middle of that conversation, untimely, our mayor passed away. we're trying to put the pieces back together again. i want to thank mr. strauss for correctly noting, unlike a previous speaker, that the two-track, three-track inspection was done not to delay but to increase confidence of this decision-making body. it makes no sense to spend $2 billion building a bus terminal that's like a pyramid if we don't get rail into that trans bay terminal. with that, ms. dige, i hate to put you on the spot, but maybe you can give us a presentation on where the rav study is out. this merry go round needs to

stop, and we need to move forward. >> so, yes, i'm susan dige. i'm the project mag for the rav. it's a long name. we call it the rav. the rav was started a couple of years ago to look at five big transportation and lane use questions that have to be answered in the next one to 15 years that will all effect san francisco for the next 100-plus years. it looks those five is what are the rail alignments into the center? do we do a loop to add an extension into the east bay? rail yard relocation. the fourth is what gets all the press, which is the idea of taking down a pittsburg ortion . so with the other four components, there are parcels of land that become available to development and repurposing and

what should happen to that land. through the process, we were very close to going public with all of the materials last year. we were asked to do something that helps the process. qualitative and quantitative analysis and to deep dive on some of the specifics associated with specifically the first, how do you get the trains into the salesforce transit center. that took a while. we were ready, again, to share that with all of our partners, and due to the untimely death of mayor lee, we were in the process of working that through with our consultants and our

partners. we plan on taking this public in and around the end of may. so we're hoping to have a public meeting towards the end of may. i can answer any specific questions, but i think that's kind of a general. >> thank you, ms. dige. are there any questions? seeing none, mr. zabane [phonetic], if there are no other comments from commissioners, go file your record of decision. with that, this information item is concluded. mr. clerk, could you please go back to your regular -- >> thank you. thank you. very much for your leadership. i appreciate it and appreciate the board. thank you for helping us move forward. this will be done in a partnership. as we move forward with the dtx, it's going to be a partnership. thank you, again. >> yes.

please heed the immediate step number six relative to collaboration between the parties. [ agenda item read [ agenda item read [ agenda item read ] >> clerk: this is an action item. >> this is mr. tang and my favorite issue. the floor is yours. >> i will speak from here to be quick. as you may remember from your previous presentation, the purpose of the connect sf effort is to align our several agencies for a ground-up process to align the transportation projects and policy priorities for san francisco. so the vision before you copies over at the podium, should be at

your desk, is a 50-year transportation vision created with the city agency in an extensive public process. we've begun it. did research after the draft that came out a couple of months ago. got some comments, incorporated those into the revised document that's in front of you. the study will look at connections beyond dtx. the memo in the packets explains

the outreach in the spring and the changes since then. if you have any questions, our staff is here, along with staff from the planning department and mta. >> all right. do we want to hear more about connect sf vision? we have a different house. roll call, please. [roll cal [roll cal [roll cal [roll cal [roll call]

[ agenda item read ] >> good morning, commissioners. deputy district for policy and programming at the transportation authority. the first request for you today is from the caltrain agency for funding for them to work on defining their next generation of caltrain really to determine how caltrain will operate a blended system in conjunction

with high-speed rail on the same corridor, on the same alignment, and doing visioning as well as community interface strategy. the plan will also assess the caltrain organization and governance as it relates to how rails are organizationed nationally and internationally. the work will be done over the next year and a half. there will be significant outreach that occur in the fall of 2018 and early 2019. the next request is from the sfmta to fund the central subway. this is for the budget funding that has been incorporated into the baseline budget since 2008, i believe. we have the acting manager. he'll be giving a brief presentation after i've concluded. this is an r tip funding source,

a state funding source that has been committed to this project for years. it can only go to projects with currently awarded construction contracts. we have put together a fund exchange whereby the r tip funds will go into a rail rehab project for state of good repair needs for muni and then the prop k funds that would have been used for the rail rehab project will be used for central subway. all of the continued oversight that we're currently doing will apply to these funds as well. twin peaks, mount david, these are residential street in district 7. the prop k funds are going to match state funds from the sb1 local partnership program and the programming of those state funds was approved in the fall by the board. this includes the standard improvements that go along with street resurfacing, including curb repairs and curb ramps and

sidewalk repairs as well. and the last request is from the sfmta for the bayview community-based transportation plan. that will allow a grant for the project. the metropolitan program has been forged after the san francisco plan. the recommendations as they are eligible for this particular funding source could then be implemented with these funds. so excited to see this participatory budget applied to a community-based participation plan through this process. with that, i will turn the microphone over to albert ho to present on central subway. >> mr. ho?

