Her head. That would be ideal that is similar to the london mobility congestion plan. When the pricing went into place they had invested in Public Transit options. That is for people who did not want to pay the fee there was an option on day one available to them. In the plan study i was shown yesterday, it is not a tippuous express continuous expression lane going north until the end where there is congestion on the 280. The hov lane is focused on southbound in the p. M. Hours. You know, i know thi this is thn the study place. I would like to see the outcomes. Yesterday it asked about the hov lane. That would have a tremendous negative impact on the 101 for the traffic coming south of San Francisco and an that is why it is not stud died. I dont know if that is the concern you expressed and that is why we are not moving forward with that. I very many interested in the outcomes. We want to see less vehicles coming downtown and more people using alternatives. I am struck by a fact the cars are San Francisco residents, not necessarily from south bay as we think. There is a huge impact in the district i represent from the vehicles on the road for both air quality and Pedestrian Safety and others in the south market area. Thank you. Chair peskin back to you commissioner. Well, do you want to respond. No that covers it well. I would like to add on to what the commissioners said. The biggest reservation i have is i see in the next two items this is a 6 million potential request. Part of this request is taking away from street surfacing programs. In the city reallocating funds. That is a significant amount of money to do a study of this purpose. It doesnt seem to be holistic enough. We have the request on the hairball. We have the desire to look at traffic. Supervisor kim brings up caltrans. Mission bay was designed to connect with caltrans. Let allow more cars on a faster pace and not focus on those foings into the area where growth is. The focus should be getting out of the cars into the train that has invested a lot of money. It doesnt seem to me to be a holistic enough study. The price tag is exorbitant. It is taking away from the resurfacing the street. It doesnt make sense and i ride that every day. Although there is a gap that comes closer to king street and mission bay, there are two lanes that come into San Francisco on the weekends that is backed up. That is on 280 on the northbound then to 4 then back to three. If you remove one bay it would back up the traffic into superintendent row nans district and to my district. You would create a bottleneck now. You are going to create a significant bottleneck. I agree with superintendent kim. The real traffic is 101. I know you are saying that will create more traffic . Has a study been done . 6 million seems exorbitant. That was one of my esservation reservations on the toll increase before this was designed for a purpose of things. We are trying to get to a certain number. I would rather focus on executive traffic. That was important with each point, commissioner. In terms of the transit aspect all of us are working hard to improve caltrain. The electrification will come along. Today it is full. People cannot get on the train. We have folks that wish to take transit but there is no pacific. This body soon will move that forward. That is a regional priority we have established a partnership with san mateo to bring downtown extension into transbay. When we provide that excellent transition we can tack well 101. We have not looked at taking off the lane. We believe that would reverberate throughout the system if we took off the lane today. It would be west of 101. Caltrans has given us the signal that was a nonstartter. In the northbound we are talking about piping to shoulder to make an prelane. To get to the front of the lane to get to king street. Ideally we would have a bus lane connecting to the third street bus trains to take buses to transbay. That is the transit connection that underlines this project. On day one mtv has given san mateo funding for the bus study. It including consideration of additional buses as well to take advantage of 101, exiting to the exceptiontention and new lane from the shoulder, a new tried lane created from the shoulder. That would cause a design exception to not standard. That is the potential solution we are looking at. Regarding longer range we have to continue with the highspeed rail and get trains into transbay, allow buses to go from third street red lines. By looking at these together. I think we might want to rethink. How are we managing together with san mateo and and take clara. Santa clara. If the decision is made to pursue express rains and if there are met revenues that will be important. On a holistic basis with our partners. Chair peskin in so far as commissioner cohen has not spoken. Thank you for recognizing me. I put my name on the list because i wanted to just ask a couple questions to make sure the executive director had an opportunity to get in on this conversation. It is an important discussion to have. The supervise sour safai eraises important points. This will be a enormous number of new San Francisco residents this is southeast. You mentioned the warrior stadium. You think about peer 70 and the illinois shipyard is 12,000 housing units. There is an incredible amount of congestion flooding into the city on the southeastern ordinary southwestern corridor. It is important that westin to have these conversations. I want to also thankfully for elaborating and acknowledge we are also doing a part of the congestion Management Study inside district 10. This works in concert with the other studies that have been conducted and future studies to come. This is not only about 101 but also 280. As we also think about does it remain . Do we tear it