subway platform. in order to make that change work, we need to remove three general meter spaces and one commercial loading space would need to be relocated currently right at the corner of ulloa move just east. and then this figure is the rest of our proposal. this is just south of the prior figure. it shows the intersection of westportal add vesente and this is the southern limit of the one block of a new transit-only lane. if drivers were headed south approaching, if they wanted to continue to proceed straight, they would be expected to merge over into the right-hand lane and the other thing pictured on this slide is there's currently 48 bus stops at westportal and we would remove that and it's

pretty low ridership and the reason is in order to get the bus stop ulloa to the other side of the street, we would need to make a minor reroute to the line and so essentially the bus would start resulting along ulloa to clairemont and instead of going south on westportal to vincente. this summarizes the metrics we would look at in that evaluation. there is more detail about each one. we circulated a draft of our plan to stakeholders and we're in the process of finalizing it. so this is a fast-moving effort. the first staff work on it began in late march. our first outreach ban in early

april. all of the groups listed on the slide are groups we had direct outreach. we had kind of two rounds of stakeholder meetings with representatives from the westportal merchants and the greater westportal neighborhood association. the first meeting we shared with them an expanded set of proposals and listened to their feedback and when we came back at the second meeting, we made several revisions to respond to some of the common areas of comment. we went door-to-door to reach merchants, particularly those right next to where we were proposing to relocate the bus zones. this shows some of the major things we changed to feedback.

though involved limiting turning movements from ulloa eastbound and westbound. and our first meeting with the stakeholders, those ones caused concern related to business access and neighborhood circulation. so those we dropped. we also got some great ideas from that meeting as well and we got the idea to add the lenox turn restriction and make the no you turn restrictions at all times of day. we made a we planned to bring this to you and we could have a little bit more time to engage with the stakeholders. a few other areas of comment that are worth noting, one of

the things they have requested is to defer implementation for 90 days and so we welcome any feedback today on any particular guidance on implementation. a second thing i wanted to note is that we did hear a lot of feedback about the recent twin peaks construction and the negative impacts that had on the surrounding businesses. there's concern that despite the proposals being relatively small and focused that they could have negative impacts. we really did all that we could to do something to improve service for all the people that pass through this area while being thoughtful about what would be minimally i am particularful that's why it's designed as a pilot during the morning peak hours on weekdays. the third thing i would note is we received a lot of comments about why can't we install a traffic signal on this location, wouldn't that solve our problems.

i wish the answer was yes. the answer is no. we recently prepared a write-up that explains in more detail but essentially given the different train movements and the amount of time you need to allow pedestrians to cross, it's likely that a signal in this location would operate similar to this saint francis intersection which i think no one would want to replicate. and so, just to wrap-up, pending approval today we are prepared to begin implementation later this week or early next and we would have on going stakeholder engagement and evaluations. that concludes my presentation. >> directors, i know we have some public comment so if there's any clarifying questions, direct them. >> what do they intend to do if they were granted that 90-day extension if delay it or explore options and if so which?

>> so, the letter talks about a few other things. i know that some of the people that wrote the letter are here today so maybe they would like to characterize and answer that question. >> can we pull the sales tax data now just on the corridor so we can have comparisons for this pilot of things. there's differing factors as to whether or not what that means. it's worth while since that is for businesses to be able to have a metrics to look at. >> we will look into that. >> they achieved a 40% reduction in delays which is pretty remarkable. over what period of time was that change achieved and will the p.c.o.s go away when the project is lifted? >> i don't know the answer to the first one. i don't know if anyone else does otherwise we can get back to you on it.

i think i don't think there's a final decision right now. it's likely in perpetuity they're not going to be a sustainable solution but i don't think we have immediate plans to stop them either. >> i have two questions about how you came to two of the changes. the first one is, why make the no u-turn through the intersection permanent restriction? meaning at all times. my sense of it is, it's used a lot by people circling by parking and of course, they're free to divide it and you can't turn into the parking spot so if the whole idea is to see the effect, limited restrictions during the morning while when it's one of two key commute times and the commute time where

we're seeing the most impact from traffic there, why make that restriction permanent including on sunday afternoon and when it maybe isn't competing metro traffic but is effect how customers flow through that business corridor? >> our original proposal was to have that restriction at the same weekday morning times and we heard from the stakeholders. i think that -- >> why? >> from my perspective, we have trains passing through there at all times of day. there's more during the morning peak. it would help transit at all times of day. if the stakeholders would like to see it happen, they would be effected by it. >> so the businesses wanted a permanent you tur u-turn restrin there? >> yes.

