i also was reading an e-i-r out of l.a. not too long ago about their regional connector transit project and it actually had analysis of displacement of small businesses, which i've never seen in an e-i-r we've done. so just interested how they were able to study that and, again, what the methodology was. i think in particular the question of displacement is the question of a for thable hosing, that new units are more expensive to build. if we can do more to preserve existing units, preserve tenants in those units, i think that's really important. it may lead us -- doing that analysis may lead us to develop tools and strategies. similarly, i think there are a couple items on this list that really do pay attention to the existing community. neighborhood serving uses, commercial displacement, the open space items, and then echoing commissioner hillis, looking at pedestrian safety and the prioritization of the

infrastructure impact fee. so, hopefully we can work on those items going forward. commissioner antonini. >> just a couple other thoughts. i don't think office demand is a sum zero game. if this area is true -- it was commented on by one of the public speakers, using the figured and saying only a certain amount of demand is going to exist, this area might be more attractive. it isv' true, but it is not only competing with uses like the transit district or other districts that we're contemplating. it's competing with suburban areas. and this would be an attractive area and we could attract business that might not come to san francisco. but we could bring them here if we had broad floor plates and had office space competitive

with south san francisco and other areas that would come to this area. i think that may be the business future of this area because you can't zone demand or success. just because you zone it for industrial uses doesn't mean they're going to be successful and there are a lot of things against continued industrial uses. some pdr uses might survive depending on what they do. i'm not saying they can't, but large production type of facilities are going to be better off further to the south in the core pdr areas. i've always thought that. and finally as far as the residents, i think this is an area that has changed many times over the years. i think the present residents are important, but you can't make the whole plant just to meet the present residence. it has to be an area that has residential base that is fair to everyone. those who are here now, those who want to live here in the future. and, you know, i think that's the way to treat the whole thing fairly.

so i think there are a lot of overlying principles with this and it's another revisiting of the whole thing we talked about in eastern neighborhoods. but much of the discussion had to do with pdr in those days, but we specifically put in areas where the core pdr should be. i think whether you zone it or not, it's going to be a challenge for pdh-type industries to continue in this area. ~ pdr-type industries to continue in this area. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further on this item, we can move on to general public comment. at this time members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda item. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. i don't have any speaker cards. >> is there any general public comment?

seeing none -- yes, please come forward. good morning, board members. once again, i would like to submit further information that is c-e-q-a. i would like to be able to respond to some of the open areas they were talking about. and i really would like to respond to relevant -- this is the matter of planning and commission, and then, too, i want to make sure i seal my identification when people are calling the mayor's office or board of trustees and submitting information. for business professionals that are in an office to feel very comfortable when you call them and you would like to do something of a legal and professional manner for me. first of all, i want to address this information was equalities of human right commission and there was a u.k. address.

this is the direct u.k. and i want to respond to the royalties over there. they wanted to make sure they had the correct precise information. the san francisco information is precisely correct. this is maya addendum, my personal information because significantly, one of the realtors or brokers or someone called in reference to the open items that were open, i think they were retailers. i think they were interested. i think some of the panel [speaker not understood] and i want to submit that and that is verbal reception. however, there were cards, information for some of the san francisco precinct that felt interested for some of the openings they felt interested in some events, other information that they did have at the mayor's office regarding planning and commission. and someone started taking the signs off of these signs and they were not supposed to be

removed. these are the no trespassing signs and they to be so-called removed. it had a sticker and it had teeth around it. that means the parcel belongs to [speaker not understood]. the individual at 205 ocean avenue almost had him removed from his office. there was entering and exiting out of city hall building. this is more than four or five times previous. then there was a purchase addendum, information for san francisco housing authority for individual that are not business literate, that do not know what the state, title company, they feel more comfortable at san francisco public housing authority. please make it short and simple to the housing authority that you feel interest in purchase. if it's a vacancy, i feel interested in vacancy. and when i [speaker not understood] and i'm interested in moving in, i would like to

have the rental leasing. we went through this before about planning and zoning. so, this is insignificant, but i want to make sure i put my identification on the record of note. for the oft, i dismiss you -- >> thank you, mary, your time is up. thank you. >> any further general public comment? okay, seeing none, general public comment is closed. >> commissioners, that will place you under your regular calendar. item 10, case no. 2011.0558e - transit effectiveness project (tep) informational presentation.

