tv Government Access Programming SFGTV December 12, 2017 4:00am-5:01am PST
where were we? so if muni stands by its statement that all the options have been looked at and islands are not negotiable, seems a compromise would be to remove the stops to restore some of the parking. my question, is it possible to continue with the research for other options. think about maybe a block sign that comes down off the back of a muni or something like that. if that's not the case, the most logical option would be, if you remove a stop would be to remove the one in the middle. the limited parking that will be left, that is left at this point and will be left after the changes need to be protected in some way from the commuters that drive from the other parts of the city out of the city and use these spots to park and ride downtown. we support the idea to allow parking for residents in the
time restricted zones advised to put in. we strongly support revisiting the angled parking idea, once the full impact of all these changes is complete and the need for parking changes. the opening of ocean beach p.t. in its current location was based on the amount of parking available in the area. and this was never disclosed to us before acquiring the space, all the changes that were going to come about as a result of the muni changes. all we can hope for is the m.t.a. board take into account all involved and open to the ideas while taking into account the merchants, residents and the muni riders. thank you. >> thank you, mr. harriman, next speaker, please. >> paula katz, followed by peggy deets and lynn miller. >> hello.
i'm paula katz with safe our l taraval stops. i hope you have taken the time to read the many emails you have received because many l riders who can't make it here today have poured their hearts out explaining losing their stops will hurt them. i hope you have also read the emails i have sent you. i urge you to keep all of our stops at 34th, 45th and 17th. i understand there are riders who want to raise their hands to show you they support keeping the stops especially at 44th. but many of the other stops. but there are some who are too shy to come up and speak. orange untilly the staff originally staff wanted to remove the stop at 44th but they let us keep our stops only because there was so much support to keep those stops and now suddenly 18 months later, they say they want to remove the stops because of some
complaints from our three merchants at the intersection and a few residents. the community still supports keeping the stops. over 75% of the riders who took m.t.a.'s own survey in a scientifically random sampling and 108 riders of whom more than 90% of those that we surveyed, they did their survey 75% wanted to keep it the stop. we at 44th. we did the survey and 95%, i gave you those surveys in november. but the staff didn't even mention our surveys. we were told they would in stakeholder feedback, they didn't mention our surveys or the emails and phone calls they received. it's clear staff wants to remove the stop to restore those ten parking spaces because of complaints from our three merchants and some
residents. someone is going to finish what we wanted to say. >> thank you very much, ms. katz. next speaker, please. >> peggy deets. lynn miller, jimmie lu. >> okay, following on, it's clear that the staff wants to remove the stops to restore 12 parking spaces because of the complaints from three merchants and some residents. many l. riders are concerned about the difficulties the merchants and residents face but balance the hardships on both sides and overwhelmingly concluded they want to keep the stops to avoid hurting hundreds of l riders who use them. this is consistent with transit first policy number 7 to encourage travel by public transit. removing stops doesn't encourage the use of public transit. sfmta should stop piting riders against merchants and residents and find other ways to restore parking. we urge you to reject the
staff's reliance on the stop spacing guidelines. ridership levels and claims removing the stops would improve reliability and transit times. the staff considered all of these factors in 2016 and still recommended that these stops be kept because the removal of other stops achieved the average minimum stop spacing under the guidelines and the sought after improved reliability and transit times. nothing has changed in the past year that justifies removing our stops for these reasons. if our 44th avenue stops could be kept in 2016 under all these criteria they don't lend support for removing the stops a year later. the same goes for inbound 35th avenue stop. finally, i urge the board to reject staff's opinion it would offset some of the additional 36 parking spaces soon lost at
40th, 32nd, 30th and 36th. the removal of the 44th avenue stop won't offset any of that lost parking. the closest of which is four blocks away at [inaudible] >> thank you very much, ms. deets. next speaker, please. >> lynn miller, jimmie lu. laura tam. >> hello, happy holidays and thank you for listening. although the small stores and restaurants across the street don't make it realistic to expect shoppers on diners would shop at 34th and walk up hill to shop or eat, they will just drive somewhere else if they can't find parking on 44th.
