times at this location could take up to as long as 90 seconds which is a long time and this in tinges on the system wide reliability. there is also a serious concerns about people having to access the street cars from the curb between the parked cars and on the outbound direction. and for the benefit -- this is the bottom picture. this comes out of the sunset tunnel. we have grosz has an area which is close to the clearance reasons. we do have someone that would violate the regulations and you can see that panel infringing on the end of that platform which

makes the streetcar unable to pass safely without sideswiping a parked vehicle. in the past five years, we have a documented history for those accidents and occasionally because of the presence of the illegally parked vehicles, it is not possible for the streetcar to pass safely and go in the southbound direction. that has to be told. this will back up through the tunnel. these are some of the reasons why we are proposing to do that. our original proposal was to have a boat on the northeast corner and then 165 ft. long boat on the sell side on the

inbound section. then, the longer both. because of concerns expressed at the hearing, we have cut back on the proposals for the boat as well as further looking at the boat on the inbound direction. we looked at several other options to see if we could mitigate some of the parking losses. the next slide shows that we look at the possibility of removing the bus stops and replacing them to see if we can gain any parking losses from this exchange. the evaluation shows it is not possible to do deaths because we would still need this on the

northeast corner to allow for clarence and have these buses going in the other direction. we also heard from a accessible services that this would entail the removal of a bus shelter on the northeast corner and having to relocate of this. a resident has already indicated that they are not supportive of having this relocated from the far side so this would be virtually no change for this particular alternative. the other alternative was to look at only imposing a peak so that we can maintain those

parking spaces. to do that, you would still need one on the approach cited as well as one on the far end of the stock to shelter that area and from vehicles from passing on the right-hand side while passengers are unloading. you would not address all the other issues that i mentioned earlier that this is intended to address. the final recommendations that we are proposing is to only change the length of the south side. this proposal will still cover five of the 8 doors and also the last door.

no one will be able to bypass the south train. this would save one parking space for the general neighborhood. we have also look at the possibility of doing the extension and there was considerable debate on which way to go. the final consensus is eyehole -- is from everyone. no one would need to step off of the curd to get on the streetcar. there was some concern about the remaining street.

is it possible to accommodate two passing buses during our services? we looked at that pretty closely. on the inbound direction, and you still have to pay 10 flit change and on the north side, it is 19 feet and 6 inches which allows for parking. the chances of the two passing buses creates small and the north side is what enough to allow them some flexibility in maneuvering and positioning themselves with in the westbound direction. this is our final proposal. i have mentioned it already. the next step is that we are before you on the board and want to review the screen so that we can go to bid on the project and we look forward to the construction starting in said

uri of 2012. as i mentioned, there is some loss in parking. we think this is a reasonable compromise. we urge your support. as i mentioned, this project will have to go on its own in the future with no funding available at this point that we have identified. it is likely to be more expensive and implemented at a later date. >> members of the board. aho>> a lot of members of the

public have supported this. we're happy to hear from them. >> good afternoon. >> we don't see any accessibility for the sidewalks. the only time that it is difficult it is through a morning commute to and on the eastbound. our biggest problem is muni. they don't want a wider sidewalks, they want better service, and a discussion. if you go to the second page of my hand out, you will see from 2002 until 2007, the transit recorded one incident on that parking area and there was no injury and it would not have saved that particular incident. you are not providing

accessibility, we don't need it except when the bus is late or when the commute hours are. you are not giving as safety because there's not a safety issue. visibility, we can see each other. that is not a problem. i don't know how many of you on the board live in the valley or how many of you realize how difficult it is to park. you have said, this is only 8 spaces or nine spaces, but this is during the rest of the time, during the services, during the non commute hours. give us no parking during the morning hours. why are you penalizing us all the rest of the hours. the neighborhoods of the people that you talked to would like better service. we want better service.

why are you spending all of this service at a time when you are broke? san francisco is broke. we hope that you are not taking out of the taxpayers' money. thank you. >> i am here to represent the neighborhood council and we strongly support the proposal that has been made for you. i am a neighbor there and i have lived there for a long time. this is really long overdue. to get it for the price they are talking about is really a bargain. also good for the neighbor. i am on and off the property on a daily basis. it is really tough to deal with these cars. it is time that this be in vogue particularly. and the pedestrians and the transit riders get a break.

i am also a representative to the advisory committee and our organization reviewed this proposal and took the position to support it. i hope that the board approved this recommendation and move forward. thank you. >> next speaker. >> definition, commissioners. i'm here to support this. i am supporting this because it makes it more convenient i hope that he was supported this

program. thank you. -- i am supporting this because it makes it more convenient. i hope that you support this program. >> good afternoon. thank you for the opportunity to speak. i am alexander pocket. i am married, my wife and i have two small children. we own a car and we have to rely on street parking. we also rely very heavily on me -- on muni. we also walk a lot. i crossed the street at least twice a day or more often times of my young children. i am familiar with all of the concerns people have been expressing about parking and how they would be compared with the enhancements and the pedestrian environment.

i have to tell you that this seems like a no-brainer. what is it that we loved about the valley and we should be working to promote this. this is because this is not like 99% of the other places in america, people subordinate all of the other interest to the primary is this to the primacy of the private vehicle. that is what we should be promoting as residents of the neighborhood and the city. we have the ability to improve our neighborhood. we have an opportunity to improve the efficiency and we should jump in it. we have worked hard to reduce the parking spaces. i think that we all fault them for that. we only see a minimal loss.

