questions and as can the project managers. >> chair peskin: any questions from the members. seeing none, any public comment on this item? seeing none, no public comment. public comment is closed. and is there a motion to approve -- i'm sorry. commissioner cohen. >> commissioner cohen: i just wanted to see if you could just briefly highlight the district 10 projects. >> just one moment. i'm looking in your packet of items on the prop k item there's an attachment that goes over the attachment one to the memorandum for folks watching at home that lists all of the projects and it lists the districts that are included in these funding requests. so all of the caltrain requests, because of the alignment of the caltrain system, they all do

travel through district 10. so they are listed here as part of district 10. there's also -- one of the new signals, the funding request for new signals is also in district 10 and this is for the design phase and i'm just for folks watching at home there's also an enclosure to this packet that gives all of the details of the funding request -- so scope and budget information is shown as an enclosure. if you give me just a moment the district 10 location is at oas can dale and lumus. >> commissioner cohen: and i think that page 36 and 37 highlight a lot of the projects in the district and i just wanted to go on record acknowledging that a significant apportion of the allocation -- proposed allocation, is coming to the district and i'm grateful. but i still think that there's a lot of work and study that needs to continue to bring us where we -- where the district, the southeast corridor, and not just district 10, but i say 6, 11 and

10 are all of in the same area. so thank you, i appreciate your presentation. >> chai>> chair peskin: come moy commissioner cohen and seconded by commissioner brown and we have the same house, so same house, same call. the item is adopted. next item, please. >> clerk: item 6, adopt 18, 2019 prop k programs with conditions, amend 162014 five y.p.p.s and amend the prop aa strategic plan to give $2 million to the bus enhancement project and approve two prop k exchanges to backfill the improvement project shortfall for the central subway. this is an action item. >> chair peskin: miss lafort. >> good morning again. as a reminder that last month

the transportation authority board adopted the first group of five y.p.p.s as i will call them in this presentation. five prioritization programs for the transportation sales tax. and each has to include a few different designate the elements as shown on your screen. as you know notice some board items that you see every month, the five y.y.p.s can be later but it's important to set the baseline now on what to expect with the projects upcoming over the next five-year period. and so group two, some of the categories have funds running out and there's fund exchanges and a very wordy title on your agenda. so i'll get to those in just a moment. we want to balance having money available for sponsors when they need it but also evaluating the projects to make sure that we're not looking to issue debt unnecessarily. these are the projects. i have categories in the second group before you today. on the left are the transit

categories and on the right are the streets and travel demand management categories and the 5ypps are in prop k, so these are the non-project categories and not the central subways or electricification categories. as a highlight, the 5ypps for the 2019 period include the reestablishment of the funding for the neighborhood transportation improvement program. again, we're recommending $7.7 million in funds and that's $100,000 in funding plans per district and their 600,000 in capital funds for capital match per district. so $700,000 per district over that five-year period. some have not used the full funds available and there's an attachment to this memorandum that shows all of the projects that are funded to date as well as the balances. but what we are recommending is the carry forward of $300,000 of

the 2014 funding. and that would allow each district to have a maximum amount of $1 million in the next period. we also have a recommendation for $650,000 over the next five years that enables t.a. and m.t.a. staff to work with your offices to scope the projects and to help to advance them. that's the same that was in the last five-year period. this category is the best with the network category. and the project that is in this category is the b.r.t., the bus rapid transit phase 2 project and there's $30 million left for the garry project and that's also in this current fiscal year. so we expect to see a request coming through in the next several months and presenting to the board. and there's a prop aa fee for program and there was a project

to fund bus stop enhancements at about just over 3,600 bus stops around the city. so it wasn't a good fit for it but prop aa transit reliability and enhancements category is a great fit, taking funds that are currently programmed to geary and instead funding this bus stop enhancement project and moving the geary project into prop k so we can fund both projects. and caltrain has seen a good repair, i mentioned this in the last category, just like we're doing now in caltrain identifies projects and amend the 5ypps to amend them but right now they're just shown as capital match. and the c.t.a. and the city will need to work together over the upcoming years to secure another funding source other than prop k to continue to fund the capital match that we provide on an annual basis and i think that