i don't want to say 100% wanted it. >> did they explain why? i suppose we can hear from them but they only have two minutes. >> i think the other factor is in general this intersection performs in terms of safety but it's not ideal from a safety perspective when you see cars doing the back up maneuver it's not a very good thing to have happening on a regular basis. >> and my second question cuts the other way, why have cars flowing through that intersection at all during 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. when, you know, not equal business hours and westportal but far more importantly, this is not punishing the businesses it's speeding up the trains. if you have cars flowing across that intersection, it's still going to lead to situations where cars are impeding the trains in either direction and so why not have a forced right turn on to westportal from

ulloa. let's at least start with that one. i can see the problem with the restriction the other way because you would shut that block down but let's start with why not having cars coming down ulloa away from the library towards saint francis -- >> the eastbound right turn? >> right. >> that was one that we heard concerns from the stakeholders about in terms of the implications for circulation. one of the things they were concerned about is if the car that would be diverted to turn south are really trying to go further east, their next maneuver would be to make a left-turn at vicente so we were worried anything we fixed at ulloa would cascade down to vicente. >> there will be cross traffic

from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.? >> that's the proposal before you. >> and in your view, from staff, is it the greater delay that's being caused by cars lining up on westportal than it is cross traffic coming across that box in the morning? >> so we did field observations and it seems like the westportal northbound was the greatest contributor in terms of car traffic impeding muni. >> and the length of this pilot again? >> we've written it as about six months. we would start looking at how well it was working right away and if there was anything that wasn't working well we would make tweaks. the idea would be to get six months of data and then do an evaluation and come back with any recommendations about keeping it or changing it. >> very good. ok, and it would be appropriate to hear from the public. i see mr. aguilar is here. >> matt rogers.

mario. those are the only three people who have submitted cards. >> carl, welcome, it's nice to see you. >> thank you for having me. i'm a partner and a resident and regular meeting. i agree with parts of the proposal, i can't support it in its complete form and that is related to many issues that we have discussed with tony, liz and phillip that are out of their control. i'd like to thank them for as much as they can being as receptive as possible given the short timeframe. one of the things that's come up is the westport community is a very different street than other commercial districts. part of it being suburban and part of it being -- there's not really any large businesses. it's all single-businesses,

small businesses, very blue collar. these businesses can't weather large disruptions and the past two years we've had two major disruptions for mca alliance and they're important and anything that is important or safety related, we totally support like a good example is, we actually brought up the no u-turn at all times and the no left turn at lenox because we knew it would help reduce congestion with lrvs and cars but also reduce the -- improve pedestrian safety. the other thing like one of the other once we like is we don't believe where it's moving is a good idea because it will

channel people into a spot that cars are going to be forced right on to on a very narrow street and we're concerned it's actually a safety hazard where moving into the tunnel would be better. >> if you stay there, i have a couple questions if i may. are you here on behalf of the hardware store or merchants association? >> as a resident and the hardware store. >> when you say you guys can't weather disruptions, you guys are weathering a lot of major disruptions with the fire and it's nice to see you are coming back strong. congratulations on that. >> thank you. >> turning to this, have you told us, you said you like the proposal but there's a few things about it. have you told us all of the things about it you don't like or is there something else? >> we've had a lot of outreach. we started talking and they've been very receptive and they sent e-mails to follow-up with a lot of questions. a lot of the concerns are -- we

were told non starters. it's a good example is the 48 being in the money muni tunnel dropping people off where they want to go. that's a non starter conversation. we'd like to further explore that. there's a few other things. there's a lot of issues that we've given responses and we'd like a little more time to explore all the options to make sure everything that we do between that. >> to answer director torez's questions, that's what you are visioning with the 90 days but understanding this is a pilot program. mr. aguilar, it's always nice to see you thank you for your service to 9 community and it is a pleasure for me to see you guys getting back up on your feet after the fire. next public speaker, please. >> thank you for your time. >> matt rogers. >> welcome. >> good afternoon. matt rogers. i'm owner and partner at the

hardware and i'm a regular muni rider on the subway everyday. i am very sympathetic and encouraging. i want to improve performance of muni also i'm very pro pedestrian and rider safety many of this is a great proposal. i have one question what is the hurry? when i first heard about t. it had already been scheduled to be brought before this board. reiterating what carl said, a lot of our questions were just -- we don't know why. we can't do that. and so i don't think it was really thought out. i think everything was pulled out of the cupboard and sent down in the plan. i don't think that's necessary. i think you could achieve the same results with a very simple changes. like just the u-turn, which there isn't a lot of objec obje. and the pedestrian safety. i want to reiterate what carl