the solution for the sfmta to figure out a way to create additional parking on 40th, not to remove our stops at 44th, which won't help the merchants. it is foreseeable that removing the inbound 17th and 35th avenue stops will result in hundreds more riders crossing 19th avenue and sunset and be an invitation for accidents. human nature being what it is, many riders try to dash across 19th or sunset as the l. approaches. it seems counter intuitive, in light of the mayor's vision zero program to reduce the number of accidents to create a system that risks putting more riders in a situation where they may get hit by a car as they cross 19th through sunset. s.f.m.t.a. should be anticipating these possible
ridership patterns and avoid contributing to any of the possible increase in accidents. zero vision and s.f.m.t.a. have recognized that seniors are approximately five times more likely to be fatally injured as pedestrians. in 2016, 63% of pedestrian fatalities were seniors, 65 and older, 88% were age 60 and older. many were injured. >> thank you very much, ms. miller. next speaker,. >> jimmie lu, lara tam, barry hermanson. and ms. chair, there's no one left wishing to speak. >> thank you. >> hi, i'm here because i've witnessed people literally get hit by cars while they get off the l. taraval, that happened twice and i've almost been hit several times. i'm a big advocate of these
boarding islands because i believe they will save lives. i'm excited about these projects and i've been going to these community meetings since the very beginning. it's been kind of contentious and crazy and quite scary, actually. there's a lot of competing interests with everyone's different opinion, and honestly i don't think everybody will be completely happy with everything muni is recommending but having sat through everything, i feel muni has done the best job they can to accommodate everybody's opinions and needs and i believe in their recommendations and i hope you follow that. if you do decide to keep these stops, i do request that you do have boarding islands for these stops. and these islands should go the entire length of the muni trains. thank you. >> thank you, mr. lu, next speaker, please? >> laura tam, barry hermanson, albert chao. >> thank you. my name is laura tam, a 9-year
resident. i drive in the taraval neighborhood and take the l. taraval everyday, i also bike and walk in the neighborhood and so do my kids and classmates and many families, they take trips with their classes exclusively using the l. taraval so i'm here to strongly support the staff recommendation to build concrete boarding islands at all stops, this is the only way to ensure safety and commitment to vision zero. i'm literally grateful every time i step on the painted boarding islands. but also in the last few months at the five stops where the pilot approach has been tested i have seen cars blazing by when the train doors open and it's terrifying. the dark hours of the evening and morning have made the need of safe infrastructure more apparent, hoping people will know and follow the law is not good enough. i would like to thank the
m.t.a. staff for listening to feedback. i've been participating for two years myself and working so hard to make the pilot work, along with trying to please the merchants of taraval. the level of work has been tremendous. the train stickers, l.e.d. lights and paint have been noticeable and i thought they would make a big difference but as pilot results have clearly shown it hasn't resulted in 90% of drivers complying the standard you adopted for keeping the pilot boarding zones. i hope we get to keep the l.e.d. lights and stickers but support staff's recommendation. >> thank you, next speaker? >> barry hermanson.
>> good afternoon, my name is barry hermanson. i own a home on 28th avenue, you have already taken away my stop. back in the 1990's, i came here today to give this back to you. back in the 1990's i was president of the merchant upper market in castro. when the f line was installed muni worked with us at that time. we had a fabulous working relationship in order to limit the damage to the merchant community. i strongly believe muni is not working with the community. and options have been taken off the table right at the beginning of this process. staff came to the community with a fully developed project and was met with overwhelming opposition. there was no community process of reaching out to us in
advance and saying how can we design this. i'm appalled that we are investing huge amounts of money in this project and we are still left with l taraval line that doesn't have full a.d.a. compliance at every single stop. yes, the boarding islands and pilot project has made it safer. but one thing i would like you to consider -- two things actually, people who have lost jobs, it's taking longer time. it's 40 hours a year extra. when the construction happens, let's evaluate how people enjoy busses every single stop is accessible. the stops that have been lost can be restored. please take time to look at that during the construction. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. hermanson. next speaker, please.
