revenue. and our drive alone rate of 18 percent, speaks to how it is in contributing to the transit first goals of this city. and we are in the working group since the beginning and we would like to be part of the solution, and however, since the cost have more than tripled and they are likely to increase again, our participation is jeopardized. >> thank you. >> i am with the bay area council and for over a year, the council has convened the shuttles and operators with the city transportation officials to work on this innovative transportation solution. and that is taking thousands of cars off of the road, and providing an important

alternative to our stress public transit system the bay area council wants to take the mta and the mayor's office for your leadership on this program, and we applaud the work that carly and her staff have done. and as program was developed, through an extensive public process. and it has been one of compromise. and we support moving forward with the program, and including the fee, necessary, to cover the city's cost. and those fees by the way are in addition to the millions of dollars that employers spend each year to operate the shuttles themselves this program is the right thing for employers, for san francisco, and for the 17,000 riders that rely on these shuttles every day to get to work. the benefits are immense, and the shuttles drastically reduce the traffic and air pollution by removing 327,000 passenger car trips and 9,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions every year. and the program.

and they show that 70 percent. and the san francisco voters and support conducting this study and we are eager to start this pilot on august first and we urge you to approve the fee and move forward with the program.. and my name is linda, and and i am here to. and i view it as public, and the shuttle buses, and the small shuttle buses, to transport and to the mission bay, and the other areas, and do primarily to the lack of muni options and the transportation and the key, and 6:30, and the mission bay shuttle all of the time. and and they are small serve

the public, and they go to the mission bay. and if those people were not transported on these shuttle buses. and we would very much like to see the transportation, enhanced by adding additional hours primarily it is morning and evening hours on the weekdays only and the residents of mission bay would like to see that improved. but that adds cost. and the cost of the charge if it is leved on the shuttles will add $60,000 to the cost which will pay for a year of four additional hours per day, service ta we will not get. and we paid for the service and it was mandated that we have that service, when mission bay was being developed and now to have an additional charge added on it, and on to those fees just feels like rubbing salt in the wounds and society and so

would wo just ask you to reconsideration of the shuttles being included in this. the management association is a non-profit organization and we operate a community shuttle serving all residents and workers and visitors all alike and our diverse rider ship includes, senior and students and workers and they all depend on the shuttle's reliable frequent service, especially for the crucial, first mile and last mile, to the transit hubs and the mission bay shuttle is part of the tdm and mandated by

the redevelopment agreement, to date, we have been very successful in minimizing the trips in to and out of mission bay and our routes have been optimized to provide the frequent trips from the most under served areas of the mission bay and the residential commercial and campus areas, and then, we link those to the crucial regional hubs of cal train and the depot of fourth and king as well as the muni and bart station at powell street and until the tep is implemented the service is improved and the central subway is active and it is crucial. we understand the need to better manage the shuttle services in the city. we want to continue to participate in the good faith and develop in the sustain able long term solutions for us and we also believe that at its

core, a non-profit local shuttle service whose primary purpose is to improve the access to the traditional public transit we are different from a large fleet of corporate sponsored charter buses running between sf and silicon valley. >> we ask that you not approve the fee of the increase of the fees. thank you. >> thank you. >> cruise, sarah short, and tone lee. >> those are the last people who have turned in the speaker card.

>> enforcement should include enforcement of standing, idling whether it is in a bus lane, a bike lane, a turn lane or a right-of-way. and staging the areas, should not be part of this pilot. and we also urge the mta to

refer to the budget and the legislative analyst report, and that gave the specific strategies for successful pilot that have not been added to the pilot design, including a tax related to impacts and usage, and with my extra time i would just like to say that, part of the design of this program, has omitted looking at how this impacts public buses. and how it is, and how the mission, bay shuttle, if, and

it is more the cost of the true enforcement, but, i am also greatly concerned, and because, the fact that the less companies anticipated these permits and because they are unwilling to pay a dollar per stop and be open to regulation that the program requires, and shows that the companies many of these companies are not going to participate, in good faith in the pilot program and it likely then means that we are going to see the shuttles dodge the rules even more than they have and they will idle in the turn lanes and in the center of the streets and sit in the parking space and make the staging areas of our city streets and part *f of why i said this is because i live on valencia street and i have already seen this occurring and it is starting to prolive rate in the morning i have a bus in front of me and in the center lane, idling on my way to work on 16th street i see two or