said, you are taking 48 riders crossing the city that has traffic da diede divided two wa. you are funneling the traffic right in their path. we just heard there was a fatality on a right turn across a crosswalk. it's not safe. even though it's a shorter distance. i have to reiterate, we need more time to sit down and have serious conversations, not just being presente presented with sg already determined. >> thank you very much for coming down and congratulations to you as you guys rebuild over there. >> mar ro marrow and good after. i'm also a long-time westportal resident. i also have a business on westportal and i used to work for muni. i can tell you a lot about those doors. we don't oppose the project. if anything it needs to be a little bit more comprehensive.

i've been the one that's been touting about you need street lights there. i approached the merchants association years ago, and i said we need lights there. now i keep hearing this thing about and i have a slight minor engineering background, i keep hearing about nine sequence lighting that doesn't work. out of those nine, only three are regularly used and the other six are just optional or once or twice a day. we have the technology where they can be flicking a switch, trance ponder, they can be fixed. there are solutions. engineering are designed to fix problems. i feel with this solution we're just settling on something because i saw this proposal four years ago except it was a red carpet. it hasn't changed a bit. it really needs to be retaught. people got so fixated on the plan they didn't want to deviate because they wanted to stay the course. with regards to the moving of the bus stop, if you look at the photo with all the people running diagonally, they're

getting off the 48. and moving the bus stop to the other side of the street, all it will do is reverse the congestion at a different time of day. all those people reversing their transit will be going there. that was my warning. so also, that part of ulloa street is very narrow. now we've turned it no a bus stop and a large truckloading zone. if there's another truck on the other side loading as well, that street is going to be blocked off and you are going to reek havoc and it needs to be revisited but the 48 going into the transit tunnel, we know they fit and we'll save people the headache and the safety of crossing the street and we'll be more efficient. >> thank you, very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> rachel, the last person to turn in a speaker card. >> good afternoon, directors, rachel with san francisco transit riders. here today to represent my board and my member and strong support of this pilot.

i was scribbling back there on my letter. i don't know where to start. i guess i want to ask you how many people actually need to complain to this board and agency before something is done to westportal. we condition keep kicking this can down the road. i want to thank you mr. hine key, i know you are the reason they are looking at at this entry of this tunnel. just to be very clear, this is nothing new. turn restriction transit priority is something that this agency has looked at for years. the reason that it's been again kicked down the road is because transit riders weren't here and we weren't at the table but we're here now. you should have seen a letter i sent to supervisor yee expressing concern over opposition and received letters. i want to be clear, this is not an attempt to pit merchants against transit riders. there are 85,000 people passing by everyday and we shop too. we want a thriving commercial corridor.

we support thriving commercial corridors. your owyour survey shows they sd more money and shop more often than people that drive. we cannot ignore the impact of the private vehicles and the p.c.o.s are blocking cars from actively blocking cars from getting in the way of trains and we've seen a reduction of 40%. i also just want to speak on my own behalf as a daily constituent of westportal, i watch the impact that a single left-turning vehicle has and how it ripples through the system and i impacts 18,00 180,000 peo. this is a commonsense pilot that we've been needing to get off the ground. they're an excellent tool. collecting real data and testing solutions and thank you for your time. >> thank you, very much. next speaker, please.

>> good morning. my name iser ache and i'm a legislative office in norman ye's office. >> welcome, thank you for being here. >> i, as well as other staff attended meetings with the m.t.a., westportal merchants and the greater westportal association. we fielded more than 50 e-mails and calls. one of the concerns that was outreach with minimal until our office was involved. however, since then i want to recognize the work of staff briceman and tony and continuing to meet with the community to adapt and mitigate impacts. i want to be clear that supervisor ye supports transit first and vision zero. he is in support of the prohibition of u-turns on westportal as well as no-left turn from southbound lenox to ulloa. with the support of the community across the spectrum you can implement these today.

