angle. that's where a lot of our focus was. we did quite a few project p ilots. focused on supporting employers and adopting sustainable transportation policies and programs. just because of time c onstraints, i won't be able to go through each one of them. you have a fact sheet on each one of them. one of the most programs was the sf state go state pilot program. we have student centers and other means. we did have some evidence of some travel behaviorships with this marketing campaign. one of the reasons it was really successful because sf state have engaged staff available to help with the program. i don't know if you familiar with the planner.

she was really great. was really champion for the program and helped really make it happen. we found level interests among employers. they were employers we reached out to. transportation is not always on the top of their list. i think one of the take aways for us, when we want to make a larger investment in working with an employer, that we need to be selective and work with employers who are engaged to make it happen. it gives us a person to work with. for other employers, again transportation may not abthe top -- may not be at the top of their list. those were some of the high level lessons learned.

there's a lot more information about each one of them in your packet. another major product of the study was the travel demand management strategy worked on this closely with other agency partners and some of them are n the audience here. this was prepared in response to kind of a recognition that prior to this project, various agencies had been doing travel demand management. but isolated from one another. it's to try to bring the a gencies together and form partnerships to help coordinate how question do t -- how tdm going forward. we prepared that last year. we still have a very strong partnership moving forward. the agency executive directors are very engaged in making sure there continue to be a very strong coordination partnership. that work is ongoing. could spend more time detailing it. but in the interest of time,

we'll conclude there. happy to answer any questions that you have about this p roject. >> thank you for your presentation. today our action item is to adopt the final report or f indings. in terms, can you talk more about in. are you going to be building upon these pilots and making these recommendations permanent and moving on to other projects? if you can talk about that. >> yes, there's a lot of work that's going on that's kind of falls in that pie chart. there's a great deal of work and under kind of umbrella of tdm. there are a lot of initiatives moved forward that have been influenced by had work. one example is residential tdm. that was in part as a response to -- after we did a lot of focus on employer outreach on that program, found that varying

levels of interest, one of the take aways we needed to try was residential. outreach was one. that's a way of working, kind of getting more direct access to travelers. that was funded -- we did provide some funding for that. you have previously approved through tfca. that work is under way. you'll be hearing more about it. there's work to develop more consistent tdm requirements for new development. there's a whole suite of different activities. these are two examples of some initiatives moving forward. >> great, thank you so much. seeing no questions or comments from committee members, thank you for your presentation. are there any members of the public like to comment on item nine. >> i like supervisors to study our general management plan and to see how our transportation

needs are met today in san francisco with all the congestion and the flux that's happening. for example, we have the light rail that starts from 4th and king to the middle of visitation rally. how can we address transportation management when we have a flaw like this. instead of light being connected to balboa station, it ends in the middle of visitation rally. instead of getting hundreds of people starting from ball bow -- balboa that can take them all the way to downtown, we do it the other way around. we have all of this experts and they work with the universities and they work with everybody, they do not work with the e xperts from the neighborhoods.

this is why this is happening in that the city and with our m ayor. he's selling out this city. everybody knows it. it's a topic that some of the board of supervisors, instead of truly representing the people, are selling out the community. i i know all of you. i know some of are you are deeply. when experts come here and talk about some sort of management, we need data that goes to the local population. to san franciscans who made this city. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public who wish to comment? >> just a little slow here. >> public comment closed >> i do have a couple of

questions. we're basically closing out this effort. what happens from here? >> trying to allude to that. again, there are many different fronts that we're moving forward on with tdm. there's activities in each one of those areas. in terms of the outreach and encouragement, there's residential outreach program that we're on. sfmta and sfc are working on what are the next steps for employer engagement. sfmta also has over programs. they'll be happy to comment on . we have the commuter shutly pilot. there's work at the

transportation authority. we're interested in this tool to shape behavior. we've explored pricing in the past. it's a very powerful tool to shape behavior. it can be controversial and challenging. we're very interested in e xploring it. i spoken to you all about our bart pilot to look at that as a tool to shaping behavior and u sing this incentive tool. those are two examples there. the area of new development, there's work under way that under the tsp program i think most of you are somewhat familiar with to some 1 a -- up with a standardized approach. >> it seems like this study focused primarily types of u sers. we have student, hospitals and employers. it's focused on methodology.

