please reject the removal of the 38-r from geary and spruce. thank you. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you. next speaker, please. >> clerk: mike chronback, gene barish, tony delorio. >> good evening. michael chronback. former muni employee for 28 years at the corner of geary and masonic, for what that is worth. when i first started one issue was, and i was pretty green, i didn't understand things very well. a project paid for by b.a.r.t. called the northwest extension analysis. or n.w.x. at that point the idea was to look at alternatives from extending b.a.r.t. out geary to light rail to transit preferential to nothing. and the active citizen involved was, i think someone named

harden danicus, a merchant or resident. i think the question was project fatigue. b.a.r.t. has just been completed in san francisco. i think at that point, whoever was in charge of decision making had come up with a more foresighted recommendation for something like light rail or the type of project we are doing, you are recommending now it would have been very good. so in short you should go with this project. in terms of particular stop locations that's important to you to resolve, i direct staff to deal with that separately and not to hold up the whole project because of that. generally speaking, there's a former planner who was supposed to be an advocate for riders. i'm more sympathetic to the

divergent views, i would hate to be the planner, in terms of spruce, i gathered some businesses that don't want it or something. on the other hand, local service should serve local needs and rapid service isn't really designed to do that. okay. anyway, finally mr. parsons -- >> chair c. brinkman: thank you, for your 28 years of service to the mta. >> clerk: gene barish, tony dilorio, andy thornely. >> good afternoon, my name is jean barish, i'm a long-time resident of the richmond district. i'm speaking on my own behalf but also a member of the planning association for richmond board of directors and other transit associations in the city. i'm not a car owner and i rely on muni to get all over town, so i'm in support but i have concerns about two issues. one has to do with the use of

the red lanes which were designated as transit-only. suddenly we have learned they will be used by for profit vehicles, chariot shuttles and a lot of other vehicles. those of us involved with the b.r.t. for years had no idea it was happening. we are concerned this bait and switch approach is unacceptable. i'm here to ask you to please defer making this decision until you have had time to study the impact. the e.i.r., for example, barely mentioned if it did at all the impact of the transit vehicles. i would like to ask you to defer that decision. the other issue is removal of the spruce street rapid stop. once again i would like you to defer making a decision, at least don't decide to include it in the plan. it is going to have a significant impact on seniors, disabled people, people with

children, as you have heard. there's no need to rush to judgment about this decision. you are putting in a lot of other changes that are going to improve transit. you could wait on this particular location until you see how reliable and how much faster transit will be through out the route and then make a decision later with more information. so please defer making that decision. thank you for your consideration. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you, ms. barish. next speaker, please. >> clerk: tony delorio. >> good afternoon. my name is tony dilorio, teamsters joint council 7. i'm here representing the teamsters who drive for several private commuter services in san francisco including loop, compass, we drive you, bowers and chariot. it is in the best interest and safety of our drivers and passengers that the transit-only lanes continue to allow access for these private shuttles since they were specifically designed for large capacity vehicles.

faster service of these vehicles will continue to encourage people to use these shuttles and get out of their single occupancy vehicles, short and sweet. thank you. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you very much, mr. delorio, that was. >> clerk: andy thornely, alice rogers. >> good afternoon, director brinkman, directors, andy thornely, resident of the richmond district and renter. to de-confuse people i am employed by this agency, i'm here on my lunch hour. i've been working on this project since before i practically had a job in san francisco, so it would by irresponsible if i didn't stand up and ask you to give this project your full support. geary street is a heritage corridor for the sfmta and its ancestors. back in 1909 voters approved creation of a municipal railway and the project we got started on as a city was the

a-streetcar from the ferry building at the beach. by 1956 service was term naifted. -- terminated. b.a.r.t. is going to safe us. save us. we tore out the rails. the good news is we have been talking about it ever since. the bad news is we have been talking about it ever since. and your great staff have brought you a very refined project. the pedestrian safety improvements are very important, it's worth doing just for that, the transit-only lanes, we have seen in other neighborhoods how the red carpet has sped up muni service has made it more reliable and attractive. that's what we are up to here, we are competing with other ways for folks to get around. to have muni service reliable, comfortable, attractive is key and the red carpet lanes will get us there.

