hard in san francisco not to have an open ended process, but to have process that goes on years and years and years, i just think that we don't do -- it's a disservice to the taxpayers and to the riders of san francisco that we allow this combination of unended analysis, unending public process to take what should be a several year project and turn it into a 10, maybe 15 or 20 year project to deliver one brt line on one thorough fair in be san francisco and to spent millions of dollars on environmental review, which i just don't think is warranted. i think an eir does not need to cost that much. we're not talking about the transbay plan or something like that. so i'm

-- i don't accept this process as being the way we should be doing transportation in san francisco and i -- i can't support this item. >> you touched on [inaudible] mull symposiums and it's a big problem, not just here but in a lot of places. i want to recap some of these issues [inaudible] large scale with brt represents in the transbay type projects but things should go faster. clearly seqa is a huge area of this. i do wanna note in the prior presentation mark indicated that does seem to be growing momentum. i think it's critical to push upon that as well as making

sure that california implements but there are a number of things we can do and i think what underscores this is the project delivery pipeline is weak in san francisco. being able to push forward at an effective pace multiple projects at the same time instead of doing here's the central subway, we should be able to do with la and other places do is they have a whole self of projects that i've moving forward in tandem. they have a much bigger pool of capable project managers. we need more of them. much of the dollars we spent so far haven't

just been for seqa. [inaudible] but that needs to get done anyway. >> just to be clear -- and i've been a critic of the mta's project delivery system on small and big projects, but this project has not been turned over to the mta yet, but it has not been turned over and before we even turn it over to the mta for them to do the more detailed design, we'll have been spending 6 million dollars on environmental review and on conceptual designs so that -- it's frustrating, just raises a question for me. i'm not trying to dump on the ta stuff 'cause you are some of the most highly competent folks around. it's about the way we do

projects in san francisco which is deeply dysfunctional. >> [inaudible] we're all doing this together, whether we're leading [inaudible] we all have to work together on this and the system as a whole needs reform and that's one of the things [inaudible] one of the outcomes [inaudible] is if we can [inaudible] either public or just city staff type symposiums or working sessions just to really focus on this issue and make some mediate reforms both at the small and big scale projects. >> at least with the better market street man, which we've been critical of the lack of interagency coordination and the credible slowness and expense of the projects at least with market street, it's just incredibly more -- it's a

radical reenvisioning of what mark market street is. geary brt is not that. it's not a simple design, but we know what brt is. we know -- it is not the same level of complexity and nebulousness as reenvisioning market street is. thank you. >> any other -- commissioner chew. >> so to understand, you're not planning to support this motion? >> i'm not going to support it. >> question to the ta because, you know, i think many of us -- i share supervisor wiener's concerns. if you weren't able to move this forward, that may

have some repercussions too. what can yo do you to to give us more comfort that this project is on the right track? >> i think the best thing to do is [inaudible] comments we made earl yes. [inaudible] up to director resting and to sit down and hash out and agree to hope flip and accelerated /sked /skwraoeul jewel for the project and to document that and how we're going to get there. not just throughing out a date, but do we need dedicated staff, do things in parallel, so forth. >> i want to join supervisor wiener in stressing /ou important that is so a couple possibilities i'm open to is if we want to continue this item for a month or two to allow that to happen -- open to that. beyond that, if we're forced to take an up or down vote today i'm not sure what i would do because i want to make sure everyone involved in this project is taking this

seriously and will make sure that we've got a plan to deal with this, but i looking for some feedback on how we can make sure that happens >> one of the challenges we have -- as you know august coming up so if the commit''s uncomfortable, i'm suggesting we move this to the full board without recommendation and that will give us about two weeks. >> why don't we move this forward recommending a no vote up to the full board and we'll wait to hear what you come back with in a couple weeks. in a week? is that right? >> july 23 is the full board meeting. >> just a minute. are you done with your idea? okay. >> what are the chances that we're going to get meaningful, new information within two weeks. >> we can get some information but i can't commit without talking to director [inaudible].

