one of the major tenets of the tep is increasing neighborhood service. so the 28l, our proposal for the 28l is a great example. it currently runs north-south from the marina to daly city bart and operates during the school peaks. so a couple of hours in the morning and a couple of hours in the late afternoon and our proposal is to run that in the southern end, extend that service over to mission -- the mission corridor. and extend to van ness and north point and run that service all day. so we're really connecting some of those outer neighborhoods together with all-day, fast, reliable and frequent service. also with the service proposals we're also attempted to reducing and addressing crowding. back to the 5l example, we had a lot of crowding issues in the inner portion of that line. the 5l is really -- we added 30% more capacity in the middle part of the segment there that is addressing crowding concerns and usability of the service for the people. so of course there have some trade-offs. to make these improvements that we're talking about, it's roughly

while i like sean, he does a lot of work at the tep program. the truth of matter is tep is based on reducing service. if we are doing everything to do with transit first, we have a lot of work to do. now, recent with john hailey, he knows what he's up against in terms of providing economic service that these citizens of san francisco defer. -- deserve. we know what we are up against. tep, it's not going to work. of course you have to put aside a project because we know it's too many holes within the tep goal -- going on right now. we have to complete the project. everybody is chasing the tail. nothing is getting done. i just ask once again, scrutinize the tep for what it is. honestly, it looks fine for the future. but if you look at what's going on now with the projects coming forthwith tep, it's not going to work. you are taking that a tunnel. >> thank you. next speaker, miss sacs? >> turning to tep, i have spoken about this many times at the full board meeting and citizens advisory committee and i also went to the workshops and they are trying

the tep is currently under going environmental reviews. this will support the engineering work for the environmental review and getting ready for the implementation. that schedule of the eir is expected to be certified in march 2014. and the implementation, the full implementation is scheduled for 20/20. this is be made for fiscal year 2014 funds but not needed this fiscal year. the clarification is the advance of the tep funds but the project will be made whole in the 5-year plan update. this is advancing funds that are needed now. with that, we'll be happy to answer questions and there is members of the staff. >> i did want to make one point and i know that the mta's really making a commitment for strong community outreach for the tep, transit effectiveness project. i'm happy to hear about that. i think these projects are really important but also important that mta that within 6 months to come back to the outreach especially the communities impacted by the special projects. i did want to acknowledge that the ta and thanks to our director

the second thing that the tep is trying to do is increase service hours for these routes. again by taking the 35 eureka route and eliminating -- we're actually taking away service for our residents and we're not adding anything. we really want to advocate is a mandate from you directors that the tep come and work with our neighborhoods to come up with a better solution, more alternatives. there were no alternatives in the eis for this proposal. so you giving the mandate to tep to work with us so we can create a better route. thank you. [ applause ] . >> next speaker, please. [ reading speakers' names ]. >> reed, what bus do you take to school everyday? >> 3 jackson. >> what bus do your grandparents use when they visit you? >> 3. >> the 3 is the only bus that is very easy for our visitors to use, isn't it? what do we use to get your brother? yes, we use the 3 jackson. what bus do we take? >> 10. >> if we want to go to the 10 what do we take? >> 3. >> the 3. i also wanted to say if san francisco wants to be transit first we need to not only think about accommodating muni ride

i do want to just put in context, the great majority of the tep is increased service. so we're increasing on the majority of lines that serve the major of riders of muni. 100% of the public comment was about ones that are most difficult, but i don't want to you lose sight of what is being evaluated into the environmental review service and what we'll bring forward to is increase is service. we'll be most sensitive to places where we're changing or eliminating service or stops and look forward to working with the community to bring you recommendations that will hopefully reflect a consensus recommendation. >> thank you. i think it's very good to hear how much people love muni and ride muni and do depend on muni. i would just remember everybody that not everything in the tep is about eliminating a stop or a line as director reiskin said. i would encourage you all also not to lose that enthusiasm that we need to support this process going forward and also make the changes that are going to help improve the transportation system that are not directly affecting your line of

there are ten specific lines that we're addressing currently in the tep. and through this community process over the last six years we have identified projects and proposals that we think will reduce travel time in these corridors by up to 20%. you know what does 20% mean? it sounds like a random number and to put it in prospective, i want to talk about the 5l project and related to travel time in general. we started the 5l project october 28th, so it's been about a month. we have been looking at data during that month and it's still preliminary, because you know, a month of data does not a success make. but we have noted that if you lived in say the park presidio area and going to market with the 5l, you are now making that trip five minutes faster. five minutes twice a day, because you go down and back, that is 10 minutes. you have five days a week, you have almost saved an hour of time a week by the improvements that we have made on the 5 fulton service. the trade-offs are focused on on-street parking and that is a discussion that we need to have with th

the tep is an example of that. s mentioned earlier in this meeting, it's to prepare the scope of the equity analysis of the tep. because of the 80 percent of the tep is programmatic, the equity of that program is going to be determined by an on going basis based on how to expenditures are programmed and based on monitoring those expenditures at in realtime or as they are programmed and spent and then reporting back on the outcomes. so that's what we are focusing object and -- on and there is three components, analyzing the equity on the investments themselves, and the programming, the years of programming on whatever time is being implemented for the program, do these address equity concerns, and monitoring outcomes after investments are made to determine whether equity gaps and efficiencies are being closed and finally continue to get stakeholder input throughout both of these process both on determining programming investments and doing the monitoring on the effects. we want to offer considerations of some ideas o

