M. T. A. , Public Utilities commission in the Transportation Authority and even m. T. C. To identify funding at federal state at regional level. That is our biggest challenge right now. Of course, revisiting and making sure we have resources allocated to complete the design of the project on public works in the m. T. A. Side. And in terms of the lessons learned, the utilities and what happens with this covering some of the things underground. And i think this particular project, we are in a better space where we have been doing some preliminary work to see what is underground, to see if we can mitigate the netiquette negative impacts we have seen on the van ness construction schedule as a result of that. Last comment. I just want to say this is the kind of project that makes me proud to be affiliated with the sfmta. It is bold, it is transformative , it is 100 on our citys goal. Im struck by how many of the commenters wanted this adjusting in the beginning with car free spaces all throughout San Francisco. This is about the kind of city we want to be. I just want to echo that call and say very clearly to the hardworking sfmta and public works staff, please bring us more proposals for creating carvery spaces in the city that can help to prioritize walking, cycling, transit use and other city variables. Thank you. Any other director . First, i want to command the project team for doing such incredible outreach. In particular, i want to highlight the work you did with the Mayors Office on disability , particularly around the sidewalk level bikeway, which was a grave concern to the Disability Community initially. You guys did a great demo at. Thirtyeight where you had Different Things so people with different types of disabilities could test out the barrier and the different sidewalks. Im excited that the Mayors Office of disability set in a letter of support for this project. Other people have expressed concerns about the stops. It means a lot to me that the Mayors Office of disabilities behind this and we havent heard concern, at least from the people i have talked to in the community about this. You have done a great job of balancing the needs there. I have a question about the 27 bryant impact. I know in the sequel document it is kind of left like we will figure it out later, but i suppose the project i support the project. I want it done as soon as possible. I am wondering if maybe we can get a report back on our plans on the 27 bryant and mitigating the impacts to that line. I dont know what would be the appropriate time, but sometime early next year maybe . Great. And then i think the final comment or question i have is about another thing that the transit riders raised, which is the curbside bus stops and the Pedestrian Crossing the bike lane. What does that look like . I know you said you will put in some paint on the bikeway to inform bikers. I am just wondering, will we be monitoring that to make sure that that is going well, and if necessary, add more stuff to make that work better, i guess . I do think it is important to make sure the curbside stops are accessible to all of our transit riders. Yes. Part of better Market Street is to clarify where people walking and biking should be and our transit riders. The transit stops will be both wider and longer to accommodate people, especially those in wheelchairs. What were doing for the curbside boarding islands, you would have to cross the bikeway to get from the pedestrian area over to the transit boarding islands. We are providing clearly marked crosswalks with truncated domes to identify were people walking should enter into the transit boarding island. We are also providing railings along the boarding island, similar to what we have today, to also help direct people crossing the bikeway, and also letting bicyclists know that people will be crossing the bikeway at these locations. I put up a slide on the laptop on the proposed munimobile service which also serves shows the boarding islands. The one on the left is an example of a center boarding island. You can see the railing is, the additional shelters that are wide enough for seats. It also has the many high platform for getting onto the f. Line. The idea there is you would enter the center boarding island from the crosswalk, which will have a traffic signal there, and then enter into the center boarding island. The photo on the right, or the rendering on the right shows a curbside stop. You can see the crosswalks there the bikeway also narrows behind the curbside stops, also signifying that cyclists should slow down as they passed this area. And you can see where the crosswalks are and the bikes that are coming through. Great. I guess i will add that i agree that we need to be really careful about making sure we have strong enforcement both for blocking the bike lane and as well as the cars crossing market to make sure that we dont have people, you know, we dont want buses in the red lanes to be stuck behind cars that are trying to cross. That is it. Thank you very much for all your work on this. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I have two questions and two comments. The first question, returning to this issue of utilities, my understanding is that when we rip the street up for the bart tube, we learned a lot about whats underneath there, and we retained that information. So now we have a lot of as built drawings and the like so we shouldnt be duplicating then this. Is that all true . It is. A lot of the utilities were not just identified, but also relocated as part of the bart construction. We know where those are and we know a lot of what is under our streets. There are some conduits that have been abandoned since then over the past 40 some years, but we have done trenching recently to identify or to see what is under there. So it we are constantly trying to monitor or investigate what is under our streets. We do have a pretty detailed and congested utility map that will be in our construction drawings subcontractors will have access to that. We also have a pretty lengthy notice of intent and final preliminary plans that we send to all the Utility Companies so that they are aware of our scope of work. We also notified them of any conflicts between their infrastructure and our project. That is good to hear. The second question is about the cost and i think the first time i heard about this project it cost a lot less, too. Now that its up to 600 million , it begs the question for me about the procurement method and i guess this is probably a rubicon we have probably already crossed, but my understanding is the project, the first phase of it at least, is designed with the traditional approach. I do think, just based upon my limited tenure here, that a lot of the trouble that we run into is the fact that we want to control the design so we hold onto it, and when we do that, would basically hold onto all the liability that adheres to that design. If we did Something Like design build, the idea there is to shift some of that responsibility and accountability to the contractor now you obviously are going to pay a higher price for that in all likelihood, but if you can succeed in shifting that responsibility, i think in the long run it will be better. Was there any point at which you considered design build for this project, and if not, why not . Not that im aware of, but it may have been discussed early on i know then now his be rt is being constructed using i know the van ness be rt is being constructed using a general contractor, which is a route we didnt want to take. We do traditionally do design inhouse, and that has been our approach for phase one a. And for construction, design bid build. In the past, we have only done a low bid, which meant whoever is the lowest bidder wins the bid, but public works has started doing best value contracts which take into account meeting at minimum qualifications, quality of work on past projects, references, and so we are considering best value for phase one a. We havent started design well, we are at 10 design for the full corridor. We have not started Detailed Design on the future phases so that is a conversation we can have. Maybe that gets back to director ekins commented that if we are really looking at this project from end to end, it is not just the first phase and it is not just too late in my opinion to start thinking about a different approach for the second and third phases that might dramatically accelerate them. At the same time, it means you lose some control over the design. You have to give some of that to the contractor if the contractor is going to take on the risk. But right now, in my opinion, we have held onto the design and held onto the risk, and that is not always the best place to be. The first comment, and colleagues, this went right by you because it was so small, but the profile of the project, and i dont know if you can get that back up on the screen, the two middle lanes are described as munimobile only, and that seems sort of selfevident, but there are other transit operators operating bus service in San Francisco, and i think if we are going to paint something on the street, it ought to say transit only and not munimobile only. I know that might complicate the Service Delivery a little bit, but people want to use the bus. They really dont focus on the logo on the side. That is one urging i would make. Can we just ask about that . I am soup i assume the intent for the middle two lanes is if there is a different bus that they would get to use the middle two lanes. It was not the intent to exclude them. They are allowed to use the curb lane. The intent is only of the center lane for the f. Line, the five, the five r. , the nine, and the nine are. Is your proposal that we would amend that . My suggestion would be that whenever legitimate transit operators of a Public Service wants to use that lane, they should be able to use it. Now that will require, perhaps some coordination between munimobile and those other operators. That is what is supposed to happen. That is what the public expects is that we can make that kind of coordination occur. To get the change that the director wants would require an amendment to the current proposal. Yes. Change to the legislation that is before you. The way that it is written is munimobile only. Okay. I would rather not be the guy who slows down the train here, but at the same time, there ought to be some appropriate instance while we are delivering the project over several years that we can consider that to change, which i think does make sense. Finally, let me describe why i will vote for the project, and i think in a very short phrase, we have been designing our cities around the automobile for about 70 years now in the United States and i think its time, it is probably well past time that we give some of these other travel modes a chance to grow and coexist. That is why i will be voting yesterday. Wonderful. Thank you. I will take that as you were not making any amendments to the current proposal. No. [laughter]. Director torres . Im unclear as to what you are including. Just other buses. My understanding is in the corridor, i dont know whether sam tran his operates in the corridor, i think a. C. Transit might. Amtrak does, and i think they are being treated differently under the current proposal. All of those transit operators are allowed to use the curb lane. I understand. Amtrak has a couple of stops, a. C. Transit runs at night and some trans operates on two blocks. Who operates on market . A. C. Transit has an l service we have reached out to them and they are not interested in being in the munimobile lane in the center. We have also been in coronation with golden gate. Theyre happy with being on mission as they are today. They find our Market Service, i believe i dont want to put words in their mouths, but our Market Service