we have heard concerns about things not muni getting to use those lanes. this is so pretty much all over the city. as you go to the mission now you could see how they are working down there and i think this board and agency need to look at how is that working. we have got an experiment already under way but let's don't wait, approve this today. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you mr. thornely. next speaker, please. >> clerk: alice rogers. >> good afternoon, directors. i'm alice rogers a 25-year resident of the city in the south park area. an interloper here you might think for this topic. i have three points i would like to address. generally, i'm very much in support of this project and i would urge uh, to approve it with as little compromise as possible. the citymany, many

people at van ness and there's hundreds of riders at muni, but the main entrance is down at van ness and of course if you get up there and have a walker or anything, to get down to the hospital it's quite a chore but anyway please reconsider and do

the right thing. and if you can't move it to saint mary's cathedral than add one is all you have to do, it's a minor thing. it would help a lot of seniors, thank you. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you very much, mr. vondral and thank you for your kind words about ms. bryson. >> clerk: karen gadberry. >> good afternoon, directors. thank you for serving and thank muni for being a public service to those of us in the richmond. i'm representing the planning association for the richmond and myself as a bus rider. we have been working with sfmta for, at least before i joined the board in 2009, i think since 2005, on trying to work around this project. which has changed names a

couple of times. from the very start we were advocating that sfmta install right away very easy inexpensive improvements to the area that would not disrupt all of the service that would not require all kinds of construction and tearing up of streets. some of those have still not be implemented. one is the timing of the lights all the way down geary. we noticed it's now included in this giant project that's being voted upon today. the problem that we have on the vote that you are taking today is it includes, as you might say, apples and oranges. it's something, there's something in there for everybody and there's something in there that everybody that

many people might oppose. that's why we would propose that you defer a vote on the entire first half of the project and take a look at dividing it up into easy, inexpensive fixes that you can do perhaps in six months that are less controversial than the ones that are included today. thank you. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you, next speaker, please. >> clerk: suvan, followed by brian stockle and then paula katz. >> good afternoon. my name is sue vaughn. it came to my attention phase 1, geary rapid would accommodate private for hire vehicles that fit the vehicle code definition of a bus, which is more than 10 people including the driver. not just public transit. however, it has been the understanding of the public for 15 or so years that we have

been discussing geary b.r.t. that dedicated lanes would be for public transit only, not private for profit busses. the e.i.r. itself never addresses the impact of private busses. on the flow of muni or golden gate transit in the red lanes. the private busses, there are no limits on the number of private busses that could be in operation in san francisco. this is a real concern, this is not in the e.i.r. in fact, section 3.4.4.5 of the final e.i.r., which is about the effects of the project on taxi and shuttle operation states the build alternative would not affect taxi or shuttle operations beyond the effects of vehicle shuttle traffic, which sounds like the only vehicles that are supposed to be in these are transit vehicles. there are questions about

federal funding and i would like at u.s. department of transportation, i don't have time to read some of the documentation we found about what red lanes are, but you need to go look that up and look into it. but they have specifications, this is a project that's received a lot of federal funding at least $16.9 million in federal funds. you could amend this legislation today to be transit-only. transit-only is public transit according to the california vehicle code. public transit. transit-only doesn't include private busses. thank you. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you. thank you, ms. vaughn and thank you for your verses on the c.a.c. >> good afternoon, directors. my name is brian stokele, i'm a planner with the recreation and park department. over the last, i guess, several years we have been

