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 weekend proposals, but they would in many cases be similar to what you've already reviewed. the over all title 6 report shows no impact to minority community or low income communities. that's because over half of the routes that benefit under these proposals are minority and low income routes. the title six documents were included in your packet. since the new circular came out, a pretty good change is that you will be adopting the title 6

analysis. previously title 6 analysis was something we did and had on file with staff, but wasn't included in the board packet. here is just an example of the map of the minority routes that benefit. these are routes that a percent of customers who use them exceed our citywide average of 58 percent. and then this shows the low income routes that would also get increased frequency. these are routes that exceed the citywide average of 51 percent. even our least low income route though still has almost a quarter of it's customers of low nvenlth in addition to doing the more formal title 6 analysis, we also did an overall equity

analysis that fall outside of the framework. we looked at the travel time proposals to make sure that the travel time benefits were benefitting minority and low income customers. we also looked at the stop spacing. the stop spacing is relatively consistent between minority neighborhoods and non-minority neighborhoods and low income neighborhoods and non-low income neighborhoods. equity was such a driving force behind this project. at the policy and governance committee we went through so many of the proposals. staff was the 17 was modified based on feedback from the advisory committee which is interested

in the original proposal which served west lake because it is a particularly accessible mall. when weighed against customers losing services, the advisory group proposed the model. staff recommended and tag supported the proposal to have it initially run on its current alignment on 11th street rather than on division where it was shown in the original proposals. it's a tough call. we heard from stakeholders on both sides. we heard the idea from connecting from the rainbow market along division, but ultimately the travel time was better on 11th and the land uses were more conducive to transit. that's something once we implement we could modify.

the policy advisory group recommended not to pursue the proposals including the extension to vallejo which was controversial and as well as 56 and 66. the recommended modifying the 61 and 43 and 58. i will walk through those briefly. >> the original proposal of the 26 would have extended the length to haight street. under the advised proposal we would change the relative frequency but not modifying the route. the six would run about a 12-minute and 6 l would run about every 7 minutes. we have concerns

from folks in the lower haight concerns about reduced frequency that would now happen on the local stops of the 6th, while that is a trade off for the corridor, what we are seeing over all is we will allow these stops limited as more and more folks walking to the limited stops because they provide a quicker and more reliable trip. the 22 fillmore is proposed to be extended to the mission bay what the 22 does today. we heard two concerns about that proposal that i believe we can address. the first is the 22 is not as frequent or as reliable as the 33 is not as frequent or reliable as the 22 to address this the policy advisory group recommended we increase the frequency of the 33 and we recommended

initially increased it up to 12 minutes and over time portrero hill increasing it further. all of these proposals as well as the service management changes that we are making will help make routes like the 33 more reliable and there would be a focus on the reliability as we move forward. we also heard from customers concern about losing the 33 on portrero both because it makes a direct connection to the hospital but also concerns on reliability of the 9. as part of the proposals, the 9 would be more reliability because it's getting more traffic protection as it has today under the fast track project that you are considering. we are also recommending increasing frequency from 12 minutes to 10 minutes. so customers that would have to transfer from 53 to 9 can do

that every 5 minutes. finally we did get some questions about the interim proposal to connect mission bay before the overhead wire project can be built. we are calling that route the 55, 16th street. we had a really good recommendation from our union that if we called it a 22 short it would be really confusing to customers and frustrating for officers to have to explain. this would have to be a temporary route while the proposal is being built. between guerrero and valencia to kansas. there were concerns about transferring at 16th and mission. this proposal would allow additional transfer opportunities. we also looked

at the idea of not initially rerouting the 23 and just the 22. we don't recommend that for a couple of reasons. one is that it would actually have less frequency than the 33 does. it would be every 15-20 minutes rather than every 12. it also we believe would not be enough service necessarily into mission bay. then the last proposal was based on concerns we heard from customers on grand view. the 48 right now is one of our grid routes that we are trying to provide a straight of services possible from one end of the city to the other. in doing that there are some twist and turns it has to take because of the topography of going over the hill top

between the sunset and knowey valley. the route was also taking a deviation into knowey valley to serve customers along the hill top. we had initially rerouted the 35 to cover hoffman and douglas. while that does provide some basic access for folks what we heard is they are really trying to make connections to 24th street as the commercial street as well as to j and bart. so what we recommended is that the 58 when it is adopted that it be extended to cover the stops up on grand view which are on a very steep hill top and that the 49 -- 48 would not move forward until the proposal is in played. the reason we recommend the 48 and not the

58 is the loop for the route and the others taking advantage of the service. right now it's in the middle of it's route and everybody in the bus is traveling through that 5 or 6-minute deviation as they try to reach other destinations. there were several routes that were modified prior to march 14th that the policy and governance committee supported and i do have those maps if any of those questions come up as a response to public feedback. over all for these proposals, their strength i believe is that not that they are going to be implemented but that they are complimented by capital as well as service management services and throughout process we'll continue to make refinement and improvements based on the

feedback from the public and technical data. it's very much our intention to not wait for 30 years to do a tp. that we are using the processes for the network of the stakeholders that we've reached out to as well as the technical data to on going review and evaluation and to be bringing you much more frequently service improvements for your consideration. thank you. >> thank you and your entire staff for this outstanding work through all these years and particularly the outreach to the community taken place over the last year. i also want to thank our members of the governance and policy committee and for your work and your recommendations on the board. at this point we would ask members of the public -- >> chairman nolan, can i ask a question about the procedure.

