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 san francisco is a transit for city. we want to make sure first and foremost, i think success in the

best possible cases is this lane is filled up with buses. that's what happens here. the opportunity is to create that platform to run better transit but knowing there isn't enough transit to fill the lane initially and to make sure the lane is prioritizing vehicles with more occupants than fewer occupants. with respect to the overall pricing at the county line, i will defer to our executive director, ms. chang. >> i guess as far as congestion management and potential pricing, which is something i think you mentioned last time, this is something that's been identified by folks as far as the transportation 2045 revenue task force earlier this year. other folks, including members of this body have mention that i had ma be willing to go forward with those plans. there's a bill making its way through the legislature that will authorize that. i do think there's independent utility and value in creating a direct connection between downtown san francisco and san

jose for high occupancy vehicles and carral pool. that's one of the thing we've proposed to keep studying going forward. the hov option >> how do you keep that from being filled with tncs? >> any high-occupancy vehicle will be qualified. i don't think that's a policy i've seen elsewhere. the solution around them are greater than any hov poll i is. we do need to look at the downtown pricing and management. we do need to look at perhaps assessing a surcharge as other cities and states have done on tncs. we're trying to make that case to the puc. chair peskin has been clear we would like to have that ability to manage tncs in that way. >> not as a regulatory matter, commissioner sheehy, but later today at the board of

supervisors, i will be introducing a gross receipts tax for transportation network companies and would enjoy your and my fellow colleagues' support in that matter. >> by definition, creating an hov lane is creating a tnc lane, in my mind, because there's two people in the car. >> your point is very well-taken. >> mr. hobson, do you want to respond to that? >> if i could offer a clarification. it's true that as tncs operate, a lane that allows two-person vehicles to be in it would currently have to allow all tncs that have a driver and a passenger in them. now, we know that tncs are looking to move towards autonomous vehicles. things will be different in that situation, but that's in the future. right now, what is called in this presentation, two, will

allow it for free. the express lanes that require three passengers in order to be free would not, therefore, allow a vehicle that had just a driver and a single passenger, which is in our understanding so far, the majority of trips that tncs make, they would have to have a driver and two passengers or three total people in the vehicle in order to qualify for free access to the express lane. >> i'm still very skeptical of. this i have a feeling that this will be -- or just in terms of where our traffic is going, i think this is something -- we make it easier for certain vehicles to move, the ease of vehicle movement will be filled with tncs. that is what i see happening

across the city. >> point very well taken. commission commission commission commission commission commission commissioner safia. there was one slide that showed the actual lanes there are a couple of areas on 280 north as well as on 280 south, that there would be significant bottlenecks. could you talk about that? it wasn't clearly articulated what the plan and strategy would be. if we're doing that, essentially when you're going 280 south and 101 and 280 diverge on 280, you're really talking about two lanes at that point. if it's going to carry all the way down to the county line, you

have the potential to have a significant bottleneck at that point. same thing at the mariposa. it seems like this is being done for people who don't live in the city, not the people of san francisco. it would be better to clearly articulate how there's going to be benefit across the board. speaking to the equitability, those are the three things i wanted to state on the record. maybe you can respond to that? >> sure. while amy sets up to share more, commissioner, you're absolutely right. we're planning to bring that forward through the operational studies that would follow

because we think we need additional modeling to answer those questions around the merges, around potential on-ramps on to 280 from the local streets. buses currently that could use this route are not using them. we've discussed with the region, and they've put together a plan for regional buses on top of the current operations to double down on bus provision in the corridor if there's a lane provided. those buses today are not benefitting from a quick, reliable trip downtown. they're stuck behind single and double-occupant cars today. you think about it, muni would put other services, express bus services onto this corridor additionally, if they're able to create more regional express buses, they would take advantage of these services as well. i think it turns on how to we

prioritize the use for public transportation. how do we make sure we have a reliable service for those currently stuck in traffic, especially those on public buses. >> i would just like to add on to that point. the trouble is you create these toll lanes, the tncs will take advantage of them. they will be the ones. i said this before, i take that route every morning, and the volume of tncs that ride on that route has increased every single day. so you create a high occupancy lane that's toll based, it will be actually an impetus for more of them to take advantage of that. >> i share the concern. i think it's more going to be on local street where is we have jurisdiction. on the local street level, if

we can talk about a management approach that involves local jurisdiction and local ordinances can kick in, especially if we have the ability to have this authorized by the state or even if we don't, perhaps, maybe there's a way we can fashion a local ordinance that would allow pricing of tncs in the future on local streets as they exit the lanes and ramps. >> yules didn't answer the -- you also didn't answer the question about the bottle de, >> i was going to suggest andy take that up. >> can you put up the slide that shows the actual lanes? that one. yep. so this one the left is the southbound 280 where it divides. right there in the middle where it says nb -- that's literally two lanes, and you a era tacheing one -- and you're

taking one of them. can you talk about that? >> that was one of the spots that after our previous december meeting, we took a much closer look at because i think that was the source of a lot of the delay we were seeing in our initial analysis that you made comments on back in the december meeting. the reason you see the yellow highlight across a number of the lanes there. the design was revised to maintain the existing capacity today. currently the connecter where you see the yellow going through and the one you called out, commissioner, the northbound 280 on, both of those, just before they merge in today's condition go from two lanes to one lane and become a two-lane connecter that joins 101 southbound. >> >> but not at the bottleneck. right now, it's two lanes.

