francisco municipal transportation board of directors department of the authority please call the roll. director brinkman, heinicke, nolan, ramos, director rubke is present. directors, please be adviced that director lee is not going to be able to be here at today's meeting. annunciation prohibition of

electronic devices are prohibited. any person responsible for one going off in the meeting maybe asked to leave the room. please be advised that cellphone interference will cause. item 5, citizens advisory report. i do not see mr. weaver here. >> this morning we have three items. we are going to call them all at once. the question was raised earlier about the ability of this body to proceed because of an appeal filed yesterday afternoon of the planning commission's decision. my understanding from the city attorney until that is registered from the board of supervisors for 30 days. so we are able to act this morning? >> chairman, nolan, the answer is yes you can up until an

appeal is cal endared by the board of supervisors. you can take action. >> great. call the items. city clerk: item 6: 6. approval of the transit effectiveness project, including a service policy framework and, at a programmatic and conceptual level, the service improvements, service-related capital improvements, and travel time reduction proposals, including a transit preferential streets "toolkit" described in the final environmental impact report, and adoption of ceqa findings, including a statement of overriding considerations, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program under the california environmental quality act. explanatory documents include the feir, a staff report, resolution, findings and program.. city clerk: sf 61234 item 7: 7. approving proposed service and route changes as part of the transit effectiveness project including frequency increases and decreases, new routes, expanded limited-stop service, realigned transit routes including eliminating segments of service in some casess, a route elimination, and expanded hours of operation to municipal railway transit service including the following route additions, realignments, and modifications/eliminations : e embarcadero; 1bx california "b" express, 2 clement; 5 and 5l fulton/fulton limited; 8x bayshore express; 10 townsend; 11 downtown connector; 12 folsom/pacific; 16x noriega express; 17 parkmerced: 18 46th avenue; 22 fillmore; 28 19th avenue; 28l 19th avenue limited; 29 sunset; 33 stanyan; 35 eureka; 43 masonic; 47 van ness; 48 quintara/24th. street; 52 excelsior and 76x marin headlands express, and the following service frequency modifications: 1 california; 2 clement; 3 jackson; 5 fulton/5l fulton limited; 6

parnassus; 8ax bayshore 'a' express; 8bx bayshore 'b' express; 8x bayshore express; 9 san bruno; 9l san bruno; 10 townsend; 14l mission limited; 14x mission express; 17 parkmerced; 21 hayes; 22 fillmore; 24 divisadero; 28 19th avenue; 28l 19th avenue limited; 29 sunset; 30 stockton; 30x marina express; 31 balboa; 33 stanyan; 35 eureka; 37 corbett; 38 geary; 38l geary limited; 41 union; 43 masonic; 44 o'shaughnessy; 45 union/stockton; 47 van ness; 48 quintara/24th street; 52 excelsior; 54 felton; 71l haight noriega limited; f market & wharves; j church; k ingleside; l taraval; m oceanview; n judah and t third street. explanatory documents include a staff report, resolution, mmrp, proposals sf 712341234 various muni lines. >> item 8: 8. amending transportation code division ii, section 601 to eliminate the transit-only area on potrero avenue from 22nd street to 24th street northbound and to designate a transit-only area on potrero avenue from 18th street to 25th street southbound, and approving traffic and parking modifications to implement seven fast-track segments along rapid transit routes included in the transit effectiveness project's the travel time reduction proposals including:1234 >> director riskin? >> thank you mr. chair. good morning. mr. chair, members of the board, obviously this what we are contemplating today is the culmination of about 8 years worth of work, really tremendous work by mta staff by planning department staff, the city attorneys office and many others. it really is a once in a generation opportunity for us to look at and make improvements in muni service that so many people rely upon and that really is one of the english ines of

the san francisco economy. i'm really happy to be at this point and i would like to thank the staff for the incredible work they have done and gotten us to this point. we have a presentation that we'll walk through focusing a little bit more on the capital changes that are recommended in item 8, since those have been a little bit less before the board and then we look forward to hearing from the public and from the board. >> thank you, dr. riskin. ms. chris baum? >> good morning, thank you for having us today in a time to a milestone in this project. today you have three calendar items before you. the first relates to approval of the tep project description, ceqa findings, the monitoring program and as well as the

