We removed the stop. If that goes forward, then i would prefer that we not make it permanent. Revisit it and have a plan for revisiting. Because we will get feedback as the vicechair 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 teravol, as the train turns to 15th, it swings over into the what would be the passenger loading area and makes it difficult to have a bold stop at a 90 degree angle turn like that. We looked at having a stop further back before the intersection. But then you run into driveway conflicts at a location. Because of that and we can definitely provide more information on that. Basically, the train swing would essentially be where passengers are. So if you would explain why we call it a transit. Up until earlier, a week ago, that was the intention was to use it as a transit. The findings have ruled it out. Exactly. Around the corner. I want to talk about 19th avenue. I did not here about the improvements talked a lot about today. From what i understand crossing 19th avenue when it is said and done will be different from the experience we had today. We suffer through it today. Right, thank you. That is good, an important point. 19th avenue prior to about 2012 or 2013 was the higher injury locations. Because of that and aside from the stop issue, it is an important intersection to focus on. We added engineering treatments like no right turn on reds and no left turn. Daylighting. Leading pedestrian intervals. New arms for the signals. People are not running lights. And of course the transit only lanes and no left turns. As a result we have not had collisions that have injured pedestrians since 2013. It is a marked difference. This project will be added and as part of the rapid project, starting construction next year will be the crossing is shorter as well. The crossing distance will be shorter like the equivalent of a lane . Essentially. There are 6 lanes of traffic and what have you. Right now, the parking, you have to cross the parking lane and the travel lanes. This will mean that the parking lane now becomes a sidewalk extension. It is 6 lanes, though. It is still 6 lanes. It is a big intersection for sure. I was one of the more outspoken critics of this and i was encouraging us to revisit this. It is a safe way and it is a Grocery Store that i think has the potential to mean more than the other stops to affect more passengers in the long run. That said, even at 30 seconds times, that it takes. When you multiply that times the tens of thousands of passengers that are riding this line every day, 10,000, and more, when you multiply that, that turns into more than just the 30 seconds that we are saving. I think that we need to keep in mind that we have a responsibility to the entire city. It is not just the avenue. It is the entire city that is waiting on this line as it gets down into the rest of the rounds. What happens down here affects what is happening over there. If we really want to increase our reliability and the frequency and the speed we are delivering Transit Service, this is something that we need to strongly consider. However keeping the stop and effectively having two stops next to each other, the only sort of draw back from what i understand is that. Is having them so close together apart from the time we would lose that we can initially save. One of the key drawbacks is the stops are close to one another. The stop at 17th and 15th. That can be frustrating as a regular train rider, i dont regularly ride the l. I ride the n regularly. There is literally a stop that i think it is it is one block away like the way this would be. It is silly. It also happens a little bit further along at 9th and then at 7th, i think. You can literally get off the train and walk up and get on again at the back side of the train. If it is articulated and we can capture the value of that, despite the draw back, through more engagement of the riders and that is the tradeoff that the riders are really willing to endure, i appreciate that outreach and that dialogue. Again i want to remind the board and everyone else that this is bigger than just any one of us. It is actually about the entire city and the way the city has grown. Things are different than the way they were 100 years ago and 50 years or 40 or 20 or 10 years ago. And the way that it was in the past, cannot work the way it does today. It cant. We live in an incredible city. I say this every time we get into a conversation. The housing prices show that people want to be here and they are coming here and the Transit Service is deteriorating. It took me an hour half to get home from bart to where i live. It used to take me 45 minutes. I could plan on 45 minutes. The people that pay for that more than anyone else are low income riders that cant afford that kind of time fluctuation. And what ends up happening is they are pushed out of the city. The city is getting wealthier and with all due respect and whiter. And i think that we need when we talk about the changes, we need to be thinking about everyone and not just ourselves. I dont want to just think about myself. I want to think about everyone. I entertain exploring a pilot. Recognizing this is bigger than any one of us. What i hear is we would like to go ahead with the previously legislated removal and actually reconsider look at the removal as a pilot to see what happens. And mr. Rhodes, what do you think the time frame would be to look at that after the stop is removed and then gather data and reconsider it. Bring it back to us for discussion . I think that the final trip back to the board would need to happen some time in the midsummertime frame. We need to do it before the construction starts on the project. I guess if the stop were removed say a month, month and a half from now, that gives us three months. You need to bring a final recommendation for removing a stop or upgrading it. Thank you. And i do just want all us to remember what was said, it is a larger picture. It is not just about that one stop. It is about our transit efficiency and how we will get people based on what the directors said our survey results show us that people think we are too slow and that is why we are not keeping riders. We are losing them to ride share as pointed out in the audience. We need to tighten it up. 17th, that one we came to an agreement. 