>> albert chao, grace garza, daniel coupler. >> hi, i'm albert chao, speaking on behalf of the merchants on taraval street. we had a pilot program and i thank michael rhodes and his crew, we didn't meet the 90% requirement. however, i do have to say that there was a lack of education, a lack of enforcement and also a very minimal design put down on the ride way. i thought they would have had a fairer chance if it was fully implemented in the way it was really designed to be put out. and in that light, i would ask the board that if we could still consider saving 26th avenue, 32nd and 40th avenue pilots because those are the three critical spots on taraval
where i think they would receive the most benefits for the businesses. secondly, i think, i worry about the -- losing all the parking you are proposing to do is really going to make taraval businesses harder to prosper on the street, as well as people will start driving on santiago, which they already do and the consequences of that have yet to be seen. it's important you consider side consequences. and observe this closely as we continue this conversation, as the construction process moves out. so thank you very much. and -- oh, so the three things we would really consider is to give us back the left lane, no more traffic lights, no more additional traffic lights because we think that stacks up all the traffic on
taraval and if we could preserve those three critical pilot programs. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chao. next speaker, please. >> grace garza. >> hello, my name is grace. i was never against keeping a stop, definitely against losing parking. we also have elderly and disabled clients that patronize our business. during tt -- the day the commuters take up all the parking which takes up parking for the patrons. and some of the residential units on taraval do have parking in their buildings and it's typical some residents have more than one vehicle, that's just the way it is. but our client business dropped almost half, 50%. 90% drive to our salon from out of the area.
it's especially tough with complicated street cleaning days and opposition to diagonal parking. i hope you revisit it. you guys also monitor the clear zones like you did the boarding areas? and if you keep the stops and keep the clear zones, you need to implement stop signs. cars are zipping through. there are no parked cars to protect the pedestrians and they go faster now through the clear zones. it's not safe. also we need help from s.f.m.t.a. to direct flow to merchant businesses amidst changes. i'm not against change but it needs to be fair for the merchants. i just think environmentally it will be more of an impact if people have to go out to patronize other businesses and to commute even further, that's more environmental impacts. so thanks for listening. >> inch thats -- thanks very
much, ms. garza. >> [calling names] >> is mr. kapler here? no. elizabeth murphy? followed by david [inaudible] and vivian sackovic. >> my name is elizabeth murphy, i live on 35th avenue and we specifically bought our home where we bought our home with proximity to the taraval. 15 months ago or longer, m.t.a. promised to keep our stop. the m.t.a.rep talked about 450 here and 450 feet there, those are measured blocks. i know it sounds like feet, it's close. shorter than a football field but it's blocks. the sunset stop which would be our new stop is a six lane
road, you have the figures how many have been hit or killed by cars in the last 18 months? whereas the taraval traffic incidents are numbers from years ago and we haven't seen current numbers but i'm not aware of any accidents on taraval. one of the safety features you added is a no-left turn sunset and taraval. everyday i go through that intersection and everyday i see people turn left against the no-left turn sign, i haven't seen one bit of enforcement. that's something to think about. but equally, the pilot program of watching people, do they stop behind the trains, i have never seen any enforcement on taraval either, so of course cars are still whizzing by because none have seen anybody get a ticket and it's a
self-fulfilling prophecy, putting up signs saying watch for the cars but that's months after it started and the education wasn't there. the bottom line, we would like to keep our stop. and as we have seen on the k line and m line, boarding islands are not a full solution, people still get hit. you need to enforce the drivers and not punish the transit riders. >> thank you very much, ms. murphy. >> david [inaudible], vivian sackovic, moany -- >> david pillpill, here are my comments on this item. the process staff referred to in the report on the small group meetings was an entirely secretive process and contrasts starkly with the recent 66 quinterra study. this process has resulted in whatever the staff wanted from the beginning. the education and enforcement
