overcome. i think you'll see what some of those are. i think it is a good discussion to have. we are working closely with stakeholders' around the table to advance this discussion and co that today's discussion helps to further advance it. chariman nolan: good afternoon carried we have an excellent written report a. >> good afternoon. i want to give you a presentation on this effort. you cannot make the decision without looking at the overall landscape situation. just a reminder, in fiscal year of 2012, we are predicting a $22 million shortfall between revenue and expenses. as we are working on the 2013-

2014 budget, our projections again show shortfalls. also, in discussions to have had over past years, we do not budget adequately for issues budget adequately for issues like overtime, special events, budget for reserves. these and the kind of things that if you want to add them to the budget, they will have to be part of your discussion, along with this program if you choose to fund it. in fiscal years 2011-2012, the board approved a two-year program to provide funds for the san francisco unified school district for distribution of 50% of the face value of the past. it was $10.50 in 2012. if you remember, the

implementation of that program was difficult. there were distribution issues. subsequently, an item came before you in the latter part of 2010 asking you to approve passes for the final months because it had a financial impact to us. the program is currently on hold now, pending the conversation around this program. as you know, supervisor campos is leading a coalition of advocacy groups evaluating this program. a budget analysis also completed a recent analysis with our input. the current program that is being championed is the free fares for all youth, unlimited access to muni at all times,

clipper cards. this would be used to evaluate the program as a three-year pilot program. including the continuation of the $1.4 million subsidy moving forward. the budget analysis report including that writer should increase -- ridership increased. they develop more costs from the loss of their revenue. and some additional incremental costs. the budget analysis, while they did not report the potential service increase, they did not include in that total, because they felt that, in the hiss -- historically,