currently the proposal does not have the tag recommendation in it. we would have to amend it in it or is it the other way around. >> it has the tag recommendations. >> including the three lines where the proposals would be taken way. the tag recommendation are now in the proposals? >> yes. based on the tag, we e-mailed all the tag recommendations to the stakeholders that they understood they have been heard and saved them a trip here today. >> okay. ladies and gentlemen, members of the public, we are anxious to hear from you if it's helpful, if you fill out a speaker slip, not necessary but helpful for the minutes. who do we got? >> city clerk: betsy eedey.

>> good morning, i'm betsy eddie president of the diamond heights community organization. we would like to thank the muni staff for recommending the revised 35 route and that would provide services to residents who live in affordable housing. with the work of many residents in diamond heights and glen park. 160 letters of support for the glen park bart station were submitted to muni including letters from the diamond heart association and association board. though we are pleased with most of the routes both

the boards advocated not widening the streets. we request that you advise the routes and be revisited. i haven't heard any comments in favor of routing the 35 on wilder street but from anyone but muni. further exploring the route on muni would give to residents would think about routing at what the arlington residents would think about routing the 35 from arlington to diamond which would be all right turns instead of a route which is muni is proposing would be left turns which would be hard to maneuver in the glen park bart station. >> paul warner? >> good morning directors, my

name is paul warner. i would like to start by thanking the staff and in particular mr. kennedy for the time they spent with us on the issue of the 3 jackson. i'm happy to see that. if you don't push your luck, it doesn't go anywhere. with respect to the three, i'm very concerned about two issues: one of them is the reliability of the service. i'm one of the regular users of the transit to plan trips and it's great. i can look the night before and tells me what time i need to get up to catch the bart. i'm surprised how many times the 3 pops up as the recommended route. in the morning when i get close to that schedule, that service doesn't exist. it's late, it

maybe as much as 56 minutes late. that means i can't count on the 3 which begs the question when you are at your rider ship statistics how do you catch all the people who can not take the 3 because they can not rely on the schedule. that particularly plays into the proposal of cutting the evening service head way to 30 minutes. if one bus is missing, all of a sudden i'm an hour wait. that's painful in the evening. you are creating a real disincentive to plan travel that way. i think it's something that is obvious but it needs to be said expressly and not left implicit. >> alex long?

>> my name is alex long. i would like to follow-up on what paul said. we are very much appreciative of what the staff and board have done to preserve the no. 3 jackson bus line. i wanted to highlight a couple items that we sent to you in a letter earlier this week and they deal with our concern about reducing frequency to better match customer demand. we strongly fear that the pros will reduce rider ship. the two propositions is one to do a survey of the no. 3 in the evening from the period reduced from 7-11. to better understand their needs. we

would like to do it with the guidance and input of the mta. the second proposition we would like to make is that when you implement the frequency of no. 2 and reduce no. 3 frequency that you do it in sequence. you first increase the no. 2 and then we see what sort of rider ship impact this has on the no. 2 and no. 3. then you radio us the frequency in the no. 3. the concern is that going to an every 30-minute frequency head way on the no. 3 in the evening between 7-11 may very well kill the rider ship. thank you. we support your work. >> good morning to the board. my name is jarrod paxton. i

have lived here for 40 years and active in efforts to resist the reduction of services the 3 jackson over the past three iterations of this. i would encourage the board reject the further reduction of service in the 3 jackson and i would like to give you two specific reasons for that. you heard today about the overall service improvements in muni, but believe me when we talk about the elimination of the 3 line neighborhood, it's not a service improvement. there has been incremental no. 1, changes over the years for the reduction of services in through jackson from running every 6 minutes to an hour which was being proposed now

further. the middle of the day reduction from 12-15 minutes may mott seem much to you but it's yet another further small step. secondly we heard from the board that we weren titled to a compelling reason for elimination of the service on the 3 jackson. our small group pushed for that compelling reason and what the benefit was for the city for that reduction in service. and the best we got was to say that the two line on sutter street was over crowded and needed better service. in fact the 3 jackson has more on and offs and more rider ships on its route and no justification we've seen. i strongly encourage the board to reject

tep. >> good morning, i'm barbara bocci and i live on jackson street and i want to thank you for saving the no. 3 jackson. i don't want to repeat what they have said. i agree with everything that they have said. i want to appeal to you to keep the schedule in a reliable fashion. keep it running as frequently as possible so not to strand the many elderly people riding the bus and students and workers that come in and out of the community. without the no. 3 jackson a lot of people will be stranded in that area and we'll not be able to have a nice transfer down to union street and the marina. thanks for saving the no. 3 jackson again and make it as efficient as possible. >> joe donahue? >>