as others have commented, was rather lacking. and one could easily conclude that the pilot efforts were designed to fail. the stop spacing proposed with these removals would not result in better spacing but would actually result in worse spacing. some stops would continue to be as close as two blocks, which i favor, and others as far away as four and a half blocks, which i don't favor. so this doesn't result in more balanced stop spacing on the l. what continues to be lacking here as well, is any effort to unclog the intersection at westportal. west portal is a key bottleneck on the l but also the k and m and castro shuttle. if efforts were made to unclog west portal that would have great benefit for all of the lines in the area and there's
been no effort there. the agenda today does not indicate under ceqa that the parking removals are an approval action under chapter 31 in violation of that chapter, the admin code. in summary, i oppose the changes that are proposed here. i urge this board to show some independence, to leave things alone, to listen to the passengers, majority of whom have said leave the stops. i urge you to keep all the transit stops and not go through this process like this again. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> vivian sackovic. monice chauncey, elizabeth chu. >> thank you, as you can see there's so many people here in support of keeping the stops that we currently have. there are elderly individuals who need to be able to go to safeway, get their groceries
and not have to walk the length of a football field to the next stop. carrying one bag of groceries may not seem like a lot to you, but for a person in their 70's or 80's that's a lot to be carrying and go a block or two, crossing potentially six lanes of traffic is not okay. i'm a daily l taraval rider, i live on 34th and taraval, i ride on 35th and i see people there everyday. i see elderly people, i see young people. and to take that stop away from our elderly people who need it to get to where they are going and asking them to walk an extra few blocks is not all right. i urge you guys to take a step back and look at all the feedback you have received from the community. you know, don't just try to bulldoze your agenda through. education is key, but educating people on what they need to do when they get off the bus is equally as important as educating the drivers to stop. behind the trains. i can't tell you how many times
as a muni rider i have seen people get off the bus while looking at their phones. okay. everybody here has seen that. how is it you are going to ask the drivers to be responsible when the pedestrians aren't responsible, right? education is key. put some signs on the busses that say, put down your phone before you get off the bus. look before you exit. i see that on some of the busses but not all, right. and that's important. so there are things you can do to actually make this successful. but the first thing is to not take away the stops. our elderly and disabled people need it, it's very important. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> moniece chauncey, elizabeth chu. is monice here? moving on is lisa chu here?
pat trubetkoy? no? michael o'rourke. seth sainte-martine. barbara hughes. any of those people here? all right, please come forward if ms. boomer has called your name. >> go ahead, ma'am. >> hi, i'm barbara hughes. and i live on 30th avenue and i've lived in the sunset my entire life. went to all the local schools, i took the l. and the n. and the 7 and everything else and got there. in fact, mentioning the 66 line, i tried to go to that meeting, i got there and nobody was there. anyway, getting back to this issue.
44th, 35th and 17th, in my opinion should never be removed. every island should be put on every stop on that line. i am a senior. i'm a lot older than you may think i am. that stop, removing the stop in both directions at 17th avenue is a terrible idea. people need to have safety there. in fact, i know somebody i used to work with whose mother was killed on that intersection, getting off the streetcar. so i know it happens. the two intersections of sunset boulevard and 19th avenue are dangerous. to walk across any street on 19th avenue or sunset is a hazard because i have experienced it myself.
basically, that's all i want to say. oh, the lighting. you have got to do something about the lighting, especially at night. people race up and down that street. if you have ever been out there at night, nobody obeys any of those things you put up on the street. and they are all making u-turns in the middle of the street. they are making left turns right and left. and if somebody is double parked like they are at night, especially by the bars, you have to go in the streetcar tracks because you can't get around the cars out there flashing their lights. they don't park, they just double park. so that's my opinion. and as an ex muni employee, i think i just said enough. thank you. >> thank you, ms. hughes. next speaker, please. >> michael o'rourke, seth saint martin. conor craig. francisco saldean.