35th . Directors, do we have questions for mr. Rhodes on 35th avenue . Anybody have specific questions on that one. I am agreeing with staff on that one. About the stop removal at 35th and again i know that this is not easy for anybody on either side. Whether you are losing our stop or you would lose your parking if we left that stop. What i am focussing on are state and efficiency. If those stops were to stay, they need boarding. We cannot have riders stepping off the train into traffic. I saw the video of someone stepping off hit by a car. Regardless what commenters said, it is never the fault of the transit passenger. It is always the fault of the driver. They are supposed to stop when this train stops. And to have somebodyen imply that the passenger should wait for the door to open and stick your hand out or head out. That is ridiculous. We cannot run a Transit Agency like that. The passengers have no know they are safe when they step off the train. I am supporting both of the staff recommendations at 35th and 44th. It is safety for me. It is efficiency of the overall system. If we do the stop we will speed it up and attract for riders and maybe claw back the ride share riders on this and will move forward. Directors, do i have other questions or comments on the 35th and 44th . I have some. Go ahead. Go ahead. So lets focus on the stop at 44th. And i want to understand the time saving benefit here. Because as you may have gathered from the earlier comments, the inbound stop removal at 17th will affect a lot of customers. The rush hour scenario going downtown with say 8 to 9 30, the l is probably pretty full when it gets there, the 30 seconds will be multiplied by multiple riders. I am a little bit more dubious of the effects at 44th. We have a relatively empty train coming inbound and stopping. And we presumably have a relatively empty train out bound. And to me, it would seem that the savings is probably tied up somewhere in the hold over by the zoo. If you can educate me on that. Does it free up the train to come back more quickly if it gets there quickly . Is that hold over dictated by the drivers rest break or hold over dictated by scheduling . In a scenario where the train is running late because of issues in the tunnel or just because of high ridership or whatever it is, the driver has a minimum layover period they will take. There is some buffer scheduled into it. What happens is the driver the operator gets to the end of the line. If they are late, they have the minimum layover. By saving a 30 second 25, 30 seconds in each direction, it adds up to 45 seconds to a minute of recovery time. It allows the train when it is going inbound. An out bound train gets to the terminal. When you are standing at safeway and you are you could be standing at 19th avenue and waiting for a train and it may get there in 45 seconds because it got to the terminal earlier and was able to travel back toward you sooner than that. It does contribute to the recovery of schedule and to keeping trains for eventually paced. That is helpful. Only in that scenario. To be comparative about it, is it fair to say that the time saved from the 44th stop removal in the aggregate will not be the same as the time saved from the 17th street stop . 17th avenue stop removal. Do you think each will have a similar effect on speeding up . The 17th avenue because in are more folks on the train. More people experience it. The folks may not realize that the stop was skipped, make it a minute earlier. I think you are right. Let me since i am running the meeting. I might as well keep talking. We had director removal. To go with stop removal. The chair will be back. We will see what we can do here. That is my concern about 44th. I am completely aligned with what the director said. One of the reasons we obtained the increase in riders and the increase in Customer Satisfaction is that we have looked at this wholly. This is the general mindset. I am willing to remove a stop. It will have some affect on customers. 35th, i am inclined to go that way because there are stops relatively nearby. I agree with the director given what we have seen on accidents, we cannot have stops on this line that are not protected anymore. It is too long. Your initial report that was fantastic suggested there were so many accidents being reported. I think we know that is a drop in the bucket to what happened. Every little fender bender and every thing does not get reported. There is clearly a real safety issue out there. I am focussed on 44th. Because i am not sure that removing that stop, instead going to a protected stop there would have the same effect on the overall system. I am sort of struck maybe intangably by the fact that the real effect other than the layover effect you talk about would be on the people who live there. The people who board at the zoo stop would tend to gain a little extra time on the way in without the stop there and the people who are coming home out there would gain a little extra. But no one from that area is here supporting this. We see a lot of people who say how important the stop is to them. That given the geography of the stop at the beginning and the end of the line, it strikes me as different. I want to raise that. I appreciate your raising it. Thinking this stop is different. The follow up question is if we preserve the stop, how is it a protective stop . I agree with the chair that is what we have to do. Those are my thoughts and comments for staff. I will city what the other directors think. 