the difference between a train and say a car that you drive for your own personal use, is that that car has actually gone through years and years and years of testing before it even gets to the dealership. it probably is many preexisting cars repackaged to then meet your car. the lrv trains, we do benefit from the fact that other properties purchase them and used them but they are a very individualized product built for our environment and the single-panel doors are a perfect example of that. we have much tighter turns in a system that you designed in 1985 versus something you designed much earlier than that.

we try to learn. i had the owner hosting a group from germany yesterday and they were coming to talk to us because they don't have all the owe maautomatic train control. they have an unusual situation in the united states that we have, which is portion of their system is in the subway and a portion of the their system is on the surface. and they want to be able to go from 25 trains an hour to 35 trains an hour in the subway. they came to san francisco because they thought we were a good model for what they were trying to replicate. yes, there are a lot of things we can learn from the industry. we do benefit, for example, from our outside vehicle expert that has come in who has worked on a lot of different types of designs. there are going to be some issues that we do have to work through on our own.

>> if i may, i will. let me start with a thank you. congratulation on your nur positioyour newposition and thas report. when i asked this be done at the beginning of the year, this was the report that i envisioned. i appreciate on the procedural level you showing the attention to our ridership and your delivering the reports that we want. one of the metrics that i asked for was the average time of the metro train trips because as you said earlier, that's what is most visible to our customers. while i appreciate the report, and the attention, the reality is as you just showed us, candid leon thcandidly, the trips haven longer. as we go forward and we address the issues, that travel time is going to come down. that's the whole point of it. let me just start by saying thank you for these reports. i will not be here for many more

informs. i would urge the new leadership of this board to continue with these. i have received feedback from our customers. at least they feel we are engage on the issues and there's no question in my mind that you are engage on these issues. i think these reports every month sort of have a nice way of focusing the agency on what is most important which is delivering the service day in and day out. now, three other points, you mentioned communications in your report. it doesn't have to be today but on another report i would like an update on the plan to make sure that we are in deed issuing system wide communications when there is an issue so that the customers know that the delay, even if slight, is one that is known to the agency and one that is being addressed. i still am not sure we have an over all plan that system control or westportal or whoever is making the announcement will be doing it. i would like to know that that

is becoming the policy and i would like to know the training for management for issues system wide notifications and announcements and not rely on drivers and station agents to do it individually. we know it doesn't work. next, you gave us some very direct answers. i appreciate that. just to be clear, in june we think we'll have full full usage and we won't have to run one car would normally run two cars. >> it may take until the end of the month to do the full retro fit but we're in the process of ordering parts and get everything here so i believe end of june is a conservative date for completion. >> by conservative it could be sooner than that but ok. so we're committing to the end of june that we'll be back. ok, great. thank you for that commitment. and the other commitment i heard

was that by july, we will start seeing the benefits of our increased driver ranks and the service numbers will go up. is that correct? >> great. so let me focus on the one issue then that i alluded to and i think both vice-chair borden and i are focused on. 5.4 minutes in the pocket. with an empty train. it seems unacceptable. even at our current numbers with 20 minutes for the route, that is 20% of the time of the route. it's out of service turning and not only out of service and turning, but blocking other trains and leading to what i perceive on a daily basis to be the biggest flow in our system or at least the biggest systematic delay in our

transportation on a day to day basis. we may have wire malfunctions and a train control malfunction and we're working to prevent those but the back up at embark adair owe is a daily thing that happens just as a result of the system design flaw. so you said earlier, you would like to reduce the trains making that turn in the pocket and reduce the issues of driver transfer and all that and i think we need to eliminate the pocket. i would like you all to look and you can fill in your "p" word, pulverized, whatever you want to do for literation sake but rather than looking at limiting how we use the pocket we need to fix the flaw and eliminate that pocket. here is what i'm thinking, to give you a specific idea. when the central subway opened, we will have a changed system.

the t-line will not need to slow. it will come up to chinatown. the only line that will need to under current configurations is go through the end. the end serves the sunset as much as it serves cal trans. really the majority of riders on that line are going from sunset to downtown not to cal trance. so if you bear with me as i map this out in my head, just to give you something to think about, we don't need to put anyone in the pocket. from the cal trance station to embark and it comes into the inbound platform and turns around and goes back to the train station. you just have a shutel doing doing a loop. if they want to serve south

beach neighborhood, it's for folks who are transfers commuting that way. every other line, because now the t-line is not on the downtown corridor, every other line comes in and and goes on the out bound platform up and loads there and reloads there and goes backout. as we talk about in our border, as we've seen as director reiskin and i happen to be at the station at the same time, is we saw the efficiency with which the trains come in during the twin peaks tunnel shut down, it means the driver gets out of one cab and goes to the other end and you do your relief and breaking and ocean beach. i realize that there are a lot of complications in all of this.