>> i've really got to hand it to you folks. >> can you tell us your name? >> michael o'rourke, l taraval, sunset. you are really dedicated, you sit up there for hours and hours listening to us piss and moan all for a lousy $200 a month or so i'm told. i know you get a few muni pass but those wages i wouldn't work for. but here's the deal, folks, we do pay you $200 which in my book you work for us, we charged you with delivering comprehensive and intelligence transportation to the citizens of san francisco, through muni and congestion management, we won't talk about that today, i will take your thanks off the air. it's quick, it's cheap, it's comfortable, convenient and connected. if you eliminate stops you eliminate four of those elements for the transit rider. let me give you an example,
passenger on northbound 29th, she wants to go downtown, she gets off at taraval, she looks behind, there's an l. taraval at a red light. she isn't going to risk six lanes of traffic, as soon as the light turns green he is gone, on the way to the tunnel but if she is at 35th, she keeps her quickness and convenience and comfort and she keeps her connectivity. all right, so here is what we want you to do. we want you to forget about eliminating the stops. we don't pay you for diminished services. i don't know what it is to you anyway, as far as i know none of you ride the l., we do. forget about eliminating the stops. we will go home happy because we won't have to come back and harangue you any more and even though you don't pass go, you still collect $200. thank you very much, have a nice afternoon.
>> next speaker, please. >> seth saint martin, connell craig, francisco saldana, inga horton. >> hi, my name is seth saint martin, exec director [inaudible] i came to speak in support of the 4-hour parking time limit in that area. it seems to work for the most part for addressing the needs of my congregation. as a private citizen and as a resident of san francisco, i spoke to some congregants who have addressed concern about the stops. have seen mobility and access to businesses and services diminished as stops are removed. with the rest of my time i would like to read a letter from supervisor gee which my understanding has been sent to you and it's in support of the
17th stop. he says i'm writing to disagree with the proposed removal of inbound 17th stop as part of the l. taraval and propose an alternative still protect safety, and remove less parking than other current proposals. a third middle ground option seems available that still addresses parking, pedestrian safety and access for people with disables and seniors. retaining the current 17th avenue location, installing a 30 foot a.d.a. accessible ramp, removing five parking spots. this removes six less parking spots than the other option to install a 100-foot boarding platform, addresses pedestrian safety while also allowing seniors and adults with disabilities to still use the existing inbound stop. there are several other locations in san francisco where this type of stop has been effective. i urge the board to consider this option. i'm committed to pedestrian safety, maintaining access for
seniors and those with disabilities and balancing transit riders. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> francisco saldana. >> good afternoon, my name is connell craig. i have two points i would like to make this afternoon. one of a general nature and other specific point about 17th avenue stop. on a general nature, the issue of trying to speed up the transit time from the beach to downtown. i can't find a single person who sees that a priority. safety, yes. but any decision being made based upon reducing transit time should be reviewed and looked at a second time. i don't see any value in doing that.
[inaudible] secondly on 17th avenue at safeway stop i challenge each one of your decision making capacity to physically go to is that stop with a shopping bag, put a couple bricks and walk 15th or across 19th and see what it's really like to have to do that. i can do it, i know a lot of my fellow passengers can't. in particular being forced to go downhill across 19th is asking for an accident to happen. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. craig. >> francisco saldana, inga horton, malik morton. >> good afternoon, i'm here representing myself and three other people -- >> can you tell us your name? >> francisco saldana. and three other people that live adjacent to the 17th avenue taraval stop. i'm speaking in opposition to its removal. all of us are working professionals we use the stop to commute into the city every single day.
