director, mr. ramos. >> thank you president avalos and commissioner. i'm director with the san francisco mta. i'm also a resident of supervisor yee's district, district 7. also a long time, proud to say, transit rider and resident of san francisco. this particular project before you is part of the reason why i am serving the role that i am. twenty years ago i was a regular rider of the 49 putting myself through san francisco state university and working at the square and i had to take the 49 up and down van ness and it was one of the most painful rides in the city. later, as

i've evolved in my understanding about transit work, i also started to figure out this is one of the most expensive systems to run and the way to move our transit, to move folks around the city. when i learned about this particular project, i couldn't be more excited. the member that stood out for me more than anything else was the 30 percent reduction of operations cost and the way that we would run service along this line. as you all know very well, this particular project has tremendous potential to be a parodyne shift for the way we run transit in san francisco. the kind of shift something like the bart system itself was or like any of the streetcar systems in the past and/or the light rail vehicle systems that we have. this system itself effectively

could become the way that we redo the way that we move around san francisco and i'm thinking about van ness, i'm thinking about 19th avenue, maybe lombard, mission, all of these corridors that are yearning that we really need to improve or transit service along so that everyone can get around more easily, more reliably, more efficiently and obviously would save cost. working at the mta, you all know very well that we are turning over every dollar, every cent within our budget to make sure we can deliver service with a minimal resources that we have and these resources have been constraining over and over over the past years. this, i think is what we will call one of the best returns on investment -- a threefer and

for every dollar we spend we have to get $3 of return on it and this particular project itself obviously -- it saves on operations, costs, it creates a safer corridor for bicyclists and pedestrians and obviously, most importantly, it delivers fast, frequent, reliable service. i think that's all i really need to say right now. i'm happy to speak more about the partnership if you'd like between the mta and the cta. kudos to 'tilly and michael and tim on our side and everybody else that's been working on this. we're really excited about moving forward together on, not just this project, but looking at the rt and other corridors in the future so we can deliver and get more people -- deliver better transit service so that more people will leave their cars at home. they're going to opt for more

growth if we want to plan for more growth we can't stretch our streets anymore. we have to do more with what we have. this is one of the ways we can do that. thank you for all your work on this. i'm looking forward to the discussion. >> thank you for your great work and oversight on this as well. we do have comments from some of the commissioners. commissioner yee. >> yeah, real quickly. i -- just for clarification, -- first of all, i'd like to make comment that i'm glad we're looking at alternative parking for those areas where parking is impacted. i made this observation several months ago when we're trying to get from point a to point b to improve peoples' ability to move from one place to another. sometimes we make these

improvement and do not make adjustments for impact that it has on a particular neighborhood in regards to parking. we take it away from them to help people from outside our neighborhood get from point a to b. that's a good thing. i need some clarification . on page 3 -- it could be just the illustration that's inaccurate, but on page three it shows sutter and van ness and if you're looking at the stop that's going southbound, that's pretty clear in how the pedestrian gets to that particular stop. then if you look on the other side going northbound there's a picture that shows that the stop is in the middle of the street and i'm not too sure how the

pedestrian gets -- would get to that stop. is there anybody that can clarify that? on page four it's pretty straightforward to me in terms of where the stops are and how the pedestrian enter through the crosswalk. it seems like on this particular one, unless it's just an error under illustration, it's, like, you have to jaywalk in the middle of the street to get to the stop. >> hi commissioner yee. that's a good point and i realize that these drawings are conceptual in nature and aren't as detailed in providing all the details for every little item. the way this would work is actually the entrance is at the next block farther north. you would not enter through sutter street. >> i didn't want to assume.

from the illustration it looks like it stops right in the middle of the block. >> sure. >> one other comment. the comment about this could be the way of the future for transportation. i think this is great in general that we have these middle lanes and for people to cross into -- get into the bus stops by crossing the street. it's, i think in general, 95 percent of the streets -- it's probably the most practical, safe thing to do for a pedestrian, but on the other hand on 19th avenue when we're looking at the muni stop, we're trying to move it away from the center because it's so unsafe for pedestrians to try to cross to get to the middle. perfect example of that is over at san francisco state

when you see basically people unloading and several hundred people trying to cross the street on one signal and it would make a lot more says that it's not in the middle of the street. so hopefully on van ness we don't have the same situation where everybody's trying to get off at one time and there's not enough room for people to stand and wait for the signal to change. >> okay, great. i know that commissioner mar had [inaudible] so commissioner mar. >> thank you chair avalos. i wanted to thank michael schwartz and the mta staff. i'm very anxious to make sure our rapid network and the brt systems are moving forward as quickly as possible. chair avalos mentioned our visit to

mexico city brt's and they were surprised how long our approval process was. i also wanted to say i think the rapid network we're creating in san francisco is critical for many areas that lack strong public transit support like the west side of the city. so with the van ness' brt's hopefully speedy imelementation that we can work towards the gary brt networks as well. i wanted to say i'm appreciative that the center lane alternative has been the one that's going to be proposed. i think it's the superior brt, the more effect

