alternatives, even paint, just simple paint on the streets and we need to look at reducing speeds in those areas to a minimum to get down to the number of fatalities to zero. thank you. >> thank you. mr. lebraun. >> i don't really drive in san francisco. i use public transit and i walk and i've been that close not once but twice to get wiped out in san francisco. the first time was getting off the train at fourth and king and trying to go across the platform. the traffic stopped, so i started walking, and the bike didn't stop and went threw the e red light at 100 miles per hour. maria remembers it because she wrote it down and the situation was written down.

next time i got nearly wiped out was right here in front effort steps entering city hall. i waited for my time to cross and as i went across, a bike blasted straight through at 30 miles per hour and i never saw it coming because the bike lane was masked by a van. so none of these cases, i thin think -- actually, a policeman saw it and said there was nothing he do about it because bikes do not have registrations and my suggestion to you, and i know it would be heavy in san francisco, is to consider mandate rate, a recommendation for bikes with our f i.d. didn't that way you can enforce it. let me wrap up. the ultimate path to vision zero is the way we design our cities, is by not having pedestrians

operating in the same sphere as vehicles. you go all over europe, you look at the great places and look at paris and brussels, lux ombourg. >> public comment is closed and commissioner, any closing words? >> thank you, everyone. we know this is tough work and we a lot more we need to do and appreciate you and all of the folks out there are doing in the enforcement are doing and thank you, colleagues, for having this hearing and we'll be following up and continuing to partner with you all. >> and you are always welcome to the vision zero committee.

commissioner, hainey, as any members of the body are interested, we will happily include you. with that, mr. clerk, next item, please. >> item 11, on the geneva san jose study. >> mr. henderson? >> good afternoon. i'm tony henderson, an engineer with the wall street's division and here to discuss the geneva san jose study and provide an update on where we are. to give a little bit of background, i'll try to keep this presentation high level right now and happy to go into

any details through the discussion. this is a study that was requested by the then balboa station and funded through the program by commissioner avalos and we communicate. the goals of the project are to look at the general area around balboa park station, centered around the geneva san jose intersection and as coordinate g with the other developments. over time, our focus has shifted to the m-line terminal on the south leg of san jose avenue didn't this is because as we worked through the area, we were finding opportunities to do little changes to the genel intersection of geneva san jose. we were working to coordinate with many of the adjacent

projects in the area that have been underway and we have the upper-yard development which is the former muni-yard developed short-term as the rv triage site and long-term will be turned into a 100% affordable housing unit, believe north of 100 units. to coordinate with that, bart is proposing to do a redo of the plaza adjacent to the station and right now it is two drive-through lanes and they're proposing to create a plaza and a cul-de-sac loop to facilitate temporary patron loop and drop-off facilities. we have the jeani jeanie have ge which will be bringing a lot more people to the area. as i mentioned, our focus shifted to the m-line boarding

facilities which is located on the southern leg of san jose. as you can see in the photos here, it shows that this is really not an ideal boarding situation by any means and does not meet current standards. the boarding island for inboard downtown does not fit a two-car train. most of the trains that serve this are two cars and also the boarding island doesn't connect to the crosswalk. as you can see in the top right photo. this is because of the swing of the train as it exits the terminal and posing technical difficulties. so. many cross from the sidewalkto . in the bottom photo, you see what happens in the outbound direction. the muni customers step off and

cross mid-be block. thimid-block.this is a typical s people are transferring from the m-line to bart or other moonny muni-routes. there have been no major incidents and our goal is to make changes before an incident could potentially happen. this is where we came up with the current proposal that we've been working to develop in concept. the current boarding facilities, because of how the tracks are laid out and the turns are, don't allow us to build what we would more traditionally do at a lot of other facilities with boarding islands. so what we are looking at conceptionually is for new boarding build-outs at the niagra intersection, which is the entrance to the bart loop. they are the orange blobs in the

