Skip to main content

tv   Transportation Authority Board  SFGTV  November 30, 2021 11:00am-2:01pm PST

11:00 am
11:01 am
. >> chairman: good morning everyone. welcome to our november 16th meeting of the transportation authority board. i'm the chair of this meeting. our vice chair is supervisor peskin whom i'm going to excuse. our clerk is britney nolton. madam clerk, will you please take our role. >> clerk: [roll call]
11:02 am
>> chairman: i also need to excuse commissioner ronen who is absent because of a family emergency. >> clerk: [roll call] supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: absent. just kidding. no one reacted. i see you saying something, connie. i'm coming down to talk to you in a minute. bye. >> clerk: [roll call] we have quorum. >> chairman: great.
11:03 am
thank you, madam clerk. i believe that you also have some announcements. >> clerk: i do. i'll have an announcement about public comment. call 4156550001 and when the prompt comes on the screen 24923008482 and then pound and pound again. once you join, you will be able to speak in the meeting as a participant. do not press star three again or you will be removed from the queue. when the system says your line is unmuted, you will be allowed to -- when your minutes are up, we will want the next caller. best practices are to speak slowly and clearly. if you wish to comment during the meeting, it's best to do it
11:04 am
via the public comment line to avoid the delay on the live meeting. that concludes my announcements. >> chairman: thank you, madam clerk. could you please call item two. >> clerk: item two, final approval on first appearance is a resolution making findings to allow teleconferenced meetings under california government code section 54953e. this is an action item. >> chairman: great. thank you, madam clerk. and i believe we had a presentation on this two times ago. yes? >> clerk: yes. it was two meetings ago, i believe. >> chairman: two meetings. >> clerk: yeah. and i'd like to make some comments about item two. this resolution allows public agencies to continue meeting teleconferencing. the agency must make certain findings including that it has considered the state of emergency and that conducting
11:05 am
in-person meetings is to prevent imminent risk to attendees. the advisory committee for the next 30 days. >> chairman: thank you. let's open this item to public comment. >> there's no public comment at this time, chair. >> chairman: great. public comment on item two is closed. is there a motion to approve item two? i'm looking at you, supervisor haney. he waived. thank you. >> supervisor haney: so moved. >> chairman: seconded by commissioner preston. madam clerk, please call the role. >> clerk: of course. on item two, commissioner chan, [roll call]
11:06 am
we have five ayes and final approval. >> chairman: thank you, madam clerk. please call item 3. >> clerk: item three is the chair's report. this is an information item. >> chairman: great. colleagues, as you know, we have good news from washington. yesterday president biden
11:07 am
signed the bill. we want to thank you him for working that will provide $20 trillion in funding across the transportation energy and water sectors. transportation is by far the largest. 67% above congress's last transportation bill and $157 billion in one-time stimulus funding. estimates for how much california will receive, but we can expect $34 billion for the bridge repairs. $9.5 billion for public transit improvement statewide including for muni, b.a.r.t. and cal train.
11:08 am
and the bill also includes discretionary funds for inner city rail and $15 billion for the federal transportation administration's competitive capital investment program which funds projects like b.a.r.t. and the cal train downtown rail extension. plus over $2 billion for active transportation and a new state streets and roads for all programs vision 0 priorities. in addition, good news, just this morning, we heard that the department of transportation has awarded our yerba buena island project the $15 million federally raised grant to set aside for this set of structures and roadwayings connecting the sf oakland bay bridge and on the west side of the yerba buena island. thank you to speaker pelosi and senator padilla as well as
11:09 am
mayor breed and commissioner haney for advocating in this project. this is all very exciting and we're preparing to compete with the transportation sales tax being presented by a virtual town hall. i invite all interested members of the public. on how these critical funds that we will leverage to compete for the federal grants. finally, colleagues, we're coming up on a sad anniversary, but one is important to recognize each year the world day for roadside traffic victims. the organized event will be held this sunday, november 21st, at 3:00 p.m. at city hall and is opened to all. participates will be in front of the memoriam. i've asked staff to agendize the hearing for the december 2nd hearing and
11:10 am
updates on the recently adopted action strategy and i look forward to the discussion with you all about how we can continue to make good on these commitments in san francisco. with that, colleagues, i conclude my remarks. and we should open this to public comment. >> and there's no public comment. >> hello, caller. >> caller: can you hear me now? >> yes, we can hear you. >> caller: good morning. david pilpel. three items to raised and so i thought i would raise it now because one of the items relates to what chair mandelman
11:11 am
just discussed. the federal funding issue. i am chair mandelman and i'm wondering if there's anything sfcta can do by letter of support if there hasn't been one already and maybe somebody can address that today or at a future meeting and given this morning's news, i'm wondering if there's anything else we might want or need or request from congress member spear who may only be there for another year. so just thinking about those two issues as related to the chair's report on public comment and the legislative update coming up on item seven. thanks for listening. >> thank you, caller. there are no more callers at this time.
11:12 am
>> chairman: okay. public comment on item three is closed. madam clerk, please call item four. >> clerk: item four, executive director's report. this is an information item. >> supervisor melgar: good morning chair mandelman and commissioners. i'm happy to provide today's report. today, the transformative investment that's being made nationally is so exciting to us and we do want to thank you all as well. every member of this board almost has indicated interest in or has been working on these issues for many years. we will have an item on today's agenda, so i'll leave some of that discussion to the next item. we are following very closely sort of the challenge by some of the unions in the state. we can brief you on that for more detail. as we gather more information,
11:13 am
it relates to a department of labor finding that the state of california led by the governor's office has been disputing and so there is some sort of negotiation happening to ensure that california's federal funds do not get limited by this issue that relates to some legislative changes that were made several years ago with regard to pension reform. for now, i think we can still continue to implement them in our projects. we've been checking with project sponsors and they have been continuing to implement and be reimbursed and being reimbursed for their federal funds. next, however, the yerba buena island west side bridges raise grant is really a tremendously exciting development. i want to thank agains, chair mandelman, yourself, and chair haney, we've been advocating closely with tida and the mayor's office, our federal
11:14 am
delegation, mtc and caltrans. it will take a few actions of our board as well as mtc and caltrans and we do hope to bring a ground breaking to you all in the new year perhaps in the early spring. i do also want to thank so many organizations industry and labor for their advocacy including the san francisco building and construction trades, local 38 and pipe fitters and local three heavy equipment operators who also advocated for this grant. turning to local issues. again, relating to treasure island. on november 3rd, i was pleased to join mayor breed and the director dennis herrara this
11:15 am
was to show case to ensure very rapid and environment alley sustainable services earlier than anticipated, the ta, we are supporting the development of the ferry landing as well as you know many pieces of the transportation program and so we're excited for things to really start delivering in the coming years including the west side bridges. thank you, chair, for mentioning the virtual town hall tonight. if we can come to your neighborhood organization. i was pleased to meet with two
11:16 am
groups in the past month. we discussed the economic recovery, the city, you know, funding opportunities as well as a whole host of other issues as folks are starting to come back to work. many of them are coming back physically to their offices in the new year. so there's high interest and transit in the condition of traffic at the bridge and then our streets to make sure that it's safe and as smooth as possible to come back to work and come back to visit san francisco. developing the next set of transportation. the bay view did see some awards from the air district. i want to thank commissioner
11:17 am
walton and this was an award to the grant program. two san francisco organizations will receive 100 thouchlt and the green action for health and with these funds, the groups will engage with organizations and environmental justice communities and develop air pollution mitigation strategies for the community. congratulations to both those organizations. finally, i will highlight that our transportation authority board has received for the third year in a row, a certificate of achievement for excellence and financial reporting. of this is the highest form of recognition in the area of governmental accounting and financial recording and it's a payment that represents a significant accomplishment by cynthia and her team. so congratulations to herself. our controller and the rest of the finance division.
11:18 am
with that, i conclude my remarks. >> chairman: thank you, madam executive director. let's open this up to public comment. >> okay. we're taking public comment and i'm checking to see if anybody would like to speak. there's no public comment at this time. >> chairman: okay. public comment on item four is closed. madam clerk, please call item five. >> clerk: item five, approve the minutes of the october 26, 2021, meeting. this is an action item. >> chairman: okay. i don't see comments or questions from colleagues. let's open item five to public comment. >> there's no public comment. >> chairman: public comment on item five is closed. is there a motion to approve item five? moved by chan. seconded by preston. thank you.
11:19 am
madam clerk, please call the role. >> clerk: [roll call] the minutes are approved. >> chairman: thanks, madam clerk. please call item six, our consent agenda. >> clerk: item 6 is the consent agenda. this item was first approved at the october 26th board meeting.
