downtown more quickly. we're trying to improve traffic time and safety and this will give us an opportunity to a analysis somewhat of a low cost way to a achieving the goals. there's more detail now i don't think i'll go into right now. but we've been doing community meetings on august 8th and there's one coming up in district 5. so we're trying to make sure that we get as much public understanding and analysis for feedback before we launch the pilot but it's slated for october possibly early november so it will be a good traffic time benefit but a great way to test the assumptions in the t e

p. next the c puc. so you'll recall and i think we've heard through public comment the cpc initiated a process in december think january to evaluate what they were calling the new online transportation services. so those are the lessons and sidecars and those services that doesn't fall squarely within their jurisdictions as taxi regulateor. where that process is after a number of dismissing of comments and we're a party to this proceedings so we formally submitted comments.

there was a draft decision issued i guess it was middle or late july and so the way the process works now that the proposed decide is out they had an open comment period which closed yesterday and the next step is for the commission to hear - to have a hearing on the proposed decision on the comments at which point they could adopt the issue. they could adopt it september 5th at the cpc meeting. so in terms of the substance of the decision there was i think generally i'd say first, we're

happy it they initiated this process in the first place. they came out and said their framework was build to deal with the services we anticipated at the time. there was some frustrations over the course of the project how it was kicked but there's some good coming out of the decision that will create a good path forward. they're calling them they went from new online transportation services to dncs which i don't remember now transportation network companies. but what they found is those companies don't provided ride share services this is not like casual carpools or trips. that's important because ride share is from the cpc

regulations they found their higher transportation providers and so i think that's pretty clear. they also that found that there are not other parts of law such as a is telecommunications act that exempts them from regulations so we're pleased they took an approach it is from the ability to regulate them. we think there are a number of specific things the commission could do to strengthen what was proposed and the draft decision the proposed decision. i'll walk through a couple of those things we submitted in our comments yesterday. the first has to do with background checks.

we believe that the commission is the regulateor or another agency such as a the highway patrol should conduct the fingerprint backgrounds on folks. and the - it's pretty straightforward a sensible recommendation. the second is that the commission is regulateor or appeared agency like the highway patrol should have vehicle inflictions and they need to provide those services. lateral they should make sure the vehicles will save. and third we recommended that the commission should eliminate the provisions authorizing the

insurance policies of those individuals to be heightened from public view. there's been a lot of speculation or assertions as the adequacy or inadequacy of the coverage that the services provided that the derivatives are afforded or that the passengers get protection from - we think it's impossible for the public to reason ably make the decision of the insurance policies. one of the fundamental concerns is that excess liability policies that those services have won't work if the underlying auto insurance of those individuals which was not meant for transportation is not in effect you can't have a it

over that if you don't know the information. it leaves people at the mercy. we think they need to make transparency of the insurance products they're using so the public as the local regulate orca have that. we think that the registration of the vehicles should be appearing on their vehicle. i think for observe persons of endorsement it can be easily removal or swapped it makes vehicle requirements virtually

unenforceable. so any regulations unenforceable. fifth the agency should make that the business model for lack of a better term can black list consumerism's from using services. obviously a cornerstone is to provide access to anyone who needs it and against discretionary practices that could arises that are enabled by the services. and feinstein the derivatives should have cleaner operating vehicles. we have the cleanest taxi fleet in the nation and while we have

a first transit operation taxis play a critical role because people need private vehicles by need automobiles to get around but to the extent that is made that have vehicles that are not clean it works against our policies. so we think it's important that if those services are to operate they're supposed to be clean air vehicles. we think that's kind of the bare anytime in terms of what is needed to insure the basic public sadists policies and goals of the city. i think the proposed decision suggested that what they were recommending was aiken to highway we regulate taxis.