lower left corner of the screen and they would be accompanied with accessible ramps for wheelchair users or other persons with limited mobility. those are the teall-shaped items. the trains would be shifted a little bit from their current pick-up and drop-off and supported by the new bart path and plaza. the red is a current walking path and the blue is the new one. this would greatly be enhanced for riding and this woul the abo install new pedestrian ramps, the current -- sorry, the

accessible ramps, the current accessible facilities are limited and can be cumbersome for passengers to use. boards are moved away from the congested intersection and discourages pedestrians from crossing mid-block. the new bart plaza is less deep than walking along geneva. as with everything, there are trade-offs, there is increased walking distance to bart or transit lines on geneva avenue but it's a less path of travel to transverse. when we have to serve the outbound ramp, the train would momentarily block the next. this is a conversation with the fire department and it would move in one lane of traffic. however, traffic volumes here, we believe, can support that and

there would be parking impacts. we are talking order of magnitude around 12 to 15 spaces. these are conceptual diagrams and present unique design challenges we would need to work through with our designers. we also need to continue working with the fire department on this and it is narrowing the roadway and it would be the accessible stops, blocking the intersections. we need to continue working to make sure we have an acceptable solution. cost and funding, we are preliminary on the design aspect and it's tough to make a cost estimate until we can get

detailed into the design but we do expect this would be more expensive construction than what we see on other bulb-outs and around the $15 million range. right now we have funding for this study and to move into preliminary design and we are working with our colleagues and finance to find additional funding. other improvements to the area that we are looking at, the cameron beach railyard, trying to improve the pedestrian environment through crosswalks, better separate out, the train area, pedestrian area and street-skate improvements. the intersection itself, the signal, it is a very complex signal impacted by multiple train movements, heavy pedestrian and vehicular traffic and we are evaluating of courses, southbound,

right-turning vehicles from pedestrians, but this will depend on traffic signal feasibility, if the equipment can handle it and we'll be doing that evaluation. for outreach, this has been and ongoing process. we started with a kick-off meeting several years ago where we heard a lot more from the community about what they liked and disliked about transportation and access in the area. throughout the years we've done combined areas with bart as they've had meetings. our next step is to do on-site pop-up meetings in the fall to combine with school in session, to discuss with the riders and the big picture here is this, we're viewing this as a mid-point on outreach, not the end and there's still a lot of unknowns with what needs to be flushed out with the design and we'll need to be working with the community to discuss the options and trade-offs

throughout and we're far from the end on any outreach here. and with that, i'll end. i found this interesting photo from 1972 in the archives, when upperyards was used as a bus yard. >> commissioner safai. >> thank you, chair and i'll be brief. i appreciate that, tony. this is an important study. this anybody has been out in that intersection geneva, it is dangerous at times and there are housethousands and thousands ouf transportation, walking and all different forms of transportation. so anything that we can do to make it safer, i'm in full support of that. obviously, we need to work out the details with the fire department, to understand better whether or not with can actually

block traffic that way. so i want to look at the design, but essentially, i'm definitely in full support. this is an important part of protecting riders and encouraging riders and making them feel safe in the connectivity. i think moving over to the niagra area allows for an easier flow to get on to bart and it's safer and less steep and i like that. we'll keep work on the design but i just wanted to say this is a big priority and we want to make riders safer and this area better so we appreciate your hard work and we'll work closely with you and your team and everyone else to ensure this is the right outcome for out community. >> thank you, commissioner. >> any other questions from colleagues? seeing none, i have one speaker card. mr. goodman and other members who would like to testify, come forward. thank you, mr. henderson. >> i was on the balboa park

station area and that committee is no longer in session and we hope to see that reinvigorated because more housing come into district 11. this services thousands of people and most likely more in the future and we need to look seriously at this site. there is more than just the k, j and m lines and hopefully a future t connection. it was proposed as a possible lrv or brt connection and there are four major routes to this area, this station and anything that can be done to improve the safety for pedestrians and the increased population that will be there is critical. i think that needs to be considered as an alternative, that they look at linking the m, k, j and t lines, whether it's

