i'd like to thank the gentleman and to chester fong and tilting and others and the mayor's office for their tireless effort. and to the neighborhood and stakeholder we're collaborating to get this done. thank you, commissioners i urge you to adapt this 19th avenue study >> i see cynthia from the galleria. >> we wanted to acknowledge the wonderful leadership this collaborative are partnering has had and thank you for the opportunity to participate and want to see solutions and improvements and will continue to support the project. >> so with no other partners speaking let's open this up for public comment. i have a couple of cards

(calling names) and anyone else who wants to speak please come forward >> i'm katie work with the west side group. i wanted to thank liz as well. i have 3 points to make first of all, lots of outreach was done including with residents in our area. and as part of one of those outreach sessions we conducted a very inform survey i wanted to say that 70 percent felt neighbors support of tunnel. going through our area the reason we got together was some of the options were unpopularity so it was a good way to that was a prospective bridge through our neighborhood that turned out into a tunnel that made people

support the project better. the last piece i wanted to mention as well as someone who lives in the neighborhood we see the traffic and pedestrian safety issues everyday the offer crowding on the train it was clearly designed for a system or ridership one hundred years ago and if we're going to make the tunnel do it right and get an underground station. and if we're going to spend the money do it the right way and improve the safety situation and the ridership situation for everybody. thank you >> thanks. mr. goodman >> well, you mentioned that tunnel thing was starting on ocean avenue the reason community members opposed it was talking about the tight it little streets the issue on the

overhead you have 4 we're trying to look at the congestion this is tip towing through the tuesday lips this is not going to solve the 189th avenue turn issues you're going to have more congestion you've ever seen before sf state university had an m u for one million if something was in the ground and started. the same thing happens here with the park merced tail track and the future planning if we don't get this up front they're looking for studies and analysis and i think there are some, you know, adequate minds here looking at that but the problem they don't look at it i'll show you quickly i gave the drawing to peter albert it shows

connectivity. you don't have the length in the system i can get you a copy myself if you don't have connectivity you don't look at the bio county transit and you're not solving the problem. we're bending for a developer to do what they want for the project which is $7 million. so, please look at this sincerely and do not just look at certain neighborhoods it effects disproportionly the park merced area >> thank you. >> yes. glen rogers again. when they originally came up with the plan of the skyway for the young streetcar they didn't include the fact there was going

to be 2 or 4 rows of trees quite at all that would be at least 20 or thirty or 50 feet high >> sorry about that. >> the skyway would never be viewed even when there was a streetcar on the sky way. it's disingenuous and create a hedge that would block it so the public would not be invented by the bad view. i was present when the 1953 bridge was built in my neighborhood. i have to tell you it took forever for that thing to get built the traffic jams that occurred were tremendous. that's nothing compared to what happens in my district when k -

this is built. san francisco is ged with the research they have a good lawyer and good case. this project enters a quiet and peaceful community that causes blight and noise it didn't go through park merced creating a loop system it's a dogleg system that didn't priority in my opinion enough ridership. also it produces city kwauns for the largest community in san francisco. park merced has been recognized by many prestige organizations as praise worthy and historic interest. and lastly the management has offered low rate housing to

properties in manhattan. this project went out of business and at the end they were charging the residents there 3 times the market rate. so this is the history. thank you >> thank you, mr. rogers. next speaker >> good morning. i'm henry i'm here to voice any support of the feasibility study with one transcript on the avenue some not where the m lines are at there are a lot of students who ride the 28 everyday during the rush hour there's congestion in the north direction and if the questing right-of-way were there it would improve where their ride the m or 28.

that's one thing i ask the feasibility study to consider >> anyone else who would like to speak. seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor yee >> yeah. i just want to make a comment about the process of seeing the ta and mta as partnership come together on this. when they first went out to the community it was in draft form and there were options for several. was interesting to watch the public or lynn listen to the public initially when there was a fear that decisions were already made they continued to give their comments and input to the create of the process when it came back the comments that were made were listened to and

the adaptation of the next duration of the plan was more to the liking to the majority of the people. i went to several of the public meetings and saw day and night the meetings and in terms of the process i would hope that the effort that was made from this process could be also done with other promotions throughout the city. >> thank you supervisor yee. we're joined by john avalos as well. supervisor avalos >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to note i certainly hope that we continue to communicate with this community and i was certainly interested in finding of finding out more about

