streamlining for projects that are within rights-of-way. i think it leans a little more towards highway rights-of-way than transit rights-of-way, but i think that might be something we see a little bit more of in a successor bill. so, i think there is some movement at the c-e-q-a/nepa level that could help us, but again, the horizon what we're talking about are much beyond. and to the extent we're talking about very significant projects, these are things that would warrant significant environmental review. it's really the long pole in this point would be the planning process to get to the stage of being ready to enter into environmental review. and i don't know how to shortcut that. i don't know if we should -- shortcut on those suggesting how to streamline that. or if this is something,

thinking about transportation in the city for the next, say, 50 years or something that probably needs a lot of vetting and process and analysis. there's a lot of different ways to do it, what we have on the map are pretty motional. even getting to planning principles we could agree on as a city. >> this doesn't mean -- long-term transit vision doesn't mean that we stop making improvements [inaudible]. >> yeah, not at all. [inaudible]. >> okay, now we're going to stop and we're going to look at this long-term transit vision and won't do anything. we're still going to continue to improve our system. >> yeah, absolutely. you know, we have been operating that way without, you know, real long-term vision. there was the four corridors plan from the 70s or 80s precursor to the central

subway. we haven't had a long-term transportation plan in the city. things still happen, improvements still get made. it will absolutely continue along that path. we're obviously pursuing -- we should have environmental clearance for van ness this summer. we're moving forward with geary after that. possible there willible others that come in ensuing years. so, this shouldn't at all be construed as something that would put a pause on everything because, again, before any kind of document likev this like this, whether it's a strategy document, full kind of master plan would be developed could take quite a long time and we don't want to stop progress. we don't have the luxury of stopping progress in the meantime. ~ >> but this would give us a sort of lens to focus on those improvements [inaudible]. the maps that we want to eventually achieve. >> yeah, it may be that and it

may be sequential. it may be something that you can kind of do in layers, but maybe this will point to where we should really focus our core service before we actually plan say the brt or some significant [speaker not understood] project. also to lay a road map for lack of a better word, for what we're thinking forward, the more we can think through and plan in the future, the easier it is to implement in the future. >> members of the board, director heinicke? >> thank you. i'm glad we're doing planning. at the risk of receiving negative, i will say when i hear about a 50 or 100-year plan, that to me is closing in on meaningless, not just because 50 to 100 years i won't be here to enjoy it, but i think when you say something is going to take that long, you might as well say these are a bunch of slides we're going to debate and never really do

anything meaningful about. now, i'm not accusing you of that, but i'm saying you asked for feedback, and my feedback would be we should continue to beat the drum that our current system is not meeting capacity. it isn't. for a variety of reasons i had to ride in late today. 10 o'clock, there was still heavy traffic in the subway. it took longer than it should have. it probably was quicker than driving to be frank, but it took longer than it should have. so, the current system isn't working as it should. and as we say, every time we discuss this, look at all those cranes, look at all these people coming to the city. so, we're going to have these obstacles you describe. so, my feedback to you is let's not have a 50 to 100-year plan. let's have a one-year plan. let's have a two-year plan. let's have a three-year plan for the stuff you and mr. haley think we can do in those time frames to best improve speed and kass ka pass it. when i look at this map, ~ the problem that john faces on a

daily basis becomes very obvious to me. why is bart beating us to the southeast corner of the city, you know, twice as fast, why? they have a right-of-way. their trains don't run above ground, deal with cars, deal with traffic signals. and their trains don't come together at van ness station causing traffic. they haven't figured out how to run trains better. they just have a more runable system. same thing with caltrain. it makes two stops in the city on a completely dedicated right-of-way so they're going to run faster. as far as i know, we don't have any plans to dig more tunnels after the central subway. maybe we will, maybe we won't, but that's not in the current plan. so, to me it's all about right-of-way management. the pinch point at van ness, i mean, we've heard about it and we've heard about it. either it can be fixed or it can't. if it can't, we need to look at something else, but that needs to be fixed. market street needs to be closed to private traffic.

