Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 16, 2010 1:30pm-2:00pm PST

2:30 pm
thisdl the main issue then was that we would gather more information about the measure. you may recall in late march we did an initial pull to try to understand what the chances of the measure would be of being supported by the public. it was a simple majority measure. we did a follow-up and the purpose of today's meeting was to give you some context for a more important position on potentially placing this on the ballot. unfortunately, i only have a piece of the picture. we polled over the fourth of july weekend.
2:31 pm
that has set us back time was a little bit. what we have today is a result that puts the approval ratings of this measure at 62%, plus or minus four points, which is a bit lower than the 65 we had in march. but it is still a positive result. that is all i can tell you. i do not feel comfortable giving you a recommendation based on that. there is a whole set of tabs in the report that is still not ready. one of the reasons why it is i have asked consultants to do a detailed comparison with others to make sure we understand the trend. the option that i can give you today, unless you're prepared to act on that one number -- and i am certainly not recommending that -- we consider this again
2:32 pm
on the 20th. i wonder if we can schedule a meeting on the 20th or not. i know that we will have the information at the end of the week probably. certainly, no later than saturday. that way, you can have that prior to the discussion on tuesday. at this point, that is the best i can tell. there is one other consideration that i want to put before you,), which is, you are probably aware there is a statewide measure called stop hidden taxes which has gathered 1.1 million signatures and is headed for the statewide ballot. one of the things i would like to be able to do in presenting the information to do is to show you where there is an opportunity for this measure to
2:33 pm
garner the supermajority it would need to not even be affected by the statewide initiative. that is something i should be in a position to give you when the commission is ready. that is my report on that. as i said, i am not recommending action on this because i want to be able to give you enough information so that you feel like you are making an informed decision. supervisor campos: thank you. i want to ask you, i think it makes sense for us to wait until the information is finalized, but in terms of the poll itself, i know that there is some concern of and the legality of a public agency doing polling of this type. i wonder if you or council could address that, assurance that we
2:34 pm
are complying with all the rules? >> i would be happy to defer to counsel on that. stan taylor. supervisor campos: good morning. >> the short and to your question is the issue has been looked at already. polling in connection to recertification of the measures on the ballot is authorized, in terms of information gathering, to design the program for the expenditure plan. the authority of santa barbara countthere was a 2008 decision expressly talking about polling places. it is reasonably -- reasonably
2:35 pm
believable that the polling place is an expenditure. supervisor campos: thank you. supervisor chu: pulling in advance of the measure going on the ballot, is there any rule as to the types of questions are asked, what is a poll? >> no, pulling traditionally test the expenditure plan to see what is most favored by the vote -- by the voters. supervisor chusupervisor campos. commissioner dufty? supervisor dufty: i appreciate the questions and your opening comments. i have served on this board for many years. i have felt overwhelmingly the plans and planninprograms commie have removed any thing on to the
2:36 pm
cold war without recommendations. because there are so many moving parts here, it might make sense to do that. at the appropriate time, i might want to offer a motion to send this to follow toward is with the recommendation to give them the opportunity. supervisor campos: thank you. your point is well taken. we try to finalize the work as much as we can but i think we are dealing with unusual circumstances right now, given everything that is going on in city hall. commissioner david chiu. supervisor chiu: i have been thinking about this for quite some time. as many of you know, i pushed forward a more significant measure dealing with this. given the debate we are having in the city, in other committees around potential revenue measures, my concern is we are very selective as a body and
2:37 pm
what we are placing on the ballot. while i think there is a lot of marriage for -- merit for, from my perspective, i do not know if this is the right measure at the right time. i think god will wait for public comment to consider what commissioner dufty is suggesting in moving this forward. i am not inclined at, at this point, to move forward without recommendations, but i am willing to hear from colleagues. supervisor campos: carmen chu. supervisor chu: the polls that will be provided, is that something that we can expect to see on saturday, monday? >> i have been consulted that this will be ready at the end of the week. at this point, the best
2:38 pm
assurance i have is and will definitely be ready over the weekend. if i can deliver it to you by the end of friday, i will certainly do that. we want to make sure also that we look at the data before we give it to you. supervisor chu: we appreciate that. i suppose part of the report will include questions as to the methodology. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. before we open this umove on, wo see if there are any members of the public that would like to comment on this item. >> two points. do not interpret this as an advocacy that this should or should not go forward, but i am supportive of the issue that commissioner david chiu has raised, that the city develop an
2:39 pm
overall strategy of revenue measures. the other point, i would strongly urge you to retain the ability in this measure to utilize the funds on an emergency basis for transit operations when absolutely necessary. this year, with respect to caltrain to, highlights the fact that our fiscal situation remains extremely volatile. none of us have a crystal ball. it is fairly likely that we will continue to be in a state of uncertainty for several years. we need to patch together solutions, unfortunately, from a number of different sources. i believe it behooves you to retain the ability, utilize these funds, make them available, if necessary, under this measure to help us get us through the next several years. supervisor campos: thank you.