there are a few different options, and the silicon valley leadership group is looking at sales tax for the three counties for the 2020 ballot. and there's other opportunities that we will need to explore in order to meet our contribution commitment. transit enhancements category, let's see here, so i'll just point out the condition in the 20145ypp that we are recommending to continue to apply to the 20195ypps and that is part of any planned allocation for planning our conceptual engineering funds. the first task that week performed is an analysis of the operating costs, the level of operating subsidy as well as the overall cost benefit of the project in order to allow folks to have an analysis and to inform decisionmakers as they evaluate this in transit needs for the city. and the subway expansion for the

m line is with the corridor study and a lot of other projects, and the san jose m-line is coming out of a planning project for district 11. and so pleased to see these projects advancing. and this is funding the expansion vehicles as part of the light-rail vehicle or l.r.v. procurements that they are undertaking. and i'll go into the replacement part of that procurement as i describe the discretionary program. this is, again, a replacement vehicles only. and so we have worked with a very large contract with semens to replace the -- siemens and we'll make it available on an accelerated delivery level for a first vehicle at 18 months. and shorten the period from 6 1/2 years to three years. so it would get these new

vehicles on the street sooner and reduce the maintenance costs and m.t.a. would not need to be operating two different fleets concurrently. with the same vehicle and also folks on the street get to enjoy the new vehicles sooner. so financing costs, there are financing costs with making the bills of prop k and the federal funds available sooner. and there are also financing costs or, sorry, costs associated with retiring the vehicles before the end of their useful lives. so we're making the funds available and the highest level of financing. if m.t.a. and the t.a. board decide to do this, the funds are available. if not, the category does not incur financing costs. but there's steps that need to be taken before the decisions are made and m.t.a. will be back to the c.a.c. and the board to present on this cost benefit analysis of doing this. and i wanted to note that even

with the accelerated schedule there's a funding gap. and the funding gap is from $17 million as an accelerated schedule to about $56 million at a standard schedule. and so a bit of a hole to plug. but just wanted to highlight that we're -- we're, you know, hoping to get these vehicles on the street as fast as possible. next category is to support these vehicles literally and figuratively to advance some of the facility projects that would support the new and expanded fleet as you can see here. and there's a project that is a potential project that is a very large project and so we'll see that project advance through both the facilities muni category and the discretionary category and there's discretionary funds that would be available to the three operators for muni and caltrain. if there are projects that can't be accommodated within the separator share of funding. so we have funds from the

discretionary vehicles pot already for the l.r.v.s and this is the first time that we have recommended funds from the facilities and guideways. so we haven't had to tap those funds yet. but we are recommending to tap them now. and that is muni category and this is funding to requests that you'll see next month for the projects for a fund exchange for the connector right-of-way, yes, for the various states of repair projects to maintain the trolley supportive infrastructure in the state of good repair. the 5ypp also includes two different fund exchanges that you will be acting to today to support the central subway project. and so we have had a long-standing project of improvement funds to the central subway and we have known that the funds would not be available

in time to meet the cash flow needs given the end reliability of this funding source. and s.b.1 has definitely helped but we still will not have the full their 62 million owed to the project in time. and the project is nearing -- nearing completion and this assumed to be part of the baseline budget and assumed in the contingency fund. so they are expected to use the contingency at this point so we're working with m.t.a. and t.c. to get to a solution for the $62 million cash infusion issue. and so what we're recommending is roughly a three-way split between m.t.a. and t.a. and m.t.c. whereby we would be providing $221 million as would m.t.c., and so for our portion of the funds we have a million dollars in the central subway funding category that we are bringing forward next month to fund the portion. and then there are two fund exchanges, because the guideways category in prop k is good

repair projects and it's not transit expansion projects which is what this project is. and so the first exchange is with the better market area grant funds and central subway will take the obed to federal funds and better market street is through the prop k funds. and with the l-taraval we would have funds from the beginning of the fiscal year to free up $4 million in general fund prop b population base set aside to the central subway. so our regional improvement commitment would be reduced to about $40.1 million. and we're also able to allocate our program rather of $5 million in prop k to caltrain electricification and this fulfills the member share contribution to the electricification project. the remainder of the $80 million is by application bond funds as well as prop k.