however, the suggested moving of the 48 bus stop is problematic. this change will continue to require riders to cross the street from the stop to the tunnel in order to board the train. the proposal to force right trains direct more traffic. the officer who is the beat officer for this corridor and walks it on a daily basis has specifically expressed concerns about this aspect of the pilot. the fact that this issue has not been addressed is concerning. move the 48 like the 57. by moving the 48 to the tunnel, riders would not cross streets. this is safer for pedestrians and moving the bus off the street would potentially also increase efficiency. it's a win-win. both supervisor ye and the community has brought this up several times and no reasonable explanation has been given to not make this change. ignoring a solution that addresses sfpd safety concerns makes it easier for transit

riders to access muni and has less of an impact on merchants is commonsense. we strongly urge sfmta to move the 48 to the tunnel as part of this pilot. also, baseline data for this pilot was collected while school was in session. the proposal is perhaps the pilot to take place during the summer when traffic patterns are significantly different. data will not accurately reflect impact. the request from the merchants is delay the pilot by 90 days so sfmta is getting feedback from them and also collecting comparable data. this is reasonable. we have all experienced trains in the station with multiple munis are lined up waiting to get into the station. this is an operational issue. not one of traffic. at multiple meetings, questions were asked about what is being done operationally to address this. quite frankly, much more i am pactful issue.

not until last week in the letter from director reiskin operational strategies were share. one with the timeline or clarity about how many were being implemented. in asking staff, i was told one or two strategies were being implemented and sfmta was still working on fine tuning those changes -- [ please stand by ]

>> we don't have to pit one against the other. we are simply asking that sfmta provides a performance metric and explains clearly how they can determine whether the benefits outweigh the cost of each component of this plan. we know there are lots of

demands on the transit system. we should be implement and changes that have a strong likelihood of success with the limited resources we have. for those changes that are more speculative in nature as far as their impact, we should have clear and transparent ways to evaluate the benefits as well as their cost. we know whether it is worthwhile or whether there are better solutions that are ultimately more effective at reducing delays. >> that he very much. is there any further public comment on this item? if not, we will close public comment. ms. bryson, we would call you back to offer a reasonable explanation as to why you're proposing what you're proposing. the supervisors raise this question and there was no reasonable explanation provided for this change, perhaps you can share with us the reasonable explanation. >> related to the tunnel idea. >> sure. the idea of relocating the 48 is

to move it to the side of the intersection where people transferring from the 48 to the inbound platform don't need to cross any train tracks. i know that a concern that has been pointed out is that cars will be forced to make a right turn and there will be bus riders crossing that. i don't think we see that as a major area of concern. in general, west portal has a pretty good safety record, and everybody treats the intersection cautiously because it is relatively complex. also, i think it is worth noting that the 48 comes every ten minutes, so it's not like a constant stream of pedestrians at that conflict point, and then related to the idea of putting the 48 in the half-circle, the station, which is currently the terminal of 57, one of the

concerns with that is that, essentially, a big source of delay right now in that area is the number of pedestrians going into the station. that big half-circle kind of functions as a free-for-all, and it functions like a giant scramble right now. the more we are able to put pedestrians in a channel to use a walkway area to get into the station, the better we would be able to manage that source of delay. in an ideal world, we would get the 57 out of there as well, perhaps at the face two of this. there is also a limitation in that there's not much room for another bus there. >> okay. and the reason why you're focused on folks transferring from inbound is because we're talking about 6:00 a.m. to 10:0e traffic would be folks going downtown. >> right. noting one of the commenters that brought this up, in the afternoon, if people are getting

off the outbound platform, they are going to the 48 which is just a block west of there. there is no conflict point in that direction. >> i do have a question. with all of our reasonable issues, is about cars hitting pedestrians, not a train. i do get a little concerned if we are introducing, especially those right heard -- and turns that are an issue with pedestrians. it is something that could cause that to be a problem. >> in the current location, cars are still left turning in front of the pedestrians, so. >> we wouldn't be able to -- like i said, -- >> they would be cutting a left turn off, as well. >> we wouldn't have that problem anymore. my question is, right hand turns our biggest conflicts when we're talking about vision zero. i would hate to see -- i'm less concerned about the drivers making those mistakes, i'm more

concerned about cars moving slow >> i'm not an engineer, i am not an expert, but i would say we're introducing a new potential conflict with cars and pedestrians, i would like us to look at that again. maybe that is a key part of what we will get in the pilot. >> i think it is a slow-moving controlled intersection that is a different context that some of the higher-speed streets in the tenderloin where we are seeing these types of issues. >> what about the officers? there was a reference to police officers having control of the area. >> we reached out and had a coordination call with the taradale captain in the beat office for west portal, and we walked them through all the proposals and i left that call feeling like they had no major concerns. they said, you shouldn't think about that particular conflict between the right turn and the crossing, but -- i took notes at

the meeting, i circulated the new -- the notes and i did not hear anything further directly from them. >> i want to make sure i'm understanding this. to be honest, i'm not quite getting this one. under the current configuration, someone making that cross from the 48 stop right in front of what used to be the drugstore to the inbound platform would have three potential conflicts. they would have somebody who will make a right turn on west portal, they would have somebody who would go straight, some but he who made a left turn off west portal. under our proposal, it would go down to one conflict, someone making a right turn onto west portal. >> if we go to the screen, i will put this figure back up. today they are crossing this way