2:40 pm
any other member of the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, i understand the comments made by commissioner david chiu, to the extent that that remains, that can be discussed at the full ta. moving it forward does not do much for it, one way or the other. i know we have a motion, seconded by commissioner chu. supervisor chu: i will make that motion. supervisor campos: commissioners, do you want a roll call on this? supervisor chiu: i do not believe this measure is ready to move forward. we can have that discussion at
2:41 pm
the full. let's take a roll call. >> [roll call] the item passes. supervisor campos: next item. >> launch for the san francisco transportation plan. this is an informational item. >> we would suggest continuing this item to the next month and have the next presenter come up. supervisor campos: is there any member of the public that the other to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. can we have a motion to continue? motion to continue from carmen chu, seconded by bevan dufty. without objection.
2:42 pm
next item. >> mobility, access and pricing study. draft findings. this is an information item. >> i will be presenting this item which begins on page 209 of your pocket. i would try to go through this quickly so we can get to your questions or comments. the first thing i would like to say is this is our feasibility study of conjecture pricing. one of the things we start off saying is we recognize we do not have congestion like new york, london, cities that are considered congestion hot spot. some of these photographs show where we have a suggestion on our most congested corridors. many are also transit corridors. also, during peak periods. when we look at our goals for
2:43 pm
the future, transportation conditions we have today, we know we want to strengthen the city's economic competitiveness to create a more livable city, and provide their world-class infrastructure. these were goals that were established originally in concept in our original countywide transportation plan. as you noted, we will be launching a cover update to the transportation plan this fall. as we look at the growth challenge, we are expected to grow quite significantly in the coming decade. 150,000 residents, 230,000 more workers, about the population of santa rosa. that is a significant growth trend for san francisco alone. the region is expected to grow
2:44 pm
significantly as well. this focuses on our core areas which are also transgendered acceptable. if we look at the new projects, we are looking at areas that are also quite congested at this time. if you take just one of them, this is the transbay area today. with the plan, significant growth in that one district. as we look at what this means for the downtown areas, market areas that are all thesalready congested -- what this means for our streets is at least 20,000 more peak period vehicle trips. if we think about how we might
2:45 pm
accommodate those trips, we will end up with a much longer and severe rush hour, an increase of 20% in our! 30% by 2013. if we look at the complement of all of these things, we know we need a robust solution for demand management and generating revenue for infrastructure and investment. in need to be both together, not just one tool, and a comprehensive measure. this is one of the things that we will be looking at in the plan as it is launched later this fall. as we look at the scenarios that we may consider for san francisco, we look at where congestion is, where it is worse, and other options for people where we could improve for the travelers who decide to drive or travel by other modes. we have been looking just at the
2:46 pm
downtown corridor. this area is so small, people would likely drive around, creating diversions for neighboring communities. we contrast did that with a gateway approach, much larger area, but tried to find ways of managing internal demand for parking pricing. without that, people are likely to drive more within san francisco and erode those benefits. we settled on what we considered to be our best performers, the northeast corridor. in is an interim step between the small and large areas. we also did many iterations, looking at what should the edges of the zone should be. we found we needed to go to the waterfront to avoid a diversion. we also need to include not only in areas that are congested
2:47 pm
today, but those areas that we expect to grow, mission area for example. we want to to focus on the possible parking fees. we know we have a suggestion mostly in peak periods, so we are considering a peak. -- period fee. also, creating enough revenue to create investments. technology that we could use is the fast track system that we use today. however, that would not necessarily mean a toll booth. the image on the right is an example in london. they use a camera-based system similar to what we have with signal clarity detectors to minimize the impact on the
2:48 pm
social fabric, which was something that we heard about in public feedback we would look at multiple payment systems, so that people would feel like they did not have to pay if they chose to drive. we did consider various discounts and exemptions. we had a long list of when we started. this is just an example from public of reach. we then settled on a short list because a lot of people said if you offer to many discounts, you are eroding the benefits of the program. low income, disabled would be considered. we also consider geographic equity and wanted to consider a rebate for people who are currently paying a bridge toll. the final thing i should know is we heard a fair amount of feedback from people concerned about impact on businesses and families. one of the key pieces that we
2:49 pm
established is a daily cash for the fee, so that people are not having multiple fees per crossing, but a maximum of $6 per day. we anticipate the program can generate $60 million to $80 million in annual revenue. we looked at how to reinvest their revenues so that the people paying could see a benefit to the program. over half goes to san francisco, potentially, and it would be reinvested in the transportation, other travel and public-works programs. we considered who is traveling, who is driving in the is peak periods? a lot of people anticipate it is regional travelers causing congestion, bringing their cars in, but we found over half of the trips in the downtown area are actually san francisco drivers. we need to make sure we are managing our own travel