11:20 am
staff is not planning to present but is available for questions. >> chairman: i don't see comments or questions from colleagues. is there a motion to approve item 6? >> commissioner: so moved. >> chairman: thank you, commissioner preston seconded by commissioner chan. madam clerk, please call the roll. >> clerk: on item six, [roll call]
11:21 am
the consent agenda has final approval. >> chairman: okay. thank you. madam clerk, please call item seven. >> clerk: item seven state and federal legislation update. this is an information ute. >> chairman: there you are. >> good morning chair and commissioners as i reported previously the 2022 state budget for public transit, active transportation and this ultimately didn't move forward because there was not an agreement reached between the legislature and the governor
11:22 am
however, even as that funding kind of reverted back to the general plan late this year, there was still a commitment to continue conversations and potentially make transportation funds available as early as the new year last month the chair of the transportation committee submitted a request to the governor for so we've been working with mtc and the transit general manager to craft kind of a bay area request for what the transportation package should look like in the next year. so we're anticipating a transportation surplus, so mtc's initial letter attached to the memo supports the
11:23 am
request for high speed rail and seeks $10 billion in additional general funds, $5 billion of that for transit and then 25% through the state capital program and $1 billion and transportation as we await climate transportation products and the remaining will be up for discussion. so in the letter, mtc does kind of provide support or documentation need to support the request and does list some bay area priorities such as the cal train downtown extension, capacity. muni, fleet and replacement. so i believe we will be signing on to mtc's letter and continues to support their work as they're continuing to
11:24 am
coordinate with the sfmta and the mayor's office for any budget negotiation. so moving on to the federal level, i'm not going to repeat any of the exciting news, but just did want to note roughly of the $630 billion in funding that's directly available for transportation in the infrastructure and jobs act. some through the package while others are subject to annual preparations. there will still be plenty of work to be done for the next five years. and then bay area specifically, we heard about expecting. but with respect to the bay area, mtc has indicated they expect formula funds to grow
11:25 am
significantly, so the bay area over five years getting $3.4 billion versus the $2.3 billion and that primarily goes to state transit repair and other formula programs that support our operators and then the formula, the flexible roadway formula, so typically what mtc has put through is one program is expected to grow albeit more modestly to $1.1 billion. so with respect to the when we bring our state and federal program to you early next year.
11:26 am
so we're working with the mayor's office and the metro poll tan. with that, i'm pleased to have joining me who we brought on a few months ago given how exciting everything is and how much is happening. so really all right just really appreciated and have invited him here to now that the bill has passed. so welcome, jason, if you're here. >> good morning from washington or rather good afternoon. chair and vice chair commissioners. thank you for the opportunity to be here with you today. i have to say i've been a long time listener, first time caller. it's been great to watch from a far so it's been exciting to
11:27 am
work and partner up with your agency. first and foremost, i'd like to indicate a tremendous thanks and kudos to speaker pelosi. this infrastructure package and many great things associated with it to balance all of the myriad' challenges both the vehicle and policy to create this and can certainly, the commissioners on creating the environment to advocate for successfully advocate for having such a tremendous infrastructure package done. it's certainly no small matter. you ought to give yourself a fantastic pat on the back. this is a highly competitive program. only a billion dollars
11:28 am
nationally which if you think about it, it's not a tremendously huge pile. so, as noted by many other speakers here today, president biden just signed a transportation package given the make-up of the senate with a 50/50 split. congress passed at that time the authorization package and it was only $218 billion. so fast forward a generation later, just yesterday, the bill was $1.2 billion it was mostly
11:29 am
for roads and bridges. what they're doing now is truly different. money for the army so these are very significant things that i think or even the last reauthorization that was done in 2015. now, looking ahead as amber pointed out, you know, we had that delivered on the $22 trillion infrastructure bill. there are many other things still in the pipeline and we have limited senate floor time before now and before the end
11:30 am
of the year it is widely reported that they anticipate they will have it pass in the house, but there are several items. even once this passes in the house, the changes in the senate. we will anticipate it will undergo some additional changes. so it's still an issue but still a priority. but not only that, we also have the debt ceiling. that is a very that's generally a bipartisan measure and you
11:31 am
also have an item that we've talked about in the past and that is the annual we are functioning in a continue there's a cr that's kicking things out to about december 3rd, but given the lack of floor time and priority to others. through the end of this year and into next year. so bottom line is that there's still a whole lot more work to be done and i think that noted we'll be working hand and glove with the fantastic team to come
11:32 am
up with a nice plan on how to pursue the different. so thank you for your time again. i'm happy to answer any questions with amber and the rest of the team. thank you. >> chairman: thank you, mr. tai. do you have anything else for us? >> no. >> chairman: i don't see questions or comments from colleagues. let's open it up to public comment. >> okay. we have one caller: >> a couple of points this morning. i believe we should be clarifying that we are not the high speed rail, when we are
11:33 am
advocating for high-speed rail. second thing i want to bring to your attention is section 1850 which verifies that the high speed rate authority does not to plan, design, build, and finance with a maximum operating speed. in closing, i live in south san jose. and we would really appreciate san francisco's support to expand the cal train support. >> thank you, caller. hello, caller, your two minutes will begin now. >> caller: hello. i'm delighted to hear that more money will be coming from these
11:34 am
state and the federal for our transit needs. i'm really hoping that there's some money there to make sure that money comeses down to san francisco. thank you. >> thank you, caller. >> hello, caller, your two minutes will begin now. >> thank you. >> caller: thank you. my pronouns are she and her. i think i'm qualified to speak anyway. i think that to support this project, we have to be vision areas. i want this project to be
11:35 am
completed but we can't finish it until we do the connections from san jose into the central valley and then from bakersfield over to the mountains. if we indicate we want to have high speed rails coming into san francisco, we have to fill in the gaps and we've had gaps in places for many years. so i ask for your advocacy, we have to place it where it matters most and that is to fill in the gaps. thank you. there are no more callers. >> chairman: thank you. public comment is closed. >> clerk: item eight. opt a plan. this is an action item. >> and i believe we have
11:36 am
someone here to present. let me confirm you can see it. >> chairman: yes. >> great. hello. my name is eric reeves. i'll be presenting on the option of the 2021 prop-k strategic plan. last month, i provided a detailed presentation on this item, so i won't go through the slides you see in detail before. there have been no subs changes that i provided last month and
11:37 am
it's typically updated every five years and was most recently updated in 2019. we are conducting a mid cycle update due to the covid-19 pandemic and its negative sdakt. we can ensure we're able to pay for our existing grants and we can support future allocations of prop-k sales tax. at the same time, we want to bridge to the reauthorization of the sales tax and through this mid cycle update, we have projects in the near term. we worked with our economic advisors for propk which is 4% less or $29 million which we
11:38 am
previously projected and with an overall projection of funds. i'll now turn focus to the amendments of the five year prioritization programs. which is reflecting on the next few slides. to work with sponsors to ensure that priorities are funded. one way of doing in a is identifying projects that need increased levels of funding. as part of this update, paratransit operation funding will be increased to provide near term funding abilities and bridge to the reauthorization of the sales tax. additional funding for muni vehicles mid life an additional
11:39 am
4.2 the application based program has seen an increase in programs and can construct a traffic calming devices at locations. additionally, we work with b. a.r.t. to identify top priority fundings. to advance funds with this update, we advance funds for certain priority projects where additional funding will support the next project development work and this project is seeking to enter the federal transit administration capital investment grant program. additionally, there was a contract that was relying on which has been impacted by the pandemic.
11:40 am
in this five-year period. prop-k funding for the communication based train control project will support a $3 million effort which support our board approved by this board. with reductions to programming for the geary bus rapid transit project which would be discussed later during this meeting. and west side rail funding will be for both sfmta and the transportation authority. the candle stick active mobility represents the eastern segment of the bus rapid transit project and for the transit enhancements, there are multiple eligible operators for the $2.7 million available in this category. lastly, the mission geneva pavement renovation program complements the funding to this project and is part of another
11:41 am
item on this agenda. and, with that, i will take any questions. >> chairman: thank you. i do not see comments or questions. i do from commissioner chan. >> commissioner: thank you, chair mandelman. if i could -- and thank you so much for the presentation. i think i am aware of the change that the strategic plan is making, impacting geary b.r.t. and i am in support of it. i think for our, you know, i think for the public and i think for my colleagues as well as really the constituents for district one. i would like to dive a little bit deeper into that change and the strategic plan in terms of
11:42 am
funding that will now go towards focus which also is beneficial or impactful for cricket one but also will go to other projects like 14 mission. >> i'm happy to take that question through the chair, commissioner chan. thank you very much for the question. this is probably the most significant update in the strategic plan as proposed. the item that is, let's see item nine on your agenda today is a proposal to the board bus
11:43 am
rapt so it's essentially saying that -- >> chairman: i think that's ten. >> item ten. thank you. so that is allowing for mta to use existing grants. one of the aspects of the side running alignment is it has a significantly lower cost and when the strategic plan were approved it may have been two plans ago, the total funding in the plan was about $33 million and it was to fund a project costing $240 million. so what we are recommending in
11:44 am
this strategic plan update is to provide $10 million for geary and to release or reprogram in our world that funding to other transit projects that are ready to go. the muni forward projects that you mentioned are planning to request construction funding this year and to make permanent some of the transit priority lanes that have been in effect for the last year or two. so there will be $10 million in programming for geary. this is about 20% of the estimated cost of designed construction for the size running alignment for phase two, so it will still allow for match to federal grants or other projects we expect to be very debtive for. >> commissioner: and to clarify, the original with the project that has the center running, it's approximately, how much again? total. like $200 million?