across a platform or do a future study to actually look at a more large-scale intermodal hub and put engineers in a room and i'm sure they'll come up with a solution to actually cross platforms and directly connect transit lines and that will improve transit in this district and it will drastically improve transit in other districts adjacent. so i'm hoping d7, d10 and d11 can push forward the need to study this more in depth. there can be solutions to link the platforms and the trains together, thank you. >> any other members who would like to testify? if not, public comment is closed. and thank you for that in-tip study that has gone from commissioner ovolose to commissioner safai and looking forward to working with you, commissioner to further flush that out to find long-term

capital. mr. clerk, can you call the next item? >> potential regional transportation measure update, information item. >> miss bose and i mess up your name, michelle. >> i'm michelle bolue at the transportation authority and as marie lombardo mentioned, the bay area is discussing a transportation measure for a number of years, especially in light of the successes of the major transportation measures in seattle and l.a. and so for a little context, l.a.'s measure m is expected to generate $120 billion through a new half-cent stales tax didn't tension of a second half-cent sales tax. voters approve this to raise $54 billion over 40 years. our work on the san francisco transportation plan and the transportation 2045 task force demonstrated there are large

funding needs for all parts of our transportation system and we're including the tnc tax and downtown congestion pricing study. a rcmp nam measure would complement that work and recognising that maintaining our existing system in a state of good repair while enhancing it to meet the vision for the future requires funding support from all levels of government. and so, the two groups here today, the bay area and voices for public transportation have been planning and thinking about a transportation measure targeting the november 2020 ballot, which promises to be popular given the anticipated high voter turn-out. but nothing is set yet and we know there are many barriers to getting something on the ballot and it will be very hard to get something passed because it needs two-thirds voter support across the entire region. now so thithis is your chance tn on all matter of these measures

and i know both groups will value your feedback. with that, we're start wig the h the voices from the public transportation group and then the bay area. >> ok. miss selby. >> i was going to say good morning but we are well into afternoon and i really have some ricola if anybody needs sugar. my name is dia selby and i'm with the transit riders and we are proudly the largest transportation advocacy organization in the city with the largest number of transportation riders in the region. we are part of and i cofounded this voices for public transportation. does this click automatically? do i need to come over here? these are some of the organizational endorsements that

we have. we have labour, transportation advocate's, youth, seniors, disabled and environment. our goal is to create a values-based measure that will have good outcomes and that is winnable and that's what we're working towards. this is not about buses and trains but about people. this is marion and she works for the sfp and lives in east san jose and isn't able to have breakfast or go to school with her daughter judy because she has to get to work. but with investment from a regional transportation measure, she can spend that with her daughter. this is ernesto, the love of his life in livermore, but the commute is killing them but the train is a feasible option and love prevails. now this is troy l i, born in

china and she doesn't weren't rohave to burden her family by staying overnight and she won't have to. she can have an easy day trip to the grandkids and get home for dinner when we invest in a regional measure. this is joe at san francisco community college and relies on the student express, the 29, which, unfortunately, at nighttime runs 20 been 30, 50, 60 minutes apart. we want to make sure residents

of all abilities and income enjoy transportation options that reliably, safelily and conveniently get us to where we need to go and how do we do this? with this game-changing measure creating good-paying jobs, reducing carbon emissions because people will actually want to ride public transportation. behind the vision are principles on the left-hand side and just to show you how policies might come out of it, the principle of better transit green jobs and climate leads to union didn't greeand greenjobs and the sustae world-clasworld-coordinated transportations funds operations at 30% didn't make it cheaper. promoting social equity means