, and in the future they there crossing this way. >> you did a good job specify all the relevant movement. >> okay. so now, someone doing that cross would be in conflict with the right turn -- >> and someone who is going westbound -- >> back to my original point, which is it would be nice if we could eliminate that, but i understand the rationale. we would go from three conflicts to two conflicts. is that fair? [indiscernible] >> three lanes, but it would be down to one turn. and the rationale to go back is that if you leave it where it is now, what is the problem with that? >> in its current location, when the bus riders are transferring

to the platform, they are crossing train tracks which is contributing to the delays. >> in this way, they would be using the crosswalk and no circumstances of crossing tracks so the rationale, since they said there was no rational reason provided for this, the rational reason is to keep people coming off that bus from crossing the tracks and putting themselves in harm his way and slowing down the trains. >> yes. >> very good. directors, any other questions? >> i am still kind of confused -- and maybe someone from west portal merchants can talk about this, what is expected if we delayed this 90 days?

what do you expect to happen, are you asking for changes specifically, i want to understand what the difference really is. >> thanks again. it doesn't even have to be 90 days. i mean, we would have to flush out a few of these things. like the 48. the biggest concern is -- we agree, my business is right in front of it, i see it happen every day. the 48 is stopping and it is dangerous for pedestrians, it is dangerous for cars. we agree this needs to move, but we would love to talk to whoever is saying no to putting in a tunnel like it was designed. as it stands, if the 48 was go into -- were to go into the tunnel, and the 57 and 48 can go in there together.

and right here, they could release any pedestrians, and they get back on. then it can go right back down without even changing the line. it can continue its existing route. no changes to the other route, no changes do anything. we would like to have that conversation with those who can actually make that decision or see if it is a possibility, but that's not an option. there's a few other things. like they want to put an m.t.a. only lane, and we are saying, does it really need to be one when no left turn, no u-turn is an m.t.a. only line? you are not going to do anything from that lane at the end, and if you want to do m.t.a. only, let's start it at a good block. those are the certain things we want to talk about. >> do you think it is that big of an impact? >> it is not the 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., it is other programs as soon as they are successful, then it will be -- let's look at

6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., because that was so great then. and then six is great, then we will do, you know. >> it is a concern. >> this is us struggling significantly. i don't know if it's because our store burned down, i don't know if they shut down the street for months on end, and then again shut down the street for two months solid, which actually was a way to condense it all, but i know it when i come back on the street, there is less people than there used to be when i was open a year ago. i talked to the businesses, and consistently everyone is down 20%. these are businesses who cannot whether that. we say, let's make sure that any changes we make our ones that make sense, and maybe that is half the proposal, maybe it is half the proposal plus a few more things. >> i think we're only talking about 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. whether or not he goes further would be a whole other process that we would engage, but i guess i would like to ask, is

there a possibility that -- i mean this is really crazy, that for the pilot, the six-month pilot, we try three months inside the tunnel, and the next three months move this spot. is it possible to make an incremental move or incremental change? on terra vale we did some things right away and then we delayed some things. but my point is, is it possible to explore the idea just know that it doesn't work, you know, and then try that for 90 days, our whatever we decide, and then move it, and if that is not working and it is terrible, then we know, and we can go ahead with the second stage. is there any way to look at that >> i'll start by prefacing that you guys are the boss. anything is possible. it is my strong technical recommendation that adding an additional stop will

significantly degrade rather than improve conditions. right now, the problem with the 48 is that it is not two or three people that get off the bus, it is the major destination for people on that lined, so dozens of people get off the bus , they do not neatly use the crosswalk, they en masse, cross three sets of tracks and slow down our ability to get trains out and to get trains in. adding additional buses to the horseshoe, a, there is not space , and it also further reduces our ability to put pedestrians in a channel, and get them not into that horse shoe free-for-all, but into the crosswalk swear we can safely control for their movements.

