my name is michael schwartz, transportation planner. i am going to quickly review how we got to the recommendation and what we have done since the item was continued. the purpose of the project is to improve transit speed and reliability. transit speed, the chart in the bottom right shows the frequency of the bosses are arriving at market street. when they hit southbound, you can see a flat chart with a bell curve around that seven minutes. buses are bunched up, are arriving one minute apart. we also see this as a complete streets project, improving pedestrian comfort and safety with multi-level moving of

people through the corridor. just as a reminder, there was a no-billed alternative for the center running alternatives that reduced the left turns in each direction. the design option reduced to one in each direction. quickly going through what they are, this is number two. it that -- if it was currently the right most traveled laying. these are high-quality platforms in the parking lane. there is parking outside of that area. the authority branded vehicles for a specialized service, such as countdown signals an audible pedestrian signals, replacing the overhead contact system and pedestrian lighting elements. the left turn on van ness, that

is the number one cause for collisions. number three is currently where the median is today. this would fully separate the bosses -- the buses from traffic. this one would have left and right door vehicles, with buses running in the left most traveling. through analysis and environmental documents, we look at a number of different criteria, where transit performance was the most important thing for some. the option of reducing left turns has nearly twice the time saving benefits. the public inherently understood this. the main reason is that in the side-turning vehicles, they had to park and had to use the b r t lanes. pour that reason, the center-

running allowed more through. however, there were challenges in each alternative. number three, because it is a hat on configuration, it might require widening the lanes, which would reduce the size of the median, completely reconstructing it. they would be directly over the sea were for the length of the corridor. the other challenge was the lengthosñ of the vehicles. the 47, motor coach, where the 49 has high electric power. the preacher in challenge reduces operational flexibility with a higher ratio to impact project costs. we put our heads together and asked, how can we come up with a center running alternatives? the alternative is this center running brt with limited turns.

a light alternative for the left most traveling. at the station locations, buses will transition and load and unload using standard vehicles while transitioning back to the outside. this allows us to maintain the median. this is sort of a refinement of the best of all worlds. it does have at best performance in terms of travel time and reliability. you mentioned operational flexibility, it has an intuitive design where the stations are located on the east side of the street headed northbound. the west side, headed southbound, that is consistently intuitive, and we also believe that we will have manageable costs and schedules for the

project. since we have announced this staff recommendation, we have done a significant amount of outreach. those were all translated into spanish enhanced media's. the advisory resulted in numerous articles getting the word out about the staff recommendations and what they are. we made numerous recommendations to stakeholder groups and started to look at improvements for the parallel corridor streets in the corridor. we know the franklin is scheduled for repaving. we are really looking at what the pedestrian improvements are that me white -- we might want to put in to offset the potential for traffic violations. cold street is scheduled for repaving.

with the community stakeholders, the ones in red are the ones we have met with since we announced the system. what we have heard through this outreach is that in general, people like -- people are supporting this alternative. there are still some concerns around traffic diversions on parallel streets. we are looking at some of the mitigation and supervisors about potential solutions. in addition to the left turn removals, a transit stops, that is about every two blocks. there are some gaps where it is longer. we are definitely trying to keep it within four blocks. they definitely enhance the amount of three replacement. some of the trees will have to be removed along the median as

part of the project. this is an endorsement from the board to allow us to include lta in the final process. this is not a binding decision or an approval of the project. we are allowed to call them up in the final project. we will be coming back in the fall with final environmental document. that is the point at which we will approve the environmental documents can be approved alternative. obviously, we will be meeting with commissioners when we have more identifications on what those might be ahead of the process. the board of the mta approved this at their meeting. the goal is to certify the environmental document by the end of this year. if all goes well, there will be

construction by 2015. opening service in 2016. i would be happy to take any questions. supervisor avalos: thank you for your presentation. i was actually really excited about these alternatives being proposed. i had been hearing about the conundrum we were in to make this work. the efficient running of the buses, the rapid running of the buses on van ness is one of the keys. which is why we want to do bus driver traffic. i thought that this was a good way of threading a needle. this was one of the alternatives proposed. so, those are my thoughts and comments. colleagues? questions or comments? supervisor olague: i wanted to mention that i also support the median alternative and am glad

to hear that you have reached an agreement on that. i know that there was a lot of discussion on the left and right and that option made no sense to me at all, actually. i am happy to see that we are where we are and am anxious to hear from the public about what they have to say about it, but right now we are moving in the right direction. glad to hear about the timeline. looks like by the end of the year we might be improving environmental documents to move this project forward. the question, of course, would be funding and other things, the nuances that we have to work out. i think that i am just really relieved that we decided on the median alternative for the project. supervisor avalos: commissioner kim? supervisor kim: i wanted to