buses get as much attention as trains and low-income areas get more attention than the downtown where the attention has been. and ensuring fair-funding means we share the burden of the cost of this measure among residents and businesses and the wealthy and we want to be clear we are not supportive of a one-cent sales tax as the only way to fund this. prioritizing community engagement means the people have to be at the table working on this measure. here is some of the folks who develop this vision and principle. a little bit more about who we are, voices for public transportation. i just want to focus one more time on the revenue source and we will have three different sources of revenue ready for you. we have a consultant working with that with silicon valley community group and they will be much -- it will be a much more fair revenue source and then, of course, as i mentioned before, very important to us that are

principals guide our revenue and we're reaching out to the people who need public transportation the most. all of this leads to a winnable measure. quickly, a timeline for you. senator bell, our transportation chair has to flesh out his bill, sb278 and we need to have our must-haves and by we, i mean everybody, by november. he has the awesome task of by may 2020, passing in both houses by two-thirds. in june, it goes to the mtc. in august, back to us and county ballot measure deadlines, the campaign begins in ernest august through october for this regional funding measure about people. we vote and we win. so thank you very much for your time and if you have questions, just let us know. >> thank you, miss selby. next presenter, please.

>> good afternoon. my name is stewart cohen, a member of the steering committee and for the previous 22 years until march of this year, i was the founder and executive director of transform, a transportation advocacy organization and during that time, i got to work closely with the folks that just presented in voices and so, i appreciate their principles and presentation. the concept of faster bay area, like michelle said, came out of 2016 victories in seattle and los angelos and three groups in our region, bur, the bay area council and the leadership group looked around at the fragmented transportation system, especially public transit and realized that unless we can

create an integrated and seamless system, we're never going to be able to provide access to opportunity for all of our residents, especially with the displacement taking place and we're never going to be able to really reduce our climate emissions. transportation continues to rise in the state, even on an absolute level and so we've got to get our transit system to be one that works across the region and seamless lou. seamlessly. we believe the future needs to be faster and in 2020, the region should have a chance to vote on something transformative and for us, that means we need transit that works for everywhere by, first of all, fixing our current system, including needs in san francisco, expanding it and making it faster, frequent and reliable. and to do that, though, we need to do things differently than in

the past. too many of our transportation funding measures including rcmpg regional three come from a standpoint of putting this as a concept that would be outcome focused. that we would agree on where we want to get as a region in terms of an integrated and affordable system setting up structures to take us there over 40 years instead of deciding 40 years of projects. and the key is to do it in a way that is cost effective and include some policy changes and new structures to deliver this promise. faster is looking at a 100-dollar measure and six key principles we would want it to meet and that includes it being rapid and so we need folks like bart to just know that transit will come about every 12 minutes

or less and that might vary in some places, but basically, if you're boarding this network and it can be faster branded or some other branding, like the one-world alliance with a lot of operators, you know you'll have a fast, reliable trip. the other one is network. we need an improvement greated fare system across the region and branded way finding so people understand where they need to go. it needs to be connected to growing, dense areas and places providing more residential homes and apartments. we need it to be accessible, of course and we need to be sustainable and for us, that means all projects need to be able to reduce total vehicle miles traveled and they need to be sea-level rise ready and feignly, affordability is critical and a means-based fare

is one of many components to fund out of this. so we've had over 200 meetings with stakeholders around the region. a lot of transportation experts, environmental groups, equity groups and others and have come up with a framework that we're proposing with four elements to it. the first is the largest and this is really the build-out of this regional network including both state of good repair, but then also expansion of our existing rail, ferry and bus systems. the second is connections to this system including three components and that would have local transit funds with funds going straight to local transit operators to connect into this system and into their downtowns including an active transportation element with a focus on complete bike and pedestrian networks, a lot like you saw this morning and san francisco is one of the only places doing it. third is using emerge moto mobi.