>> good morning, commission president. i'm the acting director for central subway. i'm here to provide a briefing on the central subway today. we'll talk about the budget. to date, we've extended about 25% of the budget. we have 74 million in contingency, which is about 48 million more than what the requirement of 25 million minimum contingency. the largest contract, the station contract, we've extended about $590 million, about 70% of the $850 million. in terms of the schedule, currently the project is still showing a one-year delay

completion of december 2019 as the current schedule. this is mainly due to the might being efforts over in chinatown station. this was done as an sem mining operation. this is completed as of february so we can move on with the other elements of the station. the others are on schedule. as stated earlier, the main accomplishment for the chinatown station is finished with the mining operation. union square, we're currently in the process of finishing out the surface work of ellis and ferry and get the surface reopened by the end of the year. and for the masgoni station, we've finished all the civil work, except the roof structure at the head house, and we're doing all the electrical elements.

the elements you see right now at the chinatown station, the waterproofing element needs to go down in preparation for us putting the platform north of the station. as i mentioned earlier, we're restoring the permanent utility on top of the box to return stockston street back over to the public. and this is scaffolding that we're putting on for the restoration, the roof structure for the masgoni station, as you can see on the lower right. this is basically the fourth station at brandon. you can see the upper left, the rebar we're putting in and on the lower right, it's actually the surface crossover that we're going to be implementing for the surface track work. with that, any questions for me? >> any questions. i see two commissioners whose names were up relative to this item. any questions for mr. ho?

commissioners yee or cohen? no? thank you, mr. ho for the update on the central subway. congratulations on your recent milestone. with that, commissioner yee? >> thank you, chairman peskin. my question is around the resurfacing in my district, in district 7. ms. lozano or ms. lafort? >> i'm the project manager for this project. >> i'm grateful we're going to have some resurfacing and other improveme improvement in the district, but when we do this, there's usually disruption to the neighborhoods. my question is what is the timing for where we're starting?

what kind of outreach are we doing to the community and will the outreach be done by -- >> we're scheduled to advertise this contract in the next couple of months. typically, it's about a six-month process to advertisement and breaking ground and construction. typically, our communication effort, our construction notices are sent out usually in english, but if the communication team discovers there's a higher bilingual rate in the community, we'll send out chinese, tagalo, and spanish, i believe. if we receive requests for other languages we're able to accommodate and translate. in terms of the construction, as i mentioned, it's about a

six-month process. so we're looking at the fall of this year. i know you had a separate question regarding clustering or the sequencing of work for the contract, we're grouping the works into seven different groups. the way we've written out this contract is once the one group construction has started, all this has to be continuous until it's completed. in the past, if it's sewer, the contractor waits until everything is done, and then they go back and pave everything, but that's not the case in a lot of projects moving forward. a lot of projects we're grouping them and having a lot of the scope completed in the groups. >> would this project be broken up into seven phases? >> seven areas, right. >> then the work itself would be

done at different times, i assume? they're not all going to be approached at the same time. >> right. these are various locations. this is not a single quarter. technically, the contractor can start in different groups, you know, if they're kind of more spread apart, but usually that's not the case since contractors usually have a limited resources, you know. >> as you're working towards the end, the outreach would be six months in advance? are we doing an outreach to all the projects a year and a half in advance? we usually have the 30-day notices that we send out prior

to construction, and then we also have the 10 and three day. so we do send out to the residents as well as the owners. and those will go out to the individual sections as they start construction. >> can you make sure that my office receives from the contractor when the work is going to be done. how they're going to phase it in, and also the outreach material that you're providing so that we can actually also put it on our website? >> okay. sure. no problem. >> commissioner cohen? >> thank you very much. good morning, colleagues. i would like to direct my question towards caltrain, mr. chair. so specifically caltrain is an expensive commuter rail, commuter train. i owns a lot of land, a lot of property. i'm curious, what are the efforts to ensure that caltrain is investing in their