this is that a level that will break or operate the lives of those who are involved. >> good afternoon, commissioners. we are here to speak in support of this proposal. i would like to commend the staff on coming up with a great idea i don't actually live there but i did visited this area frequently. we strongly support enhancing the pedestrian rum. this makes it easy for people to get on and off of these vehicles. i wanted to speak on some of the

parking proposals that have been talked about in the press. i think that this is a great idea to look at charging people for parking and i think as a first that, you should be eating your own cookie, as it were. this would be charging for parking for the employers -- and police. these are much better source of revenue than the parking tickets and that is just me speaking for myself. >> are there any other speakers? >> okay. members of the board. >> i will move the item. i wanted to make hay -- and wanted to make an item. we have heard about the loss of parking. i am inclined to move this issue

based on supporting it. this is an area that has extreme congestion. there are a huge number of people who stop on a daily basis. >> i have a few questions. >> i am very familiar with this intersection. you have mentioned the four sides what accidents. have there been any to pedestrians? the potential is there because of the crossings.

>> i understand the potential and i interest and the issue you were trying to address is speed. the other thing i'm curious to note is that i don't think we have heard any input from the business community. >> we have received support from the valley improvement association. we also received support. they would fight for their interests to have the sidewalks.

we have not heard from -- >> is there any reduction in parking or anything like that? >> know. >> thank you very much. >> this is a no-brainer. the seniors and indeed people's disabilities. people are overwhelmingly in favor of this. increased the excess ability. since the majority of the input that i have heard from outside of this meeting has been part of

this, i wholeheartedly support this. i will vote yes. >> we have a motion and a second. so ordered. thank you. >> the adopting amendments to the transportation code, division ii, article 1100, to amend administrative hearing procedures, or revise taxi vehicle equipment standards, require implementation of electronic waybills, change the reporting deadline for the taxi advisory council, and amend the eligibility requirements to become a san francisco taxi driver. >> shall we hear from the public first?

>> there are some things i would love to be able to talk about this. on page 66, the last sentence, money is in the driver's fund which might be spent by a the mta and you should be changing this to the effect for the benefit of cabdrivers. on page 18, the m.t.a. would like to change -- to git a permit to drive a cab. i feel that if you have a valid driver's license and if you can enter into a contract, the provision on page 17 where you

have to bring a sheet of paper that says that a cap company will hire you hot hot -- you hire or not. perhaps a younger driver could not get hired by a and company. the reason that i want this to not be age 24 is that even though most insurance companies will not insurer a cab driver at that time, just my family started in the early 1930's. there are other people i know that have at least three generations. for example, a daughter and

granddaughter of mine was going to stanford and wanted to drive a cab on the weekends to make money, i would see to it that she could drive a cab at my company. even if i had to get a special policy just former, this is not the job of the mta to do the hiring. that is the cap companies job. there is no need for this. please, don't destroy some good nepotism. >> good afternoon, directors. there are quite a few elements in this proposal, one that i think is good is the hearing procedures and the initiative

hearings can be stressful and subject to delay. anything that can simplify those is good. on the equipment changes, we are generally quite supportive. that is money that is well spent that would be good for customers and drivers. we are confident that the inevitable which is will come up. i certainly hope that we will be helped out on this. this is the moment to raise objections. i will go on the record with a couple of concerns. one is the rubber floor mats. this seems like a very simple thing. however, they are not life -- off the shelf items, these are

all customer installations. we will require these for the rear seat and the geometry of the front floor. there are two items that have to be entered manually. there are a couple of items that we simply cannot do. otherwise, we are ready to go on electronic bills. otherwise, we have some concerns about the posting and materials on the internet.

but >> you have given us for two minutes for something that encompasses many items on this. this is not long enough considering that many of these items may or may not have been in town hall meetings. this is a concern, many of these items should be bifurcated and discussed at a town hall meeting to review. many of the items that you get give notice 10 days in advance of the meeting. we were given a notice of this on saturday. this triggered me to go to the internet and look this up and realize that there was millets the pages to look over. . some of the stuff is a no-

brainer. that is an extension of the deadline for the taxi advisory council so these are worth a further review or least examination by the of the groups. you have heard feedback on the clayton st. issue. you have had neighborhood groups review this. there was months and months looking at this. all of these are looking auletta once. i want to say to you that this is not fair to the industry that you won not employing, just regulating. remember, you don't pay the cab drivers. in fact, you are holding back the pay. the people will have to pay for some of this, there is no fiscal impact.

i'm telling you that there is a lot of changes that need to occur here and that should be passed today. a number of them should go for a few by stakeholders. >> my main issue in coming before appearing -- i am here on behalf of the taxis who have yet to have installed the proper equipment for the electronic bills and for them to be operated. are brought a letter which i will read but we are asking for more time. other than that, we don't really

have any issues with all of the work that the director respite in this. she has really come up to speed on a complicated issue. this issue of march 31st, 2011 this is the proposal for electronic bills. if i can just read this for you and then i have copies. "deere chairman, director, etc., i am writing on behalf of the following companies comfort cab, sf cab, etc, to respectfully request that you not accept this for the following reasons. we wait for the approval of the use of equipment to a rise.

-- for the use of equipment. without all of the equipment, we will be unable to comply with the proposal as stated. we had a contract in place to provide current equipment for computerized dispatch service which is not done due to the offending stage of the equipment. this is required to produce electronic bills. we are in strongly in favor of the adoption of the electronic bills but at this time, we are not ready to comply with due to the above issues. we believe that this is the future of the taxi business. thank you. >> thank you.