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