11:45 am
>> it was about $240 million. >> commissioner: $240 million. and if the community so choose for the geary to be running, it's roughly like a quarter of it is about $50 million. so it significantly drops in the total cost of the project of allocation. therefore, is dropped from $30 million to $10 million. is that correct. so, with that, too that does not mean is there is no funding. in this case, we're still
11:46 am
talking about. we are looking at 30 stockton and 14 mission. for a city wide perspective, it's to increase connectivity. >> that's exactly right. and in addition, there is a small place holder of $3 million working with mta for the next group of projects to be implemented with those funds. >> commissioner: i want to thank you sfmta and working with our project. and i think that's roughly about to be completed which that cta staff has been working closely with our team to really also work with assembly member who now has i just want to put
11:47 am
it on record saying that. but also to, you know, be transparent about this change. i want to make sure running lane for the community living in district one. so i just want to highlight that and chair mandelman, thank you for your indulgence for me to put this out there. >> chairman: thank you. commissioner mar. >> commissioner: thank you. i just want to thank sfmta and
11:48 am
mca on your work. i'm really glad to see investments in west side rail included and specifically for the development of a geary 19th avenue corridor strategy as the pandemic has emphasized, we need to serve trips between neighborhoods, not just between neighborhoods and downtown will be transformative and necessary to meet our climate and sustainability goals. and supervisor melgar and i convened a hearing in the land use hearing yesterday
11:49 am
particularly on the west side as we're planning for increasing housing density on the west side. so thanks again for all the work on this and the court to seeing all these important projects move forward. >> chairman: thank you, commissioner mar. let's open this item for public comment. >> clerk: are all right. >> hello, caller. your two minutes begins now. >> caller: thank you, chair mandelman for the record. my pronouns are she and her. excuse me. lots of good things. i certainly support signal priority. it's not efficient for buses to
11:50 am
be sitting at stoplights and the light will change. that's an equity forward program. power transit, of course, is very important. people should not have to wait in amounts of time for a power transit. power transit is the mandate. we have to make sure we keep up with that and new signalling, yes, it's porn. filling gaps we have to ask you why do we have lower than anticipated tax revenues. i'm doing my part. everything should do their part and we've got to work on our
11:51 am
signals. they're out of date. it's the way to go. anyway. >> caller: david pilpel. i'm wondering about the next item. if the side running environmental review. and with regard to the $3.5 million to study the west side the rail project.
11:52 am
for the west side rail project. i don't think the land use density and travel patterns support it now or in the and i think brt improvements
11:53 am
including those on geary, 19th avenue and park presidio that have already been approved and many of which has been implemented. to achief most of the travel time savings. >> chairman: i do have some comments and questions about the geary brt changes, but i think we can take those up under item ten. so is there a motion to approve item eight? looks like commissioner chan. is there a second? >> supervisor haney: second. >> chairman: seconded by commissioner haney. madam clerk, let's call the
11:54 am
role. >> clerk: [roll call] you have eight ayes. the item has approval on its first approval and first reading. >> chairman: thank you, madam clerk. please call
11:55 am
11:56 am
>> and also to target other intersections that have some faulty equipment in the sense it allows for extended green lights or to bring up green lights earlier. it also upgrades the signal timing to the latest standards and allow for remote monitoring for equipment the next request is a double.
11:57 am
these for the paving work for mission and geneva and this work would be and this is a request for the sfmta for the safety and transit elements of this project which will be joint with the paving project as well as sfpuc work under one contract with improvements ranging from curb management on geneva and traffic signals and new and upgraded with paving and starting but under the
11:58 am
ground with the sfpuc's work. pleased to see this advancing. propk funds will be for the safety elements. transit safety and then this next request is a neighborhood program request and i would like to invite camille from our staff to give some remarks on this request. >> thanks, anna. good morning, chair mandelman, commissioners. senior transportation planner and here to present the ocean avenue mobility action plan request. [please stand by]
11:59 am
12:00 pm
12:01 pm
12:02 pm
if we look at theintersection there is a 13 percent reduction . >> what overall in the system when we have thisfully implemented what do we think the improvements should be like ? >> what we've seen other cities that have done without any other improvements like moving forward, they seem improvements of upto 10 percent in travel time . so we are hoping to reach at least 10 percent with all the benefits. >> do we have a sense of how far awayfrom that we are ? >> not at the moment. i think the next body will give us abetter sense of where we're at .
12:03 pm
in 2019, we focused on the entire corridor or without the smaller segment so we're hoping that by breaking it down next year as well as the board will giveus a better idea of where we are at . >> sorry, last question. how much has the project cost so far since2020 ? >> i've been involved in the project for about a year. i think today we probably spent about 10, $12 million onit . i think the original amount estimated for the entire program was 30 million. given the cuts that we saw in the last year, i think we are expecting to reduce the cost.
12:04 pm
>> your expecting to reduce the cost. >> i feel like now only at the single station but we skipped in the past through rapid routes the locations that were under construction. we're also looking at corey doris with the emergency transit lanes project. but we found at the time they were very important so we're adding those locations as well so that maybe wecan focus on the first round of deployment . so in the original scope we had
12:05 pm
a broader picture but we're going to access every intersection. right now for this ask where only looking at again locations where we would install cfb since they were under construction or there was no signal or locations that are important for us to pass psc. >> i've been hearing about transit signal priority for a long time in san francisco and it does sound like they've been working on this for about a decade. it's just curious that it sounds like we haven't implemented the full product we were envisioning in 2012 with a relatively modest improvement based on what we've done . this does feel like one of those areas where reasonable people it seems like it could
12:06 pm
have a significant impact on the importanceof our system . with such modest improvement. i see commissioner safai's hand up. and he is still muted. >> thank you chair mandelman. i wanted to say a few words about this. i appreciate the opportunity to speak. this is a very high and recorded or in the mission geneva area. a woman tragically lost her life last year in this area and aredoing our mission plan we've been working on for years so
12:07 pm
i'm very excited about this and i fully support this allocation . thank you for allyour hard work. >> president: thank you commissioner safai. let's open this item to public comment . >> clerk: here we go. hello caller, youhave 2 minutes . >> caller: thank you, chair mandelman. transit signal priority is ver important and i would like to experience it . i think we should have an aspirational goal of putting this technology on every traffic signal that coincides with a light rail route in the city and county of sanfrancisco because it requires continuity . if you do it in a few places here and there the effect will really be minimal because there has to be a flow to the vehicles being able to traverse the distance as opposed to it
12:08 pm
looking like being fairly limited in scope so i think we have to keep on going withthis as i do ride the buses and it matters . yes, i would support fixing the pavement on mission and geneva and looking at this map i have some experience with the area. i have visited the jewish home of san francisco which is located near the corner of avalon and mission street and is an area with a lot of senior population and i have almost tripped a couple of times on sidewalks so sidewalk priority and potholes needto be fixed . this is basic . i often think of people who call themselves representative pothole . i think we've just got to fix the potholes and cracks in the
12:09 pm
area and get this work done. thankyou . >> clerk:thank you caller . there are no more colors. >> president: thank you, public titan comment on item 9 is closed. isthere a mission to approve item 9 ? thank you commissioner chan. is there a second? >> second, safai. >> president:thank you commissioners. madam clerk please call the roll on item 9 . [roll call vote]
12:10 pm
>>. [roll call vote] >> clerk: you have 9 aye. the item has approval. >> president: please call item 10. >> clerk: item 10, amend the geary bus rapid transit phase 2 conceptual engineering report project to revise the scope and the obligate $1,892,152 $6,319,470 in profit k funds. this is an action item. >> president: i believe we have
12:11 pm
and here if i'm getting your name right. >> good morning chairman commissioners. give me one second to scare mice share my screen. so i'm here to talk about the grant amendment for the geary bus rapid engineering project that's come up a few times this morning . i was going to talk about the amendment itself and i will hand it over to liz to go through a presentation and the proposed changes in the project itself. so back in july2015 , the authority allocated a little over $6.3 million in profit k funds for phase 2 of the project for the conceptual
12:12 pm
engineering report.phase ii of course is everything west of stand-in street up to 34th avenue .that is that segment that originally was designed to be side running its extremities but then was between arguello. of that $6.3 million at 2.7 million has beenspent today . there's about 1.8 million that mta needs to complete the amended scope and there's about 1.9 million they no longer need because of the proposed switch from a center on transit way. and the side running transit lanes because it's a less complex cohort . so the new recommendation is that the portion that was previously proposed to the senate transit way would not now be a side running bike lanes the entire corridor of the way up to 34th avenue would be consistently side running. and these are all much lower lower level of work because of the less complex design and that's why there's lessneeded for this haze of the project .