>> good afternoon, president fong and members of the commission. i am deborah dwyer, planning department staff. and this ha previously indicated you would like periodic updates regarding efforts by the sfmta especially given the connection between land use development and transportation planning. this informational presentation is an update regarding the sfmta transit effectiveness project or tep and we last presented information in april of 2012. i am the e-i-r coordinator and i am joined here by sean kennedy the tpe manager of the sfmta. the department published the initial study for the tep in january of this year, and the draft e-i-r will be published in july and the draft e-i-r

hearing will be before this commission in august. this is a city-wide project with multiple components. i'd like to turn the present atheist to sean kennedy for a project overview and update. >> thank you. so, good afternoon, commissioners. you should have a hard copy of the presentation in front of you and i've also got a presentation i'll put on the overhead there. so, it has been a year since we have been in front of you. i want to start the presentation by giving a quick overview of the tep why we're pursuing this project, how it fits in with some of the other proposals that muni is working on. and then go over the environmental components of the draft e-i-r. so, there are a lot of great things about muni.

muni, muni is number 6 -- i have to start with the good stuff. [laughter] >> we are the number 6 service provider in the country in terms of rider ship, over 700,000 daily boardings. we, we serve the city well. we have 95% coverage, so, 95% of the people in the city and county of san francisco are, are located close to transit service. and we have some great policy backing. 40 years ago roughly that the transit first policy was initiated. and because of that policy, have been able to implement some really that hader thinking transit priority projects [speaker not understood] in the existing network. however, even with all those kind of improvement and positive things coming out of specifically the transit first policy, we are also the slowest system in the country. basically a system wide

average, we average 8.1 miles an hour. to put that in comparison with some of our peers, new york city mta, they average 14 miles an hour for system wide service coverage and l.a. county --. l.a. county mta averages 13.3 miles an hour. even chicago, chicago is about 12.8 miles an hour. so, we've got our work cut out for us and we're obviously operating at slow speed. so, the question then becomes why, why do we operate at slow speeds. obviously there's a number of reasons. there's no one specific reason, but they all kind of rollup, we operate in a dense urban environment, we have a lot of stops [speaker not understood] every block and a half. we have aging equipment so our vehicles breakdown often and we have narrow streets with constrained right-of-way. all those relations to the customer, you can see these

pictures right here, how those challenges relate to the customer. there's a lot of gaps in service, crowded conditions, the buses are overcrowded especially on some of our major corridors. and buses get stuck in traffic because we operate at grade with the congestion that's out there right now. so, what is muni doing to address some of these issues? there's a lot of different attacks we're taking. system wide we're really focusing a lot on trying to improve the mechanics, the operations of our service, and from a management perspective so we're trying to manage lanes differently, manage our service differently, including our boarding pilot and our brand-new management center that we have. real continueheim supervision. i'll also be replacing our

equipment quicker. [speaker not understood] we're trying to make people aware of when the bus is coming. then there is the tep. that's what we want to focus on today. the tep has two major categories. it's improving service or redirecting service to some of the crowded -- to address crowded conditions. and it is also coming wake up some travel time reduction proposals and that's a mouthful, but essentially it is a traffic engineering changes that give buses [speaker not understood]. so, the tep in general is like -- a similar introduction to city-wide project. there are a number of proponents to the project. and we're hoping this quick overview gives you guys some ability to help facilitate the review of the e-i-r system in this document. we have four major objectives, improving ride ability, reducing travel time, the

customer experience in terms of delivering efficient service. so, the ero document itself is really broken down to foremajor components. we have our service policy framework. service related travel time improvements and [speaker not understood]. these different components are further set aside. for example, the ttrm projects, the travel time reduction proposal, we have intersection based proposals that is being looked at ~ at the project level in the e-i-r. we've also got another roughly 8 corridors that we don't have these specific intersection locations yet and the specific projects that would be on there. so, they are being analyzed at the programmatic level in this document. and, so, kind of the first policy framework, it's a set of actions and objectives that try

to better manage our system, creating a tiered service with a rapid system being the highest tier. and then the next statement is the service improvement so, it's pretty aggressive. we're proposing a 10% increase in service over existing levels, which is obviously a lot new service. the way we're coming about that, though, is interesting. we're using that kind of service policy framework guide where we're going to put this new service. we're expanding our limited stop service. we're hoping to increase frequencies on our crowded routes to address crowthing problems. and decrease service on some of our lesser facilities. that's to offset some of those costs. an example of what we talked about with the service improvements with the business corridor.