own . How does that connect with highspeed rail . There are a lot of different large moving parts that are part of this conversation. I want to give toys to. Commissioner sheehy. One last point. When i look at trying to machine age traffic coming into San Francisco. You pay from the north and you pay from the east. If we are looking at doing this we should look at ways people have to pay to come in from the south. I see the hov lanes as a bod date and 6 million. The Traffic Congestion on the Southeast Side of town are going to explode. These arent really solution. The solution to my mind is to make the southern routes to the city mirror the north and isocrats with a cost. Thathat is my comments. Chair peskin commissioner kim. I know both commissioner cohen and i are looking at congestion pricing and it is great to hear from commissioner sheehy on this as well. It is important to put this problem into perspective. I appreciate the congestion management program. Reporter we got. It is astounding that we have added 50,000 new residents and 100,000 new jocks. The scale is hard to put into context. Think about new york city with 8 million people. Imagine if they added 1 million new jobs from 2009 that city would be in gridlock. In a city of 800,000 people in fine we have added 100,000 new jobs and 50,000 new residents. I think it is unfair for any city to have been ready for that time of growth type of growth. We were not prepared for reasonable growth. There is no way to predict and be prepared for this level of growth. I think that it is upon us to be creative and move ex peeddient leo the alternatives. We know the city is not working for workers and residents. Some of that we planned for and some we couldnt have planned for that type of growth. It is important as commissioner sheehy mentioned there is pricing through the bay bridge for those from the east bay and north bay through golden gate bridge. It is important to look at something from the south bay. We really need to invest in alternative options attractive and reliable for our residents in San Francisco. That is a big portion of our checks on the road and what is causing congestion today. Chair peskin any Public Comment on this interesting item . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. This is an information item. However, it does have implications relative to item number nine. We will have an interesting conversation about that in a short moment. Mr. Clerk, could you please call item number 8. Allocates 335,200,500 in funds with two 00,000 in prop k funds for one request. This is an action item. Good morning Deputy Director for policy and programming at the Transportation Authority. You have a handful of items in front of you today from the sfn of mta. First is 600,000 to replace the disconnect switches required to be manually operated. Should they need to be operated. Those switches allow for the power to be circulatessed between the wires. They flow through the conduits. Mta is replacing them through a couple of different phases. This is one. The vanness bus programmed project will replace eight of the switches in the city. The rest will include are few file. It is a high price tag. It does include a significant amount of trenching and conduit work to replace the feeder cables underground and the switches are throughout the city some of the conduit work is relatively significant as far as mileage, as far as distance it will need to be connected to. That is that request. It also allows a minimizing of downtown. If it is out at substations they can be operated remotely which lethey are not. Wwe are looking at increasing reliability and reducing maintenance costs. Next request for the golf quarter signal upgrades. This is planned for many years. We funded the design phase in the past. We are not expecting a Significant Impact or real impact from the vanness bus Rapid Transit project going on concurrently with construction phase. The current alignment of the lane configuration and two lanes in each direction on vanness is not going to change during the construction change of the golf street project. The next request is for bicycle Facility Maintenance to restripe the green bike lanes and boxes and replace the safe hit poster in your city. You may request maintenance calling 311 or through the 311 app or website. The last request is for the 200,000 request from sfcta for recaltrans required document. A project initiation document to advance the next phase over work for the Management Study which you heard about. Project managers are here as well. Chair peskin any questions for step on item 8. Seeing none any Public Comment on item 8 . Seeing no Public Comment. Public comment is closed. Is there a motion to allocate said 3. 65 million . Made by commissioner i think all three of these are noncontroversial. Commissioner tang seconded by commissioner farrell. A roll call please. roll call . I team has been approved. Chair peskin into a temnumber 9. Clerk approve programming of 6. 08 million in local Partnership Program funds to three San Francisco public works street resurfacing project and exchange of 4. 