highlight the same things. the problem of the center lane in a solution for it is great. i am sure that you have heard that already. i know that we are keeping the southbound left turn lane onto broadway, but i feel that they -- the people will have a lot of questions about these turns, especially with potential developments. since it is a major corridor, there might be pushed back. i do not know if there is a solution. public transit, we have made that clear. franklin, kroger, obviously alternatives. really good funds on what those would be if we move forward with this design. >> to address that, we have heard about left turn removal. the 19th avenue, market street, they do not have left turns.

what we looked at was the impact. in the near term, there is no additional impact. in the long term, we know that we need to watch it more closely. the thing about left turns was that it was proposed as traffic mitigation. it could actually slow down traffic even more. it became a rationale for choosing as well. we would be happy to follow up with you. supervisor avalos: supervisor avaloi have about five cards tht will call first. [read the nam[le reads names]

>> one important thing is the demographics. if you look at the demographics of san francisco, you will find out that the majority of the people are serious. and whenever model we choose, we have to be very, very sensitive how the seniors will be accommodated. so, you did not say anything about having humps every two blocks, or however which way it is designed. just looking arbitrarily at the model, i see some 3.5, some of them for blocks. so, if you are insensitive to the seniors -- i am not saying

you are insensitive, but if you are insensitive by not really evaluating the model and you have to fix it, you know, as one of you alluded, c v m c is going to heavily impact this model. we also have a $30 million bond for asphalt and repair of roads. we need to do that in any meaningful way. so, i know that this is just a presentation, but i have been listening to the commission and how they react. it is not easy to get a consensus. finally, i just wanted to remind you that we need to pay attention to the seniors.

[tone] supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my ms george and i have lived in the corridor since 1978. i have specific concerns about the van ness fact sheet. 33% savings with a 40% reduction in stops. based on federal transit authority models, from the characteristics of bus rapid transit decision making top -- documents, chapter 3, page 5, 2009, more than 50% of the savings was achieved by eliminating these stops. second, increase transit rider ship by 39%. where does this come from? transit time is 69%.

even with a more comprehensive plan, it is highly unlikely to change driver behavior. the diversion from the slower line, 19, makes sense, but that is not transit. more than 50% of the trips the start and end in this corridor already walk or bike. this is the most green and economic alternative. where is the campaign to increase this desirable result? pedestrian countdown signals, curbing the whole grid for upgrades, median upgrades, those kinds of safeties. save for pedestrian crossings can and should be done. studies expanding upon a new build the base are not completed. but significant benefit could be achieved with many elements while maintaining six fixed use of blanks -- fixed use lengths.

this could be to the most cost- effective plane -- plant -- plan with the least negative impact. [tone] supervisor avalos: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> i have lived there for -- since 1979. it has the bulk of the problems under less than two miles. it is a different issue with gary. the issue is whether to keep the planes and make improvements, with express buses at peak hours and more stops during quiet hours, with a handicap on the elderly, who face squawking when they get on the bus and when they get off the bus. we have potential, assuming

they're walking time is 1.5 blocks extra to three blocks extra, that is not much for most people, but it is hard for the handicapped and elderly. the question is, do you make the improvements, which by its own supported mission is based on the timesaving reliability, all of which is left under the really extreme emergency situations. so, any cost benefit analysis would favor the six lanes as the most flexible and adaptable to changing situations, accomplishing a great deal without doing permanent damage to the residing neighborhood, which will give the overflow of traffic. six lanes are officially supported by pacific heights, golden gate's association, and the july meeting that was held

to formulate their position. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is jackie sacks. we heard this issue, we heard this item at our last meeting. a lot of things were brought up. one thing that concerns me, transportation is my middle name, if you want to know the truth, but that is beside the point. one thing that concerns me is the timeline of all of this.

you have the california pacific center moving in between the posts. they have got that empty building across the street. you have got to worry about the construction of the middle. you have to worry about working on the median, with non- california pacific medical center, and the impact that they have because the drivers are being rebuilt with traffic converting up on van ness. you have got to take all of that into consideration before anything is done. i mean, anything. you have got to get all the parties together. the california pacific medical center, you have got to get it all -- we have to sit down together and work out everything.