the inirpart of the central [speaker not understood] corridor. we are proposing to put in an overlay stop service to address the capacity concerns. we calculated with this approval we'd have 20 to 30% more capacity on this segment of the corridor which would be great for a lot of riders. so, the service-related capital improvements are basically capital projects that need to happen in order to make our service proposals kind of come true. so, they're really broken down into three county buckets. we have terminal improvements, overhead wire expansion projects, and then capital infrastructure projects. so, as an example of what some of these mean on the 71 haight, the outer part of hagis also

faced with a lot of crowded conditions and we're trying to put more service on that segment. how we're trying to do that, how we propose to do that, [speaker not understood] a windy route through the residential area to go straight up stanley into haight and that, of course, means we're going to need to put overhead wires from the port [speaker not understood]. that's example of a service capital project that we're going to have to do to ma the ~ come true. [speaker not understood]. we developed, we call it a tool kit of 18 different treatments that the city has done over the last 40 years basically

independently on specific projects that could go to address improving and giving buses priority on city streets. and we developed this tool kit. it's been part -- traditionally it's been part of what's called the san francisco preferential streets program. it is now part of this larger tep process. we use the tool kit to develop these intersections specific proposals you'll see on the ttrp corridors and we're going to be using that obviously as we go to the programmatic corridors to come up with specific projects at a specific level. so, what are these tool kit items? one example is the idea of transit overlays. it's pretty obvious, but basically it's just taking the general purpose lane and creating transit in the operation. obviously reducing the out of capacity out of roadway to some degree, but greatly improving

the liability and speed of the bus. another example is the idea of widening or modifying lane width. right now typically 10-1/2 feet wide and in many parts of the city lanes are 9, 9-1/2 feet wide. so, obviously what happens, safety and operational issues ensue when the bus that has to straddle two lanes, there is obviously either safety issues with us and the traffic or the cars, if there's two lanes, the car next door has to slow down or speed up to get out of the bus's way. so, the idea is we purpose the roadway to either -- by taking away on street parking on one side of the street and using those extra feet to widen each travel lane or actually taking the extra feet to widen the travel lane to something larger.

a third kind of tool kit is the idea of transit stop [speaker not understood]. we have a stop every 1-1/2 blocks in the system. we have a rapid network on the highest priority network. we're trying to move that to the 2 to 3-block range. a stop usually takes about 30 seconds. so, you know, as you can imagine, especially if it's a stop that's not normally used, the drivers -- drivers can kind of gauge how long it takes them to drive a route and they can work on being more on time if they know that that route stays pretty much the same time. it's these random stops that throw things off from a stand ardth. that's one of the ways we're trying to address delays. ~ standard a mentioned, there is a

programmatic and project level discussion in this document. this map shows basically the corridors that we have projects. the dark map -- i don't know if you can see it on the screen, but the dark lines are the corridors with specific intersection-level project. the lighter lines are in our rapid network and are being cleared or discussed programmatically. and then i do want to point out there are a few other lines that are not part of the tep but are very important transit connections which will be geary brt, van ness brt and, of course, the subway. those issues are being handled through another process and that's the tep. all right. so, the alternatives approach. so, on our project level corridors, we have had a peer approach to alternative. we have what's called a expanded proposal as well as a

moderate proposal. and obviously we have the expanded proposals have greater effects on roadway capacity. a good example of an expanded versus moderate mostly the expanded proposal for [speaker not understood] which the modern proposals do not. just an example of what that means, the intersections on columbus, union street, it's the 30 stock aston ton. and north of union there is a 230-foot-long bus zones which essentially just means the bus pulls up and passengers board on the right. ~ stockton so, our project is proposing we turn that into -- turn the buses into bus zones, extend the sidewalk and allow pedestrian issues be taken care of. : standard proposal has a

transit only lane between filbert and stockton with stockton green intersection. that's the expanded proposal. the moderate proposal does not include that transit overlay. that's just an example of kind of how we differentiated those i do want to point out that the mta board does not have or will not probably be taking all of the expanded or all of the moderate. it will be a mishmash of different proposal going forwardth. right now the e-i-r that's kind of how things are broken out. that concludes my update and i'd be happy to take any questions or comments. >> thank you. we'll open it up for public comment if there is any. is there any public comment on this item? [inaudible]. >> ma'am, if you want to