1 million in lpp funds with equivalent prop k for the lpp Fund Exchange project with conditions. This is an action item. Good morning again. In april of 2017, the governor of california signed senate bill one. This is a suite of programs that are funded through a gas tax and vehicle Registration Fee revenues to approximately 5 million per year sorry 5 billion per year. San francisco is expected to get just about 60 million in formula funds and this is for a host of projects on local streets and roads, highways and transits on the fix it first for the state highways and the local streets and roads portions. I will focus on the local Partnership Program which is one of the local and regional investments. I would like to point out a great website for folks if you are interested in looking at senate bill one. Rebuilding caca. Goff. There is an beractive interactive map that you can see these coming up through the package. The state local Partnership Program 200 million per year that is made available to jurisdictions half through a formula and half through a competitive program. It is to reward jurisdictions that have voter approval of taxes, tolls and fees or self imposed fees solely dedicated to transportation. In San Francisco as administrator of the prop k sales tax and vehicle Registration Fee they are eligible for the program. The cycle one fundings that we are slated to eve over this current fiscal year. Next year is cycle one and two in cycle year 20. They released the confirmed shares this week. The total we are expecting is 150,000 more than what we included in the materials. It was an estimate at the time every lease of these materials. The state throughout the establishment of the program has given guidance to jurisdictions and the state these cycle one funds should go on construction ready projects. This work to show the voters the been fits of sb1 ahead of a potential repeal effort which may be considered in november. Looking at the prospects for Shovel Ready Projects in San Francisco, public works resurfacing program. Which is a good track record of bell delivering projects. They provide highly visible benefits to the public. It includes curb ramps and repair of curb and other aspects of the president elec the proje. With a dollar for dollar match required you need to look at projects around 4 million in size. This street resurfacing project we recommend to receive the local Partnership Programming are about that order of magnitude. There is also prop k available to fund the local match for these projects. This shows the projects we are recommending. They were selected by public works staff based on the Pavement Condition scores, all of the street segments are considered at risk in the pci in the mid 50s. That would be a newly paved street. Under these guidelines required by the California Transportation Commission of contracts and other reporting requirements and delivering projects and the project costs are the order of magnitude. It is good timing with the available of the funds and when this projects are underway. You can see the projects and districts on your screen. The other aspect is Fund Exchange of 4. 1 million in local Partnership Funds for street resurfacing with an equivalent amount of prop k funds for the managed lanes review phase. Prop k funds will advance the project to phases we anticipate. It will be extremely competitive for state and local funds. Under the congested corridors program, it means the u. S. 101 caltrain corridor is highly congested. The project is part of the managed lanes prioritized by mtc to make it a great candidate for the bridge toll should that be approved by the voters this year. With that i can answer any questions. The next step is very briefly. The projects will be submitted to the California Transportation Commission next week. Ctc will adopt the program at the end of january. Then the funds would be available to the department of public works. We would return to this allocation for the local match and Environmental Review phase should this item be approved. Chair peskin thank you. Commissioner safai. Is the request for 6 million . Am i clear on that to study the hov . 4 million . We are recommending programming 6 million in state funds to street resurfacing projects with a Fund Exchange of 4 million for the managed lane project. It is a 4 million study . That would be the amount. Can i ask director chang, i am trying to wrap my head around why we need 4 or 6 million to study this. That seems like a significant amount of money for this study. It sounds like a lot of money in the world of Environmental Review it is what we expect. There is a portion of this which will be funded for the four miles from 380 to the county line. It ends up being more than what we are seeking for our part in the county. The environment tell process a lot of analyzes that we need to do for caltrans. They do this across the state. They require the studies to be done. One potential bright spot is back in 2012 or 2013. San mateo was successful in psyching matching funds. They asked for the money from private employer this is the corridor. If we are successful for programming, not allocating, just setting aside. Programming the money. Have we agreed on the scope or is this an idea . To set them aside because the ctc requires us to tell them what we want to do with our local Partnership Planning funds. We need those on resurfacing and those can be delivered to the voters. The previously prompt funds were to environmental work. It is to the you genesee of the ctc urgency of the cbc we are bringing to you. We would like to ask private employers to match to help supplement. You are taking this from street resurfacing funds . Does that decrease ability for street resurfacing . No, we are adding 4 million. It goes from 4 to 6 million total we would give to public works to do resurfacing. Where is the money coming from. We had 6 million of public money. Then they would give the 4 million to us four managed us. That leafs them up 2 million. So they are taking it away from Something Else . They are to receive 4 million of prop k for resurfacing. This keeps that hole and 6 million adds two more. It is a funds swap. They would release the 4 million to allow it for managed lanes. It is not officially eligible in the prop k program otherwise. Maybe it should stay that way. Since you are swapping money. Leave it and not use the money in that manner. Commissioner yee. It is a moment where i re