and the next sweep of projects are for new and upgraded streets and there's funding for the highway terminus narrowing for the design phase that you will see next month as well. and lots coming up and then in the next five-year period there are a sweep of different projects that are advancing including the southeast muni expansion and the transit crossing project, and some other safety as well as planning projects for the city. traffic calming, there are a lot of projects in the traffic calming program and we're recommending to reprogram funds to advance some design phase requests that would allow them -- these projects to advance to the consphruks phase in the 20 -- construction phase in the 2019 period. and in the 5ypp allows us to

invest in request-based traffic calming programs and developing new programs to address safety at schools. and also for seniors and persons with disabilities. so some programs and some projects advancing for -- in the name of vision zero. and the safety category, the 5ypp, there are a lot more placeholders than 2014 for the larger problematic lines like non-project specific. at this point there's many more named projects because m.t.a. has conquered some of the low-hanging fruit, the work is done, and it's been installed as an example, so in the 2019 5ypp you see projects on important bike corridors that are listed on this slide. and also listed on the next slide. and you have balance between the programs like 20th avenue and

then the opportunity to provide opportunities for projects to advance on neighborhood streets as well. so a range of projects advancing. and the pedestrian safety, that category has funding for several projects in the 2019 period that are vision zero improvement city-wide. as well as funding the final phases of long-standing projects like full some and howard and also for -- yeah, for fullsome and howard and other projects with geographic equity like the lake monterey area and also vision zero placeholder. in the later period to advance projects as they're identified. and programs, san francisco public works departments annual funding for the program that will be continued through the

five-year period... contact 311 to request a curb ramp for folks watching at home. and there's the t.d.m. or the transportation demand management category, which allows for a range of projects to advance that are placeholders targeted at a broad range of users and project types. there's a lot of the money that is in the city-wide category for employee and tourist-based programs but there's also placeholders that could be used to put in practice the recommendation coming out of the emerging mobility studies and also pricing studies. and also funding to make sure that the commuter benefits ordinance is up-to-date with the current tax laws. and in the transportation demand -- sorry, transportation land-use, we have funding for ththe improvement programs and s well as local match to regional and state and federal competitive grant programs for both local -- for both capital

and planning phases. and so i will conclude by saying that this is the second group, you approved the first group last month of the 5ypps, and this is the second group, the companion item, which is is the strategic plan which will be presented by oscar quintanilla in the following programs. and so with that i can take any questions and there are many project managers here as well. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss lafort for that comprehensive presentation. as we discussed offline in my office with regard to the central subway funds, it is your representation and the m.t.a.'s representation that the project is still on budget, albeit behind schedule, correct? >> that is my understanding. >> chair peskin: tilly? >> so, chairperson, i don't

think that we can have the status of the budget -- >> chair peskin: why don't we have mr. ho come up? >> thank you. >> good morning, president, commissioner. my name is albert ho with central subway. so currently the central subway program is behind schedule but our budget overall $1. $1.587 billion is still on target as we move forward with trying to finish the program. >> chair peskin: that was the representation that i was looking for. commissioner yee. >> commissioner yee: thank you. just a quick question, in regards to the purchases of these new light rail cars, i don't know how legit -- there was a senior who approached me a few days ago and she just was worried that we're buying these cars that are the bench seats and as a senior she wasn't moving real well and she said

it's really, really difficult for the seniors to get up from those seats because there's nothing to hold on to. do we have any -- i don't know if that's a major issue or not -- but it seems logical that if you have nothing to hold on to as a senior it is hard to get up. so do we have any fix to that? >> sfmta staff will speak to that question. >> the m.t.a. is looking into redesigning seats. we don't have a plan for an actual plan at this time. >> commissioner yee: did you say that you don't have a plan? >> we are developing a plan with the manufacturer but we don't have any action to report at this time. >> commissioner yee: okay. i mean, are you taking it into consideration what i just stated? >> yes, sir. >> commissioner yee: okay, thank you very much.

>> chair peskin: okay, seeing no other questions or comments, is there public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion to adopt the 2019 2018-2019 prop k five year prioritization programs and approve the fund exchanges. commissioner cohen makes the motion and seconded by commissioner brown. we have a different house, roll call please. >> clerk: commissioner brown, brown aye. commissioner cohen, cohen aye. commissioner fewer? fewer aye. commissioner mandelman. mandelman aye. and commissioner peskin? peskin aye. and commissioner tang? tang aye. commissioner yee? yee aye. we have first approval. >> chair peskin: next item please. >> clerk: adopt the 2019 prop k strategic plan, this is an