removing the stop would cause all of us to basically run to the 19th avenue and taraval inbound stop every morning and as you know, 19th avenue is an incredibly busy thoroughfare. it's six lanes. and the infrastructure in that intersection if you have ever actually walked there, the sidewalks are maybe two feet wide and you are competing with all this infrastructure there. either you are standing on the narrow sidewalk or standing on white lines in the middle of the street. that feels less safe to me than like the very wide 17th avenue sidewalks. that are currently available in front of the safeway on taraval street. so that's pretty much all, i'm speaking in opposition to the
removal. please reconsider the decision. i think removing stops is removing access to transit. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, mr. saldana, next speaker, please. >> inga horton, malik morvan, tom gilberty and those are the last speaker cards i have, so if anybody else wishes to address the board if you could fill out a speaker card and hand it in at this time, thank you. >> good afternoon, my name is inga horton. i live since 1972 at 144th avenue. so i'm not a new immigrant. but i am very disturbed by the attitude of saving one or two minutes in the travel time that you inconvenience seniors and mothers with little children, also fathers with little children and i don't think
that's the purpose of muni, muni is supposed to make it moresy for -- more easy for us to use it and leave our cars at home. another issue i would like to mention is with the new platforms, we will have a lot of traffic delays on taraval because in this time and age, everybody is ordering their goods and services on the internet and the delivery trucks double park or park in the lane in the one through lane and that will lead to a lot of difficulties and back ups. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> malik. >> i live on 33rd avenue, when i don't bike i take muni
everyday with my two kids, 4 and 7 years old. and first i want to commend you for improving the bike lane previously, you prioritize safety and i hope you will do the same here today. every time i take the l. taraval it's with cars zipping through. myself i have been on it twice, that's why i'm so scared every time i get off the train with my two kids. we shouldn't be risking our lives every time we get off the train. i'm also mad when people put parking above my kids' safety. we even heard someone blaming the victims. pedestrians might be looking at their phone but drivers are the ones with the killing machines. enough with this. anyway, we could have kept the current stops if not for the misconceptions. we have a good body of evidence
and i send you an email. demonstrating merchants overestimate the amount of customers who come by car. the evidence every time is more customer walk, bike or take transit. in addition customers spend more time and more money. however this has been going on too long and it's time to move forward. i urge you to approve staff recommendation. i understand change is difficult and people want to keep their stop but someone using 100 transit systems all over the world, europe, with more space between stops i think l. taraval and all its riders will do just fine. please approve the staff recommendation, thank you for your time. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> tom, followed by brenda and
grant bartone, those are the last speaker cards. >> tom gilberty, i live at 2 townsend. completely across town. i say that because we have angled parking, it's relatively new. it seems to work, you get more cars, i believe. so i look into that again. alternatives. what can we do? the boarding islands, yes. accessible ramps, please. keeping all the stops, please. an alternative, if we added four more trains to the schedule, could we have a taraval a and a taraval b. one that skips every stop. so there's no back up, basically. and we have less stops.
you would use less stops. each train would stop less. another alternative, most seniors and disabled people don't rush out at 5:00, 6:00, 7:00, 8:00 in the morning. they will take midday. could we have another schedule from 9:00, where all the trains stop at every stop? i can see that happening on vanness, which is the one i ride. i would like to see an a and a b. the people i have talked to on the van ness, the older folks, i say how do you like it, we are walking more and they curse because they know they won't be able to do this much. i have lost my ability to roll up chestnut, to franklin to van
ness. it hurts. we need to keep as many stops, keep it safe and think outside of the box. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. gilberty, next speaker, please. >> brenda peralta, grant and then deparker. -- dee parker. >> i'm brenda peralta, i have been in the sunset over 50 years and i'm in favor of keeping the 44th avenue stop. so i'm just going to say, i'm not going to give you an exact number but i'm in my 60's so i don't have apps, i'm not that i.t. savvy. but i'm still trained, sort of mid block between santiago and taraval, if i hear that streetcar turning the stop, i try to run and go there. go to 44th and taraval.
