reason, and i was on the citizens' advisory committee, this has not been studied to the same degree. the only explanation i was given was this is not funded to the same degree. if it causes real problems for the handicapped and seniors, they will have to go two blocks more once they get off. this is not a huge walking distance for most people, but it is for the handicapped, and it could so easily be dealt with by having stressed buses during rush hour and regular buses during whatever is considered the quiet time. also, the advantage of the no build alternative is to save at

least $70 million. the only time difference you talking about to really put into the improvements for this alternative, the same ones that you're talking about for the center alternatives like fewer bus stops, all those other boarding, different signs for the buses -- if you put all those things into the alternatives, you're only talking about a couple years difference in saving time in transit. i know they do not say anything about experimenting with these buses. bay do not say anything about parking in the california street -- they do not say anything about parking in california street. so, i would advise you to pay attention --

commissioner campos: thank you. thank you. [inaudible] >> members of the committee -- even when citizens, before you and say "will you please look at me, will you please listening to me?" you have better things to do. ipod watched her three minutes and for 30 seconds 1 supervisor looked her in the face. i guess if i did things like you did, i would one a look my constituents in the face either. one of my friends said "this is my friend ray. he will tell you things that even in your best friend will not tell you."

i didn't know how to take that. i think people do not bother to come to these meetings because they know that you do not give a damn what they say. you will have conversations amongst yourselves. even the board president and mr. farrell and supervisor wiener -- commissioner campos: i would ask you to refer your comments to the entire commission. thank you. >> i know. that's a good way of deferring everyone being criticized. i have a right to say what i think about members of the body whose behavior i think is most

egregious. you've really got to the point where you think 99% of the citizens of the city do not matter at all. i met the point where any of you are running for reelection, and voting for anyone else but you. commissioner campos: just a reminder -- >> i know we're not electioneering. commissioner campos: just a public comment on the specific item. >> and my public comment is a person came up here, very politely ask you to listen to what she had to say, and you just ignore hurt the entire time. commissioner campos: thank you. >> my name is george. i have lived in the corridor. we can look at the bold alternatives as well as the need to spend more on the options. i would like to say two things quickly today. one is the cost effectiveness

calculations and also the reliability of the issues. i specifically request an understanding of where the cost effectiveness came from. can you turn on the overhead? the only way i can come up with the cost effectiveness that is quoted ais if every single rider gets the maximum time benefit. more reasonable numbers would easily come up with the cost effectiveness -- the second thing i want to speak to is the head by.

it is the beginning of southbound at north point and van ness, which shows we have clustering of travelers who do not care what bus they are on, 47 or 49, during rush hour on van ness. 43% of the buses are within three minutes of each other by schedule. 17% -- 14% are within one minute. obviously, you add delays in, it's going to get worse. 69% of the bus time is outside the corridor. none of that is factored into reliability. furthermore, there is no actual reliability model presented. you cannot calculate it. it is only anticipated stocks that can be calculated in the

model in the corridor. there is not a method or a guarantee since more than half the time, these buses are outside the court or. that is not going to change. however, you can do two things. you can get at least half of the improvements in public safety and reliability benefits by doing things michele was talked about, things that are ready and the plan. it needs to be done. commissioner campos: thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> good morning, again. my name is jackie sachs. i was at the planning committee when this came up for approval. i will tell you the same thing i

told them. in alba -- i am for consideration because it is a study they have been working on for years. when you are working on the construction for the brt to be worked in the center divide, you also have to remember the cpfc has to come between geary and post. i think it is very crucial. whoever is working with the brt all have to get together and

coordinate there time lines -- their time lines. commissioner campos: thank you, ma'am. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is jason henderson. but just want to reiterate from the plans a program meeting, we are enthusiastically in support of the central lane hybrid option. we voted unanimously to endorse this project in the spring. on the bus rapid transit citizens advisory committee, we worked to tweak the alternatives over the past five years. so, there is a lot of support

for this project, and especially having the school bus way in the center of van ness. doing nothing means everyone will suffer. everyone will be in traffic. buses will be in traffic. motorists are going to be at a standoff. you will improve by five minutes at least in the corridor for transit experience in the next few months to go to the planning commission, and part of that social contract is to have gold plated transit that works for people. i want to move to the mitigation part of the project. that is going to be very, very important, particularly down

