Through the chair, we are monitoring the traffic flow carefully that we didden game significantly with our open traffic engineers as well as caltrans in identifying and approving the road configurations and communication plan, signs for them. As needs if we need resources such a pco or Police Officer at any particular location that is something we will moptor and put monitor and put in place. I am not aware of plans to do so. If there are areas that you see are concerning we would welcome that feedback. Would you explain how you monitor and make decisions around those kinds of issues for this particular project . The decisions around those issues we have a group of folks within our Traffic Engineering group that focus exclusively on these changes that relate to construction. They will analyze what the contractor is proposing. They informed development of the specs and they review the Traffic Management plans the contractors submit. There is a lot of it involved because we need to make sure the road will be able to function safely for the folks using it. That is the process through which we establish the kind of changes you are seeing on the streets. In terms of monitoring, we have staff, inspectors and Construction Management staff out there. We monitor feedback that we are getting from the public. I covered some of the outreach we are doing. We use those kinds of mechanisms, 311 calls to make sure the traffic plans are more or less working as intended and there arent any unintended consequences or challenges. Chair peskin any other commissioners with any questions or comments . Seeing none. Any Public Comment on item 13 . Seeing none Public Comment is closed. Mr. Chris ken, ris ken, thank you. We will continue to monitor this and i would like to continue this to the call of the chair and we will be in touch as hopefully this thing gets back on schedule. All right. Is there a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair . Without objection can we return to our regular calendar . Clerk appointment of two members to the citizens Advisory Committee. Chair peskin mr. Pick ford. There is an 11 Member Advisory Committee with two year term. Neither of the staff or cic make recommendations on pointments. To qualify for appointment applicants must be San Francisco residents and appear before the board once. There is a list of 44 applicants for the two vacant positions. They are the result of the term expiration of becky hogue and family obligations. Miss hogue is seeking reappoint meant. I hope we have other people to speak to the interest. I will take questions. Chair peskin mr. Questions for mr. Pick ford . If miss hogue is here i was going to let her speak first. Chair chair i dont see her. Chair peskin she has been before the body before. She is not required to testify to be reappointed. I will save my comments until after Public Comment. Chair peskin perspective applicants to testify before the commission . Please come forward. Applicants have two minutes. Good morning. Thank you for having me. I am kian. I am seeking to fill the vacancy to number 9. I was born on california street. As an adult i have lived in this great city for the last 15 years. I lived in the marina and west portal and called the Central Mission my home where i live with my wife. My transportation footprint consists of riding the kl and m trains. With the majority of my transportation on bicycle and walking. In my professional life i work with youth and families. In the free time i am a member of the action team where i volunteer with a group of people to bring bike skills to residents in the mission and southeast neighborhoods. I have a lived experience with the Transportation Network and want to see it become safer and accessible and reduce carbon emissions. That is why i am here today. It would be an honor to serve as a member of is at this time sens Advisory Committee. I promise to work hard to ensure the voice and concerns are heard as well as foster engagement and understanding art the Transportation Authority mission and programs. Thank you for your consideration and time. Chair peskin any other perspective applicants . Please come forward, sir. If there are any additional applicants you can line up to my left, your right. Go ahead. I am bradley tans man. I am here for the citizens Advisory Committee. I moved to San Francisco in 2007. Before that i was in and mateo. I was Vice President of the Neighborhood Watch program for seven years. I ran around San Francisco to make sure the election polling places were ada compliant during the bushgore elections. During San Francisco where my transportation qualifications. In 2012 and 2013 i was one of 700 test drivers for the bmw electric cars now on the market. I also have worked with uber, on both sides of the house. First a driver then employed by uber through sfmta working on solutions for drivers. I worked with uber to help the Technology Platform accommodate drivers, picking up passengers, not getting in the way. That is a big issue in the city with a lot of drivers stops where they want to. I dont work for uber any more. I am back driving and delivering meals with them. That gives me a great perspective. I live on Treasure Island, a big redevelopment there. I am looking at district six. I have gone to a couple different focus groups, helped out with transportation ideas, and i am just looking for your support in becoming one of the newest members here. Thank you. Chair peskin thank you, sir. Any additional speakers . Any individuals who would like to offer Public Comment on this item . Seeing none. Public comment is closed. Commissioner ronen. I want to thank all of the people who applied for the vacant nine