but to me, when i look at this and i see this one thing that we can't fall and, you know, very smart people have looked at this over the years and it just never seems to get better. and you, very smart person, very dedicated person, focused on this and didn't meet your goals. we have to recognize that this is something that can't be managed in its current structure. we need to get rid of that pocket. we have this wonderful opportunity coming up where we knono longer have to because ofe reconfiguration of the t line, run trains through. it can be the south beach shuttle and backout for the other lines. that's my idea. didn't want to propose something to you that has had no idea. i think it's time that we recognize that the pocket design is a flaw design and we need to redesign the system and we have a window on the horizon with the

advent of the central subway where we can do exactly that. i would ask that you all look at that. i have talked about this before. i frankly waited to be a little bit more insist ant until i saw whether management efforts on the pocket could fix it. it's a system's law and i would appreciate it if staff would think a way to design around that and use the central subway to fix it. the notion that one major service change that high model envisioned, is the end would no longer run to the caltrans station. someone who wanted to get to sunset to caltrans would have to do a mode shift which would get off at is what is currently the out bound platform and walk across to the inbound platform and board the shuttle that i have described. i can't think of any other major

customer impact when the t line changes. so, i would appreciate your focus on that. that is five minutes, the train out of service, the train back up and it's not an acceptable way to do it every morning and any other directors with comments? >> i want to reinforce what you just said. it's a great solution. i don't know the nuance does that or bart or 24th street. sometimes it comes out on the other side and it pushes back and doesn't and it i know that we can do it. thank you, very much. ask congratulations on your new position. we wouldn't throw these at you if we think you couldn't do it.

>> you are up, mr. winier. >> herbert winier. i appreciate the report. one element that is missing in this as far as frequency of service goes, what is the net addition of coaches and buses to the fleet? i noticed that while you delete bus stops on the ground, at the same time, the same number of vehicles remain on the run. so therefore, you have to walk a longer distance to wait for a coach that is running on a

regular schedule and i think you need to increase the density of the buses that are available. this is what is missing. for instance on the old line. same amount of coaches and you have to walk along the distance. so, i feel the waiting time is the same. when your recent alteration of the 27 bus run, you are having the same amount of coaches running. you have to walk along the distance to get the same frequency of coaches. i think yo you have to add more buses to the run. the demand of the service is

greater. that's the criticism i have. it's also a suggestion that you have to add more buses. >> please, come forward now and we'll fill out the card later. >> thank you, very much for doing the work you are doing and thank you mr. reiskin for your directorship. >> if you could state your name. >> emily. i live in district 8. i also represent district 8 so i'm looking at stuff because as a pedestrian and a person with a disability, i'm on muni, ok. i know the y and the n. first of all, i think as

commissioner torres pointed out, the district attorney, this or that, the warranties were brought up like on the faulty equipment and this and that and at this very early stage of this massive purchase, we are seeing this kind of business going on. oh my god. you know, let's stop the clock. you know. before it gets uglier and this warrantly with this and that. what warranty do we have on the system and the purchase because i think we were sold a very poor bill of goods, ok. i also don't see myself as a customer. customer, customer. i feel like i'm being patronized. i'm a rider. i'm part of muni ridership. i was surprised to see this discussion of the n and the j

and so fourth was only item number 3 on the presentation. and the narrow door, the single payne, the sick thing is and i know this, whether it's the number of blue seats and i think there's four, we just meet the minimum compliance regulation for the a.d.a. as well as the width of the door. i know sometimes who has m.d. -- >> thank you for your time. thank you, very much. >> is there anyone else? >> any further comment on the directors report? seeing none. that's closed. we will move on to item number 8. >> there will be no report today. general public comments, an opportunity for members of the public to address the board on matters within the jurisdictions

of the board but not on today's calender. >> if i may on this, how many speakers do we have on general public comment? >> four. >> is there anyone here who wants to speak on general and speaker card. >> >> let's go ahead with item number 9. general public comment. >> rob schwartz followed by john and halina sears. >> good afternoon. my name is alena sears and i'm with blazing saddles bike rentals. first of all, i want to thank you for your letter on may 16th addressing some of the issues we put before you just

recently. we've been meeting with a lot of agencies for nine, almost 10 years now and no concrete solution has really been -- we're here to ask you for language before the permit application is issued. it should require not request they do the right thing. >> rob schwartz followed by sean sears and herbert wiener. >> i'm with san francisco bicycle rentals and i'll add a little bit to what halina just said and thank you for your letter yesterday. we sent a response out this morning so if i'm not able to cover everything in the two minutes, i don't like to read

from a let are but because there's so much to say i'm going to speak about three times faster than normal and as i said a month ago when there was discussions about scooters, is that we view bike rentals as part of the solution of san francisco's bike share program. and why is that? because we serve a very large segment that is thousands of bike riders a day who want to take their bikes out of circulation over to requiring more bikes increase congestion so we definitely see a bike share and bike rental and so does director reiskin and so does the mayor's transportation advisor. so great, right.