action item. >> chair peskin: good morning to the other mr. quintanilla. >> good morning, i'm with the policy and programming division. this morning we're presenting for your consideration the 2019 prop k strategic plan. together with the 5ypps determines which projects receive funding in the next five years. we're extending to the current context and making sure that funds are supporting project delivery and programming so that the agencies can incorporate into their fiscal years, 2018-2019 budget. we're in yief fear of the stra tiej -- year five of the strategic plan period. we have this a three-step process. in may this board adopted a baseline which told the project sponsors how much prop k funds are available by category by the fifiscal year. and we have been working with the project sponsors to identify which projects are receiving

funding and making sure that the prop k funds could be available to support the project delivery. and item before you today is the -- actually, the second part of step three and i presented the first part which were the 5ypps. and in this step we have incorporated programming and reimbursement schedules in the 5ypps and updated our debt assumptions on this programming, and we have adoption of the strategic plan together with the 5ypps will guide the implementation of the plan. there's a lot of technical details that go into the strategic plan so i'll focus on the highlights. the strategic plan has three components, the prop k policy guide, and day-to-day administration of the program, and they were adopted in may 2018 and they're basically the same as previous updates since we have had the opportunity to refine them over the past updates. the policies reflect the strategic plan guiding

principles which are to optimize the leveraging of sales tax fund to have cost-effective project delivery and to maximize the cost effectiveness of the financing. and the second component of this strategic plan are the sales tax revenues. sorry. and as we -- as some of you might remember from the adoption of the baseline we are projecting overall revenues to come in about 1% under what we assumed in 2014. and we're slightly more conservative in the near term, however, in the long term we expect it to be in line with historic averages. and the third component are the expenexpenditures and first we e net out the operating costs and these are a separate revenues and they taper off by the end of the program. and the project expenses and the project related financing. and we have a capital reserve which we set aside the 10% much the annual funds available for a project in the last year of the sales tax revenue. and this is in case revenues are lower than anticipated or

interest rates are really high. we gradually reduce closer to the end of the expenditure plan. and at the core of this strategic plan is making sure that funds are available when they're needed. in this chart we compare 2014, which is that green line and what actually happened since the 2014 update. and here you can see the programming and allocations. you can see the project sponsors are a little too optimistic and as allocations came in at a slower pace than anticipated and we have seen this trend in previous updates as well. as you have heard in the 5ypp, the presentation sponsors are expecting to request most of these delayed projects in the next couple years. next couple years.

this being there. >> funds remaining will be about 35 million, several categories are anticipated and the funds

make it for a five year period. how are we meeting our goals? our recent management audit found overall for every dollar we have allocated in prop k., we are averaging between four dollars at seven dollars in local and state federal funds. we found similar number of leveraging opportunities of $5.7 we continue to support project delivery. major projects are complete except the downtown extension. we are supporting the potential for accelerated delivery of many light rail vehicles. the single largest investment to improve the customer experience and reliability. we are asked separating funds for projects in support of mission zero and replenishing the neighborhood transportation improvement program. please visit my street s.f. if you want to see what other projects are being supported by san francisco sales tax dollars. finally, we make sure that funds

are available when projects need them and our strategy is to manage cash flow of the program to minimize financing cost. with each strategic plan updates , we -- financing costs have declined, due primarily to making funds available to replacements and committing our commitment to the project. to give you some project, we anticipate financing costs to be ten% of available funds per project. in this update, we are expecting these costs to be 11%. we expect this to be lower, as allocations and reimbursements to bleat happen at a slower pace we reuse -- we use conservative assumptions to make sure your sufficient funds for project needs an issue only when we are confident if the sponsor will seek reimbursement. just to recap, revenues are slightly lower. long-term debt needs are slightly higher since we are accelerating reimbursement schedules for some of the larger

components of the expenditure plan and we see slightly higher financing costs and a reduction in the capital reserve as we get closer to the end of the program and when you put all this together, we see a modest increase of $11 million to funds available for projects over the life of the program. which is less than half of the% of the total funds available for projects. attachments two n32 the memo, you can see the funds available per category and you can also see which categories are running out of funds. with that, i can take any questions. >> thank you. are there any questions for staff? seeing none, is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, is there a motion to adopt the 2019 prop kate strategic plan? made by commissioner cohen. we have a different house yet again. rollcall, please.