as mispricing indicated, i actually think that step two should be to find an alternative terminal for the 57. that is pretty tricky. it is more than we were able to take on in this process, but figuring out a way to reduce the dozens of 48 customers from en masse crossing that semi circle, would definitely improve service significantly and bring the train -- bring the bus into that crosswalk will degrade our ability to manage that location. >> it does sound like we also need to have p.c.o. enforcing people using crosswalks. it sounds like we have two problems. even if we move the bus stop and people are not neatly crossing the street, we will still have the same challenges, so i think that is another thing we definitely need to manage. i understand that i don't want to degrade a service, -- >> with the move, the line for the pedestrians will be in the

crosswalk, which is not where it is right now. >> now they would have to cross the inbound platform. under this, they are just going laterally to the inbound platform. >> are there any other comments? first of all, to the merchants from west portal, thank you for coming down here and thank you for being a part of this process i want to be -- first of all, you can't say you weren't hurt. carl, you got more time than anyone gets, and we appreciate your concise answers, that is what led us to ask more because you were supplying very helpful information, and to your colleagues, congratulations on your rehabilitation of the store , and thank you for the process. i favor this project, and i was asked a specific question of what is the hurry? and the hurry is this. every day, thousands of commuters are delayed at that intersection or because of the

intersection in their effort to get downtown, and it is not just those seconds and minutes multiplied by the thousands of people that are in place, it is also the fact that if we don't make this system more attractive to riders, they will drive and do other things that put pedestrians and children in danger. we have to build a better system i'm convinced that this change will at least show us if we can build a better system this way, and to me, that is the hurry, and that is why i will support this today. let me also say this. this is a pilot project for a reason. you all talked about the interchange that you have had with staff. if after six months we don't think that that's the right place for the bus stop, don't you worry about the board engaging. if you come back and tell us that that is the wrong place for that bus stop, that is why we're doing this as a pilot project. similarly, if we see that that intersection at that crossing is leading to people being in danger, i think it will increase safety myself, but we will address it.

we will address it before the six months are up if we need to, because that's a sort of thing we take immediate action on. in response to the question of what is the hurry, i want you to know that is the hurry. we need to make this system better, and we need to make it better now. i think this is a pilot project that will increase safety and increase right or experience, so i am going to favourite today, and would entertain a motion from other directors, or here other comments if there are any. >> i will just say, you know, i support the chair on that. i asked this question because i wanted to get to the heart of whether there are other alternatives. obviously, the reason that people go to west portal and live in those neighborhoods is because they are driving and commercial corridors and that is important. we want to support your businesses. i know it has been really tough. the last thing we want to do is make things worse. that is why the pilot is centred on really early in the day hours before people are on the corridor, and you have our commitment, we are not changing

everything without any sort of further dialogue, because the goal isn't to get people back and forth, but for people to have a sense of place in west portal and participate. that is my priority, too, as a transit rider, as someone who wants to get places quickly, but i want to get there quickly so i can enjoy them. i think we are trying to give that balance. obviously it has not been ideal with all the other work that has gone on, and i can't say enough about how much -- how happy we are that the stories coming back , and how much we are relieved that the corridor will be better as a consequence of these changes, but you do have our commitment that this is not the end, this is just the beginning. the pilot is meant to work with you all to look at how the streets are working and how we can make further tweaks and improvements. i also do hope that we can pull some we'll save data and look at trends over time, not just from this point, but even throughout the work that has gone on, and i

know the mayor's office of workforce and development says some sort of supportive advertising for the corridor, would look at the things we could do to be more supportive to ensure that in the summertime when it is slower in the neighborhood, that maybe with stern growth and the pulling of that, that that we can -- that we can promote west portal after you go to see your shows and likewise. i am not saying that his m.t.a. 's job, but i'm suggesting that we can do more, and we will be committed to working with you i will make a motion to approve. >> okay. is anything you wanted to add? >> i will simply say that what i hurt in terms of the request for the 90 day delay is just time for more dialogue. i don't see why this can't happen at the same time as a six-month pilot. i want to clearly state that is an assumption and stuff a continue to engage in dialogue with the stakeholders. with that, i will second the motion. >> very good. we have a motion and a second.