if i'm at 44th and i see a streetcar, i can't be running, you know, two blocks up or two blocks down. if i am doing that, you know, being that our human nature. i'm looking out for myself, i may not see a car coming up or down. i might come close to being hit. that would be my own fault. but the point is, just trying to make those extra blocks, trying to still get to work on time, you know, that's very difficult. people have mentioned the education part, if you do make some changes. i know i was just driving, let's see, i was going towards the beach. i saw the no left-hand turn sign on taraval, i said man when did that come up. all i see is a different
colored sign that says new sign. no left-hand turn on taraval so there has to be more education also to that. so if you are going to implement something, there has to be more public outreach and more community meetings about that. and i do try to see what's there, in the mail, i still try to read. >> thank you, ms. peralta. >> grant bartone. dee parker. >> good afternoon, i'm grant bartone. i'm here to advocate for keeping the stops at 44th avenue specifically on behalf of my household, where i live with my wife and her senior parents who have lived there for 20 years. from our point of view, removing the l. stop at 44th would cause hardship to my aging in-laws who commute daily on the l and need the stops as close as possible,. as well as other seniors in the
sunset district and the richmond where the b.r.t. is to see what age groups are living in that area because you have young people with family, very young people or you have the elderly and usually when you have the elderly, they may not having their families living with them and you cannot do an a.b. bus because we thought about that and we asked about that for the b.r.t. and because street cars cannot pass each other, that doesn't work and my stop at ninth and gary was eliminated although there's three schools in the area and a public library within half a block so the reason was to speed up the buses
by one minute but now the b.r.t. goes in to the center lane that you have to have the islands and the buses can't go around each other so i have no local service that's what is going to happen to these people and really local service is being eliminated so the buses can maintain that one or two minute improvement so i stand with the people who don't want elimination because they're trying to do it to the richmond next. please hold your applause. we have no more public comment cards do i have anybody else for comment public. come up now or i will close public comment. public comment is closed. all right what i'd like to do is i want to take these in turn so we're going to start, mr. rose, could you please come back up i'm sure there are questions from directors. first thank you all for coming down to share your feelings with
us on this i know this is not an easy situation for anybody and it's not easy for us and i know it's not easy for you and i hate that we have created division in the community but it seems that that is a necessary off chute of the work that wire doing around safety and reliability so i'd like to start with 17 street since that seems to be one of the ones that most people are here to talk about and we have legislateed this stop approval with the larger package of legislation earlier, correct? >> that is correct. >> we so asked for to you do research to see what could be discovered around that stop and you did that, correct? >> correct. >> there was more study done around that stop? >> exactly, that's right. >> and now -- >> maybe you could just introduce an idea that was interesting and i would love to
see whether or not testifying interesting you considered and if so what the issues were related to it? >> that was. >> for 17th street about relocateing can you just keep the map. i'm curious, i can't visualize what she suggested worked but it sounded interesting. >> let's while we're locating that map let's go on so what we need to decide with this one are we going to go ahead with that stop removal or do we want to not remove that stop. i'd like input please. >> thank you, i want to clarify so we're all on the same page, this is the inbound therefore south side of the street 17th avenue stop, correct? >> exactly, that's correct. and so that is where my family
and i shop so i know the store pretty well and there was some discussions about the effect of people who are leaving the store with their groceries and there is currently no out bound stops right in front of the store that has been removed and so it was 19th avenue when you guys observing the pattern there, are there a lot of shoppers leaving with groceries going in bounds and i can fully imagine there would be a lot of shopper leaving going out bound given the neighborhood that that store serves but i guess my question is were there, i mean i'm sensitive to the comments and examples to put two bricks in a bag and i get it and i think there is a special nature to this stop because there is a safeway there and so what i'm trying to get at is in your observe observations are there actual, not actual but are there significant numbers of people leaving that store with groceries to go in bound as
opposed to out bound? >> definitely the more common pattern is to go out bound because if you are on your way home from work downtown, you are likely to then continue westward from there and there's far more stops to the west or out bound of 19th avenue so that's the more common pattern is to use the out bound stop and you know, reviewing the stops, reviewing video, you know, when a train pulls up i would say there's usually four or five people getting on and sometimes there's no one who is coming home from safeway there's one or two folks that have come and the way i would character it if you see folks who work from safeway to the inbound stop it's smaller and it's a smaller grocery load and there's absolutely some usage of the inbound stop by folks going coming from safeway to use an inbound it's a matter of frequency and sort of the volume of what people are
carrying. >> i wanted to understand the pattern and then obviously one of the ideas here is to reduce the need for people to cross 19th avenue especially with items but even without them and so i understand the idea here would be that the stop of likely preference for an inbound passenger leaving safeway would now be the 15th avenue stop which is actually going to come down 15th avenue a little bit because of dynamics with the train. >> so to clarify that the 15th avenue stop will stay where it is for now because of our proposal was to move it on to ta raval because it stops the stop sign. >> but it's still at the corner? >> exactly. it's a slight downhill grade versus a uphill grade. >> that would be to cross 19th avenue. >> it would require to cross 19th avenue so it's something we rooked at closely in terms of the safety profile of that.
