50%, i think it is weighted on the medallion side. there are 12 people -- 1200 people lined up wanting to buy with cash. we need to be fair. >> thank you, mr. murdoch. anyone else? seeing none, moving on to the consent calendar. these items are considered to be routine. madam chair, you do have a mayor kurt -- member of the public with several items, 10.2 f and g with regard to quite tower, 10.2 k and l with regard to the city services and the electric taxi program. brecht's we will go ahead with f

and g, k and l, and others. all in favor? all opposed? can we go ahead and have public comment on all of these items together? >> i would like to do public comment on f and g, and k an l together. this is about taxi service. f and g are related to the fact that cab drivers take tours to quite tower. they take pictures, they take a look.

sometimes you get an overzealous pco that are just tagging cabdrivers. people want to have over to the airport and take a picture of quite tower, or they want to take a look at it for 15 minutes. you've got to allow a provision for cabdrivers to be exempt from f and g. this is what san francisco is about, tourism. i urge you to put this on hold until we get this resolved. in regard to kate and out, -- k and l, because we're going to expand more cabs in the city, there's not enough space for the caps to park.

you say it is a private business, but you regulate the businesses and the cab industry. if you want more cabs on the street, you have got to not eliminate parking. it is already eliminated on a lot of cesar chavez because you put bike lanes there. you are telling cabdrivers' we need more cabs, but we have no way for you to get to work. take a bus. a lot of the cab drivers do not live in the city. and they are to be there at 3:00 a.m., 4:00 a.m., friday and in the city and then they finished at 2:00 p.m., 3:00 p.m., 5:00 p.m. in the afternoon. i'm saying, don't take away parking. you are making it difficult for cabdrivers to come to work. and we need the drivers, and we need good drivers, where they live. >> k and l, as i read it, move

the parking limit from one hour to two hours. how is a working cabdriver going out and working -- parking his car in a two-hour and then working his shift? i do not understand. >> i understand your point. richard have been addressed earlier. >> i am understand. i move recommendations. >> all in favor? all opposed? the motion is passed. item 10.4, authorizing the director of transportation to execute an agreement with the city of san jose and better placement of facilities for the disbursement of $6 million in grant funds for a 10-year term for the implementation of the

batteries which an electric? the program and authorizing the execution of a memorandum of understanding to pay the rent for the use of the property. any public comment? >> this is an interesting program here. i think it should not have been a consent calendar item. the program itself should be outlined and we should hear about it publicly on tv and online and in person so we know we is going on. -- we know what is going on. not everybody has a chance to go on line and spent hours looking for to go down there and try to get something out of them about the packet. i think it is important, so that

anyone who is interested in including cabdrivers can go on line and look at what this program is about. i'm not sure what this program is about. i'm saying it is important that we at least hear about it. wouldn't you be interested? >> thank you. do i have a motion to approve 10.4? >> yes. cracks all in favor? all opposed? the ayes have it. >> madam chairman combatant -- that concludes your consent to out there. -- madam chairman, that concludes your consent calendar. next is the locally preferred alternative for the van ness bus rapid transit project. >> this is a project that you have had intermittent updates on in the last couple of years, and

i think we're on the verge of achieving a very significant milestone in the environmental process, which is an important milestone overall. mr. papandreou is going to give at a presentation on what we're recommending. >> good afternoon, directors. i want to give you an update on the long, hard work on this project. i would be remiss without thanking the mta staff that have done a lot of the work, but also the interdisciplinary team within the mta. i want to thank the planning team, a bunch in the construction, jock -- juli cruise from.

i think it is a really good solution to a fairly complex problem that we have. the project that we are talking about right now is on van ness ave. right now, is the 47 right now. there is great potential of seeing some changes in the corridor in the last couple of years. we're looking at ideas for improving bus service because we really could not afford to improve the rail service, which obviously, many people want to see happen today. one of the project goals that we came up with was to reduce the

travel time. i think we're also doing that system-wide as well. as long as you can improve the liability, then that is improvement. making it a big event -- a pedestrian arm is one of our core goals. as for the project, we are maximizing our fleet and optimizing flexibility. there are two different modes of transit on this corridor. it is really important that we maximize this opportunity that we have. and there is a standalone project that started at market street and ended at north point. it started before the tpu was

