that is 1200 people a day. there is a permanent staff of 300 and when it moves the building is going to stay there and it will be converted to outpatient services. the talk now is mainly cancer treatment and breast healthcare. on filmore street, close to cpmc, there is the eye institution, where josh millet, who is on the list, will address you and tell you what they do at smith keteral -- across there smith keteral is pets unlimited, only 24-hour pet hospital.

there are 2500 students and 2,000 workers who rely on 3 jackson and i want to close just by saying for example, there is an abigail gould, who commutes from the east bay via bart, transfers to the 3 jackson five days a week. there is also a patricia monticello -- thank you. [ reading speakers' names ] >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. i'm barbara bocce. if the no. 3 jackson is eliminated it will have a major impact on our community. when we heard about it, we said what do we do? the muni said take a cross-town bus and then transfer. well, that is fine, but it's going to increase the

average riding time by over 50% and it makes it a little unreliable getting to bart or getting to your job on time and people mentioned this is a very hilly area. no count was taken of the topography. so if you have elderly and disabled people and young students, can they walk a quarter of a mile to these bus stops? it will be very difficult, especially when it's raining and windy and it's not really safe to be standing on sutter street after the sun goes down and it's dark. so what is going to happen? well, we'll take our cars out and call taxis and increase the greenhouse gas in san francisco. others will be stuck at home and won't be able to go to doctor's appointments or shopping. the muni is making it harder

and harder to park a car, and -- i'm sorry, the city is making it harder and harder to park a car and muni is eliminating bus lines. this just doesn't work. so i'm here today to say please don't eliminate the 3 jackson, keep it running and provide safe and reliability transportation for the people of san francisco. thank you. [ reading speakers' names ] >> good afternoon commissioners, my name is john paxton for 40 years i have been using the 3 jackson, relying on the 3 jackson to get downtown to work. what is the san francisco sfmta trying to achieve? we in the community will be burdened if the 3 jackson were eliminated and we would like to know why it's proposed for elimination? what is the mta trying to achieve? the tep documents do not show how the elimination of the three would benefit san francisco.

all it has said as part of mta's plan to improve service. certainly those of us who are regular users of the 3 jackson question how eliminating the line will improve service? we thought that the mta would say there would be a significant cost-savings over other possible actions, but we're told by julie kirshbaum that eliminating the 3 would not save money. then what is the nexus between eliminating the 3 jackson and improving service? how does the balance of scales of cost and benefit favor of the elimination of the 3? if those of us who use the 3 were further burdened, we would like to understand the offsetting benefits; which compelled the elimination of the line? we have searched for the answer and not found it. if there is no compelling benefit to the city, which offsets the significant costs

to the neighborhood, then why is mta pursuing this action ? 1500 people signed the petition and a couple of hundred of people have sent in emails supporting the continuation of the line. there is nothing that demonstrates that this action would benefit the city, promote the city's transit-first policy and be worth the burden to those of us who use the bus. we have found no answers to justify this decrease in service. so we implore the board of directors to drop its plan to eliminate 39 jackson. thank you for your time. >> thank you. [ reading speakers' names ] >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon, sara nyman. just a couple of things that i would like to point out without repeating what everybody else has already said. the no. 3 bus is the only bus that takes us back in the evening. the no. 2 bus stops running at 7:00 in the evening. if you took no. 1 you would end up on sutter and somebody who

has to walk down the little to take the bus back. it's a real hardship for a lot of people to take the 1 back. the no. 2 as i said stops at 7:00. you took away the no. 4 bus, which used to work in our neighborhood and now the no. 2 bus doesn't go as far. so if i want to go to the legion of honor, for example, i have to climb up the hill and go down to go to the legion of honor. you are not making this easier for those who lives in the neighborhood who is perceived as affluent. not all in this neighborhood are affluent or have a car. i have a car and use it once a week to go for groceries. from my perspective, this is an ill-thought out plan. thank you very much. >> thank you. [ reading speakers' names ]

>> hi, good afternoon. i am christopher bender. i go to town school for boys. i'm 13 years old. and town school for boys is at jackson and scott, right on the corner. whenever i need to go down to my dad's office, which is on pine street. he works at first republic bank, i take the 3 jackson. it stops right in front of my school, which is very convenient. it's a five-block walk to the nearest one california stop. and way longer to get to sutter. so i don't know -- so i take the 3 jackson and i just want to say please don't eliminate it. it is how i get downtown if i want to go to laurel village after school, i take the 3 jackson the other way to presidio and california. so the one california is like