collaborating with m.t.a. staff as we own several parks and facilities along the corridor. i'm here to compliment the staff of m.t.a. for working with us on this and in particular they have addressed our needs at kimble playground and hamilton recreation center which are on both sides of the street at steiner street. we want to just thank you and staff for working with us, thank you. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you very much, mr. stokele, thank you for coming to let us know. next speaker, please. >> clerk: paula katz. followed by doug duckwald and then marlene morgan. >> i'm paula katz with save our taraval stop. the transit-only lanes should belong to public only busses. now we hear private busses and

shuttles can use these lanes. you should amend the legislation to make it public busses only. removing bus stops negatively affects seniors and people with disabilities on geary as much as on tear develop. -- taraval. the staff report says in the online survey the most common objection to removing these stops was because there are senior housing developments located nearby. that's exactly why these stops should be kept. there's nothing in the staff report that staff told the residents and operators of the senior housing units that m.t.a. wanted to remove these stops or even serve about it. saying we are improving the bus route without specifically telling bus riders without listing what stops were being proposed for removal.

it creates hardship for seniors and people with disabilities. requiring them to walk even an extra block does them a disservice. many seniors walk much slower than others putting them at even greater risk, saving 15-20 seconds isn't worth the risk. please vote to keep the side streets. >> clerk: doug duckwald. marlene morgan, peter

papadapolous. >> good afternoon. those of us who are mobility impaired or have a hard time carrying heavy packages. i ask you to retain the stops that have been for decades at hyde and geary and hyde and o' farrell. i ask you for this in particular because we didn't get one of the rapid stops when they were handed out to the neighborhoods. there is a six and a half block gap that we are in the middle of. now you will take away our local stop at hyde. an extra block is not just an extra block for people who have a hard time getting to a bus stop, it often comes on top of 2-3 blocks they already walked to get there. that's cumulative and it has a big impact on a lot of us.

so muni has just done a great experiment to find out how to slow up the bus service on all of our lines in san francisco. it was unintentional of course. they didn't hire enough operators so there are not enough runs on the busses. i ride the 38 everyday. i have had 40 minute time lapses, 64 minute, i have taken photographs on my phone, it's a great experiment. this shows you that a very good way to speed up bus service is to put an adequate number of runs on each route, instead of selectively penalizing some people by taking away the stuff they use that is in a safe location now, why not help the entire city, the entire group of transit riders on this route and simply put more runs on it. this is a proven technique

based on what we have just seen. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you. thank you very much. >> thank you very much for your time. >> chair c. brinkman: next speaker, please. >> clerk: marlene morgan, peter papadapolous, alita dupree. >> marlene morgan, president of cathedral hill homeowners association. we are in favor of improving transit and involved with development agreements geary and van ness hospitals. we met with mta repeatedly on the geary project and thanks to liz and her team for all the outreach. transit is important on the van ness and geary corridors. we have tremendous amount of eastern and western bound traffic at all times also on van ness, we have to improve through transit.

the easiest improvements are on the area from gough to aguello. that is the expressway. that's the part that was created by the redevelopment agency when they bulldozed down the fillmore and japan town and built a major expressway. we could have major improvements in that area without a lot of expense. when you look at the outer richmond i have a lot of sympathy for the people who live out there, a lot smaller streets, more regular, maybe that's something we should take another look at but in our area with the rapid we are in favor of it. also regarding the shuttles, i think that we want to make the 38 financially successful. we don't want the for profits competing with transit on geary, we want the geary to be the ride of choice. it's true what some have brought up, a lot of hospital

shuttles will be using those red lanes but i think if language is put in today to go back and look at special uses for hospital shuttles or other special shuttles that could be accomplished later on. so with that, we would like to support it. thank you. >> chair c. brinkman: thank, ms. morgan, next speaker, please. >> clerk: peter papadopolous, alita dupree. >> good afternoon. i'm peter papadapolous, i'm with the community development commitment and groups from the mission and other neighborhoods. we just wanted to express some concerns about what we are seeing here. and to put it in context with this geary boulevard project in context. the context being as many of you know we have had problem with mission street red lanes in the past which we are still working overtime to mitigate and a lot of city officials and

the sfmta and other departments are jumping in with the community to work on mitigating that situation. we are in ongoing discussions. we are hearing concerns from folks about this geary boulevard project and particularly the concerns regarding this relatively unknown element whether or not private corporations would be able to take advantage of these investment and frankly these shifts in functionality and cultural shifts that happen that accompany these red lanes. and we think we want to go more slowly, more deliberately, get it right the first time. let's not go down the path we went down on mission street where we are spending years trying to undue issues that arose, for that we ask you to think about pausing here, pausing this project, pausing 16th street project, really make sure you have true engagement.