infrastructure in ways that -- there's no doubt that some catch fire, they're strung with needles and drug paraphernalia. i want to make sure we're utili utilityizing the -- utilizing the land. >> i think two ways to answer the question, in terms of our property along the right of way, what you're describing in district 10 is sort of our ongoing corridor maintenance. i will take some of those issues back to the department to raise. we do our best with the contract operator to keep the corridor

clean and free of issues. >> i'm here to let you know your best is not good enough. you need to do better. it's deplorable. i've reached out on numerous occasions to the leadership. it's been really frustrating because the response has been slow, if at all. >> i understand. i will carry that to the director, mr. hartnet. we're currently conducting some tool building and a transit-oriented development policy to we're looking at how to use any larger parcels in the best and highest use manner. so those are things that will be done as part of our business plan, and we'll be bringing more information to our partners. >> sure. thank you. up until about a year ago for the last six years of my last eight years of the board of supervisors, i've sat on the caltrain joint powers board and was more knowledgeable about the

intricacies of the organization than where i am today. one thing i do recall, back in 2013 or 2014, there was a desire to build housing on some of the largest swaths of land that you known. i haven't heard any conversations about that. is that still afoot? >> i think there's a lot of interest, particularly raised to affordable housing. >> what is the overall strategy to keep the prices affordable and low? >> i'm not the real estate director. i'm the planning director. i'm happy to take that back and respond to your question. >> thank you. i would appreciate that. i would appreciate a written response or a memo or something just so i can understand.

there were intricate plans where i saw renderings of buildings on caltrain property, particularly where there's a park, kind of an open space garden in the bayview that runs on top of tracks. >> right. so it runs parallel to third street. i haven't heard any news. >> i apologize. i haven't heard any news on that. i know there was work in progress. let me investigate. >> thank you, mr. chair. i'm done. >> thank you for using this forum to communicate that. i look forward to following up either offline or at a future meeting. thank you, commissioner cohen for raising those issues. are there any members of the public that would like to testify on item 7? seeing none, public comment is closed.

do we have a motion to aloe indicate -- allocation of funds. >> same house. >> same house, same call. the item is approved on first reading. next item, please. [ agenda item read ] >> ms. pa -- padilla. the 66th quintara activity study came about by the study of the transportation authority that identified the 66th line as possibly being underutilized and having improvement for being able to connect residents from the park side to other

neighborhoods. subsequently, we received funding through supervisor tang's office, which allowed us to undertake the 66th connectivity study. this is a map of the route right now. it goes between the northern end and connects to the lower end and a number of other lines in between. one of the key think so that we wanted to explore in this study was possibly increasing connectivity to west portal station for this area. so as part of this study, we undertook extensive outreach, we surveyed more people than the average for the line, which is pretty significant. we also did stakeholder interviews, focus groups. we had two successful community meetings and even talked to operators. here is what we learned.

what we heard from people on the 66th -- and i think one important thing i want to point out is our surveys reached equal portions of those who never road the 66, people who occasionally ride the 66, and people who daily ride the 66. what we heard is they felt that the alignment was actually the right combination. what they needed improvement on the 66 for was reliability. sometimes they left early. on the evenings and weekends, it was particularly unreliable. we also heard really great ideas about small improvements and tweaks we could do from our community meetings and the surveys. as, as we mentioned, we surveyed a lot of people who did not take it. one of the key factors was it just didn't go where they wanted to go. i think the biggest piece of information we got from these surveys were the origin destination pairs. as you can see on the left, here we have a map of the origin of

the station, desired trips, for people who don't use the 66. we couldn't quite see a pattern that stood out for us to tweak the 66 that we thought would be a home run for changing this line. another thing we did because we knew that a significant interest was to improve connectivity to west portal in this area, was to map all of the trips that either had an origin or destination. as you can see, there's pretty clear patterns on the map on the right. what's interesting is that if you see the darkest, strongest line going to the portal, that's actually along the 48 line. not the 66 line. so the 48 line right now connects to west portal, but one of the interesting things is that it only connects to west portal during the morning peak and the afternoon peak.