towards market street and van ness. the neighborhood association provided the mta and relevant supervisors with a letter with keep medications we urge you to look at, particularly the intersection of page, franklin, and market, where you're going to see essentially, hopefully, a bicycle boulevard on page street and on franklin, not the one way -- on franklin, the one way is in dire need of improvements. we agree with the mta's conclusion in the document that in the long term, the traffic congestion in that corridor does not warrant accommodating more cars, but warrants by transit first -- a transit first approached. i also urge you to make sure the transit trains are not impacted. as the medications are not liberated, -- medications are

not liberated, we need to take a good close look to preserve a cycle track. there are a lot of moving parts here. commissioner campos: thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> at the last plans and programs meeting, i requested that whatever youtube -- you do, we need to address the concerns of the seniors. you can make statements. some of you all don't seem to get it. i think you will get it if you

take a number of seniors and how much time they take from point a to point b. the planners, they like to do things were they create conceptual plans. conceptual plans are very rosy. what we really need is empirical data. in this plan that has been chosen, we the constituents of san francisco want to have an idea of what really will happen on franklin street. what really will happen on fourth street. we know there's going to be some heavy construction.

some of it may even be an underground -- underground if california is allowed to have some sort of a tunnel underground. all of this will come in the way of the van ness corridor. this is a very, very heavy traveled corridor. we're not getting the empirical data. for the last five or six years, we have been discussing about this and that an whatever. we can discuss for 10 years. if you put a bunch of clowns, we can discuss it for 20 years. what is really going to come out of it is going to have a meaningful dialogue.

some of us have seen it all of the world. and as to the speaker -- that's on new. i'm going to remind you. if you represent your districts, please do due diligence. thank you very much. commissioner campos: thank you. next speaker, please. my name is ben hoffman and i am a proud member of the san francisco transit riders association. the only twas i know of getting empirical evidence -- to ways i know of getting empirical evidence -- there are loads of examples of cities around the

world that have robust brt. the other is to build the project. we have all the empirical evidence from other cities about a successful model to bring to san francisco, and so, i strongly advocate for this project on behalf of the san francisco transit riders union. we are a transit first city. we should be acting as a transit first city. we have the slowest transit system and the united states at 8 miles per hour. the only way to speed up is with

robust rapid transit. we strongly urge for this project's approval, and with the mta and the board of supervisors, thank you for all your work on this. thank you. commissioner campos: thank you. if there is any other member of the public would like to speak, please come forward. >> good morning. i am here to voice my support and hope you guys approve the brt with limited left turns on the van ness ave. this affects the 47 and 49 lines. many people from those neighborhoods rely on those lines every day to get to and from work. often they are delayed because of ridiculous traffic levels on van ness ave. not only that come up with the

advent of brt, you will be revitalizing the corridor. if you walk up the corridor, it is lonely out there. it is pretty downtrodden. this really brings new hope and it will breathe new life on to the corridor. and you guys would also be reaffirming transit first, which is part of the city charter. to many times, we have been planning for the automobile, and not so much for transit. this would be a step in the right direction. and that's it. thank you. commissioner campos: thank you. commissioner wiener, do you have a question? commissioner wiener: no. commissioner campos: next speaker, please. my name is brad thomas. i want to applaud you guys on the high level of coordination.

this is an excellent compromise and i think it represents the citizens of the city " well, particularly transit riders in general. one thing, there are currently 85,000, roughly 85,000 automobile trips per day on van ness ave. i think it is important to point out on the center lane brt that needs to be a separation between us and automobile, and actual -- an actual separation of some sort. these folks are not going to understand, then to wait

finding. what i am recommending is that there be some sort of simple separation to really, truly separate the brt lanes. if those folks end up inside of those lanes, it's really goi ng to slow down those brt buses. thank you. commissioner campos: thank you. is there any other member of the public would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner wiener. commissioner wiener: thank you. in an enthusiastic supporter of this project. i really want to compliment staff for the really elegant solution.