the third element would be multi-bucketed, but it would include the means-based fare, including funding to have a network manager for this network. we don't want to create a new transit agency, but we do need a network manager function that would be able to coordinate this integration and the final component won come out o wouldnf this 100 billion but it would be a reduction program and we're working out the details of this now but we think this could be a critical element where employers would give transit passes, transit subsidies directly to their employees. this is turning out in seattle to be one of the reasons there's such large growth in their transit usage. and these would be some of the

priorities. once projects were eligible, we would be looking for cost-effective projects. ones that improve access and rewarding communities planning for more affordable homes. we are proposing that it would be a one-cent sales tax and we're doing this, similar to what l.a. did. although, half of theirs was an extension of a sales tax, because it's politically viable and typical funding source for transportation and it would generate that amount of money. because it's regressive, we would be proposing the first in-state low-income tax program, working with agencies to cost this out and understand where the administration of it exactly would take place. but this is done in maine and other states and we would be looking to replicate that here so the lower-income folks would not end up on average paying

anything more than they're paying today but still get the benefits of affordable fares and a better transit system. and the other mitigations include the mein-based discounts and employers giving out many more transit subsidies. ideally low-income folks have free transit through these mechanisms. our timeline includes continuing to collect feedback. we've got that public forum on thursday with sf ta and a technical advisory group of county agencies and transit operators, mtc and cal-trans is we'll be getting a lot of empty information from the plan bay area 2050. i won't repeat the rest of it because thea wepea went throught well. we hope to start a dialogue and we have until may to get through

the legislature to continue to flesh that out. thank you. >> thank you, mr. allen. next presenter, please. is that it, michelle. >> commissioner furer. >> some of the concerns, you think, i have -- first, i want to say that i understand the need for this and i understand that we need something big to sort of be able to accomplish what we like in public transportation. so you think some of the concerns that i have is, basically, one, i think that when it was explained to us that it uses existing infrastructure and i wanted to know, this money will be toward creating access to residents on the west side of

san francisco with an underground transportation system. also, because we talk about connecting this to residents, some the people that you highlight in here, i get it, but i could highlight 80,000 people in my district who don't have a good connection to many parts of san francisco or even to the bay area. also, i wanted to say that a low-income rebate program, quite frankly, i would like to see not a one-cent sales tax and i'm surprised, actually, that many of the mean have signed o peoplo this, he didn't say a one-cent sales tax is ok. thea, i'm looking at you because i understand the huge wealth gap we have in san francisco and a one-cent sales tax is regressive. however, when we have businesses in sill so silicon valley that o

get their peeps up here or down there, this is driven by a need for people to work jobs in certain areas of a region. my pushback is, basically, the low-income rebate program, i think, big businesses should be paying for the bulk of this and i think that we need to include existing infrastructure connecting my 80 now residents to the rest of san francisco in the region and then, i want to say that, you know, you really want to talk about equity and then you should not be talking a lot about one-cent sales tax. that's just my initial opinion. i just thought i would share that with the group. but i also think that this is -- i understand that this is an effort to actually give our transit systems a big jump start

which is needed. but also, i just want to say that, a one-cent sales tax is a big burden, actually, on families trying to make it now. and we constantly do this. we say, we need this for transportation and the people who -- these people who are low income are 100% dependent on public transportation so we want to deliver. but when we talk about the dollars, it's the businesses that need us to transport people from they're to here so they can work. lastly, i hope you're having conversations with the california puc to talk about uber and lyft. when i see reduced car use, better transit equals less uber and lyft use and i think that if you can have some say with the california puc to let us

regulate that in an urban city, that is dedicated billions of taxpayer dollars to a transportation infrastructure and that would be icing on the cake. thank you. >> before miss selby is given an opportunity to respond, i want to apologize to mr. cohen for calling him mr. allen, my apologizes. thea? >> thank you for that and i would be happy to have mr. cohen stewart talking about the one-cent sales tax. the voices for public transportation has no interest in that being the primary revenue source and i want to be clear about that. but i wanted to address the other things about the west side, un-equity, getting people in san francisco around san francisco. a lot of problems are stemming from 40% of our carbon emissions are from cars and trucks.