12:13 pm
this also includes amending the scope to include additional outreach and additional work required for updating environmental project approval so that means additional sql works, additional updated on the federal transit administration record of record decision on the project. so the overall scope of the amendment would include an additional outreach around towards the beginning of 2022 and another outreach around later in 2022 and then that's in addition to the first outreach rounds where they went out and madepublic the proposal to switch to side running alternatives . a couple of months ago. it would include the cr design package so for the central portion it would be side running and also go through the approval process which includes
12:14 pm
preparing the revised design for policy approvals as well as the environmental documentatio updates . and with that i will hand it over to mta. >> thank you dan and good morning chairman and commissioners i think i'm going to take over the screen if you can bear with me for one second . while those are coming up, i am the planning and project approval lead for both phases of the geary rapid bus transit project. can you see the slide? so the subject is for the second phase of the project but i have a couple of slides to give product context including the first phase so the first phase we've been calling the geary rapid project including improvements between market and
12:15 pm
stand-in street as shown on the map and the second phase as dance on runs 2/34 avenueand is being called the geary boulevard improvement project . we are really happy with how implementation of the first phase of the project has gone. we just what we call a quick build phase of the project which happened shortly after we finished legislating that phase in 2018 included installing side running bus lanes. as well as making some changes to the locations of bus stops as well as retarding the traffic signals in the corridor. those efforts together we saw about a 20 percent improvement in travel time for the rapid service. and we do expect hopefully some additional benefits as we evaluate the.of improvements
12:16 pm
just recently wrapped up which include a state inplay and upgrades to our transitsignal priority system . repaving and coloring the lanes read . the other aspect of the project success that we're proud of is that we were able to deliver on time on budget relatively cost-effectively. total cost for the first phase of the project was about $36 million for the transportation scope and was combined with another $30 million of coordinated work offered by other city agencies, primarily water and sewer updates sponsored by the puc as well a repaving work . we just did the ribbon cutting made substantial completion for the project last month and it was about three years or the total constructionand implementation phase of the project . so with the success of the
12:17 pm
first phase of the project in terms of seeing good transit performance savings, both on the first phase of the project as well as the emergency transit lanes wesaw sudden segments of. as a part of our response . we are now recommending moving to a side configuration for the entire limits of the project. so the difference, the top processing shows what the original proposal has been between our arguello and 28 avenue with bus lanes in the side of the street and boarding islands on either side of the bus lane and the bottom image shows what the side running configuration looks like where the street generally stays the same as it does today. the median stays in the same location and the lanes adjacent to the on street parking becomes a bus lane.
12:18 pm
so just a little bit of a summary of the main reasons we are proposing this change. one is it allows us to accelerate the delivery of much of the transit and safety benefits of the project. the build phase of gary rapid with this version of the project we will be able to install the rest of the transit lanes, bus stop changes in some of the safety improvements as early as the second half of next year and it also allows us to limit the construction disruption associated with the project . with the side running project deconstruction happens more at spot locations. where there are either muscles, and both are signal updates whereas with the center running configuration you need to do more for linear construction for the whole segment where
12:19 pm
you're removing the median building. and it also gives us the most transit operational flexibility as well as preserve local stops. this refers to one of the trade-offs with the prior center running designs where there wasn't enough room for bus passing lanes so that rapid and work ones were going to stop at all locations within the transit place on the other hand this meant there were going to be more frequent stops for the rapid and are today. that means that rapid would have to slow down a little to serve as additional stops in some of the extra travel time and then on the flipside the local was going to stop today so some people making short trips would have had to walk furtheron either end of the trip . and it improves the cost-effectiveness of the transit travel time and i think as was being discussed earlier
12:20 pm
there is a pretty big difference in anticipated cost of the project as compared to $235 million being the process that was put together for the center running phase of the project during environmental review process where estimating about $50 million for this version of the project. and it also avoids the need to remove the trees in the center median which was a hot budget issue for some stakeholders. so this image illustrates the main scope items, the including bus lanes which is our we already talked about. folds, involves, traffic signal upgrades. being the main new physical improvements associated. these outlines are processed. we have just wrapped up a first
12:21 pm
phase of outreach for this design phase of the project where we both socialized the reasons we're recommending moving to this different design as well as sought location specific feedback about things we should pay special attention to as we do the design on a block by block basis so people were invited to give input on any specific locations that are bottlenecks for the 38 locations that may be difficult to find parking or loading today. as well as traffic safety challenges and input on our proposed bus stop changes. i will note that one of the bigger changes associated with this was going to be a part of the center version of the project is there is a portion of geary boulevard that is
12:22 pm
currentlyangled parking and in order to make room for the bus lanes needs to switch to parallel parking . so that pretty much prompts us to do a whole new curve plan for the corridor. it's important for us to get as much feedback as possible about how to put the curb in practice that's going to meet everyone's needs as best as possible and the other changes that have happened on nearby streets that affects the supply of parking in the area and we're trying to look ascomprehensively as we can at that situation and get the right input to make those decisions and recommendations . so for right now sort of finalizing reviewing all the feedback that we got on the bridge. and we're trying a more detailed design that shows on a block basis what the proposed changes would look like so where there the bus bulbs. where would there be those etc. and you plan to do a second
12:23 pm
round ofoutreach for early next year where we would share these drawings and give the public chance to weigh in and let us know if we got right or where we might be making changes . after that we would be seeking project approval hopefully sometime in the summer of next year. as well as do the quick build implementation phase of the project . it wouldbe about 1 to 2 years to do design 1 to 2 years for construction for the rest of the project . that schedule would firm up after we finishcoordinating with our partner agencies about coordinating scopes such as water and sewer and repaving . one other thing to note that came up in some of the public comment on it and earlier item is there is a need to do some additional documentation for environmental purposes. the side running alternative was one of the alternatives was
12:24 pm
analyzed in the eir and eis and that alternative was analyzed at a level of detail so we don't expect a need to do any new environmental impact for court statements but it's likely there will be minor changes to the scope that we just need to do that proves they're not going to create any new tax and mitigation measures hold so pretty much the gap between our early next year outreach and approval is giving us the time to do that needed documentation before we seek approval action. and i think that concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions . >> president: thank you. i am looking for comments or questions , commissioner chan. >> i am in agreement that geary phase i is a pace of success
12:25 pm
and that i also think there are learned lessons from ssp to rt with the center running late. i think the combination of an sbr t and the phase i of geary we are now reaping the benefits from those lessons learned for this second phase which creates benefits that are in district 1 so i appreciate that. i am in support of just mta and cpa have been in partnership together with the especially the phase 2 moving forward. and i really am also appreciate thinking about the block by block design. while i know that it is intense if i believe is a labor of love for the community to make sure
12:26 pm
that as we move forward with the second phase it meets the needs of our community in the district. and i also think that a pandemic has changed richmond a lot. for better or for worse. it really has changed significantly and some of the road closures both in glenn highway and not to mentionsort of the base service public transit service impact . all those things need to be addressed comprehensively i think in the coming year . but at the same time i think that it is a parallel half that we need to take on for geary the rt by running options from
12:27 pm
stanchion up to 34th avenue it's a worthwhile discussion to be had in the coming year. so i am in support of it. i do want to make with that, i do want to make an amendment to this item though. fundamentally it's to make sure that we keep up with the momentum that we've been havin . the conversation with our community.i think we are having a conversation with the community in the district that because of the pandemic it's hard for me to tell . white, how the communities are reacting and are they paying attention to the significant change to gary because it different from what we have found previously . so i think it's my commitment and i think that mta and cta would agree with me. the teams would agree with me that we really need to make sure that communities get the
12:28 pm
change. of a side running lanes for what was, what were our weekly off, via bus stop for parking space. i don't think we really need to make sure that we drill down so that makes the public outreach a critical space in the upcoming months. to make sure that we do it right. so my amendment i do want to propose and i look forward to kind of help me clarify but it's especially to really make sure that we continue the closed communications to propose a draft project design. a block basis and that we reviewed the preliminary assessments and benefits that impact each phase that we do come back and have this conversation with our cta and our office and to make sure that we do understand and that
12:29 pm
identify cost estimates and funding plans and that we really do have conversations in making sure that we have a really in-depth and diverse inquisitive outreach materials for public outreachfor round two . so i want to make sure that the amendments that i am thinking about our consistent to what cta staff has also been in conversation with my team as well . >> absolutely commissioner chan. we have a condition in our recommendation already but it sounds like you might want to put more teeth on it . with all due respect. what we have in the past materials right now follows the fourth deliverable. prior to conductingpublic outreach , we have to staff shall provide the following to
12:30 pm
transportation authority staff. with sufficient time for review and comment. project designs on a block by block basis, preliminary assessments of benefits and attacks . cost estimate and funding plans and draft outreach serials for apublic outreach round two so this would all be provided for . but it sounds like you might want some agreements or some communication that specifically outlines the green light possibly before outreach round to please provide us feedback and i can respond. >> i think specifically to insert the language for forms to be held before outreach round two and to be released after mta president block by block . >>.
12:31 pm
>> we say since a portion of these funds are to help mta get to that point and to do that work that i think it's maybe maybe 1.2 million would be helpful of the 1.7. that mispricing,does that work for you ? >> i think so. we had a little coordination on this in advance and we actually have already set up a meeting with some of the staff in your office to go through what our recommendations are. so i think having some of the money to get us the rest of the way to that is useful but i think we will have a cash flow implication if we need to wait for the completion of that . >> i really appreciate everybody coming together and
12:32 pm
working together and making sure we come to an agreement before we leave but it's to further take another step before we, let's be in lockstep and say on the same page as we continue and byway of ms. braxton, my team definitely appreciate your good work . my colleagues on my team have been a point of contact and we appreciate partnership with you and she thinks your all-time so iappreciate the partnership . that would be my amendment to the item. >> i will say i am a little confusedabout the contents of the amendment. is this to the resolution , this is how they come back and as they come back with a block by block design and cost and benefitanalysis .