connectivity that was raised and wondering if there's any comment from staff >> so regarding the question of connectivity we did do a little bit of an analysis of expending the ocean view to daily city bart on page 70. and we draw up a potential line up from oxygen view to daily city. the best way to do it would be peel off the bridge and elevate in the middle and as you start to land you'll have to elevate again, it's quite a bit of aerial structure we have 3 hundred million reported. there's nothing we're doing to preclude that as a future extension but we have capital costs which is a large potential

agreement of the project we think the focus should be in the immediate term. i thought about it and i certainly hear about the connection to the daily city. i think people love bart because it's fast and reliable but we are trying to make the m ocean view like that. it depends on what you're desire is but some people choose daily city bart because it's fats faster and we're trying to make the m line like that >> thank you. >> a question along those lines if we are talking about the m line going to daily city bart we're talking top of a portion will not be going down

this area so i think we want to make sure that the randolph corridor don't lists services. >> let me clarify is decision that was middle-income made in the park merced plan some trains would go to the tail track in park merced and tuner and go downtown and some trains will continue to randolph so the current plan under would be not every train going to randolph but also a more service provided in the future. i think it's an interesting question is there a way to counterfeit the speed and reliability of improving the existing connection to the bart station >> yes, if we're excluding the train going to daily city we

would see less service and frequency potentially for people on either line right now we don't have anything going on in daily city but we'll use the corridor to get on the m line to downtown in a quick way. we want to make sure we're still maintaining a level of service people are using that line >> other comments. i wanted to say i'm sorry mr. roger we already closed public comment but i want to say the 28 line that dbe's north and south on 28 line to sf state as mr. pan raised increasing the efficiency and the use even if north, south corridor is an issue as we look at the results of this study. i don't know if the corridor was

from is it fair to say cycle to pretty much the ingel side but i hope we look at how to maximize the transit along the north, south corridor that goes up to golden gate park to park presidio boulevard sometime in the future. so colleagues, any other comments? then we have an action item before us is there a motion? >> moved and a by supervisor yee. >> supervisor avalos. supervisor london breed ask absent >> supervisor campos. supervisor kim. supervisor mar. supervisor yee. this item passes >> thank you and supervisor breed has left the meeting and we're joined by supervisor

avalos. we're going to item number 9 now. call the next item >> item 9 presentation of draft strategic analysis report on local and bike models. this is an informational item >> we have the newly clean-cut michael shorts. >> i'm with the planning section. i know we're running short on time. this is not in your packet we're protocols we're passing and we're distributing them now and to anyone on our website >> can i open up real briefly. back in september i asked for this report to be done we started our pilot program and but it's under the jurisdiction

ultimately but there could be other ways and places it's going to find it's ultimate home a hybrid between the m t direction and questions about whether we have government entity with the regional level that needs to get worked out and as we see the pilot projecting program i asked for this study to be done to get a handle on the different choices and not to thank the transportation staff and michael sworts >> the chair puts it exactly right this is a perfect time and the first part of this presentation i want to show this first muni rail listen this is germany gary when this was one

public transit agency. today, of course, there are 27 different transit agencies different operating proprietors they expedite with the agencies. a simple trip from the core of oakland your riding 3 different train systems and paying 3 fairs taking an hour to get there and paying more than $7 for a one way trip. this is some of the issues not growing in a cooperated manner. why am i talking about that we're at this stage we have one system that's working and trying to expand it we have this unique opportunity and the commissioners have been

interested in this traufb and hopefully, we'll do it in a way not to undue challenges in the future. as the chair said how do we get from where we are today to we have biking in the region and helps you to connect from the transit system. i'm not going into bicycle sharing but very quickly it's important to frame it as an extension of the transit system. it number one has the connection in the outer districts but it is pulling people out of transit into the congested downtown so it's helping transit and it could be a much anymore cost effective way in planning a now

a railway line. as the chair said the air district is the lead right now. this incrimination recommends the sfmta fund to have 5 hundred bikes in san francisco and a thousand through the system. we've learned from the pilot there's more than 90 percent of transportation is in san francisco it's a good place for bike sharing and as mentioned the organizational structure of the permanent structure is under deliberations and this is the best time to have the conversation. another thing to emphasize is recreational bike sharing is good for san francisco and a strong bike sharing in san francisco will be good for the