ive ones according to the transportation and development policy that sponsored our trip to mexico city. those that cut corners and don't support the center lane alternatives, i think usually get the weaker ratings and are not as effective in connecting up the city with speedier, more reliable and higher quality transit. i'm glad the van ness brt is including some of the safety improvements that commissioner yee mentioned, but also tremendous street scape improvements as well. so i'll be looking forward to supporting the approval of the alternatives that are presented today, along with the eir. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner breed. >> thank you. i know this project has been underway for some time. i personally would have preferred to see an

approach towards underground opportunities and i know again, it's too late to turn back the clock, but my biggest concerns about moving this project forward, although i of course support this as an option, are the loading for some of the small businesses. i know that was briefly mentioned and hopefully that would be taken into consideration. i know this we don't have the kind of alleys that maybe other places have to load and unload into certain businesses, but i know that's a continual problem with our businesses. parking will be a challenge, and also with the significant number of tickets that many of the delivery trucks are receiving as a result of double parking and everything. it's a challenge to our city, especially when we make significant changes and put in bike lanes and take out parking, but i want to make sure we are taking the concerns of the businesses who are

significantly impacted seriously. if we come up with solutions that really work for them because we are taking out a significant amount of parking. the other thing that was mentioned was the landscape and trees and those sorts of things. i think san francisco has not done a very effective job, both when i served on the redevelopment commission, of looking at landscape that is sustainable, that has maintenance attached to it, but more importantly, putting the appropriate trees in the places where they don't negatively impact sidewalks, they don't negatively impact underground pipes and other things. there's been really a number of /khal he thinks specifically in district five where there are trees in locations where they shouldn't be and they're causing a lot of damage underground and to sidewalks

and so when we're looking at landscape, we need to make sure that the kind of things that we place really make sense and they don't damage some of the infrastructure that we plan to put into place. that's all. i just wanted to make a few comments. looking for to see this project move forward and looking forward to bus rapid transit in general. i'd like the city to focus more effort on trying to do what we can to move some of these projects underground. we have a lot of people to move around, a lot of work to do to increase transportation efficiency and i just think that there are some projects that don't necessarily always have the space to do that and taking away parking consistently in huge numbers is not always completely the answer. we need to strike a balance. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner chiu. >> thank you mr. chair. first

of all, i have some general comments about the project. as one of the district supervisors along the proposed brt, i have been supportive of the project for years. when i come to work, van ness is my main area of commute. have of the travel time is spent loading and unloading passengers and i think it's important we move forward with real change, which proposal represents. we've heard the /sta statistics -- it will reduce travel time by 33 percent. it will increase ridership by 37 percent with half of those new drivers being former drivers. i think those are incredibly compelling. i want to talk about the vallejo northbound station variant and i do plan to make a motion at the appropriate time

to add the northbound station at vallejo street as part of the locally preferred alternative and i want to thank the community members that have worked with my office on this as well as the ta and mta staff. the need for the northbound station stems from the fact that this project will be eliminating existing bus stops at broadway. this will impact hundreds of low income seniors that live within a block of that van ness and broadway intersection. the northbound vallejo station has been environmentally cleared, but is not currently part of the lpa definition and that is what i would be motioning to add. i think it's incredibly important to ensure safe and convenient access for our seniors for disabled residents and others in that

neighborhood. as you heard before from ta staff, without this station, seniors and others who rely on public transit would have to walk up the steepest grade of van ness to get to that closest northbound station of pacific and with the two double lefts at broadway, seniors would have to cross a dangerous intersection to get to pacific station, with the only alternative to walk three blocks south to get the other northbound station. the addition of the northbound vallejo station would not significantly add travel time to the route. it's estimated to be no more than 16 seconds for that stop and wouldn't create other impacts. i know seniors use that to go to the safeway and other places to buy groceries and access other goods and /s*fgss and i've heard from many residents that

access to public transit in that particular area is very vital. so i will be asking your support in a motion to add the local northbound vallejo station to the the northbound alternative. >> thank commissioner wiener. >> thank you. i wanted to thank everyone who had a hand in moving this forward. it's been a long process and we've discussed what this process says about project delivery in san francisco generally and i hope we're moving in a positive direction in terms of improving that process so we can deliver projects in a time hi, efficient and cost effective manner. whatever the history, i'm glad we're here and that the project can move forward. this, i believe, is a transformational project for public transportation in san

francisco and i share the desire for this to be just the first brt that we deliver in the city. i hope that we have a quite a few, although i agree with supervisor breed that sub ways are absolutely wonderful, subways are also extremely expensive and challenging in their own ways. so while we should not give up on building subways, brt is also a very good and cost effective way of making muni run faster. brt is a key part in implementing the transit effectiveness. as i understand it, muni has the slowest average speed of any major transit agency in the the west. i think it's 8 miles per hour on average and the tp is

designed in large part to improve those speeds and brt is a key part of that. specifics of van ness -- i, as a fairly regular user of the van ness lines during the day, during non rush hour, during rush hour, i think anyone that using the van ness lines will know it is a salute disaster. it is a traffic cesspool. there are times when i'll be coming back from city hall from somewhere north of here and i will get off the bus to walk because it is -- the bus is just not moving. it has to go through multiple cycles even to get through a traffic light and there are times when i'm kicking moist -- myself for