statement over ride consideration. we are also bringing you a set of parking of traffic legislation for a set of fast track projects that we have an opportunity to integrate into various related construction projects as well as the service chain proposals which we have modified against on your feedback on march 14th, as well as the feedback on the policy and governance committee. the key elements of the tp include the policy framework which really shaped all of our work and includes providing extensive access throughout the city while concentrating investment on our heaviest routes and about a 12 percent increase in service. you will be considering a 10 percent increase as part of your budget conversations. the additional 2 percent would be before you for consideration in the next budget cycle.

the third piece is a set of capital investment which is 40 miles of transit priority throughout our city streets. the rapid network in the grid network, they combine to get to that corner to corner experience for san franciscans so most people can get to where they are going without having to rely on a car and without having to make one transfer. the connector network is what covers the hillier network. this map shows the frequency. most of our routes are proposed for increased service under this proposal. this next map shows the capital investment program. the red corridors are

corridors that we have currently resources to bring to design to be shovel ready to receive a geo bond. the second set of corridors would be carried through with preliminary resources and would be used for potential geo bond. the gray corridors are corridors that were addressed in the environmental document at a programmatic level and we don't have specific designs yet and we'll work over the next several years to develop those proposals. the capital projects themselves draw from a tool kit and you will see some of that carried out in the projects themselves. it's a set of different devices that we apply to give transit more protection and traffic and to improve the pedestrian

environment. this map here shows the really strong overlap between the high collision pedestrian network and the tep which is good news in many ways because many of the walk first priorities will be able to be addressed as part of the transit effectiveness project. the tep will be able to become a delivery tool for our transition. as i discussed in the beginning, the tep is now about a 12 percent increase in service although not part of your base budget. you will be considering a 10 percent potential service increase at a cost about $35 million. the tep capital program, the entire program including the programmatic corridors is approximately $300,000. that first 40 miles is about,

sorry, $300 million. the first 40 miles is about $200 million and about $150 million of that would be pending voter approval. but it is currently in our cip with the intent of delivering it over the next 5 years. we met a key milestone yesterday when the planning commission voted to certify the tep ir with a vote of 6-1. the e ir is a service improvement and capital improvement. we are returning to the zero missions corridor and building the wires so the local and limited can pass

one another and the time reduction of the proposal are the tep transit priority projects. the project was approved at various levels. the documents were cleared at the programmatic programmatic level. the programmatic was extensive. anything that was created in the document were with the additional environmental work on the programmatic corridors, we can draw from the larger analysis that has already happened. the clearance was done for the 17 of the corridors. we elevated three programmatic corridors last month because we were able to work with the community to refine those proposals and we wanted an

opportunity for them to be considered as part of the mayor's task workforce as well as the service improvements in the service related capital also cleared at the project level. in addition to the no project which the eir considered we also looked at two alternatives. we looked at a model alternative and enhanced alternative for many of the travel time of the reduction proposal. that is intended to provide choices for decision makers as well as the community as we go out and vet some of these proposals. for example on mission street where one of our proposals would require moving a parking as an opportunity to widen the lanes to make them enhanced safety for transit as well as to create dedicated transit lanes. we also looked at a second alternative that would

remove park budget would remove an auto lane. in many cases we looked at multiple options in these proposals. the initial study was published in january of 2013. it looked at all 18 ceqa topics. it did identify mitigation measures and included for archaeology and paleontology resources for hazardous materials and they are very consistent with how dpw and c and p construct projects and making contractors aware of what to do if they come across archeological artifacts, for example. because the initial study was so extensive and addressed