>> on item seven. [roll call] >> we have first approval. >> next item, please. >> adopt the final freeway corridor management study phase two report and author his executive director to amend cooperative -- cooperative agreement numbers with the california department of transportation for the u.s. 101 i to 80 managed lanes for an additional 150-2,000 and a total amount not to exceed $27,000 and approve a local partnership program for an exchange of funds for the u.s. 101, i to a deep managed lanes project. this is an action item. >> good morning. i am a senior planner with the transportation authority.

i am here with a final update on the phase of the transportation authority effort to test the feasibility of management strategies on the freeways to help with more people in the same or fewer vehicles as demand for travel continues to increase this project was last discussed at the april 10th board meeting where we brought initial results. as we all know, congestion on the freeways is bad and getting worse. because this trend of more congestion a slower travel times is only forecasted to continue without taking action, carpools and buses will be stuck in the same traffic as solo drivers, giving them no incentive to take transit or share the ride. the authority decided to approach this problem by exploring strategies to give high occupancy vehicles time and reality -- reliability advantage and incentivize more people to take the bus and ride together making better use of the freeway capacity. phase one of the study said -- set up goals for an evaluation of options to address freeway congestion in san francisco. as we consider solutions, we

keep the studies was just goal in mind. i won't read them all to you, but we believe they reflect the values around san francisco transportation efficiency, reliability, air quality, health , and supporting communities. phase one of the study provided for a focus on travellers beginning or ending their trips in downtown san francisco and eastern neighborhoods. we consider these goals when evaluating options to reduce travel times on freeways. the management strategy includes more than just changes to the physical land out of the lanes on the freeways. much like we wouldn't implement a red light on city streets without an investment and best service that uses those lanes, we shouldn't and could it -- couldn't implement a carpal lane the lane and policy about who can use it and when are the platform and that sent -- in that centre box there. while the service we can provide , whether that is transit , low-income services, or

carpal matching, they are in the right-hand box. these policy decisions must go with the lane. together these come together into a holistic free wait management strategy. the freeway corridor management study focused on testing the feasibility of that platform while identifying the needs to scope the work required to implement the policy. so the study focused on testing the feasibility of the platform or defining what the project could be by identifying free wait services with potential benefits in developing alternatives for them. making good assumptions about the travellers in the corridor and analysing the potential operations. meanwhile, the study focused on identifying needs and beginning scoping of the policy pieces through community outreach, feedback and coordination with agency partners in the bay area and beyond. let's focus on what the project could be. as a quick refresher, at our previous update, we shared a potential confederation of how to address this challenge by

real -- real copyright -- reallocating existing free wait space. not widening the freeway. we believe the idea that widening freeways would harm the communities more than it would help them. the health implications increase greenhouse gas emissions and allowing more vehicles to travel in these corridors into san francisco would be too high. on top of that, it is worth noting we have made a commitment not to widen the freeways and the general plan. this lane diagram offers a closer look at what the proposal entails and was previously shared at the april board meeting. highlighted in yellow are changes to the existing configuration. potentially striping a new lane from the existing shoulder to allow buses and carpools to bypass the backup at the end of the freeway at the traffic light at fifth and king. finally, at the last update, we share the initial results of the feasibility analysis of how this configuration might perform under various policies. we analyse the lane that you just saw with an operating

policy every two person carpal. a third person carpal -- carpool it is worth noting the express lanes are carpool lanes or transit vehicles meeting the minimum occupancy requirements. they always travel for free. while there is an option for others to pay to use the lane if capacity remains with that price of varying depending on how much capacity is available. in addition to the operating policies on the lanes themselves , the analysis assumed increase transit service on ongoing work to add my bus service on the 101 corridor between san francisco and san jose and adjustments to routes to take advantage of the lanes. these included seven new routes between san francisco and the peninsula and assumes the changes to many mobile services that included the introduction to the park expresses and modifying the service to run all day in both directions via 280.

this included continuation of the existing 14 x. service that uses the core door. the final note is it is important to remember that the proposed lane addition recommends an alternative south of the airport and was in place. how did the scenarios perform? the chart on your screen summarizes the performance of each of the alternatives across the goals we mentioned earlier. when we compare the results with our goals, the carpool only scenarios were either in no better than doing nothing -- nothing or in some cases, worse. many of the challenges of the scenarios come from the fact that involves converting an existing lane. at two person carpal rearranges the lanes the vehicles are using without being able to provide any advantage to carpools or transit and while it results in a underutilized carpal and that while it is great for the few vehicles able to use it, it squeezes the rest of the traffic into the remaining lanes and