growing, but it is very important for looking at connectivity. we have been looking at this project for quite a while and you can see the tp muni rapid corridors. but there is also the geary project that we're working on a transportation as well. there was a call out to the shipyard plant. we're trying to develop this network of high-quality, more frequent, and more reliable service. with the van ness project itself, it could combine 47 and 49 and the point from market street on is what we're doing with the project. we're looking at various components. it is a very complex this

street. the state highway transportation statewide has a lot of issues in its corridor. there is a lot of information that we have to work with to make this work. what we were looking at with the environmental process was four options that we could consider in detail and what would make sense. the first was the conditions that are out there, what we call analysis. the second was a side main bus rapid transit project, which dedicated a lane on a curve. there is also lot four parking on the inside of that. third street to manhattan to the 34th street project where they have the brt name. there are certain issues with this.

there's a good vantage using the existing fleet. we had a lot of discussion on how we can make this work. the third option is the third platform brt, which basically took out of the medians that are there right now and uses the bus will run in the middle. it would have a fully dedicated, fully protected service. there are specific advantages in terms of better runtime and better reliability. it it has specific issues with taking out the median. as we were doing more work, the commission has a fairly significant sewer running through there. i'm not sure exactly what the sewer life is and how they are going to act as its, etc.

there was concern that we were taking out the trees in this corridor and not replacing them with significantly enough trees as there are today. and there was some concern over having the buses indian to this broadaway. -- painted in to this right of way. the fourth option is on the side of the median. again, performance wise, it is doing fairly well. there were some major concerns with the need for a brand new vehicle. and while there are buses that exist in the u.s., -- cleaveland and eugene, ore. have them, for example -- we will be stuck with the decision of if we push forward with this alternative, we would have to have just -- not just one sub fleet, but another.

and from across perspective as well as minutes, that is a big challenge and risk for the agency moving forward. fast forward. we had a lot of conversation back and forth about what we could do. we have come up with a local alternative, which is the best of three and four. it is a center-running, median- adjacent, with side platforms. similar to what we have done with market street with the cars in the middle and the other on the right-hand side, but it is in the center of the street. it really has the best performance with the passenger experience and it maximizes the transit liability. this will be the connection to the overall network and it has that network connectivity for

all of the pieces. it allows for the next generation of vehicles to come in. it will have improved pedestrian safety. there were be shorter distances to go into the station platform areas. they will have all of the accessibility requirements and it will have an overall improvement project. it is more than is widening the streets. will have beautifying and it will beautify the corridor as well. in terms of the performance with this project, we're looking at the general layout right now. because it is fairly recent in our discussion with the

transportation authority and now other partners, we are just various -- looking at the various segments and how it will come in and out of the platform. here is one of the illustrations that we have come up with to explain that with where they are, the buses will merge in together and then load on the right hand side and then merge back together again and go to the right of the median. they have merged alternative for -- four with alterative 3. -- alternative three. it will be 30% faster than what is out there today right now. it is about 21 minutes from mission street to lombard. it will go to about 15 minutes. we will have a 25% increase in

passenger capacity because we will switch out be wrapped 47 -- the route 47 buses. we should see a lot more growth, which will probably be more significant. i should also mention that polk street service will stay as a local one block away. we will still have the local. these characteristics are very important because the trends -- the transit organization has made is one of the highest priorities in the budget for transportation. we're really interested in the profits right now. where we are on the funding

side, the cost of this alternative is being refined. it is somewhere between altman to three and alternative four. -- alternative three and alternative four. we are expecting to receive more funding from the federal government, and some proposition-based sales tax. and we have about a $10 million to $15 million gap that we're working to close to get this project fully funded and delivered as quickly as possible. on our schedule itself, with the red line right now we're working forward with an alternative to complete all of the analyses that we need to complete to get it ready for the federal government's decision process. we're working very closely with the transportation authority to complete the final environmental

impact report at the end of summer/mid-fall. and we're looking to complete the project sometime in 2016. we're working with everyone to me that as quickly as possible. i know we have a lot of catch-up to go -- to do. it has been complex, making this project actually work. and there are some issues that are important to note. if we will be under construction during the california construction, we have to coincide with how we have that impact 38 geary. the geometry of the right of way right now, the left turn stops at where we are moving.