in the midday, it stops running from west portal to the beach. so that leads to the recommendation we made as part of the study. so biggest thing was actually to fill in service. so continue to start where we start right now, but actually run through instead of stopping midday to the afternoon. it's 6:30 to 6:30. the other recommendation that came out -- i should say that the 48 extension is part of the budget that's recently adopted. and then the 66th recommendation, the most significant one was that we're going to add a bus. what that means not just one trip, but one bus in circulation of the 66 line covering the weekends and evenings, which is the times it was most unreliable. we realized one of the things that was happening is we were asking for the bus to actually

turn -- it was like a hamster wheel all day and on the weekends. we think this will have significant improvement and reliability. we're also looking to implement a number of small changes that came from the neighborhood, anything from adding a couple of stops at strategic locations to adding more time points. they only have two right now. and the more samples you have, the more accurate the predictions can be for the next bus, for example. so those are the things we're recommending it and bringing that before you. i want tot particularly thank commissioner tang's office who was incredibly engaged and supportive throughout the process. >> thank you, ms. padilla. commissioner tang? >> thank you. definitely want to thank you for

your work on this and your entire team. i think this is an example of what i would like to see more of from the mta, actually, in terms of being proactive with neighborhood-level planning. for example, even if we have existing bus lines, evacuating it to see if it's still working out for the community, if it can be improved. we looked originally at a realignment, but it turned out, again, as you mentioned, there were a lot of things that could be tweaked on the existing line that would help. i would love to see more of this neighborhood-based planning on specific lines that touch certain districts moreso than others and that, yes, although the result of the study was not exactly what was expected, it did lead to showing that indeed our gears of advocacy on increasing the 48 line is something that we should absolutely include and advocate heavily for in the mtas budget. that's what we're doing this

year, but i want to thank you for your work on this and hope the see more of these analyses come from this. are there any members of the public that would like to testify on number eight? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion? >> so moved. >> is there a second? >> seconded by commissioner sheehy. on that item, we actually do have a different house. roll call, please. [roll call] >> clerk: we have first approval. >> next item, please.

[ agenda item read ] >> this is an action item. >> before you present, ms. fong. i have to go to the coastal commission meeting tonight. if we approve this and you want me to sign it, i can sign it on friday or you need to get it to me today. with that, ms. fong. >> good morning, commissioners. this is an item related to the transportation authority's program. we have a revolving credit loan outstanding at 49000000 with state street bank. this credit facility expires in june of 2018.

there's an attachment one that summarizes all the credit ratings and pricing in terms of interest rates for each of the various credit facilities offered in consultation with the ta's financial advisor rah. >> what is the difference in the rates? >> a few points right now. we're in in negotiation with the rates. you have attachment and certain pieces of it are blanked out.

they're willing to work with us. they have many transactions with the city and county of san francisco. they have one with sfmta, puc, the city controller's office, and sfo. they're very willing to continue working with the city and the county. >> thank you. >> and moving forward, this is the most advantageous and cost-effective proposal we have to date. it would be approximately $200,000. if this loan was at full capacity, we would be paying $3.5 million in interest costs. the total interest costs for this transaction would be 1.752%. the cac heard this item on march 28th and had a nonunanimous support. >> are there any members of the public who would like to testify on this item? seeing none, this public comment

is closed. >> excuse me. >> i'm sorry, commissioner cohen. >> that's okay. i'm a little under the weather. >> they moved by screen. it was there for years, and now it's here. >> okay. we have to get you reconditioned. hi, ms. fong. how are you doing? as you know, my office has been exploring how to establish a municipal bank. that conversation has carried decade-old considerations about working with banks, particularly in most recent banks that invest in oil, banks that have been found to have predatory lending practic practices. all of these issues have been brought to the forefront of the conversation. i want to make sure that the investment decisions of the ta reflect the standard and principles we uphold when we're

doing business with banking institutions throughout -- consistent with our other city and county agencies. so i was wondering if you could share with us at this time some of the social considerations that are made when deciding which lenders to work with. >> i'm glad you brought this item up. this is something that the whole city and county is very interested in. there's actually a debt manager's group that i participate in with other agencies within the city and within the county. this is one of the things we talk about at every quarterly meeting we have about any of these considerations that we need to make. we were very aware of the wells fargo incident and the dakota pipeline incident. those are things that have happened over the course of the last two years that we've talked abouting to as the debt management group. therefore, i'm very aware of the things that come up at the city and county level. >> correct me if i'm wrong, there's no formal rule. there's an ad hoc policy?

is there a way to codify? >> i think of the tax collector's office. they have a policy. they're paying attention to certain social issues before moving into investment with the bank. >> you're correct. there are no policies right now. i'm more than happy to bring to the meeting which the treasurer's office has been attending. >> that's good to know. so they're bringing the screen with them to the discussion. is there a way that we as a ta -- maybe i should direct my questions to the chair -- that we can work with staff to come up with an investment policy to we're consistent? right now, there's not one that exists. ms. fong, do you think that would be helpful?

