>> in regard to replacement of trolley coaches, one thing they should take into consideration, the mta should take into consideration is when the fliers were retired and new electric coaches came in, they were having problems with the overhead sort of thing. the new coaches did not -- the overheads on the fliers did not accommodate head problems with the electric coaches, this sort of thing. when you bring in new electric coaches make sure the overheads for these coaches are put in properly so that you don't have a lot of breakdowns. because that's what's been happening lately. as far as the hybrids it would help immensely if you bring in ada compliant hybrids. i have mentioned this before. because on the hybrid they have on the 44, you get on

the bus. the first two seats are for wheelchair passengers. if you've got a wheelchair and someone with a walker or with a cane, they've got to walk about 10, 12 feet before they can finally sit down. that is absolutely ridiculous. also the new coaches, they should also have so what they did with old coaches, they took down the bar next to the fair -- on the fair box. someone who is visually impaired or someone who has problem with the balance cannot hold on to anything after they pay their fair or they show the -- it is a good five feet between the fare box and seat * and i think that is wrong. they should make sure there is something people can hold onto so they can sit

safely, thank you. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public who would like to comment? seeing no one come forward we will close public comment. to follow up with mr. ito. just to followup question. i just think it is important that we look how we can maximize the life expectancy of our existing vehicles. want to make sure they are devoting the proper resources to that from the mta with all of our available sources. so i think that is something we'd like to make sure that the mta is cognizant of moving forward. you know, we can see that. maybe an additional plan that they can look at how they are actually doing greater work toward fleet management toward rehabilitation within fleet management i think would be important to see. >> yeah, that is the type of analysis we can

incorporate into this update that we will be working on the rest of this year early into next year. >> okay. thank you. that was item number ten. i would like to take a two-minute break, because we don't have a quorum. we would lose quorum. if i were to step out for a split second, i just need two minutes. be right back. two-minute recess.

we are back in session. we had passed over item five. let's come back to it. we have commissioner olagi, item five mostly represents her district. >> recommended approval of final report of central freeway in octavia study. this san action item. >> good afternoon, commissioners, jeff keller, senior planner in planning division. i will preserve time for your discussion and questions. this item is to present finding and recommendations

of the central freeway in octavia circulation study with which the authority has been engaged for some time in partnership with our partner agencies and the community. it was funded by a planning grant from metropolitan transportation commission a number of years ago. the purpose of the study was really to take a look back since the former central freeway was replaced with new touch stone ramps at market and the boulevard facility, which runs through the heart of hayes valley. recommend near-term improvements and high level look of circulation and what those mean from policy and planning perspective in this key core area of this city which serves so many travel demands, whether they are local or cross-town or regional threats that are accessing the freeway goods movement. high levels of bicycles and pedestrians, lots of interesting opportunities and challenges.

just to remind everyone that not only was the central freeway replaced and opened in 2005 with the new facility, octavia boulevard in addition the board of supervisors approved the market plan which called for several thousand units of new housing. if you have been on upper market you have been seeing that, now that project financing has returned, as well as several thousand new jobs through construction of new office space in the community. given the role of the study, the focus looked at needs in hayes valley, upper market and other parts of octavia area as well as connections to the rest of the city and the region. taking a look at what we know about the needs in the area, as we conducted the needs assessment and developed the articulation of key challenges, the boulevard project brought a lot of benefits from an urban design and land use perspective to the

immediate area. we know there's a lot of issues that remain. these center around the high level of traffic that seeks to access the facility via primarily the open cell and franklin gof couplet pairs. this brings concerns about vehicle complex and motorist behavior, pedestrian safety needs and needs for bicycles. we see areas with sitting transit provided but significant crowding issues. who's traveling in this neighborhood, on a daily basis, quarter million with a destination but fully three times that amount are passing through the neighborhood. these are trips that affect the network but do not necessarily have an origin. these are dominated by auto trips. it is no surprise in some respects because a high majority have trip patterns not well served by transit

