we have a chart at the bottom from the mta. it was an appendix to a large group of documents we were given. it looks like a total fleet side demand and procurements needed -- and we cut out the section on light rail vehicles -- set up by fiscal year. we cut out the intervening years from prison until 2018. if you look at 201832019, that is when the central subway is slated to open. it has currently been pushed to a january 19 opening. the numbers are hard to make that on the slide, but their numbers project they will need a peak demand of 179th light rail vehicles for the fiscal year. however, the fleet size plan will only be 175 vehicles, leaving a deficit of four vehicles system-wide. looking at this document, it appears to ever wrote the mta response claim that they will have enough lrv's in this fiscal year was not aware of this predicted schedule. the next time i would like to draw attention to his finding 25. and richard found a lack of care in the mta is communicating of correct and accurate information. the mta disagree

in the case, given the mta, that is fine, but whether you want to continue, mta is already doing what the resolution as for. supervisor campos: thank you. i do believe that we know enough to know that the current situation is not from my perspective the right policy approach, that there are still enough questions that need to be addressed, which is why -- i do not know what that answer is, which is why we are asking the mta to reconsider. quite frankly, i do believe it is important for us to move forward, because even though the hope is that this will change with the new leadership at mta, we have had many examples where the board of supervisors has heard from the mta in the past they're going to move in a certain direction and make progress in a certain area, and unfortunately that has not happened with some issues, so i think it is important for us to do that. i appreciate your perspective in respect to that perspective, but i would ask that we move that item forward with a positive recommendation. could we have a motion by president chiu? we can have a roll call on that. >> supervi

i want to thank the mta for your commitment. it is tough with any issue with the mta, considering our influence over the organization. however, i think these conversations are fruitful to help us better understand how to convey information to our constituents and convey information to the mta as well. i want to say thank you to the mta for a couple of things that did work. in terms of the nx service, we have heard nothing but positive things. they are able to get downtown if they live in the outer avenues without having to worry about delays. i wanted thank you for that. it has been nothing but positive, in terms of feedback, from what we have heard from our constituents. it also helps with the large number of boardings sometimes when we did not have the express service. i also want to thank you for having the real time information. i have get to see how it will look yet, and oftentimes people will be calling our office to see if there are any issues within the system. i know john haley is looking at a process to analyze differe

the deficit -- look at the reports of the mta. one of the things they have not told to -- 36,000 hours of surface transportation will be cut to fund the deficits. that means wherever you are in san francisco, you will receive less service. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker. >> good evening. i am going to be talking about the grand jury findings 118, 20, and 25 -- one, 18, 20, and 25. the response made much of the oversight that the central subway would receive from the federal transportation agency and in response 25, they claim that it -- as communications professionals, the accuracy of all his pronouncements. let's examine the accuracy of these claims. and he repeated that the central subway is highly regarded in washington. on october 18, the transportation authority staff told a citizens advisory committee that "the central subway project remains the highest-rated pre-full-funding grant agreement project in the country." there are 39 new starts projects, and -- new starts and small starch products. 14 of those project

i am not saying mta has done everything it can do in terms of building new facilities. we know that outdated facilities result in inefficient maintenance schedules, but the prop k program, when the voters approved it in 2003, devoted $1 billion to maintenance and rehabilitation projects to transit alone. $566 million of that money is still available for these projects. that money also includes money to match federal funds to renovate the fleet. it is not like we have run out of money to do maintenance facility or to renovate the fleet, but it also does not mean that we can only work on one priority at a time. capital projects and maintenance need to happen. synchronization continues to happen. we are working as aggressively as ever to match federal funds so that we can leverage the potential promised to the voters in prop k. as we continue to invest in a better flea, in a better set of maintenance facilities, we will begin to achieve the goals of more efficient maintenance, the actual activity of doing maintenance, that the mta has been pursuing for a long time. i do no

so, we have worked with the sf mta. the first arrows point to increased funding for safety, education, outreach for the build out of the remaining buyout plan projects. providing funds for the next generation of bike projects. leveraging assumptions within the plan, i will give you a couple of examples. proposing to use prop k programming for discretionary brands, like the fund for clean- air and the segment between interstate 280. undergoing design revisions, the cost is increasing significantly. they fired in march of 2012 in time to complete the project. another tip of the that wanted to mention was prop k for early project development. setting up by projects to be set up for other discretionary fund sources. the proposed amended five ipp includes maps for future design and construction. federal funds would need to be clear that the festival level. the last two slides just list the project. very briefly, i would go through a couple on this slide, developing the implementation strategy for bike riding. not long term i