12:33 pm
the whole of thefund is 1.2 million total . on of 1.7 so this is an additional result clause or is this an amendment to a result clause? what are we amending? >> i believe it would be an additional result and it would be to put 1.2 million ofthe funding on reserve to be released by the board . pending agreement between the district one supervisor's office transportation authority staff and sf mta on the blockby block proposal and a cost-benefit analysis . preliminaryassessment benefit . >> summit is going to have to make that change to the minutes for this meeting and just whoever is going to have to make the changes to that resolution clear. i believe i understand what
12:34 pm
they said. itwould need to become an additional result clause . >> the board weneed to add this condition and there would be a vote on implementation . >> two result of the resolution. >> to amend the item. to have this condition. and then you would vote on the amendeditem. >> are a clerk and attorney clear on what we're doing ? >> we are clear. >> so there's been amotion to amend the him approval . of the approval resolution. is there a second? >> before we do can we take public comments first? >> president: certainly, i like to have a second. seconded by commissioner walto
12:35 pm
. all right. that item is out there. there's anamendment to be voted on . a motion and a second and then an amendment to be voted on along with the underlying item. are there other comments or questions ? okay. i do have i guess comments or clarifications that i would like to have and i understand it sounds like what's happening is this is a good example of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. finding the original proposal
12:36 pm
for crt on geary was not going to work. were notgoing to achieve the goals that mta has and that there's an alternative project that achieves many of those goals or maybe even achieves those goals better and that is what's being proposed is what i'm believing . i will say i have been hearing about geary crt i've got to say 20 years. what we are proposing to act on today doesn't feel like crt to me which may be fine and may actually be better but i'm curious if mta or staff can talk a bit about that trade-off if anything is being lost in this transfer or changeaway from crt . >> i'm happy to start. i think what you said i would agree with and i think there are trade-offs between the two designs and we've kind ofmoved away from calling the project
12:37 pm
the prt project as we talk about the two phases of implementation . some of the trade-offs as it relates to the second phase of the project is the center running design on the one hand did something that protected transit the most from traffic because it would physically be medians on either side to protect the bus from cars whereas the side running lanes of course cars are legally allowed to to those lanes either to add parking or make right turns . and sometimes noteveryone obeys all rules . but on the flipside and i mentioned this in my presentation because there wasn't going to beroom for lanes , some of the lanes you would have expected to see because of that greater protection you lose by making the bus stop more frequently as well as because it was only going to be a relatively small
12:38 pm
segment. there's also additional timing needed to give special signals to the center and back out again. so in terms of the transit performance benefits assuming we are able to keep the scope of the project as written in the eir with the side running runningtransit lanes , we expect the overall transit lanes to be similar. i would say the other two trade-offs have to do with construction disruption which i covered clearly less with side running them center. parkingimpact . you do lose more parking sites because the locations where the bus stops are locations with a center runningdesign would be able to see parking .
12:39 pm
and i think cost. i think i left most of them ou . >> you laid out the positives. iwas curious about the negative , the primary negative is not having the dedicated lane to know what the cars can be in. i suppose you feel that is counterbalanced by the fact you have buses that are trying to accomplish different things in the same lane so that would complicate either your limited would become less valuable than the limited or you know, or you would lose soft for the locals. and i guess i'm curious though that doesn't said i have the same problem? >> they have thetiered local and rapid services , the ability to pass was relevant
12:40 pm
there. the design is a little bit different in that the medians aren't going to be consistently single median. so in theory there would be moreopportunity for us to go around the obstruction is needed as well ? >> i'm curious how the eir analyzed this bison bike lane like what were the environmental conclusions about that project . wasit environmentally preferable , feasible, what did the eir say? >> my theory isn't environmental so i don't want to say something wrong but in general i think that the version of the project that was previously selected was an environmentally superior
12:41 pm
alternative but there were dramatically different changes. there were dramatic differences between center running and running version of the project . so we do need to do some additional documentation and pretty much we know that all of the relevant impacts should have been identified as part of the analysis alternative in the eir and write mitigation measureswere identified there. >> why would center running the environmentally superior . >> this is why i shouldn't have said anythingi don't recall. we can get into it and it might i may have even said the wrong thing . >> director changed. >> since i was one of the few people who was involved in still around back then during the eir state at the time we did still havethe old metrics for transportation analysis which was a delay metric . the mta's are of course in the sideline they have to contend
12:42 pm
with parking vehicles. whereas the center you know there's less conflict. so nowadays since the reform that we adopted as a city that no longer uses delays the nda and vehicle miles traveled, the analysis might be different but essentially i think the sidelines would have similar almost as similar benefits as the center but would rely on more parking removal and perhaps right turn lanes such as what we documented in the original eir and if we didn't have all those features and benefits would not be quite as great perhaps although the baseline conditions have also changed as commissioner chan mentioned with the lower traffic and post covid conditions. >> president: presumably silaneshave the same problem, you're seeing recurring lanes
12:43 pm
where cars parking them . >> those are the natural restrictions of the silane but perhapscan be combined with other treatments , turning pockets and whatnot but those also sometimes compete so that's why the block by block design will be very helpful . >> president: let's open this item forpublic comment . >> clerk: hello caller. >> can you hear me now. so to follow up on some of chair mandelman's comments, this is crt, it's a different version but this is busrapid transit . it's more rapid, it's transit. there are always trade-offs but in my view this change is
12:44 pm
better for passengers and for many passengers because they'r closer to the curb and the sidewalks .there's not the weaving from curb to center lane and back. thank you for answering my other question. i will follow up with staff off-line and i would suggest as sta developing moreconsistent approach to reviewing major corridor projects .things like geary, vanness, market but also caravelle. there was a prior project on the tarot. there's existing work on 19th avenue and i would suggest finding a major corridor and having a consistent approach to funding scheduling, hearing updates proposing changes, consultation with supervisors offices etc. would be useful.
12:45 pm
many of these projects may be behind us now but there will be others in the future and i would suggest that having a consistentapproach to those kind of major projects would b useful for everyone involved . staff, public and decision-makers, etc. . >> clerk: thank you caller. hello, caller. >> clerk: >> caller: my name is christopher peterson. two comments, first of all with this new design as people have indicated it will be crucial to give a lot of thought and attention to how to minimize columns associated withparking cars , double parked cars, double parked vehicles with side awnings, those have potential to be big enough problems to serve, sort of
12:46 pm
remove most of the benefits of this project and i think. in phase 2 is quite different from restrictive geary in phase i so with the success of phase i might not necessarily translate to phase 2. my other comment relates to the details of the proposed amendment.it sounds like a by you might deceptively give one commissioner veto power over the design of the block by block improvements . but i hope that is not the case. if there is a disagreement that can't be resolved between the agencies and particular commissioner, that's something that should be resolved by the commissions as a whole . there should be no single commissioner who has veto power over the details. thank you. >> thank you caller. hello, caller.
12:47 pm
your two minutesbegins now . >> caller: thank you chair. olivia dupree for the record, she and her. i speak as auser of various forms of rapid transit . i favor a site running configuration . and not just because it costs less. it's less invasive industry construction. and it reduces the potential conflict of impact between vehicles and pedestrians. in additional cross strings that are required to reach the bus stop. and no, people shouldn't be running and facing other buses. but there is that additional temptation there. and when we create an additional hurdle for somebody to get to the busstop . and whenever you build center
12:48 pm
running lanes like icds and parts of las vegas there is more invasive construction work which takes longer to be able to complete the project and then it makes it more difficult to if you want to make future changes to the streets. i think that the site running plan in this case really is the ideal. we can get a lot more work done for less money and time. thank you. there are no more colors. >> public comment on this item is closed. we have a motion on the table which has been seconded to amend the item. please madam clerkcall the roll on that amendment . >> before i call the roll and
12:49 pm
like to ask the state proposed amendmentjust to be clear on what we're voting for . >> you. so we would amend the resolutionaccordingly as follows . amend the staff recommendation 2.1 $.2 million this funding on reserve to be released by the board pending the agreement between the district supervisor's office , transportation authority staff and sf mta staff on the proposed draft project designs on a block by block basis and review of preliminary assessments that benefits and impacts cross estimate and funding plan and draft outreach materials for public outreach round two. it would be an itemthat comes back to the board for release . >> president: formally that's third resolved clause, right ?
12:50 pm
>> clerk: there would be a whereas added and a result added. >> clerk: on themotion to amend, staff recommendation, commissioner chan .[roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote]
12:51 pm
>> president:please call item 11 . >> we would need to make. >> is there a motion on the amended item. i moved by commissioner chan, is there a second. seconded by walton.mansour please call the roll. >>. [roll call vote]
12:52 pm
>> did you get supervisor safai? >> clerk: i did. we have 9aye's. the motion passes . >> thank you madam clerk, please call item 11. >> transportation agency updates andinformation item . >> president: and we have director tomlin and director kirschfound . or maybe just director kirsch found. >> can you see the presentation? >> yes. >> thank you for the
12:53 pm
opportunity to provide what's been basically a bimonthly update for about the past year on muni service restorations. today's feedback that were seeking is specifically policy guidance regarding the staff recommendations for our early 2022 service restoration and generally appreciate the opportunity to work together on our shared goals of equity and economic recovery and fighting climate crisis. i also do want to start by thanking all of the neighboring staff. who are working tirelessly to deliver the service that they have been doing so through this difficult time. as well as all the new staff that are taking a chance during
12:54 pm
this time of uncertainty and joining the agency and really making this stuff and possible. i am proud ofmuni's continued service . display has slowed down town recovery with about 50 percent of our pandemic ridership with weakened ridership closer to60 percent . we have eight of our weekend writer alliance that are over 80 percent service recovery and all san franciscans can easily access a muni stop although as you know some people are having to transfer or may not have the express option that they had three covid some people are walking further than they did. during the pandemic we have been restoring service since we had a very major service
12:55 pm
restriction in april of 2020 that was based on our resource levels as well as changing ridership hires. most of our restoration has been focused on adding back service that we had before 2020 but there's also places where we have increased midday frequencies more than what we had three covid. we've also created new opportunities including the 15 people express as well as some extensions that were outlined in the muni equity strategy such as the 56 rutland in connections to the 29 sunset . but there are still six all day munirocks we haven't restored and recommendations today address how to best serve these corridors within our current resource constraints .