>> and then just to finish my questions, the estimates time saving on the inbound traffic particularly during rush hour but i suppose it's all times what is the estimates time saving to someone going downtown from the outer sunset or park side areas by the removal of that particular stop? >> that particular stop is about 25 to 30 seconds obviously, each one of these individuals stops and these changes is part of a package but it's 25 to 30 second s. >> thank you, very much. >> director shoe, i'd like to hear your comments on 17th avenue? >> so i've found some of the comments here very persuasive about keeping that and i also wanted to just see if you could address the letter that supervisor yeast had read before that there was a third alternative whether that is something that is really in play or is it something that you could talk about? >> interview: maybe you could -- i don't know if that's the same thing or not but. >> yeah, i'm sort of looking through this diagram and it
looks like it was focused around relocateing some of the meters and some of the side streets to help offset the parking removal but this area of taraval has the fewest opportunities for meters because everything in this segment is already metered and you know occupancys are high around here so our options for both angleed parking and meter parking are limit inside this zone and as far as the proposal that supervisor's office brought to you which is i think just installing the wheelchair accessible stop and removing the standard stop, it's a possibility we don't have a lot of locations where that is the case because from a passenger ledge ability standpoint it's easier if you have one stop all consolidated in one place but it does offer the advantage that if you are someone who really is struggleing to get to the next stop there is say stop available in that case. >> so just to clarify the 15th street stop will it turn the corner before it stops going in
bound? >> yes that is the existing condition and it looks like it will stay like that. >> in other words sox in that case it will stop at 15th turn the corner and stop again and go all the way to the end and stop again, right? >> yes, because there's a stop sign at ulloa as well which is what it does and we wanted to pull it back and stop at the stop sign but it's a challenge. >> i would pre fear keep the 17th avenue stop just because i feel like it's a grocery store in the go-to grocery for a lot of people and the neighborhood and if we do move forward and eliminate it i would like to suggest we do it as a pilot and re-evaluate after a period of time and whether or not the impacts are what people fear or maybe they're not as bad as they could be or maybe it's worse and there are people who may not realize that this is going to happen given that we've already legislateed it and it actually comes in place, right.
>> i would agree with that as well. we've heard from safeway or i've heard from safeway about the difference in loss of sales when they move a stop away and realistically and i believe that some people chose to drive if they can't easily get somewhere by bus and if our goal is not to get more people driving, grocery stores we heard some people speak about food access as a pretty big issue that we can't easily overlook and it's not just any business but it's a primary of course and then you've got that also competing demand of the delivery services and so you know, as we make hard tore get more traditional groceries stores, it's the people who can afford it's the
would prefer that we not make it permanent. revisit it and have a plan for revisiting. because we will get feedback as the vice-chair said on the time savings and how people are using it. >> i am confused by one of the slides. you have diagrams of what is proposed. it looks like there is a fold at 15th. you are suggesting this is not the case as follows. >> there is a detailed design process as the project is closer to construction. something that we learned when the train makes a turn from