in terms of the mta, i was surprised on some of their responses.now that ed has only been there for a short amount of time. i thought it was very enlightening, the presentation. and also a caution to members of the grand jury on your report. and making sure that they are factual as well. we have looked at the location of certain companies, you don't knowledge of the fact that this is phase two of the line. it is getting to be a controversial topic at that point in time. with the findings and recommendations in front of us, and i would vote yes or support a motion with the exception of recommendation number four. supervisor campos: that is a motion by supervisor farrell. we don't need a second. president chiu, any comments? president chiu: i am happy to second that, the only comment i would make is in regard to 3, lowering expectations from muni's performance. the mta could find a more. i would set that as an amendment to the recommendation. supervisor campos: i will be supporting that motion. what this does is highlight the fact that even when you

mta has only one group in mind. pedestrian, runners, and people with disabilities were left in the dark. mta said they decided on a single sidewalk track plan. that is misleading. they created a survey for one group, showing that the survey is totally biased. the plan of $451,000 is not developed. it would be better if there was a petition to put it on hold until police, fire, emergency and the public is considered before any further improvements are considered. [bell rings] >> thank you. next. >> good morning. i live in the area and across the panhandle four times a week, where i dodge vehicles, where i dodge bicycles every day. in four years as chair of the physical assets council, this is probably the most important issue in terms of safety for people with mobility impairments, especially since this could be replicated throughout san francisco. but it only came to us on friday. and then only because of a of te parking spaces and not the design itself. it won't come before the full council until tomorrow. it comes

the mta has start -- not started collecting them yet, but we have developed the ability. that was their mandate to us. i do not know. once we have i to person but does this and bills as for a lot of stuff, and that was included in the billing to set up the process. president chiu: i have to read it, it is very difficult to find out, given the stakeholders involved between the companies and a medallion holders, everyone is saying different things. for me, the perspective i try to bring to this is the perspective of san francisco and to get into cabs. i get into them fairly often. one argument that as compelling as this would create a disincentive for cabdrivers to accept credit card transactions, which seems to have in the wrong direction as far as customer service. could you address that? >> sure, and the one part of that that would be part opinion and part fact is that i do not feel it would be a disincentive. i think we're dealing with a minority of drivers. where -- we have some guys and we get calls and complaints periodically during the week of someone saying they do

mta staff met with the institutions early on in the process. as of earlier this week, we actually posted -- the academy hosted a meeting that we intended, and they gave the revised project to the epitasis that knows exactly where we are before today. i am sure i am missing something. commissioner buell, at previous meetings, the question was raised about how many staff members from both institutions park there. i wanted to report briefly some numbers here. again, in context of their staff levels changing throughout the year. this is kind of a general worst- case scenario. they anticipate that the have a full staff of approximately 200 people during weekdays, monday through friday. of that, 61% actually drive their vehicles, which represents about 122 vehicles. of the 122, 30 of them have parking spaces in the garage. the delta on that is roughly about 90 staff members on an monday through friday would be parking on surface with in golden gate park. for the academy, they have about 100 additional employees during peak time. they have about 300 a

i want to thank the mta for your commitment. it is tough with any issue with the mta, considering our influence over the organization. however, i think these conversations are fruitful to help us better understand how to convey information to our constituents and convey information to the mta as well. information to the mta as well. i want to say thank you to

the paratransit program, including the administrative expenses should be reimbursed bybar bart to the mta. as we understand, the way the agreement has been submitted to you, that is the last obligation date for bart to pay the 8% for administrative costs. then on page 10 we recommend you amend the cautionary agreement to reflect that any future -- that is another thing i want to make that clear. let's assume they do this study. they do this study and the study finds that bart should pay less to the city, or pay more, either way. under the way this agreement has been written, the board of supervisors would add no further authority. there could be a fiscal impact of the city, and yet, if you approve it now, there would be these automatic renewals without further oversight of the board of supervisors. that is why we say that should be amended to make sure if there's a fiscal impact to the city, that that comes back to the board for the board's approval. those are our recommendations. supervisor chu: thank you very much. supervisor mirkarimi. >supervisor mirkarimi: the costs are somewhat disp

the mta board has taken action previously, recognizing the immense need. when you created the mx express, because of the overcrowding on that bus. there is one last thing i would like to say. in our conversation with director reiskin, he indicated that the board has not indicated a broad support for this policy. we think it is important for the mta to say, yes, we want to move forward in this direction and then find the money. ultimately, we think the issue of overcrowding is overstated. we go back to the legislative analyst's report, which essentially indicates that, right now, if we're going to increase service, all of that $6 million cannot be allocated to the young people who are riding the buses. we do not agree with the reports that indicate it will cost $13 million, instead of $6 million. secretary boomer: gloria estevas. >> [speaking spanish] >> thank you for having me. it is an important point to say that you have spent money harassing used for the police. this program would cost less than what you are currently planning -- currently paying the po