i'm hearing accessibility and equity concerns from folks today. making sure that everybody feels they are heard, making sure people have access to this and get it right and work in the context of the e.i.r. so we are ahead of the curve and we are putting equity first. that's what we think comes first. equity first. thank you. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you, next speaker, please. >> clerk: alita dupree. >> chair brinkman, members, thank you, alita dupree for the record. this is important and i come to you with a couple of different hats on. i am a muni rider and beyond that i am a transit rider of regional perspective. i have already ridden on three different systems today involving crossing the bay.

and my service disabled veteran hat. geary was the first route i ever rode when i came here for the first time in '09. it's a busy route. i have my transit program and i'm seeing six geary 38 westbound crossing van ness in the next 27 minutes. i'm seeing a lot going on in just that one direction, if i have to go that way i'm not too worried about getting on a bus. you haven't taken anything away from me. because i find that there's a lot of options for me when i ride geary. this is long overdue. i have seen in the reports that you have done a lot of work and i feel it is very important that we approve this legislation today. because this is a long route

and route of regional perspective, not just by people who live in san francisco, but for people who use multiple systems. i think i have used six systems in the course of a day. we have to do this. i'm looking forward to this work. which will help the 38 geary be a less difficult ride for me. thank you. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you, mr. dupree. next speaker. >> clerk: mr. hiden, gabriel chan. >> rachel heiden with san francisco transit raitt riders. please do not undo on geary or 6th street. generally speaking and on part of this project as well, san francisco transit riders is extremely supportive of transit-only lanes, better bus stops, improvements, right. i'm here to support this

project. hoping i can get you to commit to amending legislation or reporting back to the public. rapid removal at spruce is a violation of transit-first policy. normally as an organization we don't typically weigh in on specific stop removals but we

>> good afternoon m.t.a. board, i'm gabriel chan, a long time resident, i've been using the geary and spruce my whole life. i'm interning so this is a

great experience for me. i want to voice my concern, taking away the rapid stop at spruce violates the spacing of stops along the route. we see about a one-third mile spacing right now and taking away that stop at spruce would double that between aguello and presidio. i think it's more useful to have the rapid stop there to serve more people and more riders than to have the merchants retaining a few parking spaces. sometimes in the morning when i come to work i stop at the local cafe to pick up a cup of coffee. that's one concern the merchants have that should be open for discussion again. how many people are actually patronizing your stores that are actually using the transit also. i think that's something that

gets over looked a lot of times in san francisco. another thing i wanted to bring up is i think the red lanes are a great addition to geary and this project is very long overdue. geary is definitely not the most enjoyable commute in the morning and afternoon but kudos to sf staff for working on this project. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you, next speaker, please. >> clerk: mark grewberg. >> thank you, chair. members. chair brinkman and board members is what i'm trying to say. mark gruberg. i just wanted to comment on taxi use of the red lanes and taxis have traditionally had use of the red lanes and i think rightly so. i just want to emphasize a point i hope is self-evident that taxis are an integral part of san francisco public transit.