some topics we were able to do a focused environmental eir. what that meant was the document focused primarily on noise, air quality and transportation. no significant impacts were identified for noise and air quality. there were significant impacts identified for transportation and mitigation measures were identified and that's part of what you will be asked to act on today. the transportation study also identified several significant and unvoidable impacts. on the transit capacity side at 2035 we identified crowding at some corridors. that is primarily the result of the travel time proposals of making service more appealing to customers and also related to the fact that we will continue to monitor and make adjustments to our service over time. it's not intended to be the service plan that carries to 2035. we

also identified in some locations loading impacts wherever possible staff worked to identify loading alternatives within 250 feet of the project, but in some cases that wasn't possible. and there was also some parking impacts identified particularly in areas when we looked at the cumulative parking needs for example in the mission where there is also a lot of development planned. there were also about seven or eight intersections where because of different transit priority changes, the intersection los would create the impact and those before you as well. during sponsor comments we received hundreds of comments on the document. the comment period on the draft eir was extended to

allow additional time for public feedback. the response to comments is an extensive look and response to the feedback that we got. we also prepared a complimentary document because many of the issues raised were about project merit and not about environmental issues per say. so the tep community guide is intended to address some of that feedback. we also used a lot of the feedback we got during the draft eir to shape what we got on the proposal through january and march and were able to address many of the project issues raised in the eir during that period. as part of the environmental action, one of the things you will be asked to take is a statement of overriding consideration. what that essentially means in lay

man's terms is that although the eir identified significant and unvoidable i am paksz -- impacts there are policy considerations for this project and that is one of the issues before you today. the fast track capital projects are part of the over all corridors that were cleared at the project level in the environmental document. i'm going to go through some of them in detail, but i'm also happy to answer any questions that you have. the first proposal is on irving between 9th avenue. it would integrate with dpw street project and address both safety as well as transit reliability. it includes four

transit bulbs, 3 transit bulbs and stops as well as a new signal. it included a large open house on january 30th, plus a lot of additional follow up with various stakeholders in various settings including walking the corridor with 10 community leaders to try to reach some final compromises on the proposals. in addition we received about 500 responses that we made available to the website. the first change i wanted to walk you through is at 9th and irving. right now we have a special signal that holds for the train. all other users are expected to stop. but how long they are expected to stop various based on how many people are getting on and off the train because the train stops before the signal. so in both directions we have moved

the stops so that the train clears the signal and then stops to pick up customers. it means that we can have a more traditional signal priority at this location and it will improve conditions for all modes in the corridor. this proposal also includes transit bulbs coming out directly to meet the train. there is two benefits there. it allows the passenger to not have to board between cars and it allows more space for shelter and next bus information. but it also prevents cars from squeezing from between the train and the parking lane. this is irving and 9th are both wide one lane streets and we end up with a lot of cars making unsafe maneuvers for pedestrians. this is where we

modified the original proposal. originally we had the stops be the length of the 2-car trains. we did get community concerns about the amount of parking that would remove and we did shorten the bulb and returned some of the parking. we then received a reasonable question of have you compromised the project too much. we still believe we of not because we still have a fairly wide waiting area for customers. the second major proposal for irving is to take the stop currently at 4th and 7th and to combine them in a new stop between 5th and 6th. here we do a similar bulb treatment and do the width of the bulb with a similar proposal. this is part based on community

feedback and fire department which has reviewed and provided input to all of these proposals. this change would also allow us to replace the stop sign at 4th avenue with a signal which would pair with the signal at 6th avenue. over all, this is about half of the total travel time savings for this project. the signal has had some concerns from community members that are concerned about cars coming down the hill from the ucsf parking lot at second avenue and making that right from irving onto 4th heading over to oak. there is a pedestrian bulb there now at that right turn which will help maximize pedestrian visibility and we'll be adding continental crosswalks and the staff will do a before and after speed

study to ensure there is no additional speeding as a result of the signal and if additional signs put at that time there will be. these larger bulbs give way for sidewalk amenities and we looked at bike corral and sidewalk space. although we initially proposed bike corrals there or not based on initial feedback and we'll continue to work with stakeholders on treatments for the islands, for the bulbs. the second treatment on jud as is something we'll coordinate with the projects and we'll not have trains for a period of time on the lanes itself. we have a fairly big gap on 19th avenue. this would

