bring back. most people are pleased it is a high performing alternative that works. therethis requested action is obviously not applicable if we are continuing. thank you for your time. supervisor avalos: thank you. we can open this up for public comment. this will be continued if we vote in that direction. madam clerk, did you have a question? >> no. supervisor avalos: ok, public comment. >> i listen to this presentation of the planning commission, and what we have here is all san franciscans are interested in this project, as much as we are interested in what happens on franklin street

or what happens on geary street or what has happened on the third street. so you will see a lot of people take this project to court, and one of the reasons being you can have outreach. there are focus groups who understand the issues that have not been informed. for example, today you have one supervisor who was completely left out in the dark. and then you have two other supervisors who find out that they were left in the dark. and finally, you find out that all supervisors, as usually happens, you're left out in the dark. so, who suffers are the constituents of san francisco. this is not an easy project. van ness is not an easy project.

any benefits for those that live in the city, including the traffic managers, whatever you call yourselves, live in the city -- if you just come to work in the city for the paycheck, you not put a lot of compassion in this project. [bell rings] this is important. you may look at van ness, but i am really interested to see what happens on franklin street and polk street. that is my subjective opinion. as i look at it, it is like a moving target. it is a difficult moving target, but we need focused outreach to people who really understand transportation issues. [bell rings] thank you very much. and you keep giving two minutes. i think you should get three minutes. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker. >> i am on the citizens'

advisory board. i am happy to see -- [inaudible] supervisor avalos: pull the microphone closer so we can hear you better. >> while the project itself has been in steady, because people voted to look into better rapid transit -- has been studied, the proposal just happened a couple of weeks ago. it is a blend of two proposals, and we had never heard of the blend of four. and the neighborhood associations are just beginning to react to it. the pacific heights association came out yesterday very dubious about taking two lanes off of van ness. the golden gate valley association is having a meeting tomorrow night. the russian hill association is going to, within a week or two, planning a meeting on this. i spoke to someone at the lower polk street association were

these people just give a presentation a couple days ago. he thought the meeting idea was a very good idea, but he was shocked to learn its involved taking two lanes away from a van ness. that is where they are. they're not focused at all. you need more than a week for the neighborhood associations to really wrap their minds around it. in doing so, i know technically these people are required to report in terms of percentage, but i would like everybody to keep in mind in means two or three minutes. reliability that somewhat depends not so much on traffic but on the bus drivers showing up, because it is a stressful job. reliability is also a matter of two or three minutes. and the extra cost to take a plane away each direction is $80 million -- to take a lane away. while we studied the six lane no build alternative, we did not

study it to the extent that we did on the van ness alternatives. [bell rings] and i want to make one final comment. supervisor avalos: your time is up. >> i would like them to apply all the efficiencies. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> i am elizabeth, executive director of walk san francisco. i realize you are continuing this, but since i am here, i thought i would speak up. walk san francisco strongly supports this alternative. the center-running brt option will actually make public transportation a lot faster and more reliable along this corridor, which is a central, a critical corridor for transportation through our city. it is also a good improvement for pedestrian safety, for the people walking along van ness.

in fact, for the people who might otherwise walk along van ness bed now choose not to because it is scary and -- but now choose not to because it is scary and there are no countdown signals. those things will be improved in this project, and that is in the we strongly support. it will generally calm traffic along van ness, making conditions safer for everyone, not just pedestrians or transit users, also drivers. by reducing left turns, it will protect pedestrians. as michael schwartz said, that is something that often contributes to pedestrian collisions. having better lighting will help people on foot see and be seen. i would think about it a little bit more as actually sort of living up to the sustainable transportation potential, the 21st century transportation potential. [bell rings] san francisco should have that,

so we support this project. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. next. >> i am robin. i formally served on the pedestrian safety advisory committee, and i am every applying for the committee -- 3 applying for the committee. these alternative plans were turned in to our committee. i am speaking as an individual, but i strongly supported this particular plan with the buses running down the center of van ness. i am looking at it from a pedestrian safety point of view, and i felt strongly that this definitely protected pedestrians, that the sidewalks would be wider and more pedestrians would be able to walk. without having buses in the right hand and, -- right hand lane, you have a series of buses that turnout causing congestion. if they have their own lanes to run down, it would serve the public much better and the flow of traffic would be a lot better.

