van ness. it's designed specifically to hook up with the geary brt and currently in development and provide east-west connection point and connection hub at van ness and geary. as part of a larger mta network service for the van ness brt will be provided by the trolley and motor coaches currently operate the 47 and 49 limited lines. as you can see from this map the bus rapid transit project will operate in the exclusive right-of-way along van ness. for the rest of the run they will operate as they currently do along the traditional routes of the 49 limited and the 47 lines providing connection to other parts of the city and the 49 line will run virtually the entire length of the city. what goes into making a brt system? what is bus rapid transit? it's the dedicated transit lane is the obvious item but there are subtle features and signal authority and opt minimization to make sure the buses get the extra jump on the rest of the traffic lie continuing to allow the traffic to move efficiently. all buses to maximize the speed for which people can board the coaches and of course pedestrian improvements a

, i'm not even sure what the latest of van ness is about to release or about to be certified, i believe. and geary is still chugging along, i guess. >> van ness brt e-i-r is within three or four months i believe going to go to the board for certification of e-i-r. >> great. come here, right? >> [inaudible]. >> then in terms of -- you talk about some of the different interventions in the market street. i was wondering how the church street bus only lane is going and the pilot going on and does that help inform some of the tep changes and can you give us an update how that is working so far. >> yeah, you know, it's been working really well, especially during the peak periods which is when we really needed the help. we're seeing a big improvement, almost 20% improvement in on-time performance. it's only a three-block segment if anybody knows, it goes from duboce to 16th. so, it's a three-block segment. we took -- it was a four-lane stretch of road. we took the two middle lanes where the ga church runs and essentially made that a transit only lane so the 22 now also runs in that center lane. and we're seeing some really good improvements and on-time

and we are -- and i say this as -- i'm an intensely strong supporter of geary brt as i am with van ness and i hope many more brts and i don't want to compare us to mexico city from an idea in somebody's head to the -- it took three years, you know. i understand this california, this is the u.s., we love process here and things take a lot longer than they do elsewhere, but it's one thing to say three years from idea to project delivery is not realistic here but to have a situation where we're nine years into a project and we have really nothing to show for it except for ongoing analysis. that is very frustrated to me and i think to a lot of people. and with vanness brt and i think now it's possibly being turned over to the mta -- so it can take [inaudible] evenally,you know, build the project. i'm being a little sarcastic but it's very frustrating. and so this contract -- it's 6 million dollars total and that is for environmental analysis and preliminary conceptual drawings. how much of that is for environmental seqa analysis. how much of that 6 million is for seqa work? ballpark. >> app

and i guess the question is, i know that geary brt is more controversial than van ness brt and i don't begrudge anyone their opinion about whether brt on geary is good or bad. my sense is that -- this is true with a lot of things in san francisco. instead of saying we're going to have a public process, we'll delineate it's going to be a six month process or one year or two or three year process or whatever we define it to be and we'll get feedback and a collaborative community discussion, we allow the community process to go on [inaudible] if someone comes forwards and says i have an issue it sort of restarts everything and i -- as we can see through the extreme drama around the very modest seqa appeal legislation that i did which is nothing more than set deadlines for when people have to file appeals and that has caused, as you know, a sig miff cant controversy. i know it's hard in san francisco not to have an open ended process, but to have process that goes on years and years and years, i just think that we don't do -- it's a disservice to the taxpayers and to the riders of san fran

i want to speak to the van ness brt. i served on the board from the beginning. it didn't take four years to start like mexico city. i think i have been on it since 2007 or whatever and won't start until 2018 and a lot of plumbing work and complex thing. one of the things i am happy with we only had to add one station and found in the study they could get rid of one and we have the minimum number of staitionzs and i believe the study is going to work but i want to speak to the parking connection because the state wanted wider lanes because they feel it's their standard. it want fed to eliminate a number of parking spaces and there are 35% more riders and many of them live in this neighborhood. some of the people will choose to get rid of their cars and these are the cars not parked in garages. these are parked on the street so we're making -- we will probably be making more than 100 spaces available. now it's your job to get right in there and put a meter, right in a residential neighborhood to preserve the parking for the merchants. the mta will do a good job of