cause a substantial additional delay for those who aren't using the carpal lane. the express lanes and error performs better than the no build across a majority of the project goals as if able to balance the need for a reliable and free-flowing express lane with minimizing impacts to the remaining lanes. based on those results, what do we recommend and why? the two person carpal looked promising initially as demand modelling showed it has the opportunity to increase the amount of people moved in the corridor of the most out of all the scenarios. under closer examination, we showed that lane would be approaching capacity on opening day leaving no room for growth in the core door. when we previously showed these results along with our caution in that capacity at the april meeting, the board provided some feedback and concern about how t.n.c.s the impact of these modelled results. on closer inspection, we determined when trips like t.n.c.s with single driver and single passenger, in addition to carpal cheaters, which are

usually about 20% in the bay area, the lane would, in reality , break down and be congested on opening day, offering no more incentive to use transit or carpal than doing nothing at all. as a it showed promise and we approach this caution. hov three, or three person carpal divided travel time savings of up to eight minutes over the others. is very poorly utilized. even taking into account the new transit service and carpool. delays or significant. this configuration also moves fewer people than any other alternative, even fewer people than doing nothing at all. because of the underutilized carpal lane and congested general-purpose lanes. as a result of this poor performance, the this scenario is not recommended. finally, the express lane

alternative represents the middle ground between the hov two and hov three scenarios. we can use a variable price as a mention based on demand to ensure the lane is all right -- always about utilized without becoming congested and allowing three trent -- transit and three-person carpool lanes and first. the analysis results bring this middle ground up. enough vehicles are also pulled out of the remaining general-purpose lane to maintain or improve the travel time in the general-purpose lanes. the scenario also saw the number of people moved in the corridor increase by 40%. as a result, they meet the goal of the study and is the staff recommended alternative in the final report. let's return to the policy of how hard of a strategy. as i mentioned earlier, the

implantation side of this study was based around identifying needs and exploring potential strategies. we want to make sure that we build the lane on the needs and desires of the communities impacted by the freeways. this process starts with us. we have held over 30 conversations and meetings with leaders and groups and free wait -- freeway adjacent neighborhoods to introduce the concepts explored in the study and asked for input on what types of questions people would want to see answered going forward. this represents only beginning of what we need to be a concerned city each should their project advance. we have also engaged with agency partners as well as other regions who are already operating these types of lanes, like los angeles metro are in planning process for other projects. want to learn from our peers about the best practices to achieve the goals of the study by moving more people and fewer vehicles and we want to make sure we are engaged in multiagency solutions for the entire peninsula corridor. we also know it is critical to learn the best and most

successful ways of people -- are people approaching it equitably. where are we in the overall process and what are the next steps? this slide illustrates our progress so far and we are exiting the feasibility stage and engaging with caltrans to outline a potential environmental clearance document should the study advance, it would come back several times throughout the various phases with updates and to request approvals, funding and concurrence at each step. throughout, we would maintain a robust outreach strategy and will perform increasingly detailed analysis including a thorough equity analysis to address some of the questions that have already arisen. so the actions before you today are the next steps in that roadmap. i will provide a summary of the items recommended actions. first, adopt the feasibility study report for the freeway corridor management study phase to watch what which lane conversion express lane as the

staff recommended alternative. additional recommendations include continued and more robust studies about how a program may operate including detailed socioeconomic equity, transit, and traffic analyses. second is approval of an amendment to an agreement with caltrans and the amounts of 100 to $50,000 to reimburse their staff for review and oversight as we continue to develop and review these improvements on their highway system. this amendment is fully funded by a previous prop k. finally, approval of a find exchange between prop k. and the local partnership program. to be able to find those additional detail studies that i mentioned and regal -- eager to begin. we have heard request on this board and in our outreach. that is this transit service detail analysis that i mentioned staff has proposed a prop k. fund exchange. this action would approve the exchange of funds allocated to public works with an equal amount of prop k. dollars

resulting in no reductions to street resurfacing. then up to 4.1 million of the lp p. funds would be made available for future phases of this, including those detailed analyses that i mentioned. the exchange is necessary because there is no expenditure plan line that could result directly found this work. staff will return to the board in early 29 teen -- in 2019 to amend it. street resurfacing five-year prioritization program would allocate the funds for the project. staff also expects this project to be competitive for future rounds of corridor funding and our m3 toll funding. that concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> speaker-01: is still with us. thank you to the voters of the state of california. with that, i assume that there are going to be a number of questions from commissioners. thank you for that presentation, which we have received in the past and now we have the study

before us for adoption. with that, commissioner fewer? >> thank you very much. thank you for the presentation. my district does not border this area, but i wanted to know, do we have any current data on how many vehicles -- how many people are eating vehicles now? how many cars have two people in them and how many cars are single rides and how many have three or more people? did we do any analysis of that? >> yes, we did. in the corridors in san francisco, 20% of the vehicle to date me that what a person or more requirement including transit, buses, vans or more. it depends on where you look on the freeway system. three or more people is about 3- 5% of the vehicles today. >> and then the rest are single people in cars? >> correct. >> thank you. have you done this analysis along this corridor? >> yes.