region. and see the nature of the f ar there's two key indemnities the first is the infrastructure and good afternoon, everyone. how local the administration and transportation will be done vs. a centralized model. everybody don't their own thing a nate's that's not the thing to look at we want to see the standards here. on the other extreme is the air district the regional district controls the funding to make sure the system st. is moving forward and the hybrid model in between there the second access is who's going be to operating open a local level. there's examples of this around

the country the nonprofit administer we spin-off the nonprofits who goes out and operates it. the second one the same nonprofit administering but a private vendor who operates it. and then there's a totally private model which is what new york and miami have done you allow them to go into a private entity to make sure it's meeting the context >> who is in new york and florida. >> is it citibank? >> yes. citibank. >> i'll be the ultimate operator bay keith from the sfmta who is the project manager for bike sharing in san

francisco, california answer your questions. >> and mr. schorts in mexico city is that nonprofit with the private sector partner; is that correct is are they in mexico city. >> my impression is that mexico that's right that is a private entity that's operating it with strong government oversight. even when it's totally private there's a entity whether you're going to charge for the space that has parking spaces or car right-of-way is donated by the private sector. >> and that's private nonprofit in mexico city or a distinction between - my it's a slightly

different structure but that's right it's a private nonprofit it's eco b.c. who won of their missions is to operate it bike sharing system i should note we're a union structure to do the recreational bike sharing into in the washington, d.c. area and the boston area those are the publicly administered models where a private vendor operates the system. and so the way we evaluate the model vs. public and private the 4 main goals from this commission as well as the public which are the ability to expand rapid in san francisco that is the critical mass and have it

become a viable form of transportation as well as fats sustainability. one of the key questions is the sponsoring question one of the sporpz is private sporpz and whatever private sponsoring is quite a bitly distributed so that's an advantage for that one and the other to make sure that the cooperation and understanding is where the value is in the spoerp. so this is again saying if one key thing the clipper card you'll be able to use the same fair structure it will cost the same in one area you'll be able to use it in other places to not pay another fair.

>> just around the use of clipper there has to be a law change to use the clipper in the system that's in the works. somebody asked about that it make sense the clipper card will be available for use for the system right now it's not available >> that's right and this is the kind of thing at the region structure form we can think about it long-term with the original role we're in a pilot phase. >> that will be key for the clipper being used. >> that's right and supporting the system it's a transit a recreational transit system outreach. something has come up around where the stations are sited and again, more local control over

decision making and local control around funding because there is - there can be a krrlt terms of how that might play out that's another consideration as to the model was it might be. this is again trying to expand not only the geofrantical policies but other things for the system. this is the method we looked at a bunch of materials including be academic research and did a bunch of stakeholder academies and advocates and tried to say what's the right context for san francisco how do we fit in about

that. the main finding that led to the recommendations that san francisco is well suited for bike sharing and recreational bike sharing as well 90 percent of the strips in san francisco we should note that the highest is alameda couldn't they don't have any bicycles in the county their buying the system here in san francisco really bike sharing works at the recreational level. in addition even though there's a recreational system the model today is not the only way to get the recreational benefits. there's ways to create the standards and potentially more disperse in terms of the decentralization. so there's more than one way to skin the cat and achieve the

goals. the region is trying to figure out the regional structure it may take time there's a timeframe noerg it doesn't have to be done today but pursuing the system we want to support thought or the region today >> could i speak about what is happening at the local level like the mta expanding here locally. we'll to move as quickly as possible but how are things moving right now from our prospective. i don't know if it make sense but keith can tell you the lastly news >> we'll be brief. >> so to that and so i you know

that flexible model i want to highlight that's the way the bikes are operating there's a few jurisdictions that are operating their own jurisdictions but the whole is better than the sum of the parts making sure that has stayed intact. there are more than one way to achieve the bicycle program. the first is mta should set goals for the bike system and expansion is the primary effort but there are other goals to shape the policy and funding decisions we need to make in the future so we want to increase the bicycle sharing and those are goals that should be specifically met. secondly, we think the mta should condition to work with

the district as well as other local jurisdictions and stakeholder to agree on the standards. what is the bare minimum that the standards should be so to make sure we have the system prasht ability. so the mta should develop the system in the long-term. basically to continue to have the funding and the business plan that kind of idea but same thing maintain the recreational definition it might be more down the line the goals will make sense for synergy purposes. we recommend the region has a hybrid model to spin-off a nonprofit that's strongly supported by a public entity; right li