john paxton. >> good morning, miss long. >> good afternoon. i simply wanted to introduce you to the people who have gone to the trouble of coming to this meeting, but that is not really going to be possible, considering that we are split in two rooms. >> that is of course for safety reasons and fire reasons. >> i understand. >> good. >> maybe you could imagine double the number. there are quite a few elderly people, including one lady that i met who is over 85 who came down had this meeting today. if you are over 65 and you are here to support the no. 3 bus, would you please raise your hand? we also have students from university high, the san francisco ballet, scared heart, san francisco public montessori and the students mostly aren't here, but some of their representatives are here. if you are a student or representing students would you please raise your hands? we have professionals and patients from institutes such as the smith eye institute. i'm not sure if any of them are here, but if you are -- please raise your hand. thank you. there w

thank you. [ reading speakers' names ] >> good afternoon commissioners, my name is john paxton for 40 years i have been using the 3 jackson, relying on the 3 jackson to get downtown to work. what is the san francisco sfmta trying to achieve? we in the community will be burdened if the 3 jackson were eliminated and we would like to know why it's proposed for elimination? what is the mta trying to achieve? the tep documents do not show how the elimination of the three would benefit san francisco. all it has said as part of mta's plan to improve service. certainly those of us who are regular users of the 3 jackson question how eliminating the line will improve service? we thought that the mta would say there would be a significant cost-savings over other possible actions, but we're told by julie kirshbaum that eliminating the 3 would not save money. then what is the nexus between eliminating the 3 jackson and improving service? how does the balance of scales of cost and benefit favor of the elimination of the 3? if those of us who use the 3 were further burdened, we would like to underst

and john paxton who is a part of caps and it's a community action plan for seismic safety and sponsored by the department of building. and what are the significant impacts of earthquake and how can we mitigate that to meet the goals we want to make. one of the things we want to talk about are, what are your reasonable expectations? people have different goals about what they expect. a lot of people say, i live in a house, the city wouldn't let me live in a house that wasn't safe, would they? i live in a brand-new house and it's absolutely fine. those are unreasonable expectations and why they are. there's, for example. nothing that the earthquake proof. that's always stuff inside that is damaged and life line connections, telephone and water that make habitability a problem. san francisco's earthquake hazard has a whole over lay of problems. first is our location. by the 2 faults. the san andreas, which is off shore of san francisco, and is about how far off shore? maybe a mile. so it's very, very close to the city and runs up to marin, >> a million years of earthquake movement created.