there is this a never ending debate. i think everyone probably agreed this defeats a lot of the purpose. i know there are operational concerns at the mta, and i know stop payment -- staff came up with a good solution. this projectthis project is an f what is critical to the future of transportation in the city. we know we have a growing area. if we did not start beefing up the class that -- transit class,

we will have a big problem. the artbrt is a critical situat. i was taking this inbound and was literalthere was a truck pao close to occur. the whole line shut down because of one truck that was conflicted with a train. that is exactly why we need to move towards physical separation between the transit system and audit system whenever possible. this is a terrific project and solution, and i strongly support it. supervisor campos: thank you. supervisor farrell. supervisor farrell: i want to thanks folks for coming out, and

i was the one who continue the item, and i want to think stop for coming out and spend a lot of time with me. there are concerned i will continue to address with labor groups, of pacific heights residents' association last week. we will continue to do so with individuals, and make sure the mitigation efforts that will come forward really come to light in the next few years as the project goes forward will be very important for the neighborhood. it is something i will be focused on for district, too. i think this is the right thing to move it forward, and i will support it. commissioner olague: i really think will to stop for coming up to thiankful to staffr coming up to this. i want to take you for your efforts. and for those coming out to show their support for it.

i fully support it also. commissioner chu:iu: thank you. i want to thank all of the difference stakeholders in moving to what has been described, and i agree, what is an elegant solution. i travel on this almost every day of the week, and we know the experience right now on the streets are ones of congestion during rush hour and certainly traffic and transit situation that leaves a lot to be desired, so i appreciate that. division is really moving forward -- the viiosion is realy moving forward, and i hope this gets done on time and on budget. one thing i would like to ask is traffic projections that are related to the project. this is the discussion that some of the stock has been engaged in. it is anticipated there will be

leased 20,002 trips per day going to the corner of van ness and geary. an issue we will deal with is whether the proposed mitigation that have been provided are enough, and frankly, there are two very different pictures of what could happen with the project when its online. one perspective is the trips will not amount to any additional congestion. there is a democrdifferent perspective that can lead to gridlock. wondering if you have any thoughts or comments on that. >> thank you for the very thoughtful comment and question. first of all, we have had some involvement cpmc proposal or initiative rather.

i think it is terrific it falls of a location where both of the brt project will insi intersect. obviously the importance was look at. the van ness corridor has a concentration of senior housing that is happening every day, so this is really an ideal way to gauge -- location to talk about introducing high-quality transit. as the discussions continue, i am sure we will be available to provide for their clarity on what could be done in addition to what was already discussed as

far as dealing with mitigation. i think that both, the persons of the project there have made it significantly easier for the impacts to be mitigated. this is a key component of the discussions, and we will stay involved and to make sure we can provide as much positive as we can to make sure both projects are successful in locating in the area. supervisor chiu: thank you. one last comment request i would like to make is if there is someone on your staff that has been focused on this, if you could see -- send information to my office about what your projected traffic impacts are and to what degree the medications that have been offered address that, because i think we are provided with very

different pictures of what could happen. i have a feeling the truth is somewhere in between, but the reality is we do not know whether we will see smooth- sailing traffic through those intersections or complete and utter gridlock. it is my perspective we should think right now about how we planned for traffic that could be more extreme than what cpmc is projecting, and i would really love to get your id independent perspective on this as we wrestle with this the next couple of weeks. >> i will pass this along to planning so they can respond to you in detail, but i think what you are calling for is precisely the essence of planning. making sure we plan for the moment when the congestion happens. we have several items on the agenda today at the same nature. the idea is to catch it when we can still do something about it,

so when the problem materializes, we are ready. the federal parliament is recognizing that by putting a significant amount of money up front into making the project happen. we will be in touch with your office. commissioner chiu: i just want to move forward as quickly as we can, regardless of what we end up seeing with the project. >> think you. if you can make sure you share that information on the project with the entire commission and any member of the public you also request a copy of that. commissioner mar: i want to say i am supportive of the centrally and alternative as proposed by the plans and programs committee. i also want to say i think this is a critical project for the city, given division for 2035 in the