muni says .1% which i have a hard time believing but let's say between 1% and 2%. were that means is that if we want to hit carbon eminister's s goals and make it safe for san francisco, we have a vision zero presentation, if we were to get those cars off the road or a lot of those cars off the road with significant investment, this doesn't happen for free, but with significant investment, perhaps it is railed to garry and if we are able to get the people out of their cars because public transportation is as good or better than a car, then that will also allow us to do things like get our carbon emissions

under control. a lot of safety has do with too many cars. so i do think it's important to look not just at the center but the perimeter of san francisco, you know, the westside. >> miss selby, thank you very much. in the last couple of months, i have met with two companies that claim to do electric cars for tn cs and they are applying to the california puc for licenses, using electric vehicles. that is simply not acceptable. so if you want to look into the future, we are not -- so this is i'll be frank with you, because it is about this feeling, if you use an electric car, we're lowering emissions and it's ok. it is still not ok because san francisco has invested billions of dollars in a transportation

infrastructure and therefore, it is not ok and shouldn't be a part of this culture of, oh, well, for an environment, i'll just take now an autonomous vehicle which is an electric vehicle versus a lytt or uber using fossil fuels and i feel better about it. that is not a better choice and they shouldn't feel better about it, but when we accept this, that is a slippery slope. i want to say that i'm glad to hear you say you're not fully on board with the one-cent sales tax. when we look at the wealth gap and on the backs of hard-working san francisco, you look at fresno and the low-income folk who's are getting hit hard, especially by this trump administration that a one-cent sales tax is not sitting well

with me. i get you're not saying that and this gentleman did. i'm sorry i disagree with you is i think big business should be paying more because the president has given them a huge tax break. this will help them and this employee-based program, ok, i think that's great. let put down the real bucks of billions of dollars, actually, from their companies and to help us with this transportation infrastructure. it only helps them and their businesses and i don't think we should be so quick to say a one-cent sales tax and then let them off the hook. if so i just wanted to address that. none of this is, of course, personal and this is really just, i think, that when we are looking at our constituents in sanfrancisco, it's hard to stay to my responsibilities and invest in one-cent sales tax because in the wes westside, wee

running 38 garry and we're already 106% over capacity. so unless we're looking at a an refrigerator equitable in my neighborhood, sending underground rail to my neighborhood because we are growing from, too, and i think this will be a hard sell for my hood. i'll be honest, one-cent sales tax, to acts my residents to pay that and know a lot of this refrigeratoinfrastructure will m better structure and even though i know it's one of your guiding principles, it's a hard case to make. thank you. >> we've got a board of supervisor's meeting and everything has to eat food and i don't want to engage in a back and forth and commissioner walton's name is on the roster. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. as a member of the jpb, we've

been having a conversation about a regional sales tax or a dedicated sales tax for the three counties to fund cal-train which has no funding source now. i wanted to bring up an issue and one i definitely share commissioner fuer's comments, but i wanted to bring up something specific because whatever regional measure that comes up, it won't be a beneficiary of any measure and so there are major concerns right now with governance at cal train and we will require any revenue measure at the state or regional level, include a clause that says cal-train should separate from sam-trans in order

to receive support from the county of san francisco towards any state regional measure as it's best for governance and operations of the rail system. therefore, our office will submit a resolution supporting this position. i want to provide a little background of why we are in in place to make three points because we have been here in this meeting for awhile. but one, sam-trans is the actual entity that operates as the host for cal train and cal train should be its own separate entity. the joint power authority should be the entity responsible for cal-train governance, operations and vision. the current government structure has the leadership of sam-trans, also serve as a leadership of cal-train. that is simply bad governance. two, the joint powers' authority is made up of three counties, san francisco, sa sam mateo andm

