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 curre

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 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

the ta is the lead agency for both the van ness and geary brt projects. this slide shows that in november and december, the draft dieis-eir was released. we're just finalizing one of the alternatives. it will be presented to the ta cac next tuesday, and it will be before you on may 10. the planning commission will hear a presentation from the ta. construction for the van ness brt starts the timber 2015 and projected to end late 2016, early 2017. the funding is in the range of $90 million to $130, but we believe it will be $120 million or less. we're getting $75 million from a small program, and $18.5 million from prop k, and an additional underpin state and regional brands -- a grants. the geary dr -- brt, we are finalizing the recommendation and expected to be done in may. in fall 2013, the draft eis-eir will be circulated. construction is expected to start in 2017 and end in 2019. geary brt is about $245 million. $75 million from the fta small start program, another $28 million from prop k, and funding from other sources to fill in the gap. let me talk a

the van ness brt project. you the effect of this project. -- van ness effectiveness project. commissioner campos: we have a question for commissioner mar. commissioner mar: thank you. many of us were at the mtc/abag meeting. the positive things are really great, and i and whether you enologist them, but could i ask you about the impact of the decision to prioritize north bay and east bay for the new small starts funding and how that will impact the van ness brt 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 a

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

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 one

we believe it will demonstrate the full opportunity for this new mode of transit for the city brt, and not on the for the city, but for the region and our nation as we struggle to do more with fewer resources. we want to pledge our continued support together. you're the previous speaker that the item had been deferred. i would characterize that as procedural. we did receive some late correspondents yesterday and did not have an adequate time to brief the stakeholders. then the authority board will consider policy action in the joon plans and programs meeting. and i just want to clarify that we do expect the center running alternative to maintain% throughput will have so many -- maintain person throughput. we will have some any more people on buses. the fewer left turns and signals will benefit traffic appeared thank you for your of leadership and your support. >> thank you. thank you for all of your work on the mta wit -- with the mta on this. >> good afternoon. i am the director -- executive director of walk san francisco. i'm here because walk sf strongly supports this as an elegant

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. w

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 be

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

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 their favor is over the years new revenues have appeared

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 h

we will be conducting a cac meeting with the geary brt cac in the next few weeks in may. then we will be posting the actual upcoming outreach event update to that website. we're still finalizing locations. i apologize to do not have details are confirmed the locations yet. but we're trying to ensure that there is an opportunity to learn about the project in each of the four major segments. so we will have meetings in the downtown area, east of the van ness. and another set of meetings in the fillmore area. richmond as well. there will be a focus on the major nodes in each of these four segments. a potential option to fill the underpass. the masonic intersection which is very complex. in the western terminus will be engaging with washington high school and the school community on that part of the corridor. we are available, and we will be making the rounds to the various community groups and ensuring multi-lingual access and materials. the draft eis/eir would continue falling this round of outreach. we hope in the spring of 2013, and that maintains our schedule to small st

additionally, the brt program, including more traffic onto franklin street and polk street, the other parallel streets to van ness, and now we are going to be faced with all of these driveways on franklin street accessing the hospital. it is already a very difficult issue for pedestrians and traffic. [bell rings] we have other projects that also happening that are going to have driveways. taxicabs are not going to go into those in driveways, the interior driveway. there is also no place for paratransit vans that have to wait for passengers. and the are only for managed care. many disabled are on medicare and medi-cal. we have the right to choose. august or september 2010, i requested to see somebody ought patient for that insurance and was flatly denied by cpmc. commissioner fong: thank you very much. if i called your name, come on up. have i called your name? marlena, carlito, stanley. >> ok? good afternoon, commissioners. my name is angelina, 81 years young. i am a senior and lived in the tenderloin for 27 years now. i am also in member of the tenderloin filipino american community

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 b

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

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

the goal is to have more on transit but still moving a similar number through the corridor. brt is it popularized in other countries and it's the combination of all of these benefits. you've probably seen some of these things like signaled priority or low floor buses which when you put everything together, you have a dedicated transit lane that makes this a priority work better because the buses moving at a consistent speak. that is what makes it a new mode in san francisco. the project considered a no build alternative as well as three build alternatives. the two center alternatives have a design variations that limit left turns. it would limit left turns to for in each direction and there would just be a left turn at lombard and southbound at broadway between mission and lombard. this is alternative #two. it runs on the side with our buses and cars. this will be buses only in a dedicated line and would be high-quality platforms in the street where the parking lane is currently. parking is retained outside station locations as much as possible. branding is the key part to let p

t e cessesf the indu revoln brt chs inricasoc- onof theprou being thgrth ogulati. 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 bu

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

the second project here is the link to the p r t. 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 litt