i'm here to talk about the van ness brt. i am concerned about the elimination of the local 47 and 49. i am understand that they basically want to eventually make it wider. people with mobility problems may not be able to walk to the next bus stop. i know it is already pretty much a final design. i was thinking like the 38 gary that they have, limited staff for example, 48 blocks. and they also have the 38 local. people have a choice of using the rapid bus and also the local for people who want to go in between the bus stops. i do not know. we need to figure out what is the solution for just using the van ness corridor because people have to walk up the block to get to van ness and then go back down. it is one of those things that we need to look into more. and you know, talk about it more. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. deputy for the planning and transportation authority. i'm here to say thank you for your continued leadership considering this lp a. as the director aptly put it, it is an alternative of the curr

i have two slides on our brt projects that we are working together with mta on. as it has been reported, of van ness and geary are both highly competitive in the region as well as in the national small program. we continue to see van ness performing well in terms of cost effectiveness and the other typical measures, as well as in the federal program we are up to about $55 million of planned federal funding for this project. we're still in the environmental stage. the graphic to the left refers to the draft eir which came out last fall. we had a lot of comments in strong support for brt, as well as comments that they would like to see strong center-running options advance. the two staffs of our agencies have agreed on staff recommendation for center brt with right-side boarding. it would require standard vehicles, both the trolley at motor coach available. the project would reduce left turns as well. we will be coming back to you in may with a full staff report. upcoming outreach is quite significant. there is a lot of interest in this. staff recommendation, we ha

or geary brt project? >> that i think the dust is still settle in on this, but for the benefit of the public, for those who may not have been watching, there are $660 million in the regional transportation plan that was set aside for yet to be determined new or small start projects in the region. in the past, it has been important to get the seal of approval from the mtc, to say this is a regional party. it helps our delegation in washington. traditionally, this was a focus on the major rail extension. when the game changer is here, we have this new pot of money called small starts. we have projects like van ness brt and geary moving forward. it is a major disappointment for geary. the van ness has been named as a cart -- party for small start funds. what did not make the cut for us were geary brt, santa clara projects, under development, expecting to see money before the next rtp period. we are not technically precluded from seeking a small start fund but we would potentially be doing so without the benef

i wanted to ask about the van ness brt in the geary corridor bus rapid transit as well. looks like the transportation authority is suggesting the center running brt and working with the mta to bring that forward on may 15 and to the ta on may 22 as well. my district, richmond, but i think district 5 are a justly awaiting the geary brt as well. i am wondering if you can reiterate the planning and the public outreach and the stakeholder outreach meetings and the public open houses that are coming up very soon with in district 5 and district one? >> absolutely, supervisor mar. thank you for pointing that out. there is absolutely information in the report about that as get a to shorten my report a little bit. but we do have public outrage -- outreach meetings planned for may and july in the neighborhoods to essentially look at not just the corridor in a general but the specific intersections at masonic and fillmore, which have been the source of a lot of debate, and they're the most difficult challenges that that project has. i would reiterate what i said earlier, the agreem

with brt, and the --

project manager for planning and environmental review on the van ness brt project. we have been moving forward with this schedule, and we will be in front of the commission on may 10 with a recommendation for the locally preferred alternative. our construction scheduling is becoming more solidified. it will not be across the entire corridor for the length of construction. it will be different blocks as we move up and down the two-mile sequence. as we further design construction details, we will be working closely with cpmc to ensure that they're not conflicts or other ways to can accommodate to have construction that occurs during the same time. commissioner miguel: before you leave, i have found on transportation construction projects that there is often a time span prior where utilities, other things regarding preparing the street, particularly if you go to the center option, might be necessary. i presume that is being taken into consideration. would you comment on that? >> yes, thank you. good question. as we are moving further with project development, we have b

i'm here to talk about the van ness brt. i am concerned about the elimination of the local 47 and 49. i am understand that they basically want to eventually make it wider. people with mobility problems may not be able to walk to the next bus stop. i know it is already pretty much a final design. i was thinking like the 38 gary that they have, limited staff for example, 48 blocks. and they also have the 38 local. people have a choice of using the rapid bus and also the local for people who want to go in between the bus stops.