you can see the mta bus and rail fleet is only 1% of city emissions. even if we made our buses completely carbon neutral, we still have a major obstacle to deal with. the issue is with our transportation fleet ourself -- in order for us to reduce our footprint, we have to do more different strategies and will be talking about in a second. what if we made all the cars screen and see what happens? you can see that cars, based on their emissions per mile, vary depending on what propulsion may have. but there is no way to get a carbon neutral car. you cannot get to zero. there are manufacturing impacts to make a car, shipping, electric transmission, etc. but electric cars do reduce emissions to a regular car. electrification as an industry is important. but there is another problem. it is important for this commission to meet climate goals, because that reduces co2, but it does not reduce sustainability levels. there are still too many cars. congestion affects our economy. people are causing major traffic fatalities. electrification is only part of the sol

the mta has received the benefit of these transactions. the benefits are significant to us. we would allow it to avoid any future liability. we're able to answer any questions you may have. supervisor chu: do they want to add any comments? >> that is the conclusion of the presentation, but they are here to answer any questions. >> we concur with the m.t.a.'s objective in entering into these future termination agreements. as budget analyst, i would normally not recommend that to you because i would want the board to approve each agreement. we understand that interest rates fluctuate on a dime and i think this is in the best interests of the city. we do have a couple of recommendations on page 11 of the report, to recommend that you amend, and incidentally, the city attorneys advised me. we were looking at an earlier version of this legislation. our first recommendation, we recommend amending page one, line 7 instead of line 6 of the proposed resolution to specify that there is no financial liability to the city for the termination. the way it reads now is just for the sfmta.

>> it is a project that is not being sponsored by the mta. the park service is going through an environmental process. what we will do is we will come back to you, refer back to you at a meeting soon, with status of the project. then in advance of when it is going to formally come to you for board review. >> i was thinking the decision of where to place this -- >> we would be it -- they are leading the effort to get environmental clearance for the f line extension. they would be looking to us for how best to make the logistics, such as placement of the platforms, work. we will work with them and the street artists to make sure that we understand what the concerns of the situation are. >> public comment. >> mr. wong? >> hello again. there is another thing i would like to bring up. it is about communications in the subway. i know that bart has this elevator update to notify people who are basically -- when the elevator is out, they will notify people to either e-mail or testing, sir -- or texting, so that people with disabilities who rely on el

. >> this all started september 13th when the members of the laytonsville community met with the mta hoping to have some design on the purple line but quickly found out there were changes made to the plan and they were not happy. tonight both sides got together to taper out any potential problems. charlotte co feel has lived in littonville all her life. >> the station was going to be positioned on the south side of the road of. >> reporter: she was excited about the purple line until their september meeting with mta. >> mta surprised us and told us actually they have expanded the maintenance yard and rail line and now it's going to run along the entire backside of our community. >> reporter: they say out of nowhere mta had new designs and plans of an expansion. the mains yard that was 200 yards wide and -- the maintenance yard that was 200 yards wide and 1,000 yards long originally was tucked way in an industrial area, but now it would be bigger and closer to a residential area. >> there will be bright lighting, 200 employees. they're putting in a new multi- story parking garage, off

the next document is also submitted by mta, and it is five sections of walking by 114 b + 109 b + 541 feet, 39 feet, and 209 feet. it adds to 1,018 feet. that is very contradictory. i think that that alone should be enough to make you question matters. if you look at the t3 first section of this, i think you will see it is an almost complete failure. i doubt anyone in this room has ever written it. there are two cars, and a lot of time between two people on them, that should be a clue also. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. the speaker. >> thank you. local 22 carpenters union. 20-year plan -- i think someone has been doing their homework. they think the train is ready to leave the station, and i think we all need to hop on board. this is a wonderful project, obviously. and ed reiskin brought up a good point. the area is changing. it is growing. we have to grow with it. we need to accommodate. we need to get ready. you have proven that with your resolution, and it is in the right direction. i want to thank supervisor farrell for pointing out to the grand jury that they missed th

this is data from the mta website, from the planning department. it shows the accident rate at that juncture. it is one of the most traffic and most dangerous in the city. the statistics i think you guys all know that that junction was rated a few years ago the most dangerous in the city. it is today as of may 2011 raid of the most dangerous -- actually, both those judges of octavia and golf are rated the most dangerous bicycle junctions in the city -- both of those junctions. we have great concerns about what they are planning to do, which is essentially take those nine traffic flows and run a bus through that junction as an additional flow. we think that is dangerous. it is going to attract more pedestrians and cyclists to the area, not less. they are going to meet that group of traffic coming into the city. we do think that also, this will create significant legal exposure for mta because you are proposing to move forward with a project despite very clear public objection on the basis of safety. this is the way the junction is measured. it is ve