>> i would consider putting this forward with a /tpheg tiff recommendation and maybe we can get some more information. >> you indicated you had some concern about going into the august recess. what exactly is the constraints on the timeline you're concerned about? >> i need to see if chester can add more if we need additional cash capacity for the jacob's contract and how much cash we have continued to work through recess if we don't take this action. >> are we not in a position to suspends work until we get some clarification? this project's taking forever already with the... >> what's another month after nine years? >> i know this is [inaudible] a: >> you could suspends, but in the meantime, you know, we are continuing to work with commissioner mar and trying to finds a way to kick some speed into the project right now. >> let' see if there's any --

is there a motion or something... >> i guess i'll reiterate my motion... >> sorry, we'll take public comment before. >> hank you staff, thank you for your presentation and entertaining our comments. i'd like to open up for public comment now please. come forward. i'm very familiar with what's been going on with geary corridor for over 26 years since 1986. the geary brt is supposed to be -- having worked on prop k and having the priority, having the funding through brt in a priority three

category, which means it can be moved up, the geary brt is supposed to be light rail ready [inaudible] that were finalized back in 1989 and 1995 on the height light rail that i worked on. you gotta remember it's also with the central subway that there's going to be a spur at union square at geary and in a couple years we'll have to go before voters to reauthorize for prop k because the only project that hasn't been brought forward is the geary light rail system and

i suggest that you act accordingly. i've told you before, do your homework, read the final report of the geary transit task force that was finalized in 1990 and also the 95 filing report on the geary light rail system and the puc quoted back then. it's the only way to alleviate traffic [inaudible] is called a light rail system, but it went nowhere. think about that before you have this go forward. >> okay. thank you very much. are there any other members of the public that like to speak on item number eight? seeing no more public comment, it is closed. colleagues, i'd like to notate a motion. >> the motion that i suggested is we pass this to a full board with a do not pass recommendation in part to ensure that we will hear from

staff in the next two weeks what conversations have happened and what can concretely change to help us speed this project along. that would be our motion. >> let's have a roll call /sroegs vote for in motion. >> chew, i, cohen i, /tpaeurl i tang i, commissioner wiener, i. commissioner which you's motion passes. >> thank you. are there any other items? >> item number nine, recommend the reward of a three year contract in the university of maryland [inaudible] case study [inaudible] terms and non material contract terms and conditions. this is an action item. >> thank you. >> i'm robert traytive engineer with the [inaudible] on page

111 of your packet. as you know the transportation authority has served as coupon so are with the california department of transportation for the presidio parkway project. project is being built in two phases -- the phase one contract which substantial lyly we are

organizing it around six key objects [inaudible] and maintenance of the [inaudible] identify the factors that determine the effect /t*euness of each method, identify and analyze advantages of each method, reach a con /khaougs as to which method reached better results in this project and

best method /tp-f for future projects. academic institutions only we believe this was important for three reasons. increasing the independence and /kr-blt of the results both to the public and agency that need to make decisions of this type. we're

seeking recommendation to award this to your contract to university of maryland in an amount not to exceed to conduct this case study. happy to

answer any questions. /tkpwh thank you. i think this is a great idea. i know there's been a lot of some controversy around some public private partnerships with t 3, particularly relating to [inaudible] drive so it seems to me this study will be useful not in terms of a back ward look in this particular project but in helping you form future decisions here and elsewhere about whether to proceed with that private partnership so i think this was a terrific idea and i'm glad it's happening. >> we agree and are happy to have found university partners who think this is a great opportunity to contribute to knowledge in the field. >> commissioner /tpaeurl. >> just a quick question. in terms of university of maryland it /tkaouz seem kind of random. can you provide me with a little bit of background?

>> university of colorado has similar experience. /ph*dz m.d. also is partnered with public policy professor to provide additional background and evaluation of the results. both universities intend to actually send graduate students to out here for minimum one semester to assist in the data collection and interviews of the project participants so they will have some on site capability for the main parts of the study. >> thanks. >> any other speakers? i too, um, was surprised the university of maryland being awarded -- potentially awarding

this contract. was there an rfp project? was there a competitive bid process. >> there was. we solicited /staeupltds of interest with qualifications. we re/saoefed six of those from universities all around the country. then we followed that up by inviting all six which we found qualified to submit proposals. >> which were the six that responded? >> i don't have the full list, but i can recall that we had maryland and colorado as a partnership, u washington partnered with -- stan /tpard university and i can't recall the other three, but i can get you that information. two of the teams submitted formal proposals for the universities i understand that the creation and the submission of the proposal is not something taken lightly. both proposals were considered excellent and we chose this one on the basis of its more fleshed out plan for