is quite frequent we have 60 buses in our when we are fully built up in each lane, and if we were to allow other services into that lane, it would end up delaying munimobile i think the curb lane is going to be far improved with the removal of private vehicles. So i think that it is a an appropriate way to treat the service. However, you guys are the directors. This doesnt include ucsf . If we were to legislate as a bus only lane, it could be used by any bus. A camera never the exact limit, but any vehicle that is over 15 or 20 passengers would be able to use it. All right. Anything else, director torres . No, thank you. Other than to say that you are correct. The senators from Northern California destroyed our Public Transit system. [laughter] all those damn freeways and doing away with our rest stops. It was destroyed and Public Transportation never came back until just recently. I am glad we are doing this. I am in favor. Thank you. Director brinkman . I will be super brief. Thank you so much for the work on this. I know this has been a multiyear process and it will echo the public in thanks. I will director just echo the director and say lets just have this be the first of many car free streets we have in San Francisco. We will all probably be astonished by how fantastic this will be when it gets done and we will be chomping at the bit to do more of them. Thank you to ed riskin and matt ford. Was he here when he his when we started the work on this . Has it been that long . I think it has. [laughter] you are right. This took way too long. Thank you to the chair for continually championing this and bringing it up multi times every year to remind us how important this is. I look forward to supporting this and i will even make a motion to approve. There is a motion to approve and a second. If i may take a moment of time before we vote, thank you for that. That was very generous of you. I dont know if this is the happiest day of my life, but it is definitely on the list. [laughter] as i said downstairs, this will not just be a better Market Street, this will be a magnificent Market Street. It will be a magnificent Market Street because we will be doing exactly what director torres just urged and prioritizing modes of transit that need to be prioritized. We will have the aboveground subway for our bus lines. I personally favorite being munimobile only, but understand the concern that is being raised we will have similar priorities for bikes, for taxis, and for pedestrians. This is a wonderful project. I dont want it to end at Market Street. I will not be astonished when this is a success. Im expecting this to be a success. I will be astonished if this is not a success. And planning on that success, i have, as you know, already asked our director at the next retreat to give us the options for the next few streets so that we can start assuming that this will be a success and plan for the next streets that will prioritize transit and pedestrians and bicycles to the exclusion of private cars and bring us into the 21st century as far as transit and mobility go. So this will not just be a magnificent Market Street, it will be a model Market Street. We will have other Market Streets throughout the city as we go. Obviously with key study and input, this is not something to be taken lightly, but lets not wait to see if this will be a success. It will be a success. Lets Start Building for the future. Now on the topic of waiting, i dont know whether this is for you or miss wise, but we have waited too long. 2025 is too far. Have you ever seen a project of this scope, with this amount of impact on the city so uniformly approved . So uniformly supported . This is not even at the controversy stage anymore. This is what folks want. My understanding is that maybe it is in a bit of the design work, but really this is about money. So let me just ask the question. Why is it going to take until 2025 to get this done . Is it because we dont have the money identified for the various phases . The final phase is beginning in 2025. Thank you for that question, director. That is one of the Biggest Challenges that we have. That is correct. We are going to work really hard and are going to figure out how to find the funding that we are missing to deliver this project, and accordingly, also reprioritize Staff Resources to make sure we can deliver it as fast as possible. I could not agree with you more. We need to move faster and we will do everything we can to do so. Is there something you would like to add to that answer . The issue of schedule has a couple of dimensions. The first is i dont want to lose what victoria said in her opening parts of the presentation, which is we will be quick building this, more or less immediately, in january we will be painting the new bus lanes, we will remove all the private traffic from Market Street so by the end of january 2020, the operational conditions that we are legislating and agreeing to today will be in effect. It is a question of one to the cars leave Market Street, the answer is january 2020. I appreciate that. We put pressure on you to do that and im not suggesting that all of this is moving too slowly , but i am happy this will take place in january, i think we will see the shortterm effects and benefits to that in january, but this is a grantor project, as you know. Im gathering from your response that you dont disagree with me. I seen this agency move lots of money around. Ive seen this city move even larger amounts of money around when there is enthusiasm and prioritize a show for something. There is here. I havent heard from any major constituency. It is almost astonishing how well supported this is. It is not just supported because it will be beautiful and there will be trees on Market Street, although that is nice. It is supported because it will save peoples lives. I guess what i would say is i think i have the support of the board on this that there