not getting ting off the bus because we have been sitting for ten minutes to go one block. i am thankful -- i hope approving the middle lane option -- it is -- i think to make this work it needs to be in the middle lane and putting in a side lane, while i understand the desire of some to do that, means the buses will get caught behind every right turning car and i think it'll be much less effective. i also think this particularly for any brt project where we're investing significant public money and making significant trade offs in terms of parking and traffic and trade offs that i believe are /wo*t worth it, but we are making /traeuld offs and spending public money, we need to get it right in the first one out of the gate. i

have some concerns about the addition of the northbound vallejo stop. i completely understand why folks are advocateing for this and i am sympathetic, but i have some concerns. i have a question for staff about the addition of the northbound vallejo stop. what is the additional cost of adding that stop to this project? >> the high level estimated is about $500,000 for another station. >> and we're already short on the budget for this project? >> there are currently a budget short fall, yes. >> okay. can you -- if we do this, are you able to guarantee that there won't be additional requests for additional stops on various parts of the line?

>> i cannot personally guarantee that that would be the case, no. >> okay. has there been discussion about whether this -- what kind of precedent this might create in terms of adding additional stops? >> yes. it's a very good point and something that staff took very seriously was the precedent knowing things -- like, the transit [inaudible] on a number of lines and we noted that we are removing about a third of the stops as part of this project. that is partly why the southbound, from a technical standpoint, was justify dude to the ridership. we did clear environmentally [inaudible]. >> so the stop is not in the locally preferred alternative.

>> just to add on to michael's response there. i think we're unique on several levels. we deliberated for a while on how this context may apply city wide. we have a few other factors that have unique to this particular location that maybe may not make it a precedent for the city wide for for stop con consolidations. we also have a remaining double left turn which is the only one we are retaining on the corridor in the southbound direction so we are able to take away and the left turns elsewhere, we are leaving this large movement here and that presents a challenge.

finally we have some folks using it, but there's not a large number of folks on the bus at that point, so we don't think this will be particularly burden some from a travel time standpoint? on the southbound side we did, in recognition of the five block gap that would have been left had we taken away the gap. >> the agencies made a /khoeusz not to incloud it on the lpa? >> that is true. on the north bound. >> now, in terms of /pres /tkepbts, precedent, we have a very significant senior population throughout san francisco. we have a lot of hills. is there any analysis in terms of implementing the brt, where there are significant

senior populations in relation to hills? one thing to say we looked at the city and really this is the only place we have this [inaudible] of senior housing, a particular grade, but we see that throughout san francisco. >> sure, let me invite some mta colleagues. the double left turn is a pretty substantial movement and everywhere else many in the corridor was a very unique situation. >> how confident are you that this isn't going to be a precedent as we roll out other brt's /stphr ? >> i recognize that.

>> i am not in any way saying this proposal is somehow ill founded or irrational. i understand the basis and i'm sympathetic to it. i am concerned that this is the first brt outta the gate and we're at the beginning of tep implementation. i'm concerned about the precedent it's going

to set. one of the points of brt is to separate it and don't stop at every block so we can get efficient movement of the buses. this will increase the cost by about half million dollars, which is not insignificant. we don't know if there are going to be other requests on this brt line. as we know in san francisco, the closer you get to finalizing the project, the more people tend to focus on the details and come forward and say hey, what about this? that's just natural. i'm concerned /thao we do this and then we're going to have other requests as well so i don't know how global this consideration would be. i just -- i don't understand brt, the tep is going to be very politically challenging in terms of implementation. it's /tpoeupbg going to be hard for all of us when you reroute

line, consolidate bus stops. i'm not suggesting we can't add a bus stop here or do a consolidation. i know mta's still doing out reach about that, but i'm concerned about the /pres tent -- precedent that this sets. >> thank you. i know commissioner farrell was trying to get on the stack. go ahead. >> as one of the supervisors, along with supervisor ciao and i believe kim and breed, who this -- and i think wiener at the end here -- these districts are impacted by some of the brt. i just want to make a few comments as well. in terms of rent dents in district two who have commented on it, i want to thank them for their input. i

see george here who has a letter here from. so thank you for your continual input here. to echo what my /kol colleagues have said, i believe cesspool is an appropriate comment. anyone who's local in san francisco -- if you can avoid it, you avoid it. i think that's really unfortunate. i absolutely believe [inaudible] the project has taken a long time to implement and i agree with supervisor wiener's comments about project delivery. a long process like this -- this won't be a perfect project from everyone's point of ew.

i will absolutely be supporting supervisor chiu -- van ness stop at vallejo. there's a principal concern for those in russian hill, certainly the local neighbors. i think these have to be evaluated on an individual basis and they do have very significant impacts on residents living in the neighborhoods. from my perspective, it is time to move forward. i hope we get this out today. >> as we think about van ness brt and from my perspective in district two as the gateway of san francisco we are going to have that /ud /aud parkway in a number of years and my focus is going to start to be on lombard and what happens and reenvision that street and