12:56 pm
we're very grateful to the thousands ofemployees who have gotten vaccinated .i know this board has been tracking closely how the vaccination process has impacted ourability to deliver service . i am proud to share that now 90 percent of employees are vaccinated. we also have a number are partially vaccinated and working through that process . as well as some that are still in reasonable accommodation process. unfortunately though because of staffing levels and attendance we are still missing approximately 70 to 150 operator shifts a day. we have put in some steps to minimize those impacts to customers what they're still feeling it particularly on our weekend service. we did graduate a new class
12:57 pm
last friday. it was one of the most bonded classes that i've seen . 20 of the 21 people that started the class made it through. to the graduation process and they were just so enthusiastic and excited about the role they were going to be playing to support san francisco mobility. i have one morecost graduating this year, that would be in mid-december . and we're continuing to use all of the tools available to us to try to close these service gaps including offering new incentives to our operators as well as overtime incentives. the winter service expansion is essentially focused on once we close these near-term gaps and continue our hiring, how are we going to allocate those staff so we do expect that we will be
12:58 pm
able to increase service by about 10 percent with the hiring we're going to be doing between now and the february our march timeframe. that includes operators but also includesother key positions like mechanics . we're about to hire our largest class of line workers in five years so a lot of hiring needed to make all of this possible. i was here in september. we talked through three possible approaches to restoring the service. we did extensive outreach process to get feedback. and we heard thousands of responses, some through the survey which i know we had concerns about. we do want to share those responses were alsosupplemented by dozens of conversations .
12:59 pm
in person on the phone to different community groups as well as feedback. if i were to categorize the inputs . what we've heard was that people really needed some of the key connections that the routes that we haven't restored yet were providing.and how long-term there may be an interest in more frequencyand shorter waiting times . the people that rely on our system the most are getting difficulty accessing key locations so the service recommendations do very much favor restoring service to areas that do not currently have it. yet the draft recommendations, i'm not going to go through them and full detail but they're all available on the project website which is
1:00 pm
sfmta.com. they do include a combination of some rats that are fully restored but perhaps lower frequencies. >> i'm going to go back. it was a little bit out of order. but i'll do it now.the reason i added a specific slide on the 88x and bx, i did add the ga are hearing that we had share but i wanted to reemphasize it because we're getting a lot of community questions and concerns about it. we received later in the process we received feedback about from the community about wanting to restore the 8x and bx. the eighth bayshore has been running very frequently but the 8x and bx which three covid had
1:01 pm
not been running. their unique express routes because they're not extra service. they're just a redesigned service. and they offer quicker trips for people that are coming from visitation valley and the othe mission to downtown . as shown in the blue line on the bx and for folks on the 88x it provides less crowding because customers are starting with an empty bus as their leaving bayshore. i wanted to take some time on this to share that we will be adding to the staff recommendation that the 88x and eight bx be restored as part of the winter service changes. and we're working now to get the word out to some of the key
1:02 pm
neighborhoods that have advocatedfor this change . some of the other changes include restoring some routes but not their fault length so for example the 21 would operate from the civic center to the st. mary hospital. the two clinics would operate essentially the jewish community center presidio in california. along southern to the downtown. and we would also be restoring articulated buses on the five rapid as well as adding service on the 38 rapid about a 20 percent increase as we have seen crowding onthat corridor .
1:03 pm
i didn't want to take some time to talk through the j church which is an area that we have been getting a lot of questions on. the j church is a complex changebecause it not only affects j customers but all of our rail routes . the feedback we are currently operating the j church unjust on the service from church and market to the park and the feedback we've heard from customers is that this change has made it difficult to get downtown. people don't like to have to transfer . avery's concernsabout their pavement conditions which is being addressed . as well as some safety concerns related to the intersection of church and market. we also know through some of our technical analysis that the
1:04 pm
not having the j and the subway along with some of the other changes we've made is having a huge benefit to the reliability of service. and i'm just going to in the interest of time skip to slide 13 which summarizes some of the incidents. for j customers the travel time is about the same but they have to transfer. i think it's important to just fly back for many j customers this is not an improvement. having to make a transfer when youdidn't before can create challenges , it can create opportunities for trip breakdown. but for our other routes we are seeing significant travel time savings anywhere from 15 to 20 percent savings. the most happening on the and lines in part because it's benefiting from quicker times in the subway as well as quicker times entering the subway and is notcompeting with
1:05 pm
the j lines . delays between stations have also been reduced significantly. prior to covid we had a lot of instances with people trying to exit west portal who would be stuck between forest health and west portal. same was true in the morning as we added into the downtown people could be near the station but theywouldn't be able to get off the train because of cueing and congestion . so not only are we seeing reductions in the leg but we're seeing much more consistent travel times. the reason we initially focused on the j is because it is the only line that uses a one car train . one car trains in the subway are a pretty high opportunity cost in terms of being able to carry customers. we are hoping this winter to
1:06 pm
introduce our first three car train but for all the trains right now are 2 car trains. the j church is also our lowest ridership route that was chosen prior to the pandemic and it continues to be true although we have not seen a significant reduction in case of recovery as a result of this change so it's still the recovery of the j is comparable to say the end and cj. for that j customers, we are seeing some benefits. for example the service is more reliable. just being on the surface and not having interaction in the subway so there is less variation and most people about three quarters of customers
1:07 pm
have been able tomake that transfer with no more than a five minute wait . we are looking at several options. we have modified this based on feedback that we heard at the jail hearing from supervisor mandelman as wellas what we're hearing from j customers. the first option is what we're doing today . and all options we are recommending some capital improvements at the intersection of church and market option one would just be continuing the pilot that we have going today from balboa park tochurch and market .the second would have the j go into the subway but a lower frequency in an attempt to maintain some of the benefits we're seeing in the subway plus still allowing room for routes like the end unit to expand and
1:08 pm
the third option is one that we really tried to kind of address everything that we are hearing along with preserving the maximum amount of technical benefits. i think it is emerging as the staff recommendation but we are very interested in hearing feedback on it today. it would continue to have the j trains operate on the surface during daytime hours. it would then have the j into the subway in the evening when there is not so much competition for space in the subway and also where transfers are a little more onerous because everything isrunning less frequently . but during the daytime hours while the j is not going into the subway we would operate a 30 minute bus from the valley to downtown so for folks where
1:09 pm
thetransfer really isn't a feasible option , they would have the option on the cost and for folks that like having the quicker option oftransferring to the subway , they could also take the bus if it came before the train so you would have that supplementalfrequency . this is something that were just sharing today. it is in response to everything that we've heard and it's an attempt to keep some of the things that are really working about the service option but also provide a wednesday ride for folks with where the transfer is difficult. the next steps on this work are two go to the mta board for their recommendations on december 7. we also continue to be meeting with groups on
1:10 pm
requests as well as sharing information through the project website. our goal is to implement these changes at the end of february. we should know in about a month where we are with staffing that may slip to march and it will be based on our operator hiring pace. the beyond winter of 2022, we are working to continue expanding service with the next round of service restoration being next fall. we are positioned to continue hiring both operators as well as mechanics and operations support staff. we will need to address long-term funding. in order to achieve this. what there's been some positive developments in short-term funding including through the tremendous advocacy of
1:11 pm
supervisor ronan, increased resources from mtc and recognizing that muni is in a much more vulnerable funding situation that many of our peers. as we think through you know, where we go with the restoration we will be looking at the emerging travel pattern . i know through the district 4 study as well as feedback from supervisor chan there's very much an interest in stronger north-south connections . we also know that the expansion of the rapid network is something we want to look at including the 29 . there's also routes like the six parnassus for example where
1:12 pm
we're operating a 20 minute frequency where we want to continue to look at adding back to more of the traditional frequency so there's a lot of things kind of in the hopper to look at for the fall. i will say that in order to get back to our old 2019 service we will need more than 100 percent service restoration because we have added so much service that we did not have in 2019 but i think that's okay because the system is evolving. it's recognizing new patterns and we want to continue to do that. so that's kind of where we are at four the next steps. we as i said you have to major obstacles which is hiring and funding. we are developing options. working with the controller's
1:13 pm
office to really document when we will exhaust both the federal money aswell as our reserve money . and we just want to make sure that this one time money is positioned as abridge . not as a cliff. so that we can use it to get more service in place but not be in a position where we have to pull back service or layoff staff if they cannot be identified. sothank you so much for your time . and i'm happy to answer any questions that you have. commissioner preston. >> thank you chair mandelman anddirector kirschbaum for the presentation .