i mean, you look at where all these maps end up, all the arrows are right there on market street. and the other right-of-way stuff we're exploring is geary and van ness and brt. and we heard today about how the t-line, and i will say since it took me an hour and 10 minutes to get from the west side of the city to our community meeting in -- on 3rd street that time, it does run slowly like mr. -- like mr. solomon from the community advisory committee says, citizens advisory committee. so, to me a 50-year plan for all this is fine, but if you want my feedback, let's not talk about 50-year plans. let's talk about how we take the existing network, your very first bullet point of your 50-year plan, and talk about how we improve the speed and the capacity there. because if i get stuck in castro street with my new friends who are so close to me that we don't really have a choice but to talk to each other and they recognize me and

they say, how are you going to fix this, and i say, don't worry, reiskin has a 50 year plan, i'm not going to make it to church street. [laughter] >> so, that's what i think we've got to address. and if you want to come to this board and get our feedback, that's what i would appreciate. and as we go to our staff, while it's fun to talk about 50-year plans, i'd really love to hear what mr. haley has in mind for the pinch point at the van ness station or duboce. i'd love to hear about how signal priority for gear and i van ness works better than it does for the current t-line. i'd like to hear about plans that say look, when there is no longer a k, t-line, members of bayview hunters point, we're going to have more trains available for you and here's how we're going to increase or improve the signal priority there. we don't have the luxury of the great right-of-ways. it's too bad, but it's the way it is. so, we've got to make our right-of-ways, although not dedicated, better. and if you ask me for the planning that i'd like, that's

what i'd like to see. how are we going to that in one and two and three years to make those right-of-ways that we have work better? >> mr. reiskin, anything? [speaker not understood]? >> no, thank you, chairman. i concur with director heinicke. i think it's a great plan. i love the thought process through it. but i fear the [speaker not understood]. and seeing after a fiscal antedote, after reading the article in the bayview, i had a conversation with director haley about some thing [speaker not understood]. so, i think short term we should look at some of the issues we're facing on geary in the city that we're [speaker not understood]. and maybe 3 to 5 years. [speaker not understood]. again, i concur with director heinicke that certainly 3 to 5

years out is a much better plan to me and i'm willing to work on that. >> [speaker not understood]. >> i do like the idea of looking at, looking at a one to five-year plan to see where we are, but to also have that drive in terms of knowing that within five years this is where we need to be. and here are the problems we need to fix now. otherwise when we hit that 50 year, we're not going to be able to do it. does that make sense? >> director ramos. >> thank you, director rifkin. this is great. foresight with respect to how to accommodate this pda growth everybody is talking about now, as we talk about the sustainable community strategies the mta is working on, i completely empathize with what director heinicke has articulated and my colleagues here have reiterated which is there are some issues, some things we need to address right away.

it is going to be hard to talk about 20, 30, 150 years when we have these issues that we're grappling with today. i think that a lot of us would with benefit from learning a little bit more about how these projects that we really are working on today will actually impact and improve the service and the problems and the issues we're hearing about like the t-third will get better with the central subway. once the central subway is up and running, there won't be any t, k combos. it will just be for the most part from what i understand, just running north and south. and i think that that would be really, really helpful to addressing the issue of capacity. i think as somebody brought up earlier, director heinicke talked about the idea of brt versus light rail and the t-third. you know, the issue -- and i'm excited, i'm always excited about brt, although i'm willing -- i think we should have a conversation about where it's more appropriate to have or not. i'm leaning more and more

towards the idea of looking at light rail on geary as some people would suggest and propose. however, i think, though, that we should recognize that the light rail system that we have today that we're working with are very different from brt whereas if a light rail system gets stuck, the whole system shuts down. if you're on an n or you're on a t and the train is funny, it gets stuck, the whole system is stuck whereas with a brt, the buses can move around those vehicles that are disabled. so, i'm anxious and excited to have those conversations about, you know, where it makes more sense to have these. and i know it's indicated in the process -- in the plan that we're talking about, you know, the next thing to talk about is where are we with light rail. i'm eager to have those conversations. but i also want to make sure that as we move forward, that we do have a plan that's

informed with actual data that, you know, the way people move around the city -- i assume you're doing that, but i want to stress that, for example, my partner when she gets on an n, there is a certain n that comes through that we know that she knows turns into a j on an inbound. so, she catches that n at 9:46 or whatever it is, that comes from the sunset. instead of going into the subway, it turns and she has to argue with the operator every time, no, i know that this is turning into a j, don't kick me off. i'm eally going that way to mission. and it really speeds up her commute. she opts not to take bart in that instance. [speaker not understood]. that can be [speaker not understood] by her clipper card travel pattern. looking forward to this plan being informed by data. and then finally, i am excited and eager to talk about how

this -- all of this vision is funded over the long term. i think that the sooner that we can have a road map towards funding this, the better off we'll all be in the long term. the sooner wee ellipsed with the case of how much this is all going to cost, the better we're going to be able to make the case to voters, to people who are neglecting to solicit taxes from development. all of these things that are on the table that really need to be funded have to be funded. and the sooner we have that conversation the better. so, looking forward to a finance plan as well that we can use to inform our conversations. >> [speaker not understood]. >> now that i'm done being stunned by the travel times where we are and where we want to get, i want to loop back to the first thing that mr. reiskin said, which is this is part of a requirement under regional planning, correct? we need to actually, as all the