they specifically called out this and there are many ways in the not the case so we further iceberg that features of taxis of taxi regulation such as a rate regulation and certification of meters are certified by the department of weights and measures. the saeshlt measurements you need those all in place to get closer to the requirement of the regulations on the taxis. we think it's up to a bare minimum standard it would be a far cry from taxi regulation. so we submitted those comments as other people submitted

comments. there's an opportunity for other folks to respond and it closes at the end of this week. we've review the submissions and submit right lanes to comments as needed and then we'll likely participate in the hearing whether it's september 5th or substance meetings. so that's - >> i assume this is going on all edify the state of california. >> this is a citywide meeting. >> are we in touch with other allocations. >> first of all, for the city much of the work we've done is with the airport. the airport director and i spoke with commissioners and many of our filings were done jointly. i know he's talked with some of the other airports in the state

and i think another director has talked with her colleagues. i understand that los angeles has the same concerns from the taxi and airport side. there's a lot of decisions up and down the state >> so we'll see in terms of form comments. we haven't seen the comments but i think many of the taxis and airports are on the same page >> thank you. >> just a few other small things. i think i've gone behind my time limit i see the chairman looking at the clock. we had another agree town hall meeting and i want to thank the chairman of the board. we went down to one of our

maintenance facilities and we had a lot of people there and we got a lot of good feedback where we're at the inn the strategic plan and getting their feedback what can help them do their jobs better. we are as we've reported maybe more at the policy and governance committee. the one part of crime that's not going down on crime is theft and larceny likes smart phones and tablets. we're initiating an ad campaign to try to create wraurns for our riders and general pun to insure they're more vigilant with their

devise. this is a citywide and international issue the theft and robberies associated with those is universal up. the first phase is a four-year project. the first phase will be the fall and the next will be in 2014. protect yourself and the raising of wraurns will lower theft and we're in partnership with the attorney's office. if you look at how the trends are going do i believe digital inflation. we're going to target the market street corridor and the cable car turn around and the says

about. we're going to have a number of ways to miranda this and, of course, the crime reporting and doing a lot of outreach through the news letters and each police captain has a news letter and we'll be working together with many folks and describing a lot of material to get folks to be vigilant and not sit by the door with your smart phones on your laps. and finally we're launching multiple mobile smart app. that's ironic following the last information. it's a muni accomplice sign and the idea is to pull mobile

information cycle and parking all into one application. we're kind of testing this it's a pilot for that 6 months. testing the interest in that and possible a revenue stream. we're hoping to improve transit experience to generate revenue and it's a good way for us to communicate with folks. a company called sky highways has partnered with us to test the possibility of this app. it will be no cost to the agency for this pilot. we'll be doing a bunch of promotion on this and we'll be evaluating trying to get a lot of feedback on this does it make you more inclined to use those different modes of transportation. we're excited to see how that

works. really taking vanillas of the mobile transportation agency. and that's the end and a thank you. any questions >> quick question. today know - i know this is my pet thing. it that happening through the assessment in terms of elevator status >> negligence - not in this phase. it does have some of the tweeter information but the escalator and elevator is part of our app but in this first phase we don't have a dedicated module but that will definitely be in anything >> when is phase 2. >> the pilot is 6 months so it

will be reevaluated. >> folks are totally depend on on this. anyone else on the report >> members of the public issuing wish to address the board. >> yes. the members of the public can address the issues and (calling names). >> good afternoon. >> yeah. good afternoon. i have need of the overhead. so good afternoon. mr. nolan and members of the board. i'm here to talk about the central subway to go to option. and for those who are not

familiar it's an ad into the subway alignment. it's about 4 tens of a mile beyond the china station. and the tublz will not be used for trains nor will there be a station at the end of the tunnels. this is to remove the tunnel boring machines from the project. when this project was proposed to this board the cost was $6 million cap. that was in the boarded that adopted it. in early march the contractor for this project submitted a cost proposal that examine at 6 point something million dollars and the from what i understand the central subway project it

was called a risk mitigation meeting their scheduled each month. so in march and 23 i could use the overhead. so in march the - you see some of the main things in the project. this thing has a risk graitd of 8. the thing they decided if the resolution costs if we get the option the t b ms will be buried. so as of last week, we received the same cost estimates. so i want to encourage t this board >> thank you. >> thank you. >> terry toronto.