as well as other patterns. they may not be having an end in downtown. may be from west side or east side or south bay. this is another presentation showing three-quarters is just passing through. another addition with this installed this functions as a key side to the boulevard via open cell. when it wasn't open that was severed and traffic was reduced significantly. when it was opened traffic grew again on the facilities but did not return to level previously present when original central freeway was installed. some travelers shifted routes, whether to ai jay september corridors such as the laguna san jose corridor, across town to state route 1, 9th and 10th. pulling this out, this is difficult especially given on a citywide basis we have

experienced economic growth, population growth, which has obscured some of that impact. one of the key topics was to inform our countywide planning because so much of local and regional network touches this part of the city. the policy framework was three parts: improve circulation, focus on strategis that will shift travel alreadis to transit and nonmotorized, improve walkability where local trips are dominated by pedestrian, bicyclists and transit riders. under this rubric the city developed a strategy that looks at streets not only in isolation but understood they function as network and collection serving similar travel demands need to be developed as multimodal corridors with some streets playing important roles for surface-running transit; others playing a key role for the dwpment of the bicycle network such as that as we afford with street level we are thinking wholelysing tickly

about how the network functions. all this is detailed in the report. i will touch a couple highlights. we recognize all our surface streets need to be safe and accessible for pedestrians. that some streets are going to serve and do serve a role for vehicular traffic but improvements need to focus on vulnerable users, particularly pedestrians. we are thinking about how the network as a whole functions. in terms how this boils down to the street level, some highlights. these are detailed in executive summary. on east-west streets, thinking about how do we develop corridors through the neighborhood and around the neighborhood that support community livability but key travel needs we see developing over the near medium and longer term. recognizing that turk and golden gate at the northern nd have excess capacity and opportunity to develop that

as bicycle connection. mcallister serving a key muni function and recognizing roll for bicycles, paid for transit and role of 16th for traffic. spinning the axis, church and fill more serving for 22 fillmore. looking into octavia, we will delve into this regarding design improvements that can tweak that corridor. gulf and frankton were moving forward with the van ness and octavia market impact to deliver pedestrian improve pts, the crossing environment particularly as the key auto corridors may be implemented by brt. in the soma grid is recommendations from the ent project in coordination with long range plan core study, which the team will be -- is developing and

will be presenting and chairing with you over the coming months. finally taking a look up even further away from individual streets, recognizing that this part of town, transportation issues mirror those of the city as a whole. in fact, the region as a whole. the challenge of developing a livable and sustainable way, managing automobile traffic, providing options for diverse travel patterns. what are programmatic and citywide strategis that can help be of -- help manage the demand in the neighborhood. this may be everything from parking management to supporting employer based measures such as shuttle services, looking at how does freeway access in the soma grid function in terms of priority for buses and high occupancy vehicles. actually improvements across the county, whether it is caltrain corridor on the eastern part. the 19th avenue corridor and the more policy based

strategies such as extending the fast pass to daly city, might encourage people using this other network to make this an alternative to make their trip. we talked about street level improvements, high-level policies. i will briefly touch on some of the nearer term project opportunities the study did a little analysis on. the first is looking at the crosswalks, my commute through hayes valley, recognizes it iss from straiting to be walking across the street and have to cross three times to continue as a pedestrian. these are high movements that conflict. we want to be careful about openings and ensure safety was paramount. we did analysis regarding interval or phases to open those. there are significant trade-offs in some of the areas, whether it involves

reducing lanes or providing a dedicated signal phase. our finding are that generally we should move forward with further design for opening the crosswalks. the highest priority would be felon golf, the least traffic. southbound golf area. you could cut that down to one lane or protect it. the good news is as these have come online some of those changes provide additional relief for motorists and provide alternate paths of travel for the network. we are blessed in san francisco with the grid network to help us manage some of those turn movements in a more effective way. another area we looked at was how can we make octavia function even if we are not drastically reducing traffic. there are property improvements. most are familiar with oak and octavia, eastbound traffic making a right onto