m armatier. number three. in addition, the law firm representing sam-trans also serves as the law firm representing cal-train so far the leadership has blocked my request from making it to the agenda. furthermore, highlighting the issues of governance, how do you deny an agenda request from a member of the joint power's board? what if there's a legal battle between sam-trans and cal-train? do we use the same attorney? of course, not, which is a major conflict, so the bottom line here is in order for cal-rain to realize the vision and become a

premiere rail system, the governance system has to be addressed to a more regionalized mod to be put in place and a resolution is fort forthcoming. to get behind a regional measure providing resources to cal-train, that governance structure has to be addressed right away. >> thank you. i social myself with your comments and was disappointed to see cal-train cancel without talking to the joint power's board. but as we saw in the earlier discussion around phase two at trans-bay, if we're going to regionalize things, it has to be real and meaningful and there's no better place to have that

conversation than on when moneys on table. we've need the region's hope to form a government where there's real accountability. there was a testy email exchange between commissioner walton, his incar nation aincarnation on oce same day cal-to train approached senator bell with their request relating to a regional measure and what you heard commissioner walton say is it's going to be difficult for this county to support that regional measure until we truly have a meaningful regional governance entity. i say it in the same spirit as what we heard from the expert review panel. if we make cal train everything,

we have to regionalize that. i'll open up this to public comment which then we'll ajourn. >> i'm with district one and i think we need to remember the last time we put a revenue measure on for muni, it was defeated and why was it defeated? for two reasons. one, it was a sales tax and people didn't want to pay a regressive tax didn't the other reason, they weren't happy with the way muni is ranked. i object and find it offensive that they want to propose a sales tax that hurts the most working people. why can't we have an income tax or have a tax on the people

causing the congestion, the big businesses and i won't name them but tax them. muni needs to be reformed, especially sustainable streets. it needs to be more accountable to the people is the only way is to have an looke elected or supervisors appoint some of the board of directors. there's different proposals coming around. so i agree with we need transportation goals, but we need to come up with a different governing board for amta and a different stream of revenue and not keep relying on the easy solution of sales tax. we need to have a progressive tax. sanfrancisco is one of the more progressive regions in the country so let's put our heads together and come up with a progressive tax. thank you. >> thank you, mr. roth and next speaker, please.

mr. lebrun. >> i want to briefly thank you and supervisor walton for your position on cal-train government. you've been advocating for this for the last eight years. i've had five offers to go and work for cal-train and i turned them down because it's nowhere i will work and i look forward to working for the future of leadership. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. mr. goodman. >> i talked about the westside issue for a listening time and supervisor, furer, we talked about solutions on the westside and three north-to-south routes didn't taking the back-up slow, like 1.8 miles of track to link back up to west portal and that's a loop and a link, a solution and we can look at other routes. there was a talk about bart to the beach on fulton and garry, riding it back down to lakeshore or sunset and they can do the

tunnels and those are solutions. you have to look at daily city and pacifica, south san francisco and brisbane. there are no transit lines between bart and cal-trains and they have to do secondary systems or extending our muni rail out to add cutly get people out of their cars and that will be the solution to look forward to on such faster initiatives. i think the faster group is working on this has the right intent and i think that they're looking at how to adequately link transit and get new lines and systems on the table if our existing lines are too slow to get implemented, we can't wait 40 years or spend $300 billion on megaprojects and not solve the outer district area problems that are causing the traffic we're seeing currently. thank you. >> thank you, are goodman.