2:50 pm
patterns and demands. this is one of the things that fed into how we distribute the program benefits. we also looked at how to distribute a program benefits in terms of start up costs, capital improvements available within the first month of the programl; as well as animal, ongoing operating costs and improvements. we look at things like vrt, real-time signal timing, the way finding, and other types of improvements within san francisco, and as well, transit improvements, capital or operating, to run the region, that would benefit people coming in. we also look at streetscape improvements and power washing, resurfacing. if you could fix the pot holes, i would gladly pay the money. that is the sort of thing that we hear. we have conducted a fair amount
2:51 pm
of outreach and will continue to do so over the course of the program. we will be launching a fourth round by the end of the month. we have also conducted business groups and will be looking for feedback from key stakeholders. a lot of people in the area are low income travelers. they see it could be a benefit to them. this is just a couple of quotations from our outreach. business impacts. businesses are concerned. one of the key concerns that we heard was, could we be doing a better job of enforcement today, managing the system? in terms of the design of the
2:52 pm
program, a recognition that there is congestion, and to the extent possible, they accept the cost of doing business. however, they looked into other ways to minimize the administrative burdens. they are also looking at a daily cap, falt fee. -- flat fee. as i mentioned, the northeast corridor appears to be the best performer with the greatest benefits. he was in packs. however, if there was a decision to move ahead with a more measured approach, we did look into a couple of others and there that could be considered pilots. the first half looks at the northeast corridor but focuses only on the pm and outbound
2:53 pm
direction. people going to the theaters, and different shops during the day. another approach would be to look at the southern good way. this is due to feedback on the geographic equity situation. again, we would need to do some form of management in the downtown area. we can look at parking advances to improve current strategies, based on their belly widgeons, moving forward. how the next slide to compare the scenarios. how they perform in terms of their financial perspective, congestion management perspective.
2:54 pm
we anticipate we can reduce peak activity between 12% and 15% and also reduce transit fees by up to 20%. we are also looking at the co benefits of the nichols troubled. looking at the benefits, criteria pollutants as well. we did look at how trip patterns may change. people were concerned that we would reduce the number of trips in the day. we found that the number of trips are not likely to reduce. the number one effect would be that people would continue to drive with this reduction. that means 80% of the people still see a benefit and would continue to drive. other people may change the time that they drive, what, bike, or
2:55 pm
create other ways to take advantage of their travel. we did look at a key number of people who are benefiting from faster transit trips, car pooling, are continuing to save a significant portion of time. we also looked at business impacts. this was in response to the economic impacts. we do not expect there to be significant business impact. however, we are looking at employment impacts which could potentially be somewhat minimal, up to 1%, and we could mitigate them by internal capital, streetscape enhancements, other enhancements. there is also the benefit of the program of increasing for traffic to the business areas through positive retail impact.
2:56 pm
60,000 more troops by trenton, walking, biking. i will also draw your attention to the retail survey. well drivers spend quite a bit individually, transit riders and whoppers come more frequently. over the course of the month, they spend the same or more as the average driver. i will close by noting the institutional considerations. we would have to obtain legislative authority to toll. that would have to be at the state level. we would need environmental clearance. the authority would also designate and create a toll agency. the function that are necessary do not exist with any agency right now. setting the toll discount policy, approval upfront, concession and with a program operator, and also directly producing contracts with
2:57 pm
services, when considering the pilot, other options. also, monitoring the performance and burying it over the course of the program. there are some existing models for the existing structure. we would have to have a memorandum of agreement with the different transit operators as well. i will close by saying we are launching our fourth and final round of outreach. we have workshops at the end of the month and we will also be doing lunch time when dinars for those who are not able to join us.
2:58 pm
u collect for more feedback and get recommendations. commissioner chu: just two quick questions, one on the business impact, we see here a one-page slide on the business impact, neutral to positive, and in a private future meeting i would like to see what the studies were, i think. just a one-page summary does not do it for me. just that comment. and second, with regard to outreach efforts, to bring in folks from at least one of the proposals has significant
2:59 pm
coverage in the chinatown area, one area that might have monolingual residents as well. have you been advertising? have there been special efforts to go into the chinatown area to make sure residents are available? >> in terms with businesses, we would be happy to share more information on that. we have done outreach in multiple neighborhoods and specifically to business communities. when we hold outre