director taurus is one thing to say. before that -- >> i don't think anyone knows that i have a special relationship with the west portal community since 1966. my roommate lived there. ever since then, it has been a constant reminder to me about how beautiful it is. it is almost like a village of beautiful people, and businesses my son has fallen in love with this community, as well. i do believe that given my legislative experience, these projects are important. they provide you answers, and they also provide you more questions. i think if we can do that with our priority being that this community has to give back, then i'm willing to support this motion. >> wonderful. thank you very much for that. this is the business that -- the business street that my family uses, too. this is a personal issue for me, but i also have a priority for transit. you have received a lot of comments today and a lot of

feedback, and i think the four of us want to be clear that we expect in this pilot project, were there to be an ongoing dialogue, and some of the issues that are most important are the issues of where the bus stop goes, and how do you pick this in the pilot project, the issue of traffic crossing the box, should we continue to have that or not, and the effect as the vice chair said, it is on the businesses. in some meaningful way to track that's we can make sure this is not having an undue effect on those businesses. i urge you, as i know you will, to maintain dialogue with all the others as this goes forward. i'm getting her nodding for the viewing public. she's committing to that by nodding. we will accept that for now, but it has now been memorialized. we do have a motion and a second on the item. i will call for the vote. all those in favor, please say aye. anyone opposed? that passes unanimously. let me say this. we do a lot on this board, and it is not always fun, and it's

not always at the highest level, that to me was the highest level of civic dialogue that we just had. we had transit professionals, we had committed members of the community and business people who really debated out an issue in the highest mind and in the most respectful way. thank you, everybody who participated, and i will say this isn't over. this is an ongoing pilot project i urge you guys to continue to engage because we will listen to you every time you come here. thank you. please move to the next item. >> item 12 is approving parking transit and modifications associated with the inbound and outbound project. mr. chair, please be advised there are -- someone from -- no one from the public has turned in a speaker card on this item. >> is anyone -- is there anyone who wishes to speak on this item in public comment?

pleased to submit a card to ms. uber -- miss boomer. proceed. welcome. >> good afternoon, directors. i am the project manager of the 54 felton project. as john kennedy talked about at the last board meeting, two goals are to make it easier to understand the transit system and to improve safety and this project focuses on those goals. this map shows the 54 felton as it is today in the excelsior district, and our project focuses on those particular segments of the rear heading inbound and the most travelled north on naples and athens, but heading outbound, a travel south on moscow. these are also known as couplets , or the bus travels one way on one street, and the other way on a different street. there are two on this neighborhood. on a map, it appears that the

route provides a lot, but in practice, it provides less coverage. this is because munimobile writer needs to be able to walk both directions of the route to fully access it. we have also received feedback that the couplet can be difficult to understand. this is a picture of the 54 felton bus stuck behind a recology garbage truck on the 200 block of athens street, which is between excelsior and avalon avenue. because this blog of athens is relatively narrow and winding, we have a conflict like this that does tend to occur, and when this happens, a smaller vehicle must pull out of the lane in order for the bus to continue north, and in the event that a larger vehicle like the garbage truck here or the delivery truck is blocking the 54, the bus operator has no choice but to wait until the obstacle is removed and until the street is no longer blocked. something we heard directly from stakeholders, were concerns of traffic safety at the intersection of moscow street

and excelsior avenue. as you can see here in the photo , it is challenging to see oncoming vehicles and pedestrians. whether you are on moscow or excelsior, the visibility of oncoming and cross traffic is affected because the street grades are steeper here. this is also currently an unprotected intersection. the image on the left shows our bus stop postings that we put up in the project area. the flyer shows our original proposal that the 54 felton travel up and down moscow street between geneva and avalon avenue with no deviation. our community engagement efforts included our survey, which is the bus stop being advertised, and the surveys were conducted on board the 54 felton in the area, at existing community meetings, and also with bus operators. the survey was available online on our project webpage and was translated into spanish, chinese , and filipino. in total, we received 477 survey

responses. in addition, we went door-to-door to 136 residences on moscow street to talk about the project, and we also talked with all five nearby schools, as well as coleman advocates there? presented at existing community meetings, including with the excelsior district improvement association and the district 11 council. we also provided regular updates to stakeholders and the supervisor office who you heard from earlier today. our original proposal was to operate the 54 felton in both directions on moscow street. out of the 477 survey responses, 50 7% supported the proposal and 25% didn't support the proposal. within the subset of supporters, 60% of those who indicated they were munimobile writers did supported, and after talking with neighborhood schools, specifically the june jordan school for equity in city arts and tech high school, we requested we keep the bus stop at prague and persia because those are used by their students