seat on the citizens Advisory Committee. I am thankful that we got quite a few excellent applicants. Today i will make a motion to appoint to the district nine seat. I was going to talk about the qualifications but you did a great job at this and i am excited to have you providing input, advice and advocacy for district nine on this body and thank you for everything you do in the community. You know, certainly my district faces complex transportation issues, the tangle of freeway interchanges dividing the district, efforts to improve efficiency of bus service, safeguarding bicyclists, lift, uber and others fit in this mix. It is a lot. I am excited that he brings equity and justice to concerns about transportation. I hope to have your support in this motion. Chair peskin a motion by commissioner ronen. Seconded by commissioner yee. Commissioner kim. I want to move forward becky hogue with recommendation to continue her service on the citizens Advisory Committee. As the chair mentioned she has served on the cac and previously presented to this board. Becky hogue sits on the Pedestrian SafetyAdvisory Committee and served as vice chair and active resident around the vision zero issues. She is one of the residents on Treasure Island within the rich mon neighborhood. She is someone who dedicated her life advocating. Given the work on Treasure Island around mobility management and really trying to pilot new transportation on Treasure Island, her voice is truly needed and is a need for representation. Thank you very much. Chair peskin thank you. There is now a motion by commissioner equipment and seconded by commissioner breed. Can we have them into one and have a roll call on item number 6. roll call we have approval. Chair peskin congratulation. Those items are passed. Good luck on your service on the cac, and with that next item please. Clerk item 7. Update on the San Francisco freeway Corridor Management system study. This is an information item. Chair peskin mr. High hydel. Good morning. We are here to talk about addressing congestion on the San Francisco freeways. As noted this is an information item related to items 8 and 9 on the agenda identifying funding for future phases of this effort. I dont think it is a surprise that traffic in San Francisco is bad and getting worst. There are many empty seats in cars, vans, bus us on the roadways. Our best efforts show that between now and 2040 there could be up to 140,000 additional trips between San Francisco and south bay. They would fill one new peak period bus per minute on the freeways. All of those people will spread across buses, cal tran and cars. We know addressing congestion is important. It is not just the congestion but quality of life and higher rates of health issues. They suffer health concerns. More cars will only exacerbate this problem. We need a plan to address this. Vehicles with many passengers are with one driver. We need a plan to move them efficiently. Widening the freeways would harm the community. It increases Greenhouse Gases and impacts on neighborhood and financial costs too high. San francisco has a commitment to not widen the freeways in the general plan. We are committed to evaluating solutions that create benefit with the freeways that we have using the existing lanes and shoulders more efficiently. As we consider solutions we keep the studys goal in mind. These were adopts in phase one in 2015. We think reflect San Franciscos values and focus on increasing vehicle occupancy and using the existing resources more efficiently. Part of the study looked at alternatives we could use to address this situation. If we want to prove more people we need to give carpoolers a time advantage. We are exploring options of dedicating one lane to carpools and transit only. Carpool lanes may be new to San Francisco. They existed on interstate 280 in the 1980s. They were removed after the 1989 earthquake. The lanes we are considering under this study could be restricted with two or more passengers or three or more passengers. Another option is express lanes. If necessary price management in the form of express lanes could be used with either configuration. Other drivers could also pay to use them. In San Francisco it would be reserved for carpools, buses or those who pay a fee on demand. It could give them a faster travel time without adding significant delays to the general purpose lanes. Express lanes give people a choice with the price to enter noncarpools based on demand. Carpools and buses would access the lane at no cost. We let demand determine the price to keep traffic moving efficiently. We found in a Traffic Engineering detail. The highway moves the most vehicle at 45 miles per hour. The distances between the vehicles shrink and the land is more productive. They set it at 45 miles per hour. If it is crowded to slow down the price goes up and fewer vehicles enter. If there is not enough people or it is not moving enough people the price goes down. If physical signs call people how much the toll would cast. Carpooling and transit are always free to use the lanes. It is part of a regional effort to establish carpool lanes. They have been around over 40 years. Express lanes are not new. First lanes opened in 2010 with other lanes opening since then including california 237, i580 and i680. This is the first step for San Francisco in joining that regional conversation. This is part of a larger collection of studies on the 101 corridor identified in the recent funding bill as one of the high priority corridors in california. This shows other efforts. Blue identifies the carpool lane in existence in santa clara that runs from san jose to San Francisco. And mateo is exploring an