if something goes wrong, the whole project does not allow the door. i do not want to see that happen. i am all for the median. it would eliminate the traffic, which is set to overflow without any problems. thank you very much. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, mr. chair. directors. on behalf of the bicycle collision, i bring you our enthusiastic support for that alternative. as we have noted, congratulations and appreciation to staff and agency partners, who are judged -- juggling a lot of imperatives, not the least of which is that it is state route 101. i think that we are getting someplace exciting. speaking to the notion of the

corridor, you heard the presentation and the parallel facilities. folks street is really important for bicycle traffic. you know that they're pushing hard to make it an excellent bike way. we just want to make sure that with collaboration, it will happen. debbie bring them along with the project, so that it is multi- modal. we are very excited to reach this point. i think that we have got an alternative that works very well. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. let's take folks from this side, right now. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is terry and i represent the transportation policy committee that has studied this manner -- this matter extensively. i testified on may 15 and urged

support of the l p a. we also wanted to congratulate mta staff for collaborating on this high maintenance solution. we believe that the median transit operation draws from the best features of the eir, resulting in serious transfer service at lower costs. most importantly, these elements have been previously studied in the environmental process. that is what we urged at the mta. it has been a long approval process. i remember a 10-year member of this cac who left in 2008. this was on the front burner at that time now we are still spending the one-year construction project. the spur and its members urge your body to move was ahead.

thank you for your time. -- move us ahead. thank you for your time. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please? >> my name is jim frank. i am a member of the san francisco incumbent forward push on this project. this is a great alternative. we were really happy that you came together with this good alternative. deals with all the issues that are the big issues for van ness. as mentioned before, california is one of the slowest. in the middle, the buses will be this -- the fastest. this is really good. it is what we want. the city appreciates us. all of the pedestrian improvements are great. it will make van ness kind of a

through corridor. it will help people, rather than diverting them, they can move through and go through on a van that nests, so that there will be fewer impacts. i encourage you to go forward with this. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. i am with san francisco transit. i have written muni my whole life. i wanted to say that i supported this project. this will greatly speed up service on the 47 in the of 49. -- on the 47 and the 49. lots of people will greatly benefit from this project. it will also revitalize the run- down corridor. it will also perpetuate -- not

perpetuate, but really, i guess, it will really add to our relying on the transit first policy. for too long we have been favoring the automobile. we have got to start planning sustainably. this is just one of the first steps in that. please endorse this alternative and move ahead with this alternative. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. please, come forward. >> mr. chairman, supervisors, your staff made a very thorough presentation to the civic center planning benefit committee. we did not, as a board, take a position on this, but i wanted to express my views, as a longtime person involved in the

civic center. i am delighted that the city family got together and came up with an alternative that everyone can support. i would like to say that i have written on the system -- ridden on the system in ecuador. you can travel very efficiently across the city, and it is a very congested city. therefore, i look forward to having the median alternative in san francisco for rarely discussed. -- thoroughly discussed. i do not think that one should dismiss five minutes as an insignificant amount of time. i ride on the mission express bus now and then. when it zips along, you really feel as though you are getting somewhere in your day is going

to be more efficient than otherwise. also, i think that this project is going to do a good deal for the urban design of a van ness, which is a hodgepodge of improvements going back 50 to 80 years. i think that it will rationalize the street and help to improve the area, enhancing the value is of the different buildings. i urge you to adopt this alternative and to proceed as rapidly as you can. thank you. supervisor cohen: supervisor avalos: thank we supervisor avalos: jig thank you -- supervisor avalos: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> the neighborhood association, on the south end of the corridor, firmly endorses this option.

the market octavia community advisory committee voted unanimously to endorse the center-run brt in the winter. the van ness citizens advisory committee voted 6-3. there is a lot of public support for this that goes back to 1995, when muni came out with an four corridors plan, including bus rapid transit. all the way in between through 2009, they are seen as a critical part of the effect of this project. this has been in the works for quite some time. unfortunately, it has been marketed as a something to be built quickly, but we are almost 15 years since we started talking about it. we probably could have built three subway lines by then, but i will not buy rest. the mitigation aspect will be very important. the market octavia cac is very

concerned about franklin and golf at market street. let me be clear, we are not interested in facilitating further automobiles in that corridor. we want to secure it for future cycle tracks and transit improvements, for optimizing that court or before the pedestrians. we want -- corridor for the pedestrians. we want to reintroduce the crosswalks that were removed in that part of town. the neighbors association has put together a letter and that we have distributed to the mta and supervisor olague, and hopefully supervisor kim, with a list of possible litigations that are transit mitigation. thank you for supervisor avalos: thank you very much for mentioning those crosswalks. crosswalks. i have walked them many times