-- especially if i am coming from my dad's office back-to-school for some reason, i would end up walking up five blocks of steep hills instead of walking, like, no blocks, no streets. [ laughter ] so yeah, please don't eliminate it. thank you. >> thank you. [ reading speakers' names ] >> you will have a greater future in city hall, i can tell now. [ laughter ] >> is mr. schmidt here? laura stillman. theresa oberzero. >> good afternoon. >> i'm on a different matter, which is the j church stop, but i'm really appreciative of all

of these folks and their points, and i won't repeat them. a very, very steep hill and if our stop were eliminated, liberty street. if you walk in one direction, you have to go up-and-down and up in the other direction you have to go down and then up a very, very steep hill. so it's the same thing. we have a lot of elderly people in our area. and people who rely on it to get to work everyday. i really prefer to take the muni to several places going anywhere downtown, but for me, if i have to carry stuff up, it's a little bit of an effort to get up that steep hill and i would just as soon use the car. there is one other thing that hasn't been mentioned that is particular to our area and that is a few years ago there was a real problem with the screeching of the jay church and it was mitigated by passing a law that they could only go 3

miles per hour. now they don't really keep to that, but it really did slowing down the train really did help with the sound. and if you eliminate that one stop that is in the middle, they will be going around behind those -- there is no reason to slow down, even, as much as what they do. that is it. thank you. >> thank you so much. next speaker >> [ reading speakers' names ] >> good afternoon. >> i'm theresa oberzer. the elimination of the stop on liberty is what i was going to speak on. i think it would create inconvenience for many of the neighbors, many who are elderly as has already been mentioned. their mobility is limited and the nearest stop is two blocks away. it's really deceptive because

of the way that the hills are cut. it look like the stop that would be eliminated -- next one look like it's only a block away, if you go through the cut, but actually you are not to walk through the cut. it's not designed for pediatrician access, but you are supposed to go down the hill, up a very steep hill and across another block 21st street. it's a little bit more than some of the elderly neighbors can manage. the other alternative is going down another steep hill and around and wait at dolores park, which for security reasons is a very exposed stop and there are a lot of muggings quite frankly and they would be easy prey and not one i would recommend. so the who options are not really palletable.

people walking distracted with smartphones and mp3 players, won't hear the streetcars and you have streetcars in both direction as you walk through the cut. the other issue that i want to raise say security -- excuse me a safety concern because the streetcars come barreling around the corner and liberty street is really a blind corner >> thank you >> next speaker. [ reading speakers' names ] >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. i am also here about the liberty street stop. i have live there -- lived there for 35 years. there is not a lot more i can

add because it's a very hilly area. what last speaker and laura before said, i am 73 years old and innocent since i have been retired i have been trying to stop driving. it's flat at 30th and jersey. you can't eliminate a stop where there are hills. there are people that live there -- there are people as old as 90 that live on that block that use muni. there is a woman that uses muni and can't come here today and she has to sit on a stool at the stop and how will she

navigate it? it's impossible. my car has been broken into 15 times and at night-time, i'm not really thrilled about working around dolores park to get home, because there is a lot of -- you know, things that we don't want to happen, happen down. there and lastly, on the weekends, dolores park is so crowded. so i would urge you to reconsider this and i would like to say that the notice on this was not good and when i talked to people about this about a year-ago, when this first came up and they said what are you talking about? the notice was posted on a piece of paper on a chain link fence setback from the muni stop. that was the only notice. so please reconsider. >> thank you. [ reading speakers' names ]

>> good afternoon. >> good afternoon my name is mackalia cassidy, a good irish lass and i'm taking the subject back to the no. 3. i would like to ditto the comments already made. there are steep hills and walking up the hills at night by myself, i catch the no. 3 to get downtown for an early morning meeting and i routinely don't get home until 8:00 or 9:00 at night. point 1, time of day, hills. secondly, i spoke with muni people several years ago and described my route and they said oh, muni works better east and west. it doesn't go so well north and south. and that is very true. so the frequency of the 22 and the 24, the 24 in particular, which would get me to the intersection closest to me is way less attractive than managing my life around the 3.

thirdly, i happen to have an adult disabled daughter and my husband happens to be 81 years old and they use the no. 3 on a regular best of my basis. it's a huge advantage. a whole bunch of things that i don't have to worry about. please do not eliminate the no. 3, thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> bob planthold, linda kahn, daniella hirschbaum. >> i'm bob plantboard and as a bit of history for the audience i was on the tep committee. when the subjects came to us, some of us objected. our group never took a position. the people on n our group who were for it are self-proclaimed

visionaries, who don't raise children, who don't have a disability, who aren't seniors. you are already showing how out of touch has been there process. so ask yourself again, how many of these so-called community meetings were at nice, which mitigates against single parents and with people with disabilities and seniors, and people who have other difficulties in attending? it's an obvious problem when seniors are told of stop-elimination and even a supervisor of the board of supervisors has commented. you are hearing a lot of discontent. in the larger context, think of this which means and ask if

there is any ballot issue regarding funding for muni as has been proposed by the bias group that composed the mayor's transportation task force? the constituencies that are most transit dependent are not represented on that. that group is proposing ballot funding. you are incurring a reservoir of distrust and ill-will by going ahead with eliminating stops. muni hasn't looked at the costs of when i have to hustle to get another block, if i get injured by a car, if i fall, what is that cost? there has only been following the dictates of others who are able-bodied. >> thank you. next speaker. [ reading speakers' names ] >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. my name is linda kahn.