other counties have done, we need to identify those areas and we need to have a plan for how we're going to deal with population growth. so, this is something that's not just important for us to do, but it's also going to inform regional planning, correct? >> in the short term we can meet our planning requirements basically through our county transportation plan and by the projects we submit into the regional transportation plan. but those are really current projects. it's not really looking far down the road. so, we can technically meet those requirements, but in the end those currently identified projects are not going to meet the needs of the future. so, i hear the feedback that trying to think 50 years when we've got things to fix today is difficult -- >> he's more confident about

his long term [speaker not understood]. >> [speaker not understood]. we're talking about a 50 year plan, but i do feel like we kind of need to do both. i have no question, top priority is fixing the system today, but we captain kind of put off thinking for the five years it's going to take. i don't know that i have that long, but for the five years it's going to take to fix this system to put off what we're going to do in the future. so, i think we need to be able to do bet and wrap our minds around both. but i hear you loud and clear. the priority is fixing what we have now. ~ >> can we have colloquy now before i weigh in with the truth? [laughter] >> very good, very intimidating, too. i have a five-minute plan. i don't disagree with the long-term planning and i didn't say five years, i said, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. and, so, when your 50-year plan

is build upon the existing network and improve service to existing customers, those are the first two bullet points the 50 year plan, those to me are items that can be 50 years out, but also need to be one to five years out. so, what i would say, this is sort of like one of our planning sessions, i would like to challenge you and your staff to be back at this board by the end -- before 2013 is over with four concrete ideas, changes, things that we can communicate to the public that will increase speed/capacity on our existing systems. we've talked about multi-train boarding in the downtown platforms. we talked about work on the duboce church point. we talked about closing market. there are things i believe in my heart that we can do, and that we must at least assess and try to do for the sake of the public confidence, if nothing else, to address these issues. and, so, i'm happy you have a 50-year plan. let's keep having a 50-year plan. but i think it's incumbent upon

us to challenge you to now come back and say, if the first spoke of that task or that plan is to improve the existing network, i would like four things, concrete in 2013 that you're going to do to increase speed and capacity in our existing network. either buses, light rail, or both. >> here it goes, here it comes. [laughter] >> i didn't see this as an either/or thing at all. >> right. >> i think, actually, we wouldn't be doing our job if we didn't at least consider that, especially with these projectionses, these numbers, residents and jobs and all of that. i'm also thinking the two billboards on the bayshore you may have seen. one says one-third of everybody born to be will live to be 100. another said somebody reading this, somebody will live to be 150. so, i was kind of reading the [speaker not understood] maybe at 68, let's say. >> the truth on a bill board?

>> i think it's the responsible thing to do. i certainly wouldn't want to see that in lieu, but i don't think there is anything in that. so, is there anyone from the public who wishes to address the board? >> mr. chairman [speaker not understood]. the only person who turned in a speaker card. can we do maybe three minutes on this? >> actually two minutes all the time. go ahead. another minute on the long-term future would have been nice. i appreciate the presentation and i appreciate the tip off that this item was coming. i think the context is not entirely clear here. it was sort of expressed a bit. but i'm not really sure the relationship to other plans and programs, if this assumes the t.e.p., the t.s.p., the entire existing communities strategy, the real estate vision, other thing that are ongoing.

i mean, whether those things happen really informs whether we have the capacity in our yards, the facilities or other things to be able to deliver some of these suggested investments. it's difficult to assess the relative merit of some of these investments why the n and not the l. i'm sure there was some thinking behind that, but that wasn't clear articulated. and these priorities fundamentally are not balanced. i think there are some equity implications here, title 6 and otherwise, why continuing a downtown based system makes sense rather than a modified grid or, you know, facilitating more cross-town travel.

and actually, somewhat inclined toward director heinicke's comments, not that we shouldn't have long term but we need to have near term projects that deliver some of these concerns. i would be happy to engage further with staff. i think this does need some more discussion with not just the cac, but a variety of present and past and future stakeholders. we should be talking to frankly the youth commission about this. >> thank you. this is the beginning of the conversation, of course, there will be plenty of opportunities as we go on. further opportunities for public comment. >> okay. mr. sullivan. good afternoon again, director mark solomon. working on the parking and the north mission we try to work with people who are very car focused on what true north is for transit. saying that if we take these steps we'll have transit for you and you can give up your car and it will be okay. but i have no north star to point them to saying this is where we need to go.