>> okay. those are the numbers for this corridor. >> those are the numbers for san francisco on 101 and 280 in san francisco. >> did you take this on a weekday or did you do it on a weekend? >> tuesday, wednesday, and thursday. >> and during commute hours? >> correct. >> thank you. >> commissioner brown? >> thank you. thank you for the report. i have a couple of questions. the sites -- besides enhancement of bus services for the three line serving communities of concern, what are some other things that can be done to promote equity for the folks who are in these communities of these proposed lanes that they travel through? >> that is a great question. as i mentioned, part of the work we are doing is partnering with partner agencies. that has come out of the outreach discussions to retweet where one of the first things people ask for is improvement in transit service.

that is why we lead with that. we have done great work around other programs that include using the revenue that is collected from the pricing to either provide toll subsidies to low income travellers who aren't able to use transit or fund even more transit beyond what would otherwise be available in the lane. >> something like helping people with fast track? >> correct. los angeles' program has a monthly maintenance fee that is a barrier to entry for a lot of people of limited income. l.a. has a program where if you are eligible for any state assistance program, you can get a fast track at no cost, preloaded with $25 that has no monthly maintenance fee. additionally, this is open to everyone, not just low income houses. if someone writes frequently, they are rewarded by receiving total credit for free onto that fast track. if they usually take transit but they need to be with their kids after school or have an important meeting and need to drive that day, the options

available to them are there to take advantage of this facility. >> thank you. >> commissioner he? >> thank you. when you did this analysis, did you look at the impact of whether any of these scenarios would increase or decrease in vehicles coming into san francisco? the one that was recommended, i could make the assumption because of the better flow, that we will see even more vehicles driven into san francisco. i don't know if you did any analysis in that regards. >> yes, we did. and the changes, for all the scenarios are small. within half a% overall for each one. i think part of it is because we are not building a new lane. i would definitely agree that would be a real concern if we were are proposing to add a new lane like a san mateo county is

doing south and putting additional capacity into the city. wet all three of the proposals are planning to do is reallocate the existing capacity. there really isn't additional room for more vehicles to come in, but we are giving priority to those vehicles that have more people in them. either way, across all three scenarios, there is not a significant difference in the total number of vehicles travelling in the car door. >> thank you. >> commissioner cohen? >> thank you for your presentation. i appreciate it pretty greatly. this is a dicey topic and it is one that needs to be delved and with some level of sensitivity. cultural awareness, from my perspective, i am viewing this from my environmental justice, social justice as well as public health blends. as a reminder to everyone, district ten has two freeways. 101 and 280 bisect through the

neighborhood. i am particularly interested with a lot of the particulate manager and dust that is emitted , because of traffic. i'm interested in decreasing traffic. unnecessary traffic. however, i'm also cautious about the cost of putting a fee on travel through a neighborhood. this is what i mean when i say dicey. it is very sensitive. i was fortunate to go down and do a tour in southern california and learn a little bit more about how their tolls are working. one of the things i am interested in particularly as i'll be voting yes on the site and because i think we need more equity studies. we need to be paying very close attention and i am grateful that the t.a. has demonstrated that level of commitment to paying attention to the details.

to making sure that whatever we pass, or whatever moves forward, we are not leaving people behind and we are not paying careful attention to the people who are most closely effected that are living in and around freeways. your district is not far from the freeway. supervisor can post us district, there is something that really connects and unites all of us around this study. i am grateful and i will be supportive. i hope other colleagues will be supportive. this is a contract to continue to oversee the continued study for equity. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other commissioners who have questions or comments? seeing none, are the members of the public who would like to testify on this matter, please come forward to. this is your chance. go ahead.