include a new accessible platform for our customers using wheelchairs at 28th avenue and it would also lengthen the boarding island for other customers waiting rather than having to wait on the curb. the next proposal is related to fullerton. -- fult on. there is repaving at the route and it would include 17 bulbs and would compliment our outside l project. we have heard concerns particularly at the planning commission about the bulb at mccall and visadero and it will roll out about the same time the bulb

would be built and would allow more space for passengers to wait and more space for the shelter. we were able to, there is two business owners that would be affected by these bulbs. we were able to communicate with one yesterday and send him more details about the proposal and hope the work with him on things like potentially sidewalk amenities that we could incorporate into bulb to compliment his business. then the big corridor project is portrero. here we completely integrated with the dpw great streets project. so this project in addition to creating a southbound transit lane and bulbs would also include a landscape media and a larger sidewalk? front of sf general and there was a

lot of outreach and it would improve parking spaces. one asset to this proposal which has been controversial is the proposal to close 23rd street off to through traffic. 23rd street is an offset grid in a fairly challenged area between portrero and the mission. but allowing that maneuver was requiring a separate signal phase and is a pretty good part of the over all delay that we are experiencing on portrero because it works on the signal timing. we are asking the resident s to go around and others other options for example on 24th street but at the benefit of thousands of customers who will be traveling through this area.

we are also recommending a bulb on mission at silver. this is just a small piece of future mission proposals. this will also address a pretty key part of the walk first network. mission silver has a lot of pedestrian activity and these bulbs will improve pedestrian conditions. then the last proposal is on columbus in coordination with the central subway project we are recommending two bulbs between powell and stockton which will become full sidewalk widening. it's a very short block on one side at that period other side we extended the original proposal by three parking spaces to be able to widen the whole block. there is a lot of debate on

both sides about whether or not the sidewalks along columbus should be extended into parking lane. and this will give us an opportunity to test and evaluate those proposals to help i think shape people's opinion moving forward. so even some of the folks that were concerned about this proposal were willing to consider it as a demonstration. other people are still concerned. then last project is along haight street. as part of the repaving part there which i believe is between lyon and masonic. we'll be adding 4 transit bulbs and 3 pedestrian bulbs. this will prevent the bus from having to pull over

to stop and pick up customers and will give more space for shelters via pedestrian enhancements will improve the overall haight street. we'll look more extensively at haight street they have a grounds project and we'll integrate closely with them to try to find solution that improve the transit priority as well as the pedestrian environment. the services improvement you are more familiar with. i won't take as much time with it. i will add the urgency and excitement that we are at our highest bus rider ship in 5 years and we do expect that trend to increase. all of the

service proposals have been done with extensive outreach throughout the process. we try as much as possible to be good listeners. that doesn't always mean that we recommend changes, but we try as much as possible to identify solutions that don't compromise the original intent of the proposal but still meet the needs of the community. there are several proposals that are on hold as we discussed at the last meeting. we will begin doing outreach over the next 6-12 months on those proposals to resolve those issues and bring them forward for you. the service proposals also include two new routes, embarcadero and the 11 downtown connector and the standards hours of operation for the two to commence will replace the three on the primary service on the corridor and the townsend

because ten is going to replace service on pacific and desire for longer hours on portrero hills and will meet the standard 18 hours of service a day. the stop service include the five pilot which is under way extending the 14l all day to the city bart it currently going during the peak periods and creating all day 71 l as well as extending the 38 l on the weekends. this is in many ways the fine print. this includes the one route elimination although all segments of that route would be covered by other services. the route modifications include segment elimination and segment extensions. there are several routes that we are extending in addition to the 14l and

the x is is extended because it only goes as far as 4th street. the 28 would be extended to van ness avenue to be connected to the key service and 28l extended to the outer mission to make the important connection to the outer neighborhood includes sf college and state. the 48 and 24th street which currently covers cannotara to schools as well. and we have the richmond expresses to van ness to the civic center. the service proposals are shown on this slide and you have them in your packet. we have some additional work to do on the