express lane frommed wood city north. This would contribute to a reliable travel expense. The corridor we know that has the worst congestion but many residents in jobs. Getting to more specifics in San Francisco. The study explored existing conditions documenting bottlenecks and delays and causes in San Francisco. We conducted the analysis with the eye towards implementing something to benefit users in San Francisco. One of the interesting findings is the bay bridge is the contributing bottleneck for west of 101, 101 north of 280 and the central freeway. Mtc is leading a effort to address problems with the bay bridge. We are excited to participate in that. Given those reasons, we developed the alternative you see here on your screen. This utilize ms. 101 and 280 to get vehicles in and out of downtown. The existing configuration allows continuous lane by restriping. It would move to five miles to the county line. Northbound because it ex its from the right side it would be a gap with no line on the 280 for four miles. Then another opportunity to begin a lane touching down at sip and king helping people bypass the traffic backed up from the traffic signal there. Obviously, outreach is important. Our next step is to meet with stakeholders to share the concepts and share feedback. Some of the important questions how can we move more people with less traffic without creating a burden for low income communities. Equitable access is important to San Francisco. How can we coordinate with other jurisdictions . This is part of a larger regional effort. Looking forward, this is an information item. We hope to have the full results nor early 2018. We will continue to meet with Community Groups for feedback. We anticipate the next phase is cal tran document which would take course over 2018. Items 8 and 9 are related to those two phases. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. Chair peskin any questions or comments from commissioners . Commissioner safai. I see a desire to meet a regional need that seems laudable, but when i see the rest of the bay area focus on 101 and then 280 it doesnt make a lot of sense to me. I see a four mile gap that is a significant gap in the overall plan. I heard the desire to get to downtown. 280 does not go downtown. It is not meeting the overall objective. It is predisposed ather than having a robust conversation to determine whether or not this is necessary or the one other thing that i saw in the presentation and at least in the proposal is most of those areas dont have alternative freeways running through their cores. San francisco has two freeways. 280 and 101. 280 in the inception is designed to be a relief point for 101. That is how it works right now. I dont really see a purpose in some of this, and it seems to me it needs a better focus. That would be my initial comments. I would offer that downtown is moving towards 280 at a rapid clip. Would you like to respond . Thank you for the comment. We understand your concerns about utilizing 280 and changing the use from relief valve from 101 to something to attract more traffic. We focused on 280 because of the existing challenges with traffic on 101 getting tangled up on the bay bridge. We will work todres those concerns you put forward. Chair peskin commissioner. The floor is yours. I dont have anything else to say. Chair peskin commissioner sheehy. On the other side of 101, if that starts to clog, it recreates the monterey onramp, theala main neramp, the traffic on both of those streets, ocean, i think, for supervisor saw fahey is a disaster. Hov lanes that dont allow the traffic to move. Having experienced a shut down on 101 a few months ago, and nothing moved out of glen park. Literally going all the way to the surface street. When 101 and 280 exchange got clogged. Its impact was felt at diamond. I think, you know, you start making it harder for traffic to move through that 101280 exchange. You affect people and neighborhoods. Before we get to the hov lane, that one section where you just do the last part looked a little nutty to me. Before we put our money into that, i really wish we would look at the problems. I have asked sfmta to get Traffic Control at monterey boulevard because we have traffic at rush hour on to the highway that is not safe. Of course, they are indifferent to the request. You know, i will wait until there is a 50 car pileup at 6 00 at night before they do anything. I think there should be a more holistic approach at looking at the impact on traffic. It goes to district 8 and 11 that are impacted with 280. The traffic is bad and it spills back to to neighborhoods. Chair peskin any response to staff . We did consider some of the impacts of traffic west of 280. We will have more details in early 2018. I can comment directly on the challenges. You are referring to headed northbound out of district 8, is that correct . Yes, it runs east and west for me, but i guess. Northbound, and with what is going on in mission bay and you throw in the warriors and the giants. I used to work at mission bay the traffic over the last couple years before i came here. You are backing up on kings street, sixth street. I just, hov lanes. Maybe if you do congestion pricing you might have impact on that. That whole 101280 exchange is crazy whichever direction you are going. That is a known challenge. If cal tran were to build that today it wouldnt look like that. As you are aware 280 splits into three different roadways, some south, some north and some east. It makes it difficult to get relief because it is hard to put a tia continuous lane. The congest june is back up from the bay bridge coming all the way back through the interchange to 280, particular