>> yes. around uni, july, i will bring before you the investment policy for the tas for this to be considered. this would be the perfect opportunity to add those things in there. >> thank you. let me know if i can be of assistance. we've done the work and done due diligence and some i think thises i would like to see in there. i think the tax collector's policies is one of the big ones. >> thank you for the constructive comments, commissioner cohen. i think we took public comment, so we have the same house. did i ask for a motion? >> no motion yet. >> is there a motion? made by cohen. seconded by fewer. on that, same house, same call. next item please. [ agenda item read [ agenda item read ] >> clerk: this is an action

item. >> colleagues, while this title may look like bad news, it is actually good news for which i congratulate ms. fong and her staff. cynthia, the floor is yours. >> thank you very much. let me just mention that there are three attachments to this item. there's attachment one, which is an executive level view of the tas budget with the revenues and expenditures broken down by the five various funds. you see the adopted budget, the change, and what we're proposing as a new budget. attachment two includes the detail budget where you see every single revenue source we're receiving in addition to the various budget capital projects administrative costs,

et cetera at a detailed level. attachment three is a line-by-line item with why there's a change and a brief description of that project or item. this is a moment in time where the ta likes to take stock in terms of revenue trends and new grants and any changes in project delivery or project scope. the changes we have are broken down into a few items. we're recommending a slight decrease in sales tax revenues. this is in concurrence with the projection the controller's office has as well. we received three new grants during the fiscal year that totaled to about $5 million. in addition, we have a few project delays during the year. we have the treasure island mobility management agency, which is an item that was heard at the committee meeting last

week. there was an 18-month project delay in that. we also have a delay in the iaydbi ramp improvement project. this is an item that came in before this board last month before the procurement process. this project has been shifted as well. we also had change in scopes in double a projects. none of the revenues here that i've mentioned are lost. these are revenues we're pushing forward to the next fiscal year and the period of time where we'll be incurring these expenditures. we'll have 130,000 for the services of the brt projects and the parkway. we're shoring up the sales tax revenue bond. we issued a bond in november 2017. we had estimated a $3 million bond but only needed

$248 million. we're making this changes in this amendment. we're accelerating the loan repayment. we're accelerating our payments because we can see that interest rates are rising. they've nearly doubled since december. i'm thankful we have a debt program that's flexible and allows us to take down our interest rates when rates are rising. therefore, more money can go toward our projects. this item was heard at the march 20thcac. with that, i'm more than happy to answer questions on the mid year budget amendment. >> any questions for ms. fong? is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment closed. is there a motion to move item 10 forward? motion and on that item. same house, same call. item is approved. next item, please. >> clerk: item 11.

approve the settlement agreement and appropriation of $2 million for landscaping work on the presid yo parkway public-private partnership project. this is an action item. >> i helped negotiate this. this is the presidio parkway project. we've been happy to bring this forward already to the ctc, which gave it a positive approval for our share of settlement to the agreement. we opened the facility to traffic in 2015. we've been trying to finish the landscaping over the presidio right of way.

it's depicted on the left side of your screen in the yellow. those are typically the right of way pieces we're speaking of with regard to soil and the landscaping to green over those tunnel tops and allow, again, for the direct connection for pedestrians and others to go from the presidio to the marina. at issue was who should do this work? in 2016, the work was taken out of a consider's scope. the ctc settled some claims. we all settled some claims with the contractor. we agreed to take the scope out of their work. as a result, we've been discussing with caltrain to transfers that scope to the party that's best at competing it. that would be the trust. so the trust doesn't have to

keep permitting everyone, they can take a set of funds and design it and build it, as they wish. the goal is to have the project completed. it's a $254 million payment. a combination of $37 million from the state, which was approved a couple of weeks ago. $2 million from our project and prop 2shgs and $2 million from -- within this, not only is the transfer of work considered but the agreement also considers appropriate rights for caltrain in exchange for $5 million out of 54 that would go to the trust. it would provide a highway easement along the facility for the contractor to do the operation and maintenance over the duration of the 30-year concession under the p3 agreement for the project. the idea would be that the contractor would complete its work in the field by june, and