southbound octavia. there are opportunities we have worked out with the mta and project team to improve pedestrian crossings, provide corner bulbs, extend medians to the northern side and look at reconfiguring oak street to east of octavia from three lanes to two. recognizing that two lanes are only that what is provided from oak, west of octavia boulevard. this would help to also additionally channel some of that turning traffic and potentially extend that -- those two turning lanes further westward on oak to help ease that traffic, provide for more orderly cuing and paramount improve the pedestrian environment. >> it wasn't that long ago we constructed octavia boulevard. was there an anticipation we would be making improvement so quickly to -- >> sure. >> the pedestrian areas so

recently built? >> thanks for that question, mr. chair. the boulevard was one of the first of its kind in terms of facility that is replacing an elevated freeway with a contact-sensitive and neighborhood-friendly design. it was inevitable certain tweaks were going to be necessary. the order of magnitude of improvements we are talking about here are much lower than the, you know, 30 million plus it took to construct the boulevard. they are seeking to leverage growth opportunities happening on the corridor, leveraging impact fee revenue and also simply the disturbance of those takes place to make sure we are not making anything worse whether it is because of a curb cut for a building or for parking management. some of these tweaks, adding a corner bulb, adding a few seconds to realize a safe crossing, making sure at some locations there shouldn't be ped administration ak chew waistings and should get a green light. this is something we need

to do on an ongoing basis as growth happens and how many are using the facility and what the levels of congestion are. >> thanks. >> the final area of detail analysis we conducted may seem a little remote from study area but on the expressway segment of san jose, which connects this part to the 280 freeway. this cuts right in front the bernal heights and glen park -- >> bernal cut? >> precisely. >> which was way back in history cut out for railroad line and eventually thought the feeder to mission freeway which fortunately was constructed. the objective in this part on a long-range basis have been anticipated by the glen park area plan but also desires and opportunities among community and city agencies to improve conditions in the nearer term. specifically focusing on the northbound segment, three lanes of traffic and very substandard bike lane at the curb. >> actually a gutter.

>> yes. >> it's got paint. >> you can see a little in this picture. generally say you want to build a five-foot bike lane, the practice would be that five feet does not include that portion. it is nearly half of the right-of-way of that lane. >> it is my route. >> you are family -- familiar with it. >> i'm curious. >> this is something that took me a little time to wrap my head around is you have three streams of traffic coming in at that point. the off-ramp, the heaviest load. you have san jose avenue, which comes in from the left, after it dives under the freeway and the monterey ramp which connects san francisco to glennwood park to san jose. so you don't have collisions among the streams, having the three lanes allows that to happen.

it is a complex issue that implies looking at not only the 280 connection but also the connection to the local streets. we looked at three options at a sketch level planning analysis. one is to signalize some of those traffic flows. the second was -- excuse me, number one on the slide would be close san jose avenue. it serves about 500 vehicles per hour so you would need to manage that in a different way. the second option on the slide would be to close monterey and the ramp, which serves very low traffic volume in the peak. that traffic would likely be accommodated on ther routes. these have trade offs, whether from traffic diversion or what it would do to the actually local context. among the three, the study notes monterey as most promising, maintained for

bicycle or potentially as land use and corridor planning advances be dismantled. clearly further community input is needed. this part of the analysis was really just to establish at a planning level what are the possibilities and anticipate a future phase of planning work that would bring together community groups from both sides of the cut to look at this in a more detailed fashion. what are near-term opportunities and long-term opportunities. already there are conversations going on with multiple supervisor's offices, mta and caltrains about what a near term possibility s. the authority in partnership with the agencies did planning grant application in past cycle regarding that conceptual work and visioning. unfortunately it was declined in this cycle but putting this together and estimating what that level of effort would be, positions as well for that work and continue to work with partners on that issue.