making transit information more available through screens, different programs. the conclusions, though, you look into the fine print, well executed, well documented. but the conclusions we didn't move the needle much. >> i think on employer outreach in particular, trying to allude to that in my presentation. there was a varying level of employer engagement. i think most of these pilots were pretty ambitious in terms of what we're asking the employers to do. they all needed to execute contracts in order to participate. there were pilot program focused on -- encouraging employers to change their parking policies. we found for many employers, transportation is not highen high -- high on their priority list. we need to be selective moving forward. we do need to(ú83p-/

have motivated champions like people -- like on the sight transportation coordinators and sf state. if they don't exist, these are voluntary programs, we need to use a lighter touch. lighter touch meaning come to a lunchtime workshop and hear about some new tools you can take home to influence your employer program. beyond that, i think if we want to see widespread change, regulation can come in. we don't have any proposals forthcoming about what that should look like. it was a finding -- we can only get so far with voluntary programs. we need to be selective about who we work with on that. >> it seems that the programs that worked best are the ones that becomes intuitive because they work better. it's an observation. i noticed that when private

transportation companies, for example, decide to offer s ervices or to expand services, they generally are g eographically focused. rather than focusing on a type of rider or type of employer or that sort of generalize, they tend -- people want to go from here to here a lot. if we provide a service that g ets people from here to here a lot, then we'll be successful. unfortunately that tend to be in areas whereas as a city, we haven't been able to provide transportation. i heard private ride sharing services to fisherman's war for example had been started and expanded. there are at the love people that want to get there. they're having a hard time get drug. -- all of these services are doing so in corridors. we haven't been able to meet the needs. is there advantage in looking at

this more geographic -- i guess we do everyday trying to figure out how we can augment transportation to make it more effective. >> thank you so much commissioner christensen. this is a huge topic. when we talk about the infrastructure strategy of the city. we're really talking about the education and outreach as well as the encouragement and regulatory wedge that ryan mentioned. i think commissioner christensen when you talk about the private sector coming in, one of the things we can do, to really send a clear signal. what is it that we want employer or private companies to do. what is it we don't wish them to do and to be clear. you're seeing that with the initial shuttle evaluations and follow update to that policy.

commissioner farrell asked for a separate analysis and there's the ride sharing services that are also out there. one of our goals as a city family, to try and figure out how to clearly articulate. what is it the guidelines we can put out to further clarify how we like folks to respond and partner with the city. one of the things that we struggle with, how much to use regulation versus encouragement and incentives. we would seek guidance from the board on that. one of the things that ryan found, though, was that it does help to have a dedicated person to work with in the community. to the extent that we have organizations set up suchs the transportation management association, she's playing that role in the north of market area c3 area, there's a mission bay transportation management organization. we got transportation

coordinators. as we look to the next generation, this is something that's top of mind. how do we get ahead of that. how do we make sure we have a frequent and smooth coordination channel with all of those folks. maybe set up the next generation of those so the city have an efficient way to partner with groups of employers or groups of buildings. >> thank you very much. any other questions? we taken public comment already. commissioners, can i get a explosion on item nine please? motioned by commissioner farrell and seconded by commissioner yee. without objection, item nine is adopted. item ten. >> major campaign projects updates. this is an informational item >> we have bob macy here. >> good morning chair c ommittees. i'm bob macy, senior engineer

with the transportation authority. today i'll be giving you an informational update on the brt project. the map here shows the core transit network in san francisco with proposed brt line shown in yellow. there will be two muny routes use the busway, accommodating over 16,000 in the corridor. this will highlight some of the key features in san francisco including the dedicated transit lanes. the brt will make transit more speedier and rideable. improve the safety for all the road users and maintain the person throughput along the