first there offering $5 million for two brt projects. then there is an additional $5 million from the transit -- to be used for transit use in support of transit services, and that is a 50 cent off-peak surcharge on parking entry and exit, and 75 cent. for each entry and exit for the cathedral hill hospital and medical office building garages. we're expecting to use these funds to improve transit services around that because of the impact of the cars entering and exiting at those facilities. they have pledged another $10.4 million to address the delays. we use these funds mostly in the cargo or is like on 14 mission and 48 geary. we want to do improvements on the muni rapid network. and tsp on the rapid network. we're expected to use some funds to provide e equipment, for example, on cameras to enhance the system. the last area providing funding, 4, 00,000, for planning efforts -- $400,000 for planning efforts. with that, i will turn it over to -- we will be able to answer any questions. >> next, rhonda simmons from the work force depart

with brt, and the -- a that you win with brt, and the relationship with the transit riders in other districts, it supports this across the board. they are much less stress because theyand they can get soe regularity in their schedule. to hear the operator, the president of the operators even be not supportive of this -- i'm hoping we can get to a place for they are more informed as to what the benefits bring. i also wanted to address the comments that we will be putting somebody to walk five blocks would suggest the stations would be 10 blocks apart because she would have to walk five blocks to get to a station. i don't think anybody is proposing a system where there is 10 blocks between the stations. you would never have to walk from one station to the next station five blocks. you might find yourself in a position where you have to walk to a half blocks because you are in the middle of stations that boarding and the ramps that this is going to be a benefit to people in wheelchairs' and i hope we can get some universal access built into this and i suppose that we will. i am really looking fo

one of the key things on this alternative is it would allow us to operate van ness brt with the fleet we have without the need to acquire a vehicles with the doors on both sides. from a cost standpoint, it is a major step forward that reduces costs and makes the project much more viable, much more interesting, and much more regulable -- replicable in other corridors. geary brt will follow suit quickly after that, because this project will set the stage for how the geometry of the streets will do that in the other corridors. the last two things i would like to do is for the public that may be watching the proceedings today, there are going to be public meetings on monday, april 30, at 6:00 p.m. on the better market street project. ideas that have been developed over the last several months bit of that will take place at our offices at 100 van ness, 26 floor. that is monday, april 30, 6:00 p.m. and then on and the caltrain bridge project, which is something we have been working on with supervisor cohen's office, that is replacing a bridge with a berm, requiring a street closure. there h

next speaker. >> i am george, and lived in the brt corridor area since 1978. my wife and i, who are now in district two, have lived in the area since 1997 on our street. we are concerned about three factors. the first is, as was mentioned earlier, the significant negative traffic impact to the local community. i am not going to have time to go through all of these factors, but i give committee members a copy of my presentation. i will go over the high points. i would appreciate if you spend some of your precious time reading through the details. as we know, there is going to be significant additional circulating traffic in the neighborhood as a result of eliminating two car-truck lanes on van ness. in addition, there is the year and a thebuild -- the year and a half build process, and the rule only be two lanes for everything during the construction phase. -- there will only be two lanes for everything during the construction phase. there is minimal practical benefit. this is a very short corridor for spaying brt standards -- corridor versus purity standards.

third street to manhattan to the 34th street project where they have the brt name. there are certain issues with this. there's a good vantage using the existing fleet. we had a lot of discussion on how we can make this work. the third option is the third platform brt, which basically took out of the medians that are there right now and uses the bus will run in the middle. it would have a fully dedicated, fully protected service. there are specific advantages in terms of better runtime and better reliability. it it has specific issues with taking out the median. as we were doing more work, the commission has a fairly significant sewer running through there. i'm not sure exactly what the sewer life is and how they are going to act as its, etc. there was concern that we were taking out the trees in this corridor and not replacing them with significantly enough trees as there are today. and there was some concern over having the buses indian to this broadaway. -- painted in to this right of way. the fourth option is on the side of the median. again, performance wise, it

and i know you are coordinating this with the plans for the geary brt. while i think this bus rapid transit might work on van ness because it is such a broad street, but the idea that it is going to work on geary, i think it is such a small street in not see how that will work. i think that is where you will have to figure out a weighted funding. but because that brings us to the question of what is going to happen at geary and van ness, if it is all above grade, the whole system might come to a grinding halt if he tried to have these lines fighting with each other. i encourage the work with other agencies to try to see if you can figure out a way to find funding to run at least a partial subway past then tested franklin or to laguna, and then you would have a broad street beyond that, and you have plenty of room for me in transportation -- median transportation. commissioner moore: i am concerned, picking up on it, and which resonates with me from commissioner gordon, that i think -- commissioner borden, that i think a multi modal transportation system