so i strongly support this plan. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. next speaker. >> i am george, and lived in the brt corridor area since 1978. my wife and i, who are now in district two, have lived in the area since 1997 on our street. we are concerned about three factors. the first is, as was mentioned earlier, the significant negative traffic impact to the local community. i am not going to have time to go through all of these factors, but i give committee members a copy of my presentation. i will go over the high points. i would appreciate if you spend some of your precious time reading through the details. as we know, there is going to be significant additional circulating traffic in the neighborhood as a result of eliminating two car-truck lanes on van ness. in addition, there is the year and a thebuild -- the year and a

half build process, and the rule only be two lanes for everything during the construction phase. -- there will only be two lanes for everything during the construction phase. there is minimal practical benefit. this is a very short corridor for spaying brt standards -- corridor versus purity standards. what proposals world wide, this is one of the shortest available, shortest systems proposed. the problem with that is you do not get a practically significant benefit for the cost involved. $80 million for an absolute benefit of four and a half minutes, best case, most congested traffic. so the real issue is less than or equal to four and a half minutes of prime sitting with $80 million or more in cost.

i requested the cost benefit analysis. i have been able to find it from fta documentation. it is basically cost per dollar, cost per hour saved. [bell rings] one of the major things i also found out from the available documentation from the fta is that reducing the number of stops, which is necessary -- supervisor avalos: thank you. >> actually, one last comment. supervisor avalos: that is your time. we also have your material. thank you very much. any other member of the public, please come forward? >> i am part of the san francisco transit riders union, and we had a forum on this last night. we were briefed on it, and the board has strongly come out in support of the project. we support it because this is actually an incredibly ingenious

compromise or win-win between the ta and the mta, a great example of coming together to think outside the box about how to improve the project and kind of mitigate issues involved. so i applaud both the mta and the ta for coming together to come up with this innovative design. but at the end of the day, this project is going to shuffle people from a to b. you know, we just heard a presentation from michael's words, who was talking about potential traffic impacts in 2035. those will be there because there will be an inherent increase in population in the city, and we need a way to get people to and from their destinations. end of this project actually deals with those issues, the increased traffic. in short, i support the project,

the union supports the project, and we urge a vote in favor on this from the commission. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. any other member of the public to live like to comment? seeing none, we will close public comment. i wanted the transportation authority and the mta for their work on this proposed -- i want to thank the transportation authority and the mta for their work on this proposed legislation to another was discussion about our buses, whether we had the right buses to make it work. there was a discussion about having the right lane being available for bus rapid transit. and the center lane, because that would work easiest for our buses. actually, the proposed solution i think it's very elegant in terms of having the center lane with the right lane boarding. that was a creative and very simple solution to what seemed

like at first a complex problem. that is only one aspect of what we have to work out with us rapid transit. many other aspects have to go forward. i am not necessarily supportive of continuing this item, because i know there is so much work that has to get done on various approvals forepaws rapid transit. but if that is what the committee would like -- for bus rapid transit. but that if that is what the committee would like to do, i will do that next week and not have a roll call on the continuance. >> to be clear, my motion is to continue it not to next week but to the next plans and programs. i like the fall timespan to understand this. district two and district three. it is an integral part of this process. i think it complete -- supervisor avalos: i apologize. i may have misspoke. i met the next plans and

programs committee meeting. i would like to have next week. colleagues, we will take that without objection, continue the item to the next plans and programs meeting. thank you very much. >> item 8, the appropriation of $60,000 and prop k funds for the san francisco parking pricing and regulation steady, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedule. this is an action item. -- for the san francisco parking pricing and regulation of study. >> good afternoon. i am transportation planner in the authority's planning division. i will begin presenting this item, which begins on page 89, and the preparation request for $60,000 in a proper cake from the tdm parking management category to leverage federal -- a federal grant from the value pricing pilot program for a

study for the parking, pricing, and regulation. $60,000 on behalf of the local match required. the other half would come from the regional agency, the metropolitan transportation commission. a little bit of background this study. it actually grew out of the authority's congestion pricing feasibility study, the access and pricing study, which was approved in 2010 by the authority board and identified high performing pricing scenarios that were feasible and would provide substantial benefits to the city. as a part of the process, the authority board at the time directed us to pursue the next stages in it that work. one of the next stages that was identified was really doing a more careful look at how we might achieve the same types of congestion reduction benefits that might be achieved through the pricing scenario through a