when it divides south, it's one lane in each direction. what i see on the map, if it's highlighted in yellow, you're taking 1 of those lanes and leaving one lane remaining going south. our traffic analysis reflected that today -- what we are doing is moving that back up to road, and the traffic analysis we performed in the future conditions shows that there's enough capacity to service that. i think you are correct to point out that there's additional bottlenecks that come back and commissioner sheehy has mentioned this from the monterey ramps and to the point where the 101 and 280 split. >> we talked about metering to get on 280 south from caesar

chavez. >> so far we don't have much ramp metering in our local traffic system. here i think we are agreeing that in the pennsylvania or other locations, there could be a case and there's enough storage for metering to help even out the flow on the main line. so the metering would be looked at while looking at the hot spot andy just mentioned where there could be room to stripe if we took out a shoulder. bumping out -- >> you mean adding lanes? >> potentially. >> you can say it. >> adding some capacity for operational off-flow. >> i'm just kidding. i'm joking. >> i think they would be pursuing this. >> if you could go back to the slide. i'm sorry. i'm just trying to get some humor in there.

go back to that slide. so if you all could spend a little more time -- i feel like this is the most informative one. you can talk about the bumping out and where the metering would be. this is really the most informative aspect. the other stuff with just the blue line and yellow lines, that doesn't really tell you much unless you ride this every day. i will just say you can spend more time bolstering that so we know what is potentially going to be studied. that would be helpful. >> sure. >> commissioner ronen? yes. i just wanted to echo commissioner sheehy's concern about tncs. i had not thought about at that. i think that's a legitimate point and we don't have enough control over tncs on our streets either. that's not a satisfactory response in terms of a way to have local control over this

phenomenon, this new industrial phenomenon. but i also wanted to get back to the equity point. we were able to talk about this in my off i would like to have a more public discussion. why should someone with money get to buy their way to work quicker when perhaps they need it even less than people who can't afford to pay that lane. i told you this story of taking my daughter to universal studios, and we spent a fortune on the ticket, but you could spend $100 more if you wanted to cut in front of the line. it was the most outrageous thing as we were standing for hours in line, these people that could afford to spend $100 more just cut in front of everyone else. it was so inif you are rating and so -- inif you are rating and i don't think -- infuriating

and wrong. i'm wondering if you can address these concerns. >> so totally understand those concerns. i think the fundamental issue here is some day, somehow, we need to provide means that -- we need to make the structure of our transportation network provide more advantages for people who are riding transit and who are getting multiple people into the same vehicle sharing rides. i'm not going to use ride sharing, the term. this is an opportunity. whether we do this by providing -- our studies showed that doing

it by providing a 3-person carpool lane would gum up the rest of the highway too much. so it look like we have two options that would provide a time advantage but not gum up the general purpose lanes way

provide a time advantage. if we don't do it through something like this, our roads are only going to get more congested, and we will not ever -- we will not be providing an advantage to the bus carrying 40 or 60 people or to the carpool carrying three or four people. if we don't do that, we will continue the situation where the solo vehicle has the same time advantage as a transit bus. so that's just a fundamental problem that somehow we need to overcome. >> commissioner sheehy -- colleagues, i think the sense i'm getting is this is not ready for prime time. this body does things in most instances in unanimous agreement. so subject to further deliberation and public comment, if it is the will of this body, i would suggest that we continue

this item to the call of the share and have an opportunity for more outreach between staff and members, but with that, commissioner sheehy. >> and i'm happy to make that motion. first of all, in follow-up, i would like to know how much control we have over who gets to use these lanes. if we were talking the about a mass only transit lane, i would be for it. facilitating getting cars into downtown san francisco is a losing strategy, whether you price it or whether you think you're going to get carpools, i haven't seen the magic of carpools across the state or in our region. i don't think that's some magical thing that's going to happen. you just described a scenario where the optimal plan is two people, not three people, that's a recipe for filling those lanes with lyft.

second, if you do pricing, that will be a case for the maseratis we see going to downtown san francisco. we're headed toward two symptoms. one for the very rich and one for everybody else. i think that's going to be the ultimate use of these lanes, if we build them. >> commissioner ronen? >> i'm wondering, have you studied a mass-transit only lane for the buses? >> no, we have not. i think that the hov-3 analysis provides a little bit of a hint as to where that would be. the you want to bring the slide up that shows the time comparison. >> i'm just thinking if that's our end goal here, then why not make -- you know, in a way, that would make the bus so much more

desirable than any other form of transportation that perhaps more people would use it. i share the thoughts of commissioner sheehy. >> if i could add to that, the bus-only option would not make it across our bar based on how many buses are provided, even in the future, if we could add more buses. so the question is could we add that many more buses to justify the 2,000 vehicle per lane per hour times the number of people per lane? i would like to think we could, but i don't realistically think we could justify it purely on public transportation. that's based on what can be provided. the funding for that, i think there is regional three measure money for this. i want to continue the move

forward. i think the action item we're proposing here is really just to pay caltrans to do oversight on us and work with us and be a part of it since it's their facilities. we share the concerns. i hear the concerns. i don't wish to avoid these questions at all. in fact, i think working with caltrans is the best way forward, especially given this region is moving to that direction. we would love to be able to have caltrans at the table. that's the action item. the action is to not move forward on stage of planning. this is information. the action is to provide funding for caltrans to work with us. >> all right. why don't we open this up to public comment. i have one speaker card from friends of caltran. ms. eleven. -- ms. levin.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. in terms of mission, we suspect sustainable transportation of all sorts, including trains and buses and other forms of sustainable transportation on the peninsula corridor. we've got is significant version and have some significant questions that are not yet answered at this high level presentation. one is about how this does interact with the potential goals for congestion pricing that san francisco is considering. there's a bill in the legislature. would one replace the other? would they be used together? how would