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 understand the offsetting benefits; which compelled the elimination of the line? we have searched for the answer and not found it. if there is no compelling benefit to the city, which offsets the significant costs to the neighborhood, then why is mta pursuing this action ? 1500 people signed the petition and a couple of hundred of people have sent in emails supporting the continuation of the line. ther

the tep at its base is first comprehensive review of the system in over 30 years. imagine san francisco 30 years ago. the travel patterns, where people lived, where people were going is vastly different than what we see today. and we really need a system that relates to that dynamic change and addresses today's community's needs. so that is really led us to a goal of two things with the tep >> one improving reliability and two, improving the user experience. muni is the backbone of our community. we support a vast number of neighborhoods throughout the city, 95% of people within the city of san francisco are close to muni service. we support trips to schools, to work, to cultural events, to basically just hanging out with friends and family. and if you are a choice-rider, so somebody who has other transportation options and

however, the tep proposes to eliminate the no. 12 and in other words, this is a serious cut service cut and will have a dramatic affect on the community. they will have to carry heavy packages and walk steep hills to get home. it's extremely important to the community, especially for senior residents who often have mobility issues. please don't eliminate the no. 12 bus lines. any elimination means service cuts to our community, which heavily relies on public transit. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. [ applause ] [ reading speakers' names ] >> good afternoon, sir. >> good afternoon, mr. chairman, directors, phil chin, representing the chinatown transportation research and improvement project. no need to repeat all that has been said. our concerns are very similar to other previous speakers. our concerns with with the 8x and stop placement for the 30. i would like to urge this board to direct staff to actually listen to the public when they hold their public meetings and do their outreach. historically we had many occasions to share our ideas and we haven't seen much of a ch

bit of history for the audience i was on the tep committee. when the subjects came to us, some of us objected. our group never took a position. the people on n our group who were for it are self-proclaimed visionaries, who don't raise children, who don't have a disability, who aren't seniors. you are already showing how out of touch has been there process. so ask yourself again, how many of these so-called community meetings were at nice, which mitigates against single parents and with people with disabilities and seniors, and people who have other difficulties in attending? it's an obvious problem when seniors are told of stop-elimination and even a supervisor of the board of supervisors has commented. you are hearing a lot of discontent. in the larger context, think of this which means and ask if there is any ballot issue regarding funding for muni as has been proposed by the bias group that composed the mayor's transportation task force? the constituencies that are most transit dependent are not represented on that. that group is proposing b

are some of the dlans -- dollars with the tep project. >> the tep is still under environmental review. we used the impact fee money and working closely with the tep money and matching up where they have funding identified. >> i think the other part of that answer is some of the projects could be funded and they have other sources as well. a lot of the large projects the impact fees represent partial financing and leveraging of other dollars along the way. >> you mentioned the central freeway and dog park, i haven't seen that start.

are some of the dlans -- dollars with the tep project. >> the tep is still under environmental review. we used the impact fee money and working closely with the tep money and matching up where they have funding identified. >> i think the other part of that answer is some of the projects could be funded and they have other sources as well. a lot of the large projects the impact fees represent partial financing and leveraging of other dollars along the way. >> you mentioned the central freeway and dog park, i haven't seen that start. is that going to start happening this year? >> that's what i have been told by the project managers on that and this we should anticipate the construction soon. i look at it everyday and i think they have a short-term intervention right now and kind of warming it up until the construction starts. >> that's been a beneficiary of these improvements. >> commissioner hillis? >> that park started construction. so, just a question on in kind contributions. we have a couple of in kind projects and we have a couple here. i always wonder if we can do them. they have

are some of the dlans -- dollars with the tep project. >> the tep is still under environmental review. we used the impact fee money and working closely with the tep

so the tep's end, i want to speak about you today, because it affects the district that i represent in a large fashion is the elimination of the 3 jackson line. i am here to tell you as someone who was born and raised in district 2 and raising my children there, i have ridden the 3 jackson my entire life and i know so many countless others, many who are behind me today that depend upon it for their daily lives and that eliminating that line would have a disastrous effect on the neighborhoods that i represent and i urge you to consider that. the three jackson has served the neighborhoods for decades and includes a huge senior population, a disabled population, that i have heard from and spent countless community meetings already on this topic since this idea was floated about last year. and i think as important for me, many students and staff that are part of the schools that are in that surrounding area, there are nine schools in that very close vicinity within the three jacks and they heavily dependent upon that line to serve the schools and educate our children. several of the school

and then mission street is also moving forward separately through the tep. in light of the mayor's directive for pedestrian safety that was released in april of this year, in this graphic you can see all of those little segments may block our new opportunities. central soma blocks are long and people tend to dash across this -- at least it will provide a safe place for them to do that. so they don't have to jay-walk. so the next few slides are cross-sections of the corridors that we have developed concepts for. i want to make it clear that these are general. the corridors are long. they vary from block to block. so again, very general. for harrison and bryant, knowing that this is an area where we have a lot of regional traffic coming in, we need to make sure that we can accommodate those traffic volumes. so we are going to keep this a major thoroughfare and do just a minor lane reduction. the top is existing conditions and the lower is proposed. it goes from five to four lanes. as part of making sure that we can accommodate traffic volumes a number of our co