parking-based scenario. we heard substantial feedback on this in our last round of outreach for the congestion pricing study, in particular from the business community. we were able to take a cursory level look at what that might look like in the previous study but need to sort of more resources and time to see how that might work. last year we put together a grant application for the federal value pricing pilot program, and we were successful in receiving an award of $480,000. the goal of the parking, pricing, and regulation study would be to develop at least one parking-based scenario that could do two things. one, jim, per paul demand management and transit permits benefits -- a achieve comparable management and transit permits benefits. second, the scenario would also need to have sufficient revenue to deliver a program of associated mobility improvements that would accommodate the desires for some auto users to

switch to other modes. the study would focus on the privately owned commuter serving parking. there are many strategies we will leggett, ranging from pricing of parking lot garage and entry points -- that we will look at. assessment or fees on commercial parking operation or mandatory employer parking-based pricing management. i would note this is sort of a complementary effort to the city's efforts to manage its on- street and city-owned private supply of parking through the parks program. we have been in touch with the sfmta and the sf park folks to coordinate in this effort. as you probably are aware, the greater downtown area, there is just a very small set at the parking that is actually owned and managed by the city. to achieve the types of congestion reduction benefits that were identified as a need,

we would need to touch somehow the private parking spaces as well. the goal is to identify at least one scenario that is a parking- based alternative that would be studied alongside the alternatives and the environmental study is the next step. it includes three main elements. market research and data collection, parking policies scenario analysis, and stakeholder input and public outrage. there is a more detailed scope of work on page 94. we're proposing this as an 18- month study. we would convene a policy working group with a local and other agency input to guide the process, and we would coordinate with other pricing and evaluation efforts that are ongoing. with that, i will close my presentation. the action we're seeking is to recommend appropriation of $60,000 in prop k to the study. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you

very much for your presentation. supervisor farrell: question -- supervisor farrell? supervisor farrell: we talked about this before. can you explain to me, cordon pricing parking strategies into the differences? >> yes, the mobility access and pricing study started with a sort of purpose and needs statement of there being a significant problem with how long it takes to travel to and from downtown, either if you're driving or taking transit. we looked at a court in based set of alternatives or you would actually, as you're driving into the greater downtown area, would be assessed a fee that would sort of be based on crossing a certain boundary, and it would be captured by video cameras that would assess the fee to the motors. with the parking-based alternative, it would be assessed at the taureg end. if you are starting or ending a trip by -- at the trip end.

if you are starting or ending a trip in the downtown area, it would look at that for the fee. quite a few people make auto trips that stay within the downtown area, and those folks would not be impacted by a cordon-based solution, but they might be affected in a parking- space scenario. the other thing i should mention is this is just a study that would complement the existing study. there would be much more discussion before any sort of implementation or decision would be made. this is to have the facts about what they need is, what the potential benefits or impacts would be to get that information to you all. supervisor avalos: ok. thank you very much. we can go on to public comment. any member of the public who would like to comment on this item, please come forward.

seeing none, we will close public comment. this item is live before us. we have a motion to -- supervisor farrell: i find myself being a dead horse here. i have not heard about this from anyone from the ta. i do not think it is in the we should be pursuing. this is not something -- maybe everyone else feels elderly, but this is not something i am prepared -- maybe everybody else feels differently, but this is not something is unprepared for today. i am going to vote no on this today, but i understand if other people have been briefed on it or spoken about it, that is fine. that is how i feel generically about congestion pricing. if you ask for my vote today, i am not going to be in favor of

it. supervisor avalos: i see this issue as less about congestion pricing and looking at how we are managing our parking in congested areas of the san francisco. i actually would like to move this item forward. a motion that we actually move it forward, colleagues. >> [inaudible] >> can we move forward with no recommendation and during that time, request the supervisors to look like to be briefed on this before it tuesday be briefed? supervisor avalos: i think i would be comfortable with that. a second from supervisor cohen. supervisor cohen: i actually wanted to add my name to the list for further conversation on this item, for a briefing. thank you. supervisor avalos: ok, well, i would like to move this item forward without recommendation. colleagues, can we take that