35th, the issue is we can not put a boarding island there. If i understand that correctly. A full boarding island. Thats right. Because of the track cross over, it would not able to be the full length. It is less than 500 feet from sunset boulevard. If we can do this without a boarding island, it does not take additional parking, it is a possibility. And i agree with the comments of the importance of having boarding. That is a good point. What is reported is not always indicative of what happens out there. I have seen a lot of close calls myself. I do find persuasive that 44th is different because it affects a small number of people that are further out on the line in terms that is my view. The follow up question there was, if we decided to preserve the stop, have we studied or know the answer to whether we could make that a protective stop. Yes. So the 44th avenue stop has clear zones installed. And that is those stops at 44th would be upgraded with boarding islands if retained. I support that. I think that makes a lot of sense given the logic you talked about. I do think ultimately we are not a freeway either. We are not just trying to get people fast across the city. People are going to places along the way. Lets just keep mindful. Sometimes when we emphasize speed, we sound like everybody only wants to go downtown. That is not necessarily the case. I want to hear from the director. It sounds like we are leaning to the 44th stop and removal of the. I want to be clear that i fully appreciate the idea of a local service. I am not talking about running an annex. The only reason i feel passionately about this is because we are protecting the other stops on either side. And no one is expected to walk further than a couple of blocks at most. If you are right in the middle of a couple of blocks of the stop. I understand and i fully support the idea of making sure that the service is still serving the local need and not just being an expressway downtown. I am not advocating that. That being said, wherever we compete the stations or the stops, they do need to have the platforms. Undoubtedly. I was coming off the train the other day and because i am alert to this, i looked at the car coming at the back of a train. Not planning on stopping at all. And i just kind of put my backpack out the door so the person would know that it was coming. Sure enough, the backpack hit the mirror. If it was me, it would have been an accident, or collision. I would support that idea. If we feel it is worth the time savings. The loss in the time savings. If the board feels it is something that we are ready to sacrifice for the better of the whole. I would be okay with it. If i may on that go ahead. I think we when we got to 17th avenue, we sort of came to the conclusion we would follow your guidance. You have been fantastic in the presentation. Articulate and helpful and i think respectful to the people who disagree with you. I am impressed by your effort and thank you for keeping a professional tone to an obviously charged issue. When we came to the issue of 17th avenue inbound, i was prepared to support us Going Forward with the removal. My friend and a neighbour, we live out there said lets look back and, you know, you suggested an amount of time to see if it is having a negative effect on the riders and get information on the time savings. Now on 44th, i am sort of at least in the head space that i dont want to follow the recommendation. I want to move forward with keeping the 44th avenue stop. I sort of have the same reaction which is i would challenge you all to deal with the zoo and the roll over and see if there is a way to really sort of mitigate the loss of time savings by keeping the stops and double that up. If we keep the stop, is there something we can do with the turnover there that addresses the issue you raised. And conversely when we come back in the summer as you talked about, if it seems to you that still keeping that stop there is really slowing down the l, that is something i would want to know. I think that is something that the neighbourhood would want to know. And so my view is we sort of do both of those on a revisit basis. If you come back and tell us that the removal of the stop at 17th is having some unforeseen effect on the neighbourhood, so be it. My preference is to go ahead with the stop removal because speeding up the system is very important. Similarly, my preference today is to not remove the 44th avenue stop for the reasons we have discussed. But if you come back to us in months and say, look, we cant really address the issues at the turn around, and we now think after looking at it, that keeping that stop is having an unexpected slow down on the system, please tell us that. That would be my preference for a way to address this. I thank you for this. I will close by saying this. We had and fortunately for you all, you dont have to sit through all of these. We sit through all of these. And this happens every single time we want to take out a stop or move anything around. People say, my greatgrandfather has been riding the bus forever. The people said i bought my house because of the stop. People said it will inconvenience me. We are not unsympathetic to that. We get it. As the chair said eloquently, our goal is to look at the whole system. I want you to know what is motivating me here today is not a desire to inconvenience people. My goal is to get people riding. The best way to do that is have the system move faster. Thank you. Well said. We have the way we are trending 17th remove and review. 35th, remove. 44th keep. Add the island and review. I need to ask our councillor about the item, the parking time limit. It was questioned whether that was properly noted. If we did the proper notification. Thank you, chair. Deputy city attorney, member of the public. Chapter 31. The requirement that the agenda state that certain items are approval actions for purposes of. I looked at that. Most of the item is covered by the tdp, the ir and is not an approval action. The outer Street Parking time limit establishments had a separate categorical exemption. And that was not noted as in approval action. We would recommend you may not want to act on the items today and bring them back prograerhap. That will work well. We will ask staff to update us on the decisions we made about 17th, 35th and 44th avenue. Then we can take up the parking time limit at that time. Does everyone agree . Sound good . May i ask a question my preference with 44 to go ahead with the boarding island. I dont want to be in a situation where we put in the boarding island and you come back and tell us we have a bottleneck in the train now or something unforeseen. How much does it cost to remove a boarding island . I am trying it avoid pardon the pun, my decision set in stone. The question is if we put it in, is that is that something that really makes this irreversible or not so much. It is a good time. It has a clear zone. I think generally speaking i consider the boarding island to be along the spectrum. Closer to the irreversible. You are changing the grade of the street. A significant change in the construction of the street. We want to have confidence. When is the cons