similarly, we heard from seniors that accessing munimobile at moscow would be in that exact same segment of the route. cleveland elementary and school of epiphany told us about existing conflicts with the 54, in their school -- in their school pickup and drop-off zones the bus would get stuck between cars queueing to keep pickup and drop off their kids. residents on the 200 block of athens let us know they are happy with the realignment proposal, since this would eliminate those vehicle conflicts that they currently deal with on a daily basis. not everyone supported the project. many of them moscow residents we spoke to opposed the route to change onto their street, and we heard some opposition to rerouting the bus off of naples street specifically. despite opposition, the overall outreach shows a majority of stakeholder support the project and we have made some changes to our original proposal to address the concerns that we heard. this is the proposal that we are presenting today based on all the feedback we heard and the discussions that we have had. the bus would travel both ways on moscow, but it would still do

that existing deviation that it does today via russia, prague, and persia. the 54 would continue to serve the bus stop that the school asked us to keep, and the deviation would help seniors who said they needed to access the route higher up the hill. this realignment would improve route efficiency by removing those two couplets that i mentioned, and the line would operate mostly on 1 street in both directions. the total number of bus stops would decrease, but we are maintaining the same access by locating a stop by each block. the more direct routing is estimated to save approximately a minute of travel time. by shifting the 54 fulton to moscow, we would reduce the vehicle conflicts that occur on the 200 block of athens that i mentioned, and near the school pickup and drop-off zones. moscow street is wider then the 200 state -- two and a block of athens, and the bus with most likely be travelling heading straight north-south, making a few returns, and operate on a wider street than it does today. in response to additional feedback we heard during the outreach process, we are proposing the installation of a new stop.

we don't normally include stops as part of a transit project because they do because transit delay, but it makes sense in this case because the bus would run in both directions on moscow , and writers across the street here, and we didn't want to have the bus stop at an unprotected intersection with steep grades that make it hard for vehicles and pedestrians to see each other. the bus stop would be near side, which would decrease transit delay. >> is your estimate including accounting for the additional -- the addition of the stop sign. >> yes. this proposal would provide a more reliable ride with less delays, because few returns and a more direct alignment. moscow street is wider then the 200 block of athens, which makes it in a more optimal street to operate, in the project would make the 54 felton easier to understand, reduce vehicle conflicts, improve traffic safety, and improve transit reliability. we are ask you today to approve

the following changes. we would remove ten bus stops from naples, russia, and athens, in at eight new stops on moscow. while the total number of bus stops would decrease, we made sure to keep a bus stop at each block, because we recognize the street grades are steeper in this neighborhood. the new stop sign at moscow and excelsior would address concerns related to us during our outreach and approve the intersection -- improve the intersection for writers and drivers, and installation of the stop sign would resend the currently existing no parking anytime parking restrictions that were put in place at this intersection previously. in order for the bus to make new turning movements from this realignment, we do have new parking restrictions needed at moscow and russia and moscow and persia. overall, the project would result in a net gain of one parking space. >> in terms of next steps, if the project is approved today, we plan to implement the changes in august because you want to time them with the start of a

new school year. thank you very much. >> i have been doing this a long time, that was one of the better presentations i've ever seen. congratulations. that was very well thought out. commissioners, any questions or comments? >> is it the stop -- is the same -- is it the same stop sign? >> he is asking about the one at moscow and france. we did look into that request, so the stop sign there did not meet our traffic engineering warrants for installing it, and most of the time we don't expect the best to stop you because that stop in particular has low ridership, so we don't want to make every bus stop there when it normally wouldn't pull over out of its space. we will continue to monitor, and we can definitely reassess if needed. >> okay. >> so he is not getting his request? >> he is getting the whole big thing except for the one tweet he wanted. to answer your question is yes, but i just raised it differently [laughter] >> who named all of these streets? [laughter]

>> someone very international at the u.n., right. [laughter]. >> is there anyone who wishes to provide public comment on this item? seeing non, public comment is closed. i will say that i think it's important that we maintain outreach and show support for schools in children and it is clear this project dead -- -- does that. i appreciate this is -- it is making it safer for children to get to school. single public comment and no further comments from the board, i will entertain a motion. >> moved to approve. >> is there a second? >> i will second. >> very good. all those in favor, please say aye. anyone opposed? all right. very well done. >> item 13 is a discussion to have a closed session conference >> is there such a motion? >> moved to go in -- go into closed session. is there a

>> item 11, disclosing with negotiator, they took no action, they discuss with the city attorney, and the board unanimously voted to settle the disk -- the case and the board discussed an interim director, but took no action. it would be appropriate to disclose or not disclose. >> moved not to disclose. >> second. >> any opposed? >> that close of business before us today. >> thank you, directors. thank you for your patience.