>> i live in district ten. i just have to watch for short points because i'm very concerned about this project. it seems like its a project catering to people who do not live in a city that want to pass through back especially the tech company shuttles and what not to and i also wanted to add on about the effect it will have on low income people. i know you mentioned there will be some type of subsidy for those who qualify for government assistance programs, but that doesn't help people who are one step above that in low income and don't qualify and are one paycheck away from being homeless and things like this will affect households dramatically. especially in district ten. and as far as well-being, who is the well-being for?

the district ten only wanted to get over to the main parts of the city where it serves the 101 and the 280 and until that district is represented and those types of considerations are done, i think that is what should be the priority. we do not have three people that can fill a car in our district to ride over to city hall or to the hospital or to go shopping. so i would like that to be a priority and not people who want to pass through real quick and not deal with the problems they incurred when they brought these businesses in and were not held accountable for our infrastructure. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. we are a transportation and land

use organization in the bay area and we support the motion on the table here today. we believe that, as was mentioned with the report today, traffic is getting worse. it's not good for anybody. buses as well as carpools that are stuck in traffic. moving forward, it is only going to get worse for traffic and congestion. we believe that managed lanes can move more people with fewer cars and help alleviate congestion and promote equity if done well or done right. we believe they could provide a model for the region. of something we have been advocating over the last decade at transform at the regional and local levels. as far as a multipronged approach to getting managed lanes right. first and foremost, conversion. going with the three plus hot approach, as you saw through the study, is going to produce the best results and coupled with

the rich provision of transit and mobility strategies to make sure we move way more people with fewer cars. and finally, the equity piece being important, as already noted today. and with three key components that we see. one is access and making sure that folks have equal access to the lanes and there are no barriers. affordability, and the provision of rich transportation. we are about to release a report on pricing and equity and we look forward to sharing that with you as soon as it is released. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. public comment is closed. colleagues, can we take these together, or would you like me to do them one by one? there are three actual actions that are before us on item number 8. i'm happy to take them as a whole if someone wants to make a motion to that effect. is there a motion to adopt item number 8, all three of its parts

made by commissioner cohen. and seconded. we have yet another different house. on this item, a roll call, please. [roll call] >> we have first approval. >> next item, please. >> item nine is awarded two your professional services contract with design consulting in an amount not to exceed $420,000 for planning and technical services for the connect s.f. streets and freeways study. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am a senior planner here at the t.a. we issued the r.f.p. on august

30th of this year. earned the freeways project will develop projects and policies for streets and freeways that will meet the needs and our vision and goals by the year 2050. we took steps to encourage participation from small and disadvantaged business enterprises, including advertising in our local newspapers. we received two proposals for -- in response to the r.f.p. and we are recommending msa design services to receive the contract excuse me. the m.s.a. exceeded the goals of 14% and they are including two teams that will meet a 34% goal. the contract will be funded by state and transportation -- federal service present -- transportation funds as well as prop k. funds and the c.e.c.

recommended this item at the october 24th board meeting. >> thank you. are there any questions from commissioners? if there any public comment? public comment is closed. is there a motion to adopt -- aboard the two year professional service contract made by commissioner fewer and seconded by commissioner brown? we have the same house for once. same call. the item is approved on first reading. next item, please. >> item ten is award promotional services for options to extend a three-year additional one year. to consulting in an amount not to exceed $480,000 for computer network and maintenance services this is an action item. >> will you present?

>> good morning, commissioners. i'm sorry. i do not see the deputy director for technology data and analysis here to present this item. >> he was here. >> he was here a moment to go. i am more than happy to present if the commissioners will have me. this is a proposal for i.t. services. we have utilized a consultant instead of utilizing staff as we found it has been more cost effective and beneficial for us to have someone on call versus having a full-time equipment position. we really -- we release the proposal back in the summer. i am happy to report we had five proposals come in for the services. we are looking to extend services for a two year agreement with three amendments. the percentage was approximately 15% and we received -- the proposal came in at 84%. staff included on this panel were a mix of t.a. staff with

multiple divisions. this is funded by all prop k. funds. this e.a.c. provided a unanimous support for this item. i am more than happy to answer any questions. >> any questions or comments from commissioners? seeing none. public comment is closed. is there a motion to award this contract? >> same house, same call. the item is adopted on first reading. his are in the introduction new items? is there any general public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed and to the t.a. is adjourned.

>> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. time for budget and finance committee. i'm excited to be here. supervisor malia cohen, and to my right is supervisor mandelman, stepping in for supervisor fewer. also recognize