it looks like we're on on the same page. director reiskin wants to reinforce this distinction between bike share being used for shorter term use, the average bike share is used for less than 30 minutes according to data. and long story short, to piggyback on something alena said, part of your letter said that you are going to request that the bike share applicants prioritize short term use and, the bike rental industry will be destroyed. it will. so we're requesting we request that the bike share companies prioritize short term use. time your point was clear and you are welcome to do that in writing. >> there's only a few days or

weeks left. >> your time has expired. thank you. >> >> herbert wiener. i commend your effort trying to make improvements on m.t.a. but i want to point out something that happened at the previous meeting. while i was addressing the composition of the m.a.t. board, you were conversing with commissioner borden ignoring what i had to say. i feel that's unbecoming for a chairman of the board. i'm offering this as constructive criticism. you attempt to behave like a gentleman but in this is stance you failed. in the future, i am requesting her undivided attention.

thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> sean sears. >> come up. >> >> welcome. >> i want to echo what rob and my mother said. we need to require the m.t.a. to work with us now to include language for issues that we find critical before permanent applications are completed in the upcoming week. >> any items not on the agenda? we'll close item number 9 which is public comment and move on to item 10. consent calender. >> mr. chairman, members of the public member of the board and we have an item in separately he perceive no such request from either a member of the board. >> anyone discuss any of these

items. >> i move to approve. >> all those in favor s. there any public comment on the consent calender. >> all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> anyone opposed. pass and move on to item number 11. >> item 11, transportation code division two section 601 and from making environmental and in the vicinity as partner. >> what items are you here to speak on? >> good afternoon. i have been the project manager for this effort. i want to start bay little bit of context and you will 90-day

plan and the efforts to improve transit entering the westportal station within our desire to improve subway performance and this effort is also part of the move forward program. so, it's a very critical node. 80,000 commerce pass through the station each day and there are several challenges unique to this location. the first is that it is location where three of our different rain lines merge and converge and two of the number of trains entering in this location is common for there to be delays. secondly, this is one of the places in the system where trains transition between manual and automated mode and there's a little bit of delay associated with transitioning between the two movements and finally there are many multi model con reflects at the entrance of the

station, pedestrians transit riders, transit trains and cars all competing for a limited amount of space. this third category is what this pilot project is intended to address. and the work we're proposing today builds on recent initiatives that you heard julie talk about the stationing of parking control officers at westportal station during the morning and afternoon rush hour. our initial results showed that has been reducing delays. it's unsustainable in the long-term future to always be able to maintain those p.c.o.s in this location and so our goal is to see if we can achieve similar level of benefits through traffic restrictions. another recent initiative as a part of the twin peaks tunnel construction project, a new

technology called a local control panel was installed at westportal station and this essentially let a train inspectors take over control of the train signal in this location and it can allow for prioritization of critical movements in times of subway contestants. so i want to talk a little bit more about the specific multi model conflicts we're addressing through this project. this first shows an example of cars and the track lane on westportal northbound at you la. it takes one car from preventing the train from entering the station. another thing that happens is this is a location where cars currently are legally allowed to make a u-turn. a lot of cars attempt to make this maneuver but are not able to make it in one movement and you see a three-point or a five-point turn unfolding there which slows down everything else that can pass through in this location.

and then we also have a major transfer point between the 48kintara and the inbound platform during the morning rush hour. this shows a typical condition where if a bus pulls up as a train enters the station, you see the bus riders crossing diagonally through the intersection as the train enters and that causes the train to need to operate more slowly and also not ideal from a safety perspective. and so, that brings us to the proposals that we have before you today. to start, i want to note that all of these changes are proposed as a pilot. the idea is that we would test how well they're performing for six months and determine whether it makes sense to continue them, modify or terminate them. most of the changes are proposed during weekday morning this is a

critical time if something knows gong in the morning it goes through the rest of the day and on top of it because the activity is later in the day. and so i walk you through the changes. the first is that the westportal northbound left turn at ullo would be restricted. this goes back to the photo i showed you a couple slides ago. essentially to enable that left turn restriction we would want to get cars out of the track lane sooner so just is that one block would be a transit-only lane during morning weekday rush hour. it won be painted red, it would be marked with markings inside it. and then the third restriction, the southbound left turn from lenox on to ulloa would be

restricted during those times of day. two others shown on this slide, the first is that that u-turn i showed you a photo of it would be restricted all times of day and the second is that the 48 bus stop we're proposing to move from the near side to the far side of the intersection. what that does is that when someone makes that transfer they no longer need to cross any tracks to get to the inbound 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.