(calling names). >> hi. i have a quick question. is it the job of the exclusive secretary to stop the comments of the speakers and that's a quick question. anyway good afternoon fell directors. i want to applaud the director for her preparation of the documents 3 were submitted to the puc because those questions can't be accurately answered by considering the commissioner the head of the public works wrote this and they're expecting the

insurance companies to write the now a policies. as you know a lot of the can be drivers are collecting license plates. if you take one of those t ncs and you get into an accident must may not be able to collect nullify money for your miss happens. so i want to applaud the mta staff for what they did. also i urge that any directors that are interested to voice their concerns to the commissioners prsz also i may want to give the commissioner a fast pass for life given the number of trips he's been given overseas for other organizations that may have helped their case. i'm being - joking

(calling names) >> good afternoon mr. kim. >> good afternoon folks. first, i want to thank very much the commissioners and the way they've dealt with the cpc on the issue it's been no less than spectacular and your staff has worked on this threat to the taxi industry. i want to be clear and factual on what's happening in san francisco whether you call them ride sharing the fact of the matter is you have thousands of non-commercial personal vehicles

doing commercial business. now the reason the industry is so upset it's a dual standard. you have a highly regulated taxi business that has to pay an enormous amount for commercial insurance company and hiring drivers and it's expensive to run a taxi. and you've got companies that are acting commercially it's not like new york. so if your now incomplete against drivers and companies that don't have to pay for medallionor and your threatening the taxi business and a liability. that's exactly what's happening here. again, you have non-ruthd drivers personal non-commercial

vehicles doing commercial vehicles. you've got hitch hiking in san francisco and those regulations miss go into effect. the fact of the matter is when you create a dual standard it's gotten to lower the medallions and create a different industry (calling names) >> this relates to the transit effectiveness project. in the july, august 2012 issue of the west twin peaks observer it was noted that quote the municipal transit agency intends to spend $6 million to expand bicycle lanes and the experience

quote/unquote in our city. he also notes that bikes are taking over city hall. shouldn't that be spent on new transportation for the most heavily runs. the preservation of the bus routes are discontinued. mta states that resources are limited for public transportation and the relocation of the existing resources and the zero sum effectiveness is the answer. i realize that we have people on the board that have loyalty to their constituents. by the we have to have them understand the conflict of interest is there and i ask for a balanced approach to this

problem. $6 million are available to fix muni and before any new bike lanes this money should be spent to make muni workable. at the present time, minnesota has low priority with mta and this should be corrected as soon as possible and as you say transit first (calling names) >> good afternoon. good afternoon chairman nolan and board. i'm a local contractor and president of the asian america association. i was here in may. i came to public comment on the day there was the award recommendations. i'm here to speak will local

contractor participation. if we go back to your memories in may there were some promises made that day. mr. ron was here as well as the board promised us to insure there was to hire local. i'm here to remind you of 3 promise because there's been promises broken. remember the mta promised that all the contracts were going to be unbundled small enough for the local contractors to be participated in and they got rebundled. i'm back here at the podium to remind the board to keep that promise to encourage you to request the director ruskin for his reports monthly to reports on the local participation the

local hiring participation. the subject shouldn't be glassed offer. we should hear about it from the director and know what the metrics are again how much participation there is. and i have a letter to present from the local contractors community >> thank you thank you very much. >> (calling names). >> good afternoon and a good afternoon chairman nolan and directors i've never gotten up and spoken. what's happening on the central subway project is wrong. a lot of taxpayer money was spent and the local contractors know they have the opportunity to participate in one of the largest projects in san

francisco. how exactly this happened the project was rebundled and effectively eliminatedal san francisco contractors. it's a real slap in the face to know that taxpayer dollars were put so what this and there's no san francisco contractors on that. this is millions and millions and millions of dollars. it needs to be held workoutable. i want to see local folks working on local projects. i'd like to see the pride of san francisco come thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> (calling names). >> gd