i ha lived about a block from no. 3 jackson since the late '70s and i have ridding it daily for that time. it minimizes traffic and eliminates the need for parking and has the most convenient route with access to various parts of downtown. this is the key bus line for me and my neighbors. years ago you decreased the number of bus stops and then decreases the number of buses, but increased the size of many if not most of them to carry more passengers and now you want me to walk down the little a half a mile or more and take either the no. 1 or the no. 2 and then back up the hill, when i return. it's a very steep hill. these buss are often very crowded and if i took the no. 22 filmore to get to those, i fear for my personal safety because of it's long north-south route. in addition, these requires

more transfers. the elbowing of other passengers and the jerkiness makes getting on and off the bus more challenging and we're an aging population. discontinuing the no. 3 will require more transfers for those of us who rely on it. more people will drive and either pay outrageous parking fees -- leading to more traffic congestion, pollution and double parking. it will affect local business as more people are driven to online shopping. couple this with the fact that a year or so ago our city fathers passed a law that required -- not permits, but requires vendors in the city to collect $0.10 a bag.

>> thank you. >> daniella kirshbaum [ reading speakers' names ] >> next speaker, please. >> daniella kirshbaum, good afternoon. >> good afternoon. i am daniella kirschbaum. they came before a joint committee of the board of supervisors and they spoke to them in favor of a trolley line that would run along pacific up to the top of the notoriously steep divisadero street hill and according to the article,

these citizens said, "they were tired of walking, having been without streetcar accommodations since the fire." and believed that they should be given relief. so their permit was granted, but of course, with the 3 jackson, that trolley line along pacific, that trolley line did not last and of course in the 1950s, with the elimination of the cable car, the california line was stopped at van ness. and in 1982 the 55 sacramento line was eliminated and we have had the elimination of -- or partial elimination of 83 pacific and there was the old forest sutter. so without the 3 jackson, i'm afraid there will be no service to downtown san francisco between california street and union streets. so i have made the

offer in the past to some of the leaders of the mta to give a walking tour, so you can see just how steep those hills might be. that offer stands and we appreciate the discussion earlier about public outreach and we are reaching out to you in the other direction. [ applause ] >> next speaker, please [ reading speakers' names ] >> good afternoon, sir. >> translator: good afternoon, my name -- i'm the president

[speaker not understood] we're the largest tenant-based organization in the city and 1,000 members are all low-income seniors and i would like to express our concerns on believe of our elderly members. public transit is a necessity, not a choice for our low-income residents, most are transit dependent when it comes to traveling across the coming up next some of the service changes proposed by tep is frankly a reduction in service.

the tep has proposed d to eliminate past broadway and we have a lot of residents who use the 8x to access important institutions and businesses. our friend whose grandchildren take the 8x to attend middle school and go to the north beach library and safeway to get groceries and i took it out of chinatown to visit my

relatives and i know a lot of my neighbors dot do the same thing. it would mean elderly folks need to transfer bus lines. we absolutely do not need cuts in chinatown transit. mta should be addressing issues such as buses skipping stops or eliminating crowded buses. thank you. >> thank you very much. [ applause ]

>> next speaker. [ reading speakers' names ] >> good afternoon, sir.

>> translator: good afternoon my name isenhe and i immigrated to the u.s. in 2001 and moved to the nob hill neighborhood two years ago. my wife and i use no. 10 or 12 bus lines to get to chinatown. however, the tep proposes to eliminate the no. 12 and in other words, this is a serious cut service cut and will have a dramatic affect on the community. they will have to carry heavy packages and walk steep hills to get home. it's extremely important to the community, especially for senior residents who often have

mobility issues. please don't eliminate the no. 12 bus lines. any elimination means service cuts to our community, which heavily relies on public transit. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. [ applause ] [ reading speakers' names ] >> good afternoon, sir. >> good afternoon, mr. chairman, directors, phil chin, representing the chinatown transportation research and improvement project. no need to repeat all that has been said. our concerns are very similar to other previous speakers. our concerns with with the 8x and stop placement for the 30. i would like to urge this board to direct staff to actually listen to the public