1:14 pm
the hour is late as we see our meeting coming up this afternoon but i do want to make some comments on this proposal, not in depth but just to spend a lot of time at the ta and have support certain supervisors talking about restoration so as director kirschbaummentioned we did discuss these issues as the gao .that was a continuation of a pretty extensive hearing in july. and as a lot of you know prior to this restoration plan, we have quite a bit of frustration that there was an mta commencement releasing the prime hundred percent pre-pandemic restoration and restoring all the x pensive
1:15 pm
alarms so this body and also for supervisors i think i've been pretty clear in pushing for restoration and also critical of the survey that was being used to frame the options for service restoration. this plan has been presented to us i think makes some very significant changes and i want to thank the rector curse, not just for her presentation but for her leadership in moving this conversationforward . and for her teamswork on this . this plan is not perfect but it restores many of the lines that advocates in my office have and many of you colleagues have been demanding really since last year. this is a major restoration as proposed service for inserting my district for japan town, and the western addition as well as
1:16 pm
for other parts of the city so for district 5 you want to know the restoration or proposed restoration here for six parnassus, 21 hayes expanded capacity on the fivefold and and rep restoration of the sonic, these will be huge improvements. and also i really appreciate and am very encouraged to see the recommendations to restore the eight x and the x that was discussed whichare essential lines in our city . looking back and i know you don't need to go in detail over the history but i will say i have certainly stated publicly including here that the suspension of lines with no commitment to return them created really i think a major rift between transit riders and the mta and i think consumed a lot of our time and energy in a
1:17 pm
big fight. but i just do want to recognize that in many ways the past is the past and we're moving forward and i do firmly believe that this proposal that the rector curse, has outlined today especially with the addition of the ats as described offers i think quite a bit of hope that agencies are embarking on a path now that will unify elected officials and operators and writers to restore and expand public transit for the future. so i do want to say to the mta and i'll reiterate here that to the extent that changes are not full restoration and director first found raised mentioned some of these lower frequencies certain lines that these are my hope is those are temporary issues and that we're going back to restoring all these lines and if not this round the next round of service expansions.
1:18 pm
but all that said, just to reiterate i want to be very clear on this because i know a lot of folks are wondering how they can get involved in transit advocacy and what the next steps are. and i believe that the proposed every 22 plan is a major step in the right direction. i think it's one we should support and i urge folks to let the mta board know your views on this. it brings back key lines and expands others and i really want to thank mta for making this commitment. to muni service restoration. and lastly just want to thank the advocates and muni writers that have spent a lot of time with everything else they're dealing with in that city . to make your voice heard loud and clear in getting the muni
1:19 pm
lines back and i want to thank workers and operators who drive our buses and cable cars and maintain the tunnels and clean and maintain the coaches and give information, plan the roots and are working to envision and build a greener future. i'm looking forward to advocate withyou for public transit and appreciate all your work and solidarity . >> thank you, i do not see other commissioners in the queue. for myself i will say that i spoke about the j situation and options and gao. i want to thank the mta for your effort to respond i think some of the things that i said as i said that, i am glad and happy that many of the changes
1:20 pm
that have been made over the pandemic have improved service in the tunnel for writers and k writers and riders of all the lines except the j. i do believe that that has come at a cost for those in the valley. it is pretty clear the mta believes that putting the number of j trains back in the tunnel that were running in the tunnel prior to the pandemic would compromise the service in the tunnel for all writers including j writers and staff appears to be pretty adamant about not letting that happen which i can understand because service in the tunnel prior to the pandemic was i think the biggest problem with oursystem and service on the j was but j writers are voting with their feet . and it's actually the drop-off
1:21 pm
in service in ridership on the j proportionally is greater than any other line. i think it's about only a third of folks have come back whereas others it's been greater so the current j is not working for a lot of the j writers so what i think was originally going to be staff recommendation of option one appears that mta staff is rethinking that and i thinkthat's right. i don't think option one is the right answer . whether to go with option two or three as it has evolved or continues to evolve i think is an open question. i'm my concern about 2 is that taking the current number of trains that are running and having them run along a longer line with pretty clear resistance adding more j lines
1:22 pm
condemns j writers to worse servicethan they had prior to the pandemic even though it will be going into the tunnel . and for me that's problematic so i think option 2 would be attractive if there were a commitment to maintaining at least the current level of service on the surface . additional trains that terminated and turned around and came back along with additional lines going into the tunnel. barring that as i said with that gao hearing we need to think about other ways to get folks who ride downtown and it appears that modifications to option three is an effort to respond to that and so i appreciate the mta trying to work with that half-hour service doesn't count particularly great and i'm sure we would be advocating for more than that if there is demand. but i appreciate the mta staff is trying to respond to what
1:23 pm
they're hearing from me and from the community so with that i like to hear more from the community. let's open this up to public comment. >> your two minutes begins now. >> this is kathy. having worked as an engineering project manager for the federal government i can safely say that introducing a new option three into the next at this late stage with no community input is a questionable government practice. the option itself is law. mta declares that interest inconsistent onstate performance is a challenge to manage . yet they propose sending a boss into downtown street traffic instead of sending a streetcar into the subway. service to downtown twice per hour isunacceptable .
1:24 pm
over the past two weeks restore the j has submitted 500 petitions signatures to mayor reed, board of supervisors and mta in support of restoring full service to the j line. you have also received more than 100 individual letters over the last week from muni writers not just from knowing value but from excelsior to the dubose triangle and beyond. in support of mtas option 2. these muni writers find solace supports option to allowing 4j carson to the subway brings the total to 18 to 21 hour than half. of the three pandemicnumber and well below the optimal .these muni writers point out overwhelming public support for option two. and these muni writers find only option to support mta
1:25 pm
service priorities to center concerns of persons with disabilities andseniors and and toprioritize coverage over frequency. we urge you to support option 2 . thank you very much . >> clerk: thank you caller. hello, caller. your 2 minutes will begin now. >> i support option 2 for the j church. the uneven pavement and sfmta ... okay. the enforcement on slippery tracks anduneven pavement . the presentation that was made for the automatic train control system indicates that the future system would have, would be less reliable than as planned. back in november 28 of 2015 the
1:26 pm
atc update on slides 29 through 33 indicated that there would be control over the entire system on the surface and in the subway. meeting to greater control of the system. so i support at least test option 2 to have the trains operate in the subway. and alsoregarding the 48 grandview , the system has been eliminated on grandview avenue although the muni presentation says it's within one quarter mile. however that one quarter-mile is a 22 percent grade hill from off street to grandview. so in conclusion any muni documents and documentation
1:27 pm
needs to be severely scrubbed to be understood. thank you. >> clerk: thank you caller. hello, caller. your two minutes will begin now. >>caller: thank you .i advocate for option 2. i've maintained all along the importance of bringing the j train in and out of the subway and i you not academically but iam a person with disabilities . i'll be happy to show you my clipper card or my military id and prove it to you. so i think we can manage this subway line with multiple services. i have in front of me a copy on my ipad of the new york city subway map. it's a large historic
1:28 pm
transportationservice in new york city. perhaps some of you have gotten to see it . there are approximately 30 points in that system where lines transfer in and out of each other and there are some lines which have as many infrastructure that have as manyas 34 different services . they are good at integrating trains from lines in and out of the system. i asked each of you to rise to the level of being able to manage time slots just to save new york. we can do this. >> tank you caller. hello caller. your two minutes will begin no . >> caller: this is karen kennard. thank you for the presentation. it does cause me to wonder why
1:29 pm
mta seems to be listening to every community but no e valley community which has cassie mentioned has shown support for option 2 which is a decrease frequency from three pandemic levels all the street cars in the subway have done. and as commissioner preston has noted we already know that forcing transfers unusually burdens seniors but we know that mtas on technical analysis supports option 2. they provided their restore in the subway which they did not include in their presentation today and it shows that mtas new goal to avoid congestion is 30 trains per hour. they are now 18 trains per hour up to 21 if you count the elusiveshuttles so adding 4j transfer hour would bring us u to 22 . we know this can be restored without harming any of the
1:30 pm
other lines . i would urge you to be skeptical of the pr after to imply the subway improvements are caused by removing the j. mta hasn't determined theimpact of removing the j and we know the improvements are caused by factors including running half as many trains, running about 60 new more reliable trains , the technical upgrades and improvements to the tunnel and control system made during the pandemic , lack of will train pass due tolow ridership and others. option three was scrubbed on the cta with nopublic input or outreach just 13 business days before the mta vote . decisions made without the benefit of input from the writers you're trying to retai our bad decisions .and it also seems like an iq test unless i'm missing something of fast one seat ride every 15 minutes is better than a slow ones ride every 30 minutes . and buses are subject to traffic and congestion and there's no functioning next bus
1:31 pm
system so they wait for 30 minutes is justunacceptable. i'm troubled by the fact that that's emerging as a staff recommendation before any community input was given and wondered why the mta isgetting bending over backwards not to listen . >> clerk: hello caller, your 2 minutes begins now . we can hear you.>> david philpel. i agree with the previous speakers and i would go beyond that and say just operate it every 10 minutes, six trains an hour in the subway and and to end. if you operate the j, the kt, the m and an, that's only four lines, six trainsan hour and 24 trains total. that's totally doable without congestion , without delay etc. just do it. this enabling with options and a bus and daytime nighttime, it's all distractions. just put it back in the subway like the other lines. i agree with member preston on his points.