if there are no other members, we will close public comment and undoubtedly, this conversation is going to go on for quite some time between now and january. with that, is there any introduction of new items or general public comment? seeing none, we are adjourned. valencia has been a constantly evolving roadway. the first bike lanes were striped in 1999, and today is the major north and south bike route from the mission neighborhood extending from

market to mission street. >> it is difficult to navigate lindsay on a daily basis, and more specifically, during the morning and evening commute hours. >> from 2012 to 2016, there were 260 collisions on valencia and 46 of those were between vehicles and bikes. the mayor shows great leadership and she knew of the long history of collisions and the real necessity for safety improvements on the streets, so she actually directed m.t.a. to put a pilot of protected bike lanes from market to 15th on valencia street within four months time. [♪] >> valencia is one of the most used north south bike routes in san francisco. it has over 2100 cyclists on an average weekday. we promote bicycles for everyday

transportation of the coalition. valencia is our mission -- fits our mission perfectly. our members fall 20 years ago to get the first bike lane stripes. whether you are going there for restaurants, nightlife, you know , people are commuting up and down every single day. >> i have been biking down the valencia street corridor for about a decade. during that time, i have seen the emergence of ridesharing companies. >> we have people on bikes, we have people on bike share, scooters, we have people delivering food and we have uber taking folks to concerts at night. one of the main goals of the project was to improve the overall safety of the corridor, will also looking for opportunities to upgrade the bikeway. >> the most common collision that happens on valencia is actually due to double parking in the bike lane, specifically during, which is where a driver opens the door unexpectedly.

>> we kept all the passengers -- the passenger levels out, which is the white crib that we see, we double the amount of commercial curbs that you see out here. >> most people aren't actually perking on valencia, they just need to get dropped off or pick something up. >> half of the commercial loading zones are actually after 6:00 p.m., so could be used for five-minute loading later into the evening to provide more opportunities or passenger and commercial loading. >> the five minute loading zone may help in this situation, but they are not along the corridor where we need them to be. >> one of the most unique aspects of the valencia pilot is on the block between 14th street. >> we worked with a pretty big mix of people on valencia. >> on this lot, there are a few schools. all these different groups had concerns about the safety of students crossing the protected bikeway whether they are being dropped off or picked up in the morning or afternoon.

to address those concerns, we installed concrete loading islands with railings -- railings that channel -- channeled a designated crossing plane. >> we had a lot of conversations around how do you load and unload kids in the mornings and the afternoons? >> i do like the visibility of some of the design, the safety aspects of the boarding pilot for the school. >> we have painted continental crosswalks, as well as a yield piece which indicates a cyclist to give the right-of-way so they can cross the roadway. this is probably one of the most unique features. >> during the planning phase, the m.t.a. came out with three alternatives for the long term project. one is parking protected, which we see with the pilot, they also imagined a valencia street where we have two bike lanes next to one another against one side of the street. a two-way bikeway.

the third option is a center running two-way bikeway, c. would have the two bike lanes running down the center with protection on either side. >> earlier, there weren't any enter lane designs in san francisco, but i think it will be a great opportunity for san francisco to take the lead on that do so the innovative and different, something that doesn't exist already. >> with all three concepts for valencia's long-term improvement , there's a number of trade-offs ranging from parking, or what needs to be done at the intersection for signal infrastructure. when he think about extending this pilot or this still -- this design, there's a lot of different design challenges, as well as challenges when it comes to doing outreach and making sure that you are reaching out to everyone in the community. >> the pilot is great. it is a no-brainer. it is also a teaser for us. once a pilot ends, we have thrown back into the chaos of valencia street. >> what we're trying to do is incremental improvement along

the corridor door. the pilot project is one of our first major improvements. we will do an initial valuation in the spring just to get a glimpse of what is happening out here on the roadway, and to make any adjustments to the pilot as needed. this fall, we will do a more robust evaluation. by spring of 2020, we will have recommendations about long-term improvements. >> i appreciate the pilot and how quickly it went in and was built, especially with the community workshops associated with it, i really appreciated that opportunity to give input. >> we want to see valencia become a really welcoming and comfortable neighborhood street for everyone, all ages and abilities. there's a lot of benefits to protected bike lanes on valencia , it is not just for cyclists. we will see way more people biking, more people walking, we are just going to create a really friendly neighborhood street. [♪]