in the overall picture, local funding mix of more than half of all of the brt revenues. this is enormous. the federal share shrinks every year. all of the local funds are considered committed. there controlled by a voter mandate or by various ports. most of what i will talk about today has to do with the small piece of the rtp, the flexible funding. 67% of the overall funding is considered committed. the truly flexible money that the nutrition mtc just released on april 6 as this $56 billion which they are calling revenues available for trade-off. that is where all the excitement comes from a at the regional level. page 12 in your enclosure. this is the $56 billion we are talking about. the only thing i will mention on this -- and please in directive there are questions. this includes several sources of new revenue. they do not currently exist. or the past, mtc has done an analysis and has shown between rtp cycles, often new revenue sources materialize. in this case they have assumed a new regional gas tax. anticipated $14 billion. and any bridge toll. what i can say in

next speaker. >> i am george, and lived in the brt corridor area since 1978. my wife and i, who are now in district two, have lived in the area since 1997 on our street. we are concerned about three factors. the first is, as was mentioned earlier, the significant negative traffic impact to the local community. i am not going to have time to go through all of these factors, but i give committee members a copy of my presentation. i will go over the high points. i would appreciate if you spend some of your precious time reading through the details. as we know, there is going to be significant additional circulating traffic

it is connecting to the new geneva and the brt. that project we hope will be done and coordinating on the geneva brt initiative, which is an initiative across the by- county partnership. the authority board approved after we had applied for and received some grant funding -- this is a continuation of our transportation effort in the bay area. this will be to help some of the organizations serving be used and general community members to get from those services and programs. and in particular, general vehicle sharing and collaboration there. the department of health will come forward with a potential pilot for the y and other coordination for transportation in the heels of an area. -- in the hell's own area. the oakdale study will be presented in the may/june cycle, along with bridge replacement. i will turn it over to maria at this point and then come back to speak to that. i want to thank commissioner cohen for being such a leader with both our board and the caltrans board for such a good process and outcome. excuse me, there's on

they also added another ac transit part of the project and another additional funding for van ness brt. in addition, $660 million reserve for other newer small start projects. we have asked that there be somewhere in writing a discussion at the mtc about the timing and process to decide which projects we will be able to compete here we have projects such as the geneva and geary brt that would compete well for these funds. we want to make sure those funds go to top performer projects. the last one -- this is the big strategy. mtc has had in the early investment strategy for the high-speed rail corridor in the bay area. that includes two projects, both of which are prop k priorities, electrification including new rolling stock, and the advanced signal system which was previously known as the positive train control. last two strategies. strategy 5 is about making the existing system work better. the bigger thing here is that mtc has included -- commissioner kim: i can let you finish the presentation. it is about the electrification. i will wait until you're done. >> two of the high perfor

cost>> i claim no expertise on s subject but the people i know who are critics of this approach say brt is an effort to be rapid transit on the cheap that it doesn't do very well and is expensive and we should consider incremental improvements which is more like some of what i heard. my own concerns are as you know, i care about the van ness plan and it was to beautify the street as much as you could on a major highway and have the media and hopefully heavily planted, which it is not now. this is the option they are choosing wipes out. the issue of driving traffic on to the side streets, as i recall, the interception was supposed to be gridlock. maybe i'm wrong, but that's what i recall. now we're going to throw more traffic off on their. somebody needs to consider these things. when i was a kid growing up here, there was total gridlock and they had to build under the street. are we going to have to do that over here? the main issue i am kind of an expert in has to do the people who are disabled and elderly. the principal thing that makes a living at home and being independent possible