their data collection and investigation. >> and what was the criteria used to evaluate each of the proposals and who saturday on this body? >> we had three staff members are the authority on the body including lee. and we had advisory participants from arep who did some of the initial analysis of whether a p 3 made sense in this case. also a member of cal-trans as an advisory panel member. we hooked at the comprehensiveness of the proposal, how clearly it related to our objectives and that's in order to make sure that the deliverables that we think will be of use to the authority and its partners -- that we will receive those, as well as whatever the academic

institutions bring as interest. >> can you state what the deliverables will be? >> we'll have a final report that documents the construction process and results under both delivery methods, we'll have monitoring of the operations maintenance and manage /-pt of the infrastructure under the [inaudible] >> [inaudible]. >> yes, from 5-4. mm-hm. and then in addition to that final report we'll also have likely a separate deliverable that talks about guidelines and decision processes that can be used for future projects? >> such as geary brt? >> any sort of project with complexity [inaudible]. a: thank you very much. let's

entertain public comment on this item. >> having served on the [inaudible] as a represent /o*f the cac rep being very familiar with the presidio parkway project i strongly urge you to support this item because this makes a lot of sense. thank you very much. >> are there any other members of the public who would like to speak on this item? >> seeing none, public comment closed. let's move this forward with unanimous vote. >> this is an information item. colleagues. okay. does anyone have any new items? seeing none. i'd like to

entertain some public comment? anyone? pub click comment is closed. >> general public comment. >> general pub click comment. speak now or forever hold your peace or until the next meeting. thank you, seeing none, public comment is closed. are there any other matters before this body. >> no, item number 12, adjournment. >> thank you, this meeting is adjourned. thank you everyone.

>> on december 28, 1912. san francisco mayor, sonny jim rolph stared into the crowds of those who have gathered. a moment in history. the birth of a publicly own transit system. san francisco municipal railway. muni as it would become to be known. happy birthday, muni, here is to the next 100 years. the birth of muni had been a long-time coming. over the years the city was disjointed privately owned companies. horses and steam and electric-powered vehicles. creating a hodgepodge of transit options. none of them particularly satisfying to city residents.

the city transit system like the city itself would have changes during the san francisco earthquake. the transition that will pursue from this aftermath would change san francisco's transportation system once again. facilitated by city boss, abe ruth, ushering in the electric city car. the writing was on the wall. the clammer had begun for the experiment including public transit people. owned by the people and for the people. the idea of a consolidated city-owned transit system had begun traction. and in 1909, voters went to the

polls and created a bond measure to create the people's railway. would become a reality three years later. on december 28, 1912, mayor sonny rolph introduced the new geary electric streetcar line and the new san francisco railway. that he said would be the nucleus that would host the city. and san francisco gave further incentive to expand the city's network. a project by way of tunnel leading into chinatown by way of north beach. in december the first streetcar was driven into the tunnel.

just two years after its berth, muni had added two lines. and k, l and m lines that span out from westportal. in 1928, the j line opened heading west to the beach. in 1944 san francisco voters finally approved muni take-over of the market street railway. by then motor bus and trolley bus improvement had given them the ability to conquer san francisco's hills. after the war most of the street-car lines would be replaced with motor or trolley bus service. in 1947, the mayor recommended replacing two lines with motor coaches. and it appeared that san francisco's iconic cable cars had seen their final days.

entered mrs. cluskin, the leader to save the cable cars. arguing that the cable cars were a symbol of the city, and she entered a charter placed on the november ballot. it passed overwhelmly. the california street cable railway was purchased by the city in 1952. there were cut backs on the cable car system and in 1957 only three lines would remain. the three lines that exist today. in 1964 the cable car's future as part of california's transit system was sealed when it was proclaimed a national historic landmark.

in february, 1980, muni metro were officially inaugurated. in that same year, muni received its first fleet of buses equipped with wheelchair lifts. in 1982 when the cable car had a shut-down, they added an alternative attraction to the cars. the festival was a huge hit and would continue for the next four summers in a permanent f-line that would extend all the way to fisherman's wharf, by 2000 the f-line was in place. and in 2007 muni extended the third line to the southeast corner and returning to third

street. for the first time in 60 years. in the course of last 100 years, muni's diverse workforce forged by men and women of innovation have reflected the many cultures that flock to the city. muni's ground-breaking antidiscrimination has guaranteed equal opportunity for all. the city's policy mandates the course for the future, as they work diligently to increase options and increase multialternatives, and deduce -- reduce the carbon footprint. it continues to improve the systems. during this sen --