[speaker not understood], you need to come up to the microphone. >> if you feel it's relevant to this item. i want to make sure everything is relevant. >> ma'am, to be specific, this is in regard to the transit effectiveness project only. that's what i want to explain. thank you. however, i was interested -- i had noticed they had the purchase cards for the parking and also as well for the san francisco municipal transit agency. and i had spoke to the clerk and she had submitted information to me that was very important for myself, and then also as well as my addendum for my employees. now, transit, they used to have bart cards like the paper cards we used to get on the bus. they have these little pass cards or one-day cards and what was kind of upsetting me, we don't receive a transfer. so, i had got on one day and i

had the clipper card. the clipper card is a beeper card -- you get off that bus to get on another bus, i clip the clipper card and it didn't beep again. they charged me another $2. and when someone is disabled and i'm just entering my retirement and my health care and it's really hard for me to, like, keep doing the transfer. i was so happy that i submitted membership for another transportation, but making relevant, i felt really comfortable with their passport card as well as the other transit card i'm interested in purchase as well. but i wanted to talk about also as well they had stated privacy

for private transportation there was a 48 -- 48 or something significant. [speaker not understood]. i had a transfer and the bus driver was very patient with me. it said my time was 8:30 or something like that and he requested for me to have a transfer. so, when two or three it that are called like ambassadorses, ambassadors got on the bus and they did it intentional. he said to me, oh, can you show me your transfer? and it was like 15 minutes off of my watch stated that the time was 8:15 and i don't know what his watch -- i said, well, can i see the time that you have? because he was being very hasteful. it's disrespectful when they know me only and i'm interesting to receive money for my banking and i would like to do that with the city and county. so, when i have high equity and

i'm dealing with high commercial and i am an employer and i'm interesting with commissioners and board members, do not try to be hasteful, ruckus and make it [speaker not understood] for people [speaker not understood]. thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment on this item? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. and opening it up to commissioners. commissioner borden. >> yes, thank you for this presentation. i think we've all been very eager about the transit effectiveness project. i have a few questions. one, you mentioned that both geary and van ness brt are not part of this document. i'd like to know why not and what is the kind of timeline for those projects being brought to -- >> yes, thank you. so, you have geary and van ness in their own planning process. they already started their planning process when the cup was getting going. we just left those to be a part

of different process. you know, i'm not even sure what the latest of van ness is about to release or about to be certified, i believe. and geary is still chugging along, i guess. >> van ness brt e-i-r is within three or four months i believe going to go to the board for certification of e-i-r. >> great. come here, right? >> [inaudible]. >> then in terms of -- you talk about some of the different interventions in the market street. i was wondering how the church street bus only lane is going and the pilot going on and does that help inform some of the tep changes and can you give us an update how that is working so far. >> yeah, you know, it's been working really well, especially during the peak periods which is when we really needed the help. we're seeing a big improvement, almost 20% improvement in on-time performance.

it's only a three-block segment if anybody knows, it goes from duboce to 16th. so, it's a three-block segment. we took -- it was a four-lane stretch of road. we took the two middle lanes where the ga church runs and essentially made that a transit only lane so the 22 now also runs in that center lane. and we're seeing some really good improvements and on-time performance. speed is also improving through there. we feel of course there are always going to be compliance issues. the idea of painting it red was to hopefully help enforce or draw attention to what's going on there and give people a visual queue not to be in the lane. for the most part that's working. we are still having a few issues with left turners at 15th. we restricted left turns at 15th and 16th basically 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on the weekdays, and the other times

of course you're allowed in there to make a left. but we are still seeing some left turners during, you know, the restricted times, but for the most part those left turners aren't affecting the transit. we've been doing studies and things and we will come out with a formal report at the sick-month period to kind of document what we're finding so far. ~ six so far it's looking really good for transit offices. >> you talked about standard and moderate interventions being explored in the plan. how are those going to be determined? and are you looking at some of the -- we've been talking about -- we just talked about the central corridor plan. we've got existing rider ship, you know, tensions obviously and we have kind of future plans and growth. and i'd love to hear about how those are going to be part of the conversation because obviously people who don't live here aren't going to advocate around future plans and growth necessarily, but we need to make sure that we're dealing with that and i wondered how your process was going to vet that. >> as