>> all those sound like not really good options. >> it is a challenge. it is a tough nut to crack in terms of the trade-offs and impacts to the different communities. a lot thinking the monterey ramp would have significant im markets but it is not going northward much. a lot take it southbound but going northbound it doesn't serve as high levels of traffic as you might think. >> that monterey boulevard is not actually monterey. >> you come from eastbound monterey. >> you take a left. >> well, it is almost like a straight. monterey boulevard goes one direction, you go to the right. >> this is the -- when you are coming from the

monterey boulevard toward glen park, you face sort of a fork in the road. you take a left, you go diamond to the bart station. if you take a slight right you go onto the ramp that justin is talking about. leads to san jose by russo. where the bike lane starts essentially. the problem is you have cars coming in and wanting to weave into the stream of traffic with the cars that are coming at much higher speed from the freeway, as well as the cars that are coming from the other side of san jose avenue into the bernal cut so the bike lane is hanging in the balance. a good amount of traffic headed from san jose avenue off-ramp northbound wants to take russo to go into

glen park so you have crossings on the bike lane. that is the problem. >> in a more robust planning process where we are able the bring transportation engineers in and designers there could be an opportunity where all three connectivity points could be preserved but might involve more aggressive changes to how that is configured or how land use trade-offs or circulation trade-off modes so those are questions we want answered in collaboration with the community and partners. >> is there more discussion going back to san he say between randall and all the areas were, this convergence, where the gutter is. actually talking about using the sidewalk area to be both bicycle and pedestrian -- there's very few pedestrians but a lot of bicycles that use that site.

i would be great to move out of the gutter to that space. >> sure. if i understand your question, you are talking about the sidewalk which you see -- northbound bernal cut. >> this area, there is maybe an opportunity to use some of this wholly for bicycles. clearly would involve curb construction, which greatly increases cost of designing. certainly for a long-term vision, medium-term vision that would be possible. there is an additional pedestrian facility up the hill, which is much more pleasant to walk on. some community gardens and what not. very few pedestrians on that segment. >> we look to the possibility of relocating the light poles that are practically on the curb on that northbound sidewalk to top of parapet, that keeps

the hillside from coming down. pretty expensive receive things. part of a long-range vision. that would free up the entire sidewalk and maybe, you know, extending that a little bit within the perimeter of the current bike lane. you'd have a facility wide enough to do both. pedestrian and bicycle movement without the hazard of having the light poles in the way of moving bicycle. again, we are talking about fairly significant amendments of money. >> this is the biggest connector from this part of san francisco towards the northern part of san francisco. yeah, we have to figure out how to make these investments, do it right. stuff like this has to get done. we are seeing more and more cyclists coming from there, which is great. >> go back to the slides.

i won't dwell on all the finding, i think i have touched on them throughout the presentation. the real story of octavia boulevard, what it is. as i mentioned before,ly reiterate, it did bring sitting benefits to the community. some traffic diverted else where. as this part of town grows and we seek to provide robust alternatives for folks to get to their destinations via walking, biking, transit, ride sharing, car sharing, we will be challenged to do so to make sure these high traffic volumes don't impair the neighborhood's ability to grow and we are recognizing that travel patterns are really diverse and that we will have to be creative, supporting employers that want to provide different options for their commuter, whether their locations are in san francisco or else where. i think what we have also learned from octavia boulevard and finding show

that as the street is rebalanced d to prioritize non automobiles we need to focus on how this works in tandem. as the conversation provides at the city level how our corridors function in the next 20, 30 years, we need to be looking at those investments to be paired with those changes to the circulation network for automobiles. paired with robust tdm strategies and policies to manage that demand, whether it is in those that lead into the neighborhood. so if it is looking at how do improvements to san jose get paired with regional services, some of which are using the corridor, if you consider the shuttles going to the south bay a form of transit, they are use that corridor now. are there opportunities to prioritize public or private transit in some of the corridors. finally, continuing to think about complete streets in a san francisco sensitive fashion. we