the city issues the permits under which we operate. it sells medallions unfortunately. permits drivers, medallion holders, inspects drivers, trains drivers, sets all the roles -- rules under which we operate and is a vital part of the city's paratransit system. i'm drawing this distinction because some other vehicles now be ago -- being allowed to use these lanes don't have the same posture. we have vehicles such as chariot which are operating in many areas in direct competition with muni. we have things like google busses which are a private service for private companies. has nothing to do with public

transit. that's all i wanted to say. thank you. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> clerk: glen urban. he is the last speaker on this matter. if anybody else wishes to address us could you please stand up and lineup along the side so we can move along quickly. thank you. >> my name is glen urban, i own a gas station with my brother cory. real quick, i keep hearing people want the red lanes to be -- because they speed up busses. sfmta said to the state that the red paint does nothing for bus travel times. it's in black and white, you can look it up. the confusion between putting down red paint and transit only lane seems to get mired in the discussions. you folks have received a bunch of emails from me, my brother. i encourage you to delay any vote on this project because we

will file lawsuit, if the red coloring was so important, back in 2012, the sfmta was given permission to experiment, the experiment went through years they were required to go to the state four times a year to give updates on this transportation, on this traffic control device, they didn't show up to one meeting. they never showed up to a meeting until i got involved and started asking questions about why are these red lanes going down in front of businesses where the red is supposed to say "stay out" and we are supposed to conduct a business with this red paint. again the sfmta said the red paint doesn't speed up the busses. the federal government required reports twice a year on the status of the red lane experiment. they never sent a report to them either. this red coloring is an experiment still. the federal government has given the green light for the sfmta to expand or the city, the state has not.

so that remains to be seen. if they stop it, you will have to clean it up. the cost of the run from gough to stanyan is over $2 million to paint the lanes red. that would buy at least four more busses, i think maybe only two if they are a hybrid or electric bus. these comments, even from an sf mta employee said this is a fabrication, you can look it up, it's a fact. i would recommend waiting to vote because there are going to be lawsuits filed from all the misinformation. if the sfmta really wanted those red lanes they would have conducted the studies like they were supposed to. they didn't even do a double parking study. they never did it yet they told the state they would. thanks. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you. i think we have legislative aide from supervisor fewer's

office. ms. yu? >> thank you. >> good afternoon, directors, my name is angelina, an aide can supervisor fewer's office. >> chair c. brinkman: what is your last name? >> yu. she asked i share a statement. it was concerning for us to learn through our rep ms. sue vaughn that the lanes painted across the city wouldn't only be used by muni vehicles but by private vehicles and charter service vehicles. this is concerning because san francisco and muni is currently grappling with transit reliability as the city is becoming increasingly congested and already fighting with t.n.c.'s and many other private vehicle traffic. so for the board to consider red lane, this really should be the space where muni isn't having to jostle and fight with

tour busses, casino busses, other charter shuttles, medical shuttles and just other emerging types of vehicles that had yet to become a big thing in the city. for the 54,000 transit riders who utilize the 38 and 38 rapid, the reliability is critical and a big part of what's being considered today and we feel there shouldn't be any interference from private vehicles in the red vehicle space and we feel we can't underestimate the actual impact of shuttle busses and private transit vehicles such as chariot would have. we would urge for a study that captures data on precisely how many and what types of vehicles would be allowed in red carpets and how specifically this interacts with peak commuter times. there should be a full study on the cause and effect these private vehicles have on muni

to further inform the citywide discussion that needs to happen on red carpet usage wholistically. however what the board could do is do phase 1 for public transit only. until the study is done we feel phase 1 should be limited to public transit and taxis and we should be doing everything we can to protect these two industries. if the actual intention for muni is to protect and serve public transit riders and be a transit-first city the board should take action to protect public infrastructure for publicly serving agencies and public transit. thank you. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you, ms. yu. next speaker, please. >> thank you, members of the board, my name is lorraine petty, i have been riding the muni -- >> chair c. brinkman: could you spell your last name, please?