without objection? ok. next item, please. >> item number 9, fiscal year 2012-2013 prop k annual call for projects. this is an information item. >> good afternoon, deputy director for policy and programming at the authority. this begins on page 117. this is an information item. this is the first round where we are presenting the prop k annual call for projects for fiscal year 2012-2013. we have received nine requests totaling just over $12 million. these are requests from sponsors that they believe are for projects that are ready to go. i want to be clear, this represents only a small portion of the projects that are programmed for funds of to and including fiscal year 2012-2013 in the five-year prioritization programs. this will allow for sponsors to have funds in place at the beginning of the fiscal year, on

july 1. and this item will come back to you as an action item next month for june action. you also have an enclosure that accompanies this package. these are the applications that were submitted by sponsors, as received at the end of march. i am going to turn the microphone over to the transportation planner at the authority to present most of the application requests, and i will pick up at the end for the tree planting requests. >> i am transportation planner with the authority. part of that request, dpw has one other request. an annual call for $600,000 in prop k funds to repair sidewalks around street trees at approximately 247 locations in fiscal year 2012-2013. the sfmta submitted four requests in annual call. the first is to repair transit.

in recent years, the program has achieved efficiencies that resulted in cost savings. they attributed this to recent system improvements such as implementation of a debit card system. the second of the annual request is for bike to work day which would provide funds in years 2013 and 2014. i am is getting around a little bit. the recent -- and the regional bicycle share project. the bay area air quality district plans to start deploying up to 1000 bicycles along the caltrain corridor along the peninsula for a bicycle share pilot project. project partners, and this includes the folks from the sfmta, the air district, san mateo county, redwood city, and the transportation authority, and they have been involved in developing the rfp to set up and run the system over the first 12 to 24 months ago and finalizing

worthy bikes would be located in getting those approved. future projects are in place with the vendor, including negotiations relative to local agencies. marketing and outreach, and identifying alternate of kiosk locations. we're working to have a better understanding of the current estimated labor costs which includes approximately $1 million for a 70 labor over the three-year project timespan. we would like to have a defined sense of the work that will be performed. third on the chart, a bicycle green wave treatment, modernize traffic signal timing along the corridor. bicyclist will encounter a series of green lights as they progress. it also tends to calm vehicular traffic. san francisco has two green waves, the first on valencia's street. -- valencia streets.

they are shown here in the pages. the second is part of the previous innovative bike program between dolores street and folsom streets. as a timid -- as the fenty is requesting funds to install between four to six more green wave projects in the city -- sfmta is requesting funds to install between four and six more. >> where will these be? >> it is in the request, and the planning phase will determine where those locations will be. caltrain has two requests. the first one, $45,000 in prop k funds for a feasibility study to maximize the future by parking capacity. it would identify of the ball -- optimal point of investment. they anticipate the study could begin as early as july 2012. caltrain is also requesting

$165,000 and prop k funds to make improvements to the existing fourth and king bicycle parking facility. they are developing an rfp with capital improvement for new operating contracts for the bicycle facility at fort san joaquin. when does the conditioning the release of prop k funds on the operator contract award when we will have a chance to approve and review the scope and budget for capital improvements to be performed. finally, the san francisco department of environment is requesting about $270,000 dollars for one year for the clean transportation program. including bicycle fleet in the regional ride share program. with that, i can take questions. i want to know that we have representatives from each of the agencies that submitted a request in his annual call here in the audience today. supervisor avalos: thank you for the presentation. i think a lot of these projects are really worthy of our

consideration. i do have a concern about, no, we put out a call for applicants. there is -- you know, we put out a call for applicants. there is this mind-set we have about how we fund transit and different projects that we're going to go where the wheels are the most squeaky. the wheels are squeaky in san francisco, yet we have tremendous in transit needs there. last week, i was involved with bike to work day. 10 of us met on naples and geneva street. we talked about reaching our goals on 20% transit by the year 2020. i looked at all the cars that were swirling around us and just talk suggested the streets were around there, and i was like, i do not know if we can reach that goal. we're not putting any investments in any part of san francisco that is going to need greater investment in transit, i