some of the stops spacing, how many stops can we have. we're working very close with john henry's team because we want to get musical's out as quickly as possible. braques and do we have any questions before move on to public comment and then discussion? >> 51 question. may i? -- i have one question. may i? >> yes, please. >> i do not understand these drawings. if you could look at slide 8 and slide 9, i believe in both instances we are looking north, correct? rex yes. >> i get how the northbound passengers will board the northbound bus. it will pull in front of them on the platform. how will people aboard the

southbound bus? is the idea that they will pass the northbound crossing and get on the side where the doors are to the north? rex -- >> northbound stops at northbound, southbound stops are at the southbound. >> if we are looking at a southbound stop, we would eventually -- essentially be looking at a reverse of the northbound. >> yes. gregg's to be clear, in these two pictures we are -- >> to be clear, in these two pictures we're looking at two northbound stops. gregg's you are right. -- >> you are right. gregg's next time, would you look -- >> next time, would you rather sad for someone? >> we are working on all stations. >> can you talk a little bit

more about the enforcement issues and the side running brt and why that is not being recommended. enforcement issues that have helped to come to the conclusion that you are not recommending that l p a, and are there other issues aside from enforcement issues? >> yes, what we're looking at is the many opportunities for how to make this look better. it really was the issue of the cars that are part to new rate -- that are part to the right of the transit train, and the cars that need to merge as well. the mixture of these two would

compromise the for performance of the facility itself. on the center lane, you have no reason to be on the same -- on that center lane. why would you be there? if there is a way to add pavement, texture, treatment, some sort of barrier, it will be pronounced. we need to have some target enforcement plan that needs to be monitored very carefully. it would be another cost to add to the project with a performance read for us. and it might be as low as the curb lane alternative. it got you the better performance that we have today, but this is a 50-75-year or more investment.

does that help you answer the question? rex it does. >> i know the cpnc project is in development. are you working on this? >> yes. we are working with the planning commission as well. to be determined to release soon. >> thank you very much. it looks like a really elegant compromise between the alternatives. i would like to hear from public comment. >> when it was on peace that, we lived at various alternatives presented it to us and purely from a pedestrian safety point of view, i felt very strongly that having the buses run down the center of van ness was the

best popular -- possible solution for addressing all of this cd issues for pedestrians and it moved out of the way of the traffic flow other than it is now. it you have these large buses running up the middle. i know after the board of supervisors meeting today, i heard that people who drive are a little concerned about this, but frankly i think it would allow for a better flow of traffic. i think it will allow for pedestrians being hit because the turns can be set dangerous. that is when pedestrian fatalities happen. and it keeps the buses out of the right turn lane when pedestrians are also getting hit. i'm not thinking about the cost,

or i do not know how the municipal drivers feel about this, but just purely looking at it as a pedestrian safety issue, that is where i am coming from. >> michele browne, followed by david pelle pelle. >> the issue to me is not so much an issue of the alternatives that take away a lane in each direction would work best. to me, the issue is taking a way -- away a lane in each direction and making a busy street from six lanes to four lanes, which moves traffic all you still traffic over there. because the plan that they came up with was just come up with about two weeks ago, the final compromise plan, the neighborhood as says the asians are just reacting to it.

the association -- of the neighborhood associations are just reacting to it. one association is meeting tomorrow. another is meeting in the next couple of weeks. i think you are getting a more negative reaction to taking away two lanes that i think is being communicated to you and what is being cured now. the cost of this, the transit authority program tabled it said they could study it more. basically, by reducing from six lanes to four lanes, rather than focusing on an alternative with all of the improvements except that you are leaving the extra two lanes, compare that with the alternative being suggested. even under current conditions, they admit that you are saving less than five minutes.

five minutes in traffic time for a cost of 80 million -- not traffic time, but in terms of commuter bus time for a cost of $80 million extra. no build, with all of the improvements. this is taking very busy street and shoving the traffic into various neighborhoods. correct thank you. david pilpel. >> if you go to slide 7, alt 3, it shows you a southbound running mockup. >> but we have the hybrid alternatives three, four. >> i want to point out that this project would actually restore the median to the transit avenue

where the street car and ran for a number of years from 1946-48 or so. we're just reclaiming territory where there originally was not any. what i'm not clear about is the motor court -- motor coach 47, trading that up to and arctic. there is an issue with the flinn division. does that mean that the other route would have to become a more standard motor coach? i sensed that there is a tradeoff there. it is also not clear, since the project limits are only to lombard, what happens to lombard. if you are out in the curving, will that involves a complicated move