that would constitute the last of the project obligations. caltrains would then make the $5 million payment to the trust for their property rights and that together once the permits have been closed out, we would come in with our payment in the fall. that would constitute final acceptance. sfcta, we're conducting a project evaluation study with the university of colorado and maryland. >> if there are cost ov-- over s is, what is the liability our exposure could be what was

assigned to us at the 2016 claims at 6%. they've indicated claims up to 10 to 15 million. we don't agree in caltrains at the time. there's a process to discuss those and potentially bring those forward later if there were to be a judgment. i think our exposure would be limited. >> are there any questions from commissioners? is there any public comment on this item? please note that given the timing, this would constitute the approval of the final appearance. seeing none -- mr. pickford, do you want to add any? good to see you. seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion? made by commissioner stefani.

this is seconded by commissioner cohen. same house, same call. the item is finally approved. mr. clerk, will you please call items 12 and 13 together. >> clerk: item 12, authorize executive dreshth to execute cooperative agreement novment 04-2647 with the california department of transportation for the u.s. 101 managed lanes in a total of amount no to exceed $277,000 and negotiate agreement payment terms and non-material agreement terms and conditions. gnome 13, san francisco freeway corridor management study update. >> and commissioner yee is back with us. the floor is yours. >> thank you, chair peskin. as mentioned, we're here today with another update on the effort to explore management strategies on san francisco

freeways to manager more people as the demand increases between downtown san francisco and the peninsula. as a reminder, the project was last discussed at the september 10th meeting of this board. as we mentioned at our last update. the freeways are bad and getting worse. this slide has a lot of information on it. where there's a red or blue arrow today is where there's congestion today. looking ahead a few years, the number of places you see arrows has grown, resulting in additional delays for the travellers on the freeways. right now, carpools and buses are stuck in this same traffic, offering no travel time or reliability advantage to share the ride or reduce the amount of vehicles on san francisco streets. also at our previous update, we shared a potential configuration on how to address this challenge by creating carpool or express lane by allocating space. we've done work to refine that alternative. you see a closer look at what

this proposal entails. the yellow, construction or at the end of i-280, potentially a new lane to allow buses and potentially carpools to get to the light at fifth and king faster. with the refinement of that lane scenario, we also moved into an initial performance feasibility analysis of how this configuration might perform under various policies. we looked at hov 2 plus carpool or hov 3 plus person carpool or express lanes, a three-plus occupancy or transit use of the lane for free or others have an option to pay toll to buy into the lane. on the policies themselves, this analysis increased transit service based on work to add more bus service on the 101 corridor between san francisco

and san jose as well as muni routes to take advantage of the lanes. further, voting the proposal lane addition in san mateo county currently south of san francisco international airport was in place. the analysis produced in what we're sharing with you today is a few key metrics included in the final report. the model was used to generate a high understanding of traffic speeds, delays, and the locations. this allowed the project team to arrive at changes for estimates of number of people being moved in the corridor. a few quick notes about the limitations of this analysis. it's peak-hour only. it does not cover midday or evening. we didn't want to collect new data in the early feasibility phase of this study.

it is a high-level assessment. we have confidence of these numbers from a magnitude perspective, but a more analysis will be required and will be completed should the project move forward ahead of any approvals. first, let's take a look at the travel times in the corridor. for the purposes of this met rick, we're discussing travel times between san francisco international airport and fifth and king in downtown san francisco on that alignment with 101 and 280. so as we all know, in peak hours there's delay in all areas you see on the screen. as we look ahead on the maps previously, all of the northbound morning peak, this continues to grow as the corridor increases represented by the orange boxes. this total delay is our do-nothing condition. so, first, the good news. as you can see in white here, in all operating scenarios, the carpool and express lanes

operates at free flow speeds, meaning all delays eliminated for carpool and transit. however, this is primarily from converting existing capacity, we have to consider the impacts of the remaining vehicles not using the lane. so in the hov 2-plus-person car scenario, two to three minutes from downtown, depending on time and direction. in all but the northbound morning peak, they're reduced. in the three-car, there's a significant change depending on direction. in the el3 plus or 3-person lane, we see the same travel time increases for the general purpose lanes for the general downtown, two to four minutes in

