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 will never have the right-of-way to have a single street, bike lane, brt way, boulevard for pedestrians and four lanes of traffic but a cross

group thinking in integrated fashion how we are providing for the network. i will close with some of the next steps we are working on. we are coordinating the improves on franklin and golf. we are supporting other projects on the planning and design. earlier on the agenda if you can recall two hours ago you made allocations to the ongoing safety programs. these include activities such as reopening closed crosswalks. the mta is working on projects such as the lower polk bike network and advancing planning for upper polk and other projects in the design phase. finally being very supportive of two key transit spines in the neighborhood of market and van ness, which are moving forward in the process or planning space to improve transit on the key corridors which are really the spines that the entire

market and octavia neighborhood has plans around. with that it would be happy by to answer any other questions. i thank you for your attention at this late hour. >> mr. olagi. >> i just want to thank you for your presentation and look forward to the continued conversations on this issue. i worked on the market on octavia and it was pretty exciting as far as how it looked at all the different modes of, you know, transportation, walking, bicycling. we focused a lot on parking requirements at that time. at some point it might be interesting to get a sense of how that has affected or not some of the goals i think, which is to build a more sustainable neighborhood, i think. i just want to see how the parking issue and what we did there has or has not affected the rest. you know, some analysis, i guess, would be interesting

to have at this point. one of the buzz issues that i keep hearing about is the whole congestion pricing issue. i know you all have been studying it for a long time. i have gone to a couple public workshops. i don't know of any city in this country that has implemented it. i know stockholm, london has. where are we in the conversation? >> through the chair, thank you for the questions. they are timely and related. in some respects, the authority and various other agencies are advancing the pressing dialogue in a number of fashions. in 2010 the areawide cordoned pricing feasibility study was approved by the board and board directed us to seek funding to move the analysis of congestion pricing into the phase. we have information from key stakeholders and

community and other stakeholders to take a look at how does parking management get to addressing that need as well in terms of reducing that peak period congestion, making surface transit run better and providing funds to invest in mobility improvements. our present activities on pricing are along two streams. the first is we recently were awarded a grant from the federal highway administration to look at that question of how do our parking management policies sort of beyond simply managing on-street parking to an availability target, the sf park pilot, we are excited about and collect evaluation data on this fall. the next generation of parking or regulatory strategis from a demand management. this will involve a lot of data collection of private supplies of parking and the usage of that parking, what are incentive of folks if they have that subsidized and options available to

the city to use parking as a policy tool from a congestion management point of view. the second area of activity is the authority in its pending role as treasure island mobility management agency, actually have state legislation to implement congestion pricing in a very focused but important location, access to and from treasure island on the bay bridge. which is a really exciting pilot. not only from a congestion management point of view, important for performance but also from institutional and technological point of view in how we deliver and work with forecasts like caltrans who have important jurisdiction over the bridge and interests in the pricing policy and how do we deliver the project on an ongoing basis in terms of all the revenues and how those are distributed in a set of improvements. that is very exciting. the ultimate objective of study is to say is, it is

feasible and take an option as another alternative in a subsequent alternative view with congestion pricing that would be fully waived by decision makers and the public. i think this anticipates simply -- sort of lays it out to the public that we could let traffic grow as already has. it is having significant impacts on the neighborhood. we will be in trouble if we will be relying on the transit system to move people through the neighborhood and having safe n environment for bicyclists and being able to build the pedestrian environment and bicycle network we want. it is a really important dialogue. i think this helps set up that conversation, a citywide conversation about growth versus the strategies we will need from the land use side to manage that growth effectively. >> great. we have a time frame? >> for which piece? >> the parking and the studies.

>> sure. we just got our authorization from federal highway. we will be starting outside. about a year-long process. >> great. >> we will be coming back with updates and looking forward to all the commissioner's input. >> thank you. this is a great answer. >> i would say another thing to watch is san francisco transportation plan, the long-range update, which puts these issues on a countywide and even regional basis. >> i remember when i was look agent the treasure island plan, but not as it currently stands but the one that was approved about a year ago. the environmental impact report i remember having as many as over 30 significant impacts due to this whole traffic piece so it makes sense to me that this congestion pricing would be applied to this. but are we looking at treasure island i guess preproject, right? as it is currently? as it stands currently?

>> i will have him address that question. >> probably not the new project, right? interesting. >> deputy for planning. yes, we are working with tita to plan for the eventual day one of the housing perspective in 2016. currently 30 residents to eventually thousand in 2016 and 8,000 in the eventual build-out. >> if there are no comments or questions, thank you for your presentation. we can go on to public comment. seeing no one come forward we will close public comment. this is an action item so colleagues, we have a motion to move this forward to the full authority. okay. we will take that without objection. very good. we have -- let's see. introduction of new items.

>> this is an information item. >> colleagues? >> not today. >> public comment on item 11? we will close public comment. >> 12, public comment. >> again, we will -- public comment. please come forward. >> good afternoon, commissioners. jacob moody, executive director of bay view hunter's point commission for city improvement. sitting through finance and this committee i find out how complex this is dealing with all these transportation projects and how infan test millie small we are. this has quietly optered bay view shuttle transporting hundreds to their health points in bay view, san francisco general hospital and st. lukes * allowing them to take

advantage of life saving health procedures, preventive scare and lifestyle altering activities. in addition it's isn'ted toxic tours sponsored by black coalition on aids and ellis griffin to hunter's view to the housing authority mandated appointments to make sure they can remain in their housing, plus many other community activities. therefore it is disappointing our project is stuck in its process. staff around sfcta, san francisco department of public health, community health promotion and prevention and the foundation, worked on a plan proposaled to take advantage of funding for two years of operation of the health shuttle. in addition the aforementioned staff developed a plan to support the san francisco department heal zone and fcta facility within bay view with intent of making changes in the shuttle operations agreed upon in

the plan. in conversations with commissioner cohen on friday, i said that we could not operator on the budget amount or time frame offered in the proposal. perhaps question can but do so would require more negotiation with partners. it is our hope these can happen quickly and we can move forward with this project at the october commission meeting. thank you very much. >> thank you. any other members of the public who would like to comment? we will close public comment. >> 13, adjournment. >> thank you. we are adjourned.