>> p-e-t-t-y. >> as in tom. >> as in tom. thanks. i have been riding the muni for 50 years and a resident where st. mary's is and i'm also a member of senior and disability action. i just want to say, i'm going to ask for a modification and i want to tell you about how this public input process works, from my standpoint. i've tried to be a good citizen. i've gone to probably 4-5 of the muni public input meetings in the neighborhood. and in all those meetings, there was a stop at gough and st. mary's in the plan proposed. everybody who came was in favor of it.

however, when the final plan and final meeting was held that bus stop was gone and in its place was back to starr king. so i believe this is a zero sum game that is played not by the public but played by muni. oh, you want this bus stop? well we will take away the other bus stop. i think for us residents, i speak for many, many of the thousands of seniors there. we want a stop in front of st. mary's and a stop at starr king. because these are totally utilized by all of us all the time. so gough and starr king, thank you. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you, ms. petty. next speaker, please. >> hello. this is the right item.

seems like. i'm with south of market community action network. i was born and raised in south of tenderloin, i'm here today representing some n can. we don't agree with allowing privatized busses to use bus stops in lanes originally created for the muni and we ask you remove the language to allow privatized busses and keep the red transit only lanes strictly for muni. riders pay taxes and fares to ensure muni's infrastructure and maintenance that it operates smoothly. we paid the fare increases and even switched to the muni mobile app to make sure muni runs smoothly and faster. having those private bus stops and use the lanes will greatly affect the flow of muni

throughout the city. nowhere through the e.i.r. as many mentioned was there an analysis how these vehicles will impact the flow of traffic. these private busses shouldn't be treated as public goods because they aren't, they are privatized and muni riders shouldn't pay the price in higher fares or late schedules to make things easier for the private companies. we ask you prioritize the needs of transit riders over private corporations because you have the power to do so today in changing the language of that legislation. thank you. >> clerk: catherine malone? >> hi, my name is catherine malone. i usually don't speak at public meetings but i feel compelled. i'm also a resident of cathedral hill on franklin between starr king and ellis. i speak for myself and many other residents at the martin

luther tower senior housing. we use that 38 frequently. an exit from the second floor that brings us halfway up the hill to access that stop. there was a time i would agree that at night in particular it was a scary place. but i don't know, in recent past, they have installed all kinds of l.e.d. lighting from gough to franklin, it looks almost like las vegas at night. it is incredibly bright. ? i take that stop several times a week at day and night i have never felt unsafe, i have never seen -- occasionally there might be somebody loitering at the bus stop, occasionally there might be bottles or other

refuse in the bus stop but i have not noticed any more there than at any other muni stop. i think it would be a real hardship not only for us at muni tower but anyone crossing gough at that intersection is frightful. i indeed, if i'm going east, coming home, i don't stop at van ness, i go up to gough, cross gough and wait a whole cycle rather than cross geary and have to cross gough at, you know, against traffic. facing traffic is much safer. please consider that. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you, ms. malone. next speaker? >> my name is william holleran, i ride the 38 everyday for a number of years. speaking on behalf of the grow

the richmond organization. we strongly approve the plan, encourage a swift implementation, it's been delayed far too long. we are excited for the faster, more reliable service. we support reinstating the spruce stop with rapid service and third point, we would like the board to consider the trade-offs of adding too many stops with the needs of people getting downtown quickly. i don't utilize the express busses because they take the last 2-3 blocks going down busch street take far too long. i take it exclusively because of the rapid lanes. i support that going forward. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is rodger, local 258, i felt compelled to speak up after i have been taking notes from all the speakers and

i have to state that i'm speaking to you now as a transit operator. i drove the 38 geary for a number of years and i'm also against removing the rapid stop at spruce, it will have a tremendous negative impact for the passengers. if we are encouraging more ridership of our public transit system this is not the way to go about it, this represents muni backwards. the elimination of bus stops will not increase service. i have to repeat that again. the elimination of bus stops will not increase service and it's not going to deny the fact there's indeed a shortage of muni operators. so let's stop with the reduction in service, please. enough with the cuts. enough with the cuts. in terms of bus bunching, that was the first time i had heard that word and immediately it