the southbound morning and northbound everything with actual reductions of three minutes in the northbound morning an southbound evening peaks. since price can be used to make sure it's always operating as close to capacity as possible, it helps relieve the crutch in the remaining lanes. the two-person scenario achieves similar results . in contrast, as we've seen in these travel times, the three-person sees increased travel time while benefits the relatively few vehicles that would be eligible to use this lane. one of the results, the study looking closely at the two-person scenario since that knows this lan is at or near capacity in the ideal condition of these analysis. these results might not be sustainable between the 2020 horizon we looked at here or when we include factors that 20% of people in carpool lanes today

are cheaters. now, let's take a look at the results of the analysis of people being moved on the corridor. here on the drawing on the left, you can see the proposed lane configuration. we're measuring maricopa. you see a ton of information. green is good. red is bad. with a conversion of the 2-person lane, 40% people move through the lane. with conversion to three-person, it increases to 280 and decreases on 101. for the express lane option, a three-person carpool with the option to pay a toll increased at all times but not as much as a 2-person carpool lane. >> in summary, additional

results, it's feasible within san francisco. the two-person carpool and 3-person express lanes are potentially feasible operation policies for this conversation, but a three-person is not feasible with lane conversion. our -- one final update. while this analysis was under way, we've also been having a community meetings. we've had 13 meeting over the past three months and introduced some of these concepts and strategies and asked what's important to move forward. people most frequently mentioned equity. who will use the lane, particularly in a price scenario. who will pay and who will benefit. unfortunately, because of the high nature of this feasibility study it's not something we have a specific answer to right now but recognize it's critical to

bring answers to these kind of questions as the study progresses. otherwise, control of funds, it's a scenario involving pricing selected, how will the funds be used. in traffic and neighborhood impacts, concern from traffic getting worse and finding its way onto local streets. we've taken an early look at that but we have no information on how that might perform yet. we'll return to this board with a final report for adoption later and are looking to begin the phase that my colleague will discuss in item 12. >> ms. harvey. >> good morning. >> afternoon. >> good afternoon. i will try keep this quick. the action before the board is the approval of a cooperative agreement with caltrains that describes the roles and authorities for caltrain. this scoping document is

required by cal trans -- cal trans. they come together on a purpose and need and alternatives for a project. mainly participation on the project development team and the review of the pdf. we already have funding for this next phase and the san mateo county transportation authority because half of this project lies in san mateo county. we'll take questions. thank you. >> thank you, ms. harvey? are there any questions? commissioner sheehy? >> i still have a lot of concerns on this. i just think it's too limited in

scope. i don't think it does address a problem. i see it creating bottlenecks. i actually see it as economic justice because you're basically going to let people buy into these lanes. i think they're going to be us -- used by lyft. it may shrink what we get on mass transit. when we look at mass transit, i really don't think this will be a good use of money, trying to create easier and faster ways for people to drive car downtown. i think we ought to be looking at how we can limit cars coming into the city. can i just imagine lyft pool becoming the alternative because you can get downtown in 10 minutes or mission bay in 10 minutes. i think for people who don't have resources who have to get

the bidding -- get to the hospital because their kid is sick have to wait because others will pay to be in the high-speed lane and drive past them. when this first came up, i thought we would look more globally to restrict the traffic coming into the city by looking at a metering, you know, charging tolls. to me, it's the most rational way to begin. we charge a toll to come into the city from the east. we charge a total to come into the city from the north. the only direction we don't charge a toll is from the south. that seems to me irrational. this is really a band aid that, frankly, isn't a band-aid but may exacerbate the situation. it's a big part of my district that's on the south side of town. transit options, especially to mission bay and the southern part of south of market are

not-existent, but the growth in jobs and economic activity there is exponential, especially now that we have the lawyers -- warriors coming in on top of the giants. i can only see creating a lane that might fulfill the promise that was made when the warriors came in, that there would be dedicated empty lanes for emergency vehicles or people trying to deliver their children, but the rest of it, it just seems like it is not comprehensive enough in terms of scope and looking at transit options to move people from the south into san francisco from the southern part of the city into.. -- into downtown. >> thank you, commissioner sheehy. i think we definitely agree this is one of many strategies that needs to be considered in this corridor. i appreciate your comment also that it's important to look at transit as part of this. i think s