1:32 pm
i think we need more daytime service and i am concerned that the system may be providing too much service at night when it isn't needed at the same frequency . and that service should be redirected todaytime hours. the main point is coverage . route and span of service with sufficient capacity by way of headways and frequency and appropriate vehicle size. we can continue to work on the details whether it's this round or further rounds in april, june, august, december of next year . we should increase the service and reduce the service as demand warrants beyond the policy levels. so if more people are writing the eight, put more service on the eight . if fewer people are writing on gary, fewer riders on geary.
1:33 pm
appropriately reschedule based on the band above the level that's the minimum basic polic . that's it. icould go on and on but i'm hours late.thank you for listening . >> thank you caller. there are no morecolors . >> president: public comment on this item is closed and i don't know that there are any last comments from colleagues. all right. we will move on to item 12. >> introduction ofnew items . >> president: does anyone have any new items? seeing nine, madam clerk please call item 13.
1:34 pm
>> clerk: item 13 is public commentand i'd like to note we received approximately 17 comments for this item . >> president: all right. public comment. >>. >> caller: i was cut off at item 11.would have gone smoothly if they had asked muni writers about their plans for service restoration prior to paying high price consulting firms that had no practical experience writing muni and mapped out muni trips on paper with connected routing transfer. i am anastasia member of the j church workgroup district 8 transit dependent senior with mobility issues with would really appreciate having not to
1:35 pm
have to navigate across tracks and traffic and high intersection at church and market to transfer to the underground to go downtown. it's toorisky and disruptive. i'd like to resume writing freight charges with my clipper card and saving on paying taxpayers to get the medical and dental appointments and shop downtown .a bus alternative at one half hour intervals would take too long overland to get downtown to appointments on time. j church writers overwhelmingly supports action to restore the j church direct service to downtown and and the forced transfer at market street. this debate residentsdon't have to use alternative means of transportation , option 2 will eliminate driving of greenhouse gas emissions that add to climate change. only option 2 advances both of mtas service priorities for
1:36 pm
service. thank you. >> your two minutes begins now. i'm calling in support of optionto . the j line has been running all the way to the 10 for decades and businesses have both come to relyon it . it seems to me that if you're going to make the change it could curtail theservice . especially curtailment that has such impact on elderly and disabled people. if you want to be a very high level of data support to
1:37 pm
demonstrate that that is necessary and appropriate but in fact there is no technical datasupporting option one . a few weeks ago i attended a small virtual meeting convened by supervisor mandelman. thank you for setting that up but that meeting included a senior staff member of mta. i questioned that staff member and i learned that the only support that mta has for option one is a slide showing the difference in subway performance between funding 19 and 2021. of course the subway performance has improved. has been pandemic and the widespread work from home phenomenon having nothing to do withthe j. in fact , technical data of mta supports option to
1:38 pm
because by adding four additional trains as in option two it would be well below the threshold of 30 trains per hour which mta has determined to be the technical threshold for degradation of performance and itwould fill half the level of trains that were runningin 2019 . one last comment . it seems to me the forced transfer will be a clear violation of the ada and i would propose that mta legal staff look into that. thank you very much. >> to reiterate this is public comment on items that are not on the agenda . >> clerk: hello caller, your
1:39 pm
two minutes begins now.>> caller: i think our major goal should be to build the city that is more accessible and more user-friendly. hence my support of transit and other forms of sharedmobility . >>. [ please stand by]
1:40 pm
all these roads are complementary. you should not pit them one against the other, because -- thank you -- i use these modes in conjunction with each other. i ask that you use your ability to fund projects to hold to the basic values of equitable mobility for all. thank you. >> thank you, caller.
1:41 pm
that was our last caller. >> all right. public comment item 13 is closed. madame clerk, please call item 14.
1:42 pm
1:43 pm
1:44 pm
1:45 pm
1:46 pm
>> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their business in the 49 square files of san francisco. we help san francisco remain unique, successful and right vi. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> i'm one of three owners here in san francisco and we provide mostly live music entertainment and we have food, the type of food that we have a mexican food and it's not a big menu, but we did it with love. like ribeye tacos and quesadillas and fries. for latinos, it brings families together and if we can bring that family to your business,
1:47 pm
you're gold. tonight we have russelling for e community. >> we have a ten-person limb elimination match. we have a full-size ring with barside food and drink. we ended up getting wrestling here with puoillo del mar. we're hope og get families to join us. we've done a drag queen bingo and we're trying to be a diverse kind of club, trying different things. this is a great part of town and there's a bunch of shops, a variety of stores and ethnic restaurants. there's a popular little shop that all of the kids like to hang out at. we have a great breakfast spot call brick fast at tiffanies.
1:48 pm
some of the older businesses are refurbished and newer businesses are coming in and it's exciting. >> we even have our own brewery for fdr, ferment, drink repeat. it's in the san francisco garden district and four beautiful murals. >> it's important to shop local because it's kind of like a circle of life, if you will. we hire local people. local people spend their money at our businesses and those local people will spend their money as well. i hope people shop locally. [ ♪♪♪ ]
1:49 pm
as a society we've basically
1:50 pm
failed big portion of our population if you think about the basics of food, shelter safety a lot of people don't have any of those i'm mr. cookie can't speak for all the things but i know say, i have ideas how we can address the food issue. >> open the door and walk through that don't just stand looking out. >> as they grew up in in a how would that had access to good food and our parent cooked this is how you feed yours this is not happening in our country this is a huge pleasure i'm david one of the co-founder so about four year ago we worked with the serviced and got to
1:51 pm
know the kid one of the things we figured out was that they didn't know how to cook. >> i heard about the cooking school through the larkin academy a. >> their noting no way to feed themselves so they're eating a lot of fast food and i usually eat whatever safeway is near my home a lot of hot food i was excited that i was eating lunch enough instead of what and eat. >> as i was inviting them over teaching them basic ways to fix good food they were so existed. >> particle learning the skills and the food they were really go it it turned into the is charity foundation i ran into my friend
1:52 pm
we were talking about this this do you want to run this charity foundations and she said, yes. >> i'm a co-found and executive director for the cooking project our best classes participation for 10 students are monday they're really fun their chief driven classes we have a different guest around the city they're our stand alone cola's we had a series or series still city of attorney's office style of classes our final are night life diners. >> santa barbara shall comes in and helps us show us things and this is one the owners they help us to socialize and i've been here about a year. >> we want to be sure to serve
1:53 pm
as many as we can. >> the san francisco cooking school is an amazing amazing partner. >> it is doing that in that space really elevates the space for the kids special for the chief that make it easy for them to come and it really makes the experience pretty special. >> i'm sutro sue set i'm a chief 2, 3, 4 san francisco. >> that's what those classes afford me the opportunity it breakdown the barriers and is this is not scary this is our choice about you many times this is a feel good what it is that you give them is an opportunity you have to make it seem like it's there for them for the taking show them it is their and they can do that. >> hi, i'm antonio the chief
1:54 pm
in san francisco. >> the majority of kids at that age in order to get them into food they need to see something simple and the evidence will show and easy to produce i want to make sure that people can do it with a bowl and spoon and burner and one pan. >> i like is the receipts that are simple and not feel like it's a burden to make foods the cohesives show something eased. >> i go for vera toilet so someone can't do it or its way out of their range we only use 6 ingredients i can afford 6 ingredient what good is showing you them something they can't use but the
1:55 pm
sovereignties what are you going to do more me you're not successful. >> we made a vegetable stir-fry indicators he'd ginger and onion that is really affordable how to balance it was easy to make the food we present i loved it if i having had access to a kitchen i'd cook more. >> some of us have never had a kitchen not taught how to cookie wasn't taught how to cook. >> i have a great appreciation for programs that teach kids food and cooking it is one of the healthiest positive things you can communicate to people that are very young. >> the more programs like the
1:56 pm
cooking project in general that can have a positive impact how our kids eat is really, really important i believe that everybody should venting to utilize the kitchen and meet other kids their age to identify they're not alone and their ways in which to pick yours up and move forward that. >> it is really important to me the opportunity exists and so i do everything in my power to keep it that. >> we'll have our new headquarters in the heart of the tenderloin at taylor and kushlg at the end of this summer 2014 we're really excited. >> a lot of the of the conditions in san francisco they have in the rest of the country so our goal to 257bd or expand
1:57 pm
out of the san francisco in los angeles and then after that who know. >> we'd never want to tell people want to do or eat only provide the skills and the tools in case that's something people are 2rrd in doing. >> you can't buy a box of psyche you have to put them in the right vein and direction with the right kids with a right place address time those kids don't have this you have to instill they can do it they're good enough now to finding out figure out and find the future for sustainability mission, even though the bikes are very
1:58 pm
minimal energy use. it still matters where the energy comes from and also part of the mission in sustainability is how we run everything, run our business. so having the lights come on with clean energy is important to us as well. we heard about cleanpowersf and learned they had commercial rates and signed up for that. it was super easy to sign up. our bookkeeper signed up online, it was like 15 minutes. nothing has changed, except now we have cleaner energy. it's an easy way to align your environmental proclivities and goals around climate change and it's so easy that it's hard to not want to do it, and it doesn't really add anything to the bill.
1:59 pm
2:00 pm
>> all right. [gavel]

11 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on