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. .

>> my name is naomi kelly the

single-story for the 775 i started with the city and county in 1996 working for the newly elected mayor willie brown, jr. not only the chief of staff a woman but many policy advisors that were advising him everyday their supportive and nourished and sponsored united states and excited about the future. >> my name is is jack listen and the executive director of a phil randolph institution our goal to have two pathways to sustaining a family here in san francisco and your union jobs are stroen to do that i have this huge way to work with the community members and i think i found my calling i started in 1996 working for willie brown, jr. i worked in

he's mayor's office of housing in the western edition and left 3 years went to law school of san francisco state university and mayor brown asked me to be the director of the taxicab commission and through the process i very much card by the contracting process and asked me townhouse the city purchaser and worked with me and i became the deputy administrator and . >> having trouble struggling to make ends meet folks will not understand what importance of voting is so we decided to develop our workforce development services after a couple of years offering pathways to sustainable jobs. >> (clapping.) >> we've gotten to a place to have the folks come back and have the discussion even if participation and makes sense

we do public services but we also really build strong communities when i started this job my sons were 2 and 5 now 9 and 6 i think so the need to be able to take a call from the principal of school i think that brings a whole new appreciation to being understanding of the work life balance. >> (clapping.) >> i have a very good team around me we're leader in the country when it comes to paid and retail and furiously the affordable-care act passed by 3079 we were did leaders for the healthcare and we're in support of of the women and support. >> in my industry i feel that is male dominated a huge struggle to get my foot in the door and i feel as though that

definitely needs to change this year needs to be more opportunities for i don't know women to do what tell me dream i feel that is important for us to create a in fact, network of support to young people young women can further their dreams and most interested in making sure they have the full and whatever they need to make that achieveable. >> education is important i releases it at my time of san mateo high ii come back to the university of san francisco law school and the fact i passed the bar will open up many more doors because i feel a curve ball or an where you can in the way can't get down why is this in my way we have to figure out a

solution how to move forward we can't let adversity throw in the [ roll call ] >> president brandon: item two, approve meetings from october 23, 2018. >> approve. >> second. >> president brandon: all in favor? thank you. pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.