corridor. van ness is a transportation project. the core brt project is r eflected in the two inner blue circles in this graphic. this is the project that prop k and fta's program is funded. at the same time, a project is a good opportunity to improve the state and other utilities. the project works close well caltrans, sf public works and other divisions within sfmta to include these five parallel projects. these projects include some work that is triggered by the brt, they include upgrades that have independent value. they are combined into a single construction project. fital design for this project as reached 100% level as of september. that includes the shelters,

r ailings and landscaping. the tree shown here are gong tr. these trees were selected to have a strong urban survivability. the project will be replacing any existing trees that are removed at a 2-1 ratio. this design has been approved by the san francisco arts commission. listen going before the commission this wednesday r elated to the portion that runs through the civic center historic district. this exhibit provides break down of the core brt project. the budget by phase is on the left and committed funding source is on the right. since the last plans and committee update, there's been a budget increase of about

$700,000. which is fully funded through sfmta revenue bonds. all the studies have been e xpended. final design budget is about 6 0%. the budget includes starting and test up costs as well as the healthy contingency. sfmta is delivering this project using the construction manager general considering for cmgc method. and awarded the contract to walsh construction in july. the transportation authority has worked with sfmta to avoid some of the pitfalls that have been experienced using this method and some other san francisco projects. in particular, this included the core contractors and subcontractors for the utility work and the overhead contact system in the initial proposal. they're already part of the

t eam. we expect surprises when some of the minor work goes out to bid. we've been very encouraged by walsh's early engagement. they've made a lot of good suggestions to improve our traffic management. all of this better keep the avenue running during construction. sfmta has extended its final design phase to evaluate and incorporate the contractor suggestion into its plans. this method is taking some additional time during preconstruction. since the previous update to the plans and program, the schedule has been delayed one quarter mostly due to this c ollaboration. construction is now expected to begin by early 2016 and should last 2.5 years under our current assumptions. revenue service is now anticipated to begin early 2019. updated rendering of the project that shows the wide medians that have been preserved between

stations as part of the locally preferred alternatives. sfmta is now working with walsh for any changes that might improve the value and construction duration of the project. we're working with caltrans to finalize all the project p ermits. sfmta will work with walsh to agree on a guaranteeded maximum price and set up a construction schedule that the contractor will be held to these terms once construction begins. sfmta has applied for the agreement in april of 2015 and expect to secure the agreement by early of 2016. barring any delays due to federal shut downs. the next application for the prop k sales tax funds will be to match these fta funds to the construction phase. that should be also be in early 2016. thanks a lot. i'm happy to take questions >> thank you very much. commissioner christensen. >> wonder if you can address the

coordination of this project with the proposed hope street sewer replacement project? >> sure. that project and this project are both joint efforts of public works and sfmta. the teams are in close contacts. as this project is using the cmg method, we're going through the schedule with a fine tooth comb with a contractor. we'll a strong baseline schedule we'll be able to share with that other contract. make sure we're minimizing the destruction >> is it going to be some efforts so start one at one end and one at the other? is there some way to avoid cross disruption? >> the contractor had a really good idea of sequencing this project. sort of separate things a little bit one side of van ness at a time. it would be affecting the directionality of the impact.