came to mind schedules. the reason there's always going to be bus bunching because schedules we have do not take into account lyft uber, taxis, wheelchairs, elderly people, senior citizens, fights that happen every single day on the busses. that's one of the reasons that bus bunching occurs. also in terms of the busses, i think, what is it ten people or more qualifies you as a bus, so that's the reason why they are allowed to be in the red bus lanes, i thought to myself, we are in san francisco, isn't this the city that defies presidential orders and challenges federal laws. let's encourage our public transportation system to thrive and strive. i have a message for operators for the city and county, we are

here to serve you. thank you. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you, and thank you for your comments reminding us what an important an challenging job it is to be an operator. next speaker, please. is that it? do i have anyone else who wants to give public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment closed. all right, to make this go more in an organized fashion, i will divide in the three main categories people seem to have brought up, the red transit, the spruce street rapid stop and starr king. ms. bryson, i'm sure there will be loads of questions. vice chair heinicke, would you like to start us off? >> >> vice chair m. heinicke: i would like to move that we not remove the spruce lane, that we keep, as the only chronologically gifted member

of this board i have to identify with my senior citizen friend in terms of that hill, to keep that starr king stop and to maintain or keep st. mary's cathedral stop as well and i agree with supervisor fewer, perhaps phase 1 ought to be limited to mass transit and have a review whether increasing that is appropriate. does that cover all three? >> chair c. brinkman: it does but in a slightly more confusing manner than i hoped to do. thank you, director torres. i think in order to keep this going along more organized, if you don't mind, i would like to break them up. so i would like to start with the red transit lanes. vice chair heinicke, do you want to start us off? >> >> vice chair m. heinicke: can we start with a question, red transit lanes improve bus time, correct?

>> that evaluation found there were improfferments in improvements in compliance and safety but not by travel time by painting them red in that particular evaluation. >> vice chair m. heinicke: okay, do have you a different evaluation as m.t.a. staff? >> in my opinion they are great for reliability. it's different than travel time, it's harder to measure. but by the fact that our study found there's greater compliance with the lanes means people driving are much less likely to violate their lanes which means they are better for reliability. >> that's an opinion, is that a report? >> >> vice chair m. heinicke: you said your opinion, is that

m.t.a. staff's opinion, has that been studied? i'm in favor of the red lanes but when one of the operators comes here and tells us something i want to make sure we respond as an agency. >> that's my opinion. >> i thought we saw on the mission line, because i take that everyday and i can time it -- >> they can't hear you, gwyneth. >> g. borden: i thought we d looked at data and saw increased times, is that not true? >> chair c. brinkman: sorry, audience members, no public participation or i will have to ask you to leave the room. >> there are different questions being asked. one is transit-only lane which is not, and the other is transit-only versus red painted diamond lane. we don't have as many side-by-side comparisons of the latter, which is the contention.

but from the first red transit lane we installed which was on church from market or 15th, i believe we saw both transit travel time and reliability improvements likewise on mission street. so while i don't know we have exhaustive analysis to compare, i think we have seen significantly better compliance which ms. bryson said has safety and reliability benefits so the agency does recommend when we are doing transit-only lanes to make them more effective to paint them red. >> chair c. brinkman: i think the people have issue with the transit-only lane, not necessarily that it's red, or am i misunderstanding that? >> we hear both. >> so my first question was about the red, i think we have covered that, thank you.

and the second question is exactly as director borden said about transit-only and whether a bus, 10 people or more being allowed to be in there will have some effect. now there's calls for studies and so forth and so on, we actually have some live time empirical experience we have some red carpet lanes these private busses could drive in under the way they are signed, correct? >> that's correct. most of our lanes are signed for bus and taxi state definition of 10 or more passengers. >> what is the feedback from data or operators whether having that signed that way as opposed to transit only is affecting the reliability and travel time of our muni busses? >> i'm unaware we have specific data to answer that question. >> have we received any reports this is a problem? >> we aren't hearin