t e cessesf the indu revoln brt chs inricasoc- onof theprou being thgrth ogulati.o befe the wa m than0 percent meri were self-employed. the dominant form of biness organization was thsmall oprietorship. therwawispad public dtrust of many types of organizations. labor unio, for instance, were treated asrimil consracies; d en corporations vwed thertainamou osuicn. r waorte power crsed signifan the public bamconcerned abt thactities anere was general outc for feral action core redpassinmconcerned e interstercacties and the sherman antitrust act. 'alrodud idabblic 'll hea complaierman veedapetitrust act. and inficiency; ouho thcosts of complng th gernmt gulaon ntbu tlower oducanou ict is toperate a siness underncreing, and frequentlyonflicting relations. ineffit and steppi their authorit coumerro he other han. aracze tsa a the ct is athe ds,i oog st eveeuthorit dwi govement rulatio although for very different reons inome cas. bueven thoh thha bn moves tord dereguln ta aas, it's prably niab that governme gution ire tst. t expensec. iulatiotouches usws h en to regulate b

are talking about the fact that if temporary conditions cause a complete meltdown, complete gridlock, brt is not going to help. i live there. even by taking the bus or walking, i see this happens if it rains. two hours to get from pine street over 2 22nd. i cannot get across because it is completely gridlock to. i have to take several lights, pedestrian safety is very dangerous. this is now. what is going to happen when there are 1227 parking spaces? and a tunnel, a tunnel where we will eventually need a subway. this is highway 101, the golden gate transit. the mitigation is being offered to the community benefits would go to community benefit district for the bar owners, the organization's that the resident managers will not go to. all they have done is promote the destruction of our neighborhood. the benefit is going to be to give the money? the last time they got money, they bought a steamer. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i represent local 39. the bottom line is how sincere -- cpmc is trying to tell us. the same sentiment of the nurses and local 250, we have been working without a c

brt project. that project is federally funded. and just waiting to coordinate the schedule. the next project is signals and science project. this is to upgrade fligh lightrail vehicles. this project is behind schedule, but it is moving forward in terms of securing federal funds that need to be secured by the end of this year. we will work with mta to get an amendment to reset the schedule for the project. this is just a quick slide. this is an older brand we allocated to the port for several years ago and the use their own funds to plan the downtown very expansion project. we will work with them to close of the grants and reassigned the funds. the next project is the escalator rehab project. there are two phases of this project. phase one was high priorities. that project did experience some delays due to issues with america -- fire america requirements. the project is now on track. we worked on an amendment to get that project on track. there is expected completion by 2013. phase ii is currently in design. it is going through little bit of a budget reduction. the original b

brt have their thousands of units. they have millions -- they already have their thousands of units. you were not addressing the unit with them. if you do pass this, you will make a lot of other schools suffer as a result. students will have a difficult time coming to the city. the other point is that it is unrealistic for schools and developers to replace the current needs of students. you have to allocate a space for 20,000 students for housing and it is just an unrealistic expectation. you've got to realize that the reality is a huge number. students are low income individuals. they are either at 0 in come, or very little they are low-income individuals. and i have been a resident of san francisco for 22 years. i am the father of four. the endearing thing about this city with all of its issues and problems is its openness to individuals. the way i see it is that if you bring this on and you're starting to profile groups and individuals. we need to think about who this ordinance is really impacting >> thank you. i wi

high priority projects that san francisco has, including caltrain electrification, van ness station, brt, among others. i want to thank my office and the office of supervisor wiener in what they have done for helping to make that happen. i know that it was important for san francisco to play an active role. i also want to thank the san francisco commissioners of abag that also made sure that our considerations were taken. i also want to thank the mayor's office who also played an important role in making sure that our concerns were taken into account. we also saw the introduction last week of an ordinance to put into place the transportation system of it -- sustainability program. we are going to make sure that we continue to monitor that the first. -- that effort. with respect to

that is partially our own fault for taking a long time on making decisions around brt. that is a frustration. a longer conversation about how we get in transportation improvement in advance of some of the development we hope to see, we do a little bit of that along third street. we have not done that in many places. that is something we need to work on. at the end of the day, we know this project will maintain the jobs that we have and hopefully, create new jobs. relating to the union's issue, obviously, i would not support the project because that is deeply concerning to me. the nurses and the engineers. unfortunately, i do not have the discretion in that area. i just wish that those issues could be resolved because it does affect the health care in hospitals and it does make me scared as a patient, quite frankly. that is not the issue on the table here today. ultimately, this is a hospital rebuild project. is it perfect? no. the planning commission, are we the body that will be able to change how it looks? no. there is a development agreement. for where we are, the on