each of these phases that the contractor proposing will have a three or four month duration. we should be able to work with the project to give them windows where they'll experience less disruption in different parts of their project compared to where we're working. >> i think mta outreach on the central subway construction has been exemplary. yet, i have a long list of unhappy constituents who have found large equipment on their sidewalk for months longer than anticipated. efforts just to keep dust and dirt down. i was at a meeting for a homeowners last title in, they're getting a brunt of it now. it really underscored the need to keep residents and business owners informed as possible, step by step. also just to try to maintain control of the site during construction as much as possible

and to coordinate things >> absolutely. we're using this as a public outreach. i know that's an area of emphasis. kate is on this project full time. we're anticipating that construction here it's not going to be the most pleasant thing in the world. it's going to be worth the end result. >> well, great job kate. we still need to do more. i have the towers and people all over me last night. we'll talk about that offline. in addition to the regular p ostings that you've done such an excellent job of it. we fleed to -- need to step up on some of these things. it's going to be messy. thank you. >> all right. commissioner farrell. >> two quick questions. construction beginning of 2016, are there any things that might

delay that? i think with supervisor christensen, lot of constituents just concerned about construction impacts. three year time frame, sounds like a long one. allow do -- how do you feel about that? this is a little bit of discussion around those things. >> certainly, there are a few major milestones that we have to get to before we're able to begin construction. one of those are the caltrans permits. caltrans is holding us to the highest standard of our work. we're working on that now. the other is coming to an agreement on that guaranteed maximum price and baseline schedule with the consultant. all evidence i've seen the contractor is very collaborative participant and is willing to do what it takes to get that agreement done. i think those are probably the major hurdles that we have in

front of us. part of the delay of the start-up construction is working with that contractor to help try and minimize the impact. i have some hope we'll be able to shorten the field time even if we're starting later than we originally thought. your second question was, just about that construction duration and how challenging that's going to be. this is a complete street project. it has a lot of utility work now associated with it. we're trying to rip up the road only once and put it all together. doing that while keeping traffic throwing -- flowing on the road is part of what's taking that time out of there. there's minimum requirements for how many lanes need to be open during the day. there's a lot of restrictions around noise particularly in the more residential parts of the corridor at the northern end.

we're trying to be sensitive to the different neighborhood environments. due tonight work where night work is not a problem. do more day work where night work is a problem. things like that. sfmta has conducted a survey of all properties along the corridor in order to try and see if we have areas where there's a clear preference. no one like night work. everyone know this project will be a disruption. we still have a pretty strong support for the project. people are willing to give a little bit of patience. we're going to do the best job we can planning with the contractors in order to minimize the impact. >> okay. thanks. >> thank you very much. i will say, i cannot wait for this project to be completed. thank you everyone for all of your hard work on this. seeing no other questions, any

members of the public wish to comment on this information item? >> i've been involved with this project for the last 10 years. now your supervisors are listening to an engineer, the first thing that we have to ask is, to study his portfolio. if he has done a project of this magnitude so convoluted. there will be 10 construction sites while this project goes o n. haven't said anything about california medical center. of course, the infrastructure. sfmta doesn't have a stellar record when it comes to that.

they promise to do the infrastructure a year and a half and they have taken four years. now we know that this van ness corridor has very heavy traffic. the only other street, franklin street, can take some off the heavy traffic. there's a lot of movement. for example, the 38 gearry, all the other lines go on van ness. how many focus meetings have been held with the community? focus meetings. not like an engineer coming now

talking to all in generalities. we need this project. a lot of hard work has gone into into it. we need quality outreach. thank you very much >> any other members of the public wish to comment. seeing none, item ten public comment closed. colleagues, this is just an information item. we'll move on to item 11. >> introduction, this information item. >> no introductions. public comment on item 11. seeing none, public comment is closed. item 12. general public comment. >> last 25 years, i've been involved with transportation issues. a lot of us advocates haven't been coming to this meetings because there are no time lines and goals. there's a lot of talk, no time lines and goals. we talk about central south bay,

we started with $600 million. it's now in the billions. it's the same with the other projects. what we are suffering today is from congestion in our streets. when you have congestion, we have to deal with problems like particular america, led spewing into the air. none of which has been discussed at this meetings. there used to be a director. he put in a lot of effort in the projects. he allowed debate. we don't see any meaningful debate and dialogue now. we have pandering. a lot of pandering on van ness, lot of pandering lake merced ar.