this could be that but it's not quite there yet. in 50 years we'll have transporters and jet bags. we have video phones. we're on our way there. let's focus on next 10, 15 years here at the latest. t.e.p. is supposed to be to be this but it's been put on an anorexic diet. [speaker not understood]. we already spent 4 million on the t.e.p. it's been sundowned. [speaker not understood] there is no real push to make it happen. the 25-year plan is for the ta. it's currently having constituency saying give me this, give they this. there's no real vision, no coherent star that says this is where we want to go to make it so you can give up your car. 3.1 billion out of the billion needed for our current investment is funded forted 25 year plan. this is' almost a billion short. there is nothing for the greenhouse gas component upon which all this development zoning has been based. so, what we need to do is tell developers which [speaker not

understood]. there is so much money behind those entitlements. you condition those to actually paying for it and the tsp, tsf doesn't get us to half of that amount. director brinkman, these are complicated systems. i don't know if anyone in this room is smart enough if we change a thing here, there aren't any deleterious effects. the c-e-q-a can get us so far. we celebrate on the 22, 23, 34 to bring us down around for the cross town and be able to get people around with the radio lines providing linkages there. that kind of investment will do t. i think we need to look at if you give us 10 billion, give us 20 billion, we can do this, this and that. and show folks just blue sky conversation as to what we can do with the resources will be the best way to get the resources. you may have poison the pot on central subways [speaker not understood]. it is an informed project that's out the door. if not something we can build upon [speaker not understood]. >> anyone else here to address the board? seeing none, [speaker not

understood]. >> mr. chairman, that's all on your agenda today. >> we are adjourned. thank you all very much. [adjourned] >> feel like it really is a community. they are not the same thing, but it really does feel like there's that kind of a five. everybody is there to enjoy a

literary reading. >> the best lit in san francisco. friendly, free, and you might get fed. ♪ [applause] >> this san francisco ryther created the radar reading series in 2003. she was inspired when she first moved to this city in the early 1990's and discover the wild west atmosphere of open mi it's ic in the mission. >> although there were these open mics every night of the week, they were super macho. people writing poems about being jerks. beatty their chest onstage. >> she was energized by the scene and proved up with other girls who wanted their voices to

be heard. touring the country and sharing gen-x 7 as a. her mainstream reputation grew with her novel. theses san francisco public library took notice and asked her if she would begin carrying a monthly reading series based on her community. >> a lot of the raiders that i work with our like underground writers. they're just coming at publishing and at being a writer from this underground way. coming in to the library is awesome. very good for the library to show this writing community that they are welcome. at first, people were like, you want me to read at the library, really? things like that. >> as a documentary, there are

interviews -- [inaudible] >> radar readings are focused on clear culture. strayed all others might write about gay authors. gay authors might write about universal experiences. the host creates a welcoming environment for everybody. there is no cultural barrier to entry. >> the demographic of people who come will match the demographic of the reader. it is very simple. if we want more people of color, you book more people of color. you want more women, your book more women. kind of like that. it gets mixed up a little bit. in general, we kind of have a core group of people who come every month. their ages and very.

we definitely have some folks who are straight. >> the loyal audience has allowed michelle to take more chances with the monthly lineup. established authors bring in an older audience. younker authors bring in their friends from the community who might be bringing in an older author. >> raider has provided a stage for more than 400 writers. it ranges from fiction to academics stories to academic stories this service the underground of queer fell, history, or culture. >> and there are so many different literary circles in san francisco. i have been programming this reading series for nine years. and i still have a huge list on my computer of people i need to carry into this.

>> the supportive audience has allowed michele to try new experiment this year, the radar book club. a deep explorationer of a single work. after the talk, she bounces on stage to jump-start the q&a. less charlie rose and more carson daly. >> san francisco is consistently ranked as one of the most literate cities in the united states. multiple reading events are happening every night of the year, competing against a big names like city arts and lectures. radar was voted the winner of these san francisco contest. after two decades of working for free, michelle is able to make radar her full-time job. >> i am a right to myself, but i feel like my work in this world

is eagerly to bring writers together and to produce literary events. if i was only doing my own work, i would not be happy. it is, like throwing a party or a dinner party. i can match that person with that person. it is really fun for me. it is nerve wracking during the actual readings. i hope everyone is good. i hope the audience likes them. i hope everybody shows up. but everything works out. at the end of the reading, everyone is happy. ♪

good morning. i want is start by that thanking mayor lee for starting first. there are two stories today, the one you read about in the papers today, the deal and the process. the deal, the transaction i believe is a win win for the city of san francisco and for the medical center and the center health system. by the name, my name is gerardo. this agreement ruts results in a significantly larger