three buses in parking spaces idling and i have a feeling that they are not feeding the meter and so, i am greatly concerned, that you know, it is simply nieve to expect that these companies have been violating our laws for years will not continue to demonstrate the same rogue behavior once the project begins, and what that means to me is that 3.55 per stop is not going to be anywhere near the actual cost of enforcement and basically your people are going to have to be running around all over town, looking for these buses that are doing the aforementioned behaviors including the ones that are continuing to use the muni stops without the proper permit and what this points to me, and to for me is that, the fee alone is not the proper solution in itself, and you need to go back to the drawing board for this pilot project. thank you. >> last speaker. >> tone lee.

>> thank you, and chairman and both of the members and i would like strongly you this time to say yes on this increasing fee because well, i am living there or not, it does not matter, and if this is a private shuttle, they are using it improper resources after using the own convenience and it is above the people who live in the city and a lot of people who live here many year they are not asking to get the private set and you are already spend a lot of money on the muni system and a lot of the label and the muni driver and they are, using their own, and the people who live there, and they can afford to pay more than enough, and so this is that you have to think, this increasing fee is used and you should think it and because you have to collect the other resource to fix the muni system and before then, many years ago, and they just double up and they need the special or so, and now, already pretty much completely good. and they want to oh,, please, and blow my 52 is driving the

cab and how about the muni fee and how you can do it and please don't raise mine and you know how much people live there and how much they pay? only the fee of 3,000 a month. and the people who chose to live there if they had to pay for it and i live in the bay view and i want a private, too, and you can give me a piece of it or anything, and that is enough fair if you are not going to increase the fee and you have to make the balance and increase the fee, thank you so much. >> thank you. >> and anyone else care to address the board? >> the public hearing is over. and i would like to talk a little bit about what the folks at mission bay, and what they raised it seems to me that they have raised a good point, and an organization like that, in with the big companies, could you speak to that a little bit please. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak, carly pain, sfmta. and excuse me.

in developing this pilot program, the city shuttles and the regional shuttles and what we found is that 80 percent of all of the stopping events, on an average day are made by the intracity shuttles, and that includes mission bay, and that includes, others that either by choice, or by planning department requirement, are operating or contracting out their operations for the shuttles, and they tend to be last mile shuttles. and these, for us, one of the great purposes to remind ourselves about the pilot is that we are trying to minimize the impact on muni and the other users and they are agnostic to where the shuttles are going and a shuttle that is stopping in a muni zone and potentially impacting the operations. is having that impact whether it is going to silicon valley or whether it is going two

miles. and just somewhere, within san francisco and so, we have made the specific decision not to treat them driftly, and there was a discussion and about at one point whether it was fair or legal to charge different tiers and the advice that we received from the city attorney's office was that that is not something that is allowable. while the requirements do call for the shuttles they do not say that they must stop in the muni zones and so that choice has been made and we are really trying to create, a framework in which that is allow able and designated locations, under this permit program.

that we have programs and processes for proposing white zones, if that is an option, that some of these companies want to pursue instead, and the other thing that i would like to mention, just to address the question of number of companies, that submitted applications, to be clear, the permitees are the shuttle providers and these are campus and loop and lux they are not individual companies that are contracting out the services and so these companies while there are eleven of them. many of them served dozens of companies themselves and there may very well be companies that did not apply for a permit and that is why it ends either they thought that they don't need one and they think that they can get by and that is why a robust enforcement program is really important and our goal with enforcement is to bring these companies in to compliance, and so, perhaps we

may see future amply pplications. >> i am aware that the vast majority are interested, and most of them in my experience tend to be in the university and hospitals and places like that and the mission bay makes an argument that they are some what different. and do you not accept that? >> i know that tma sf connects is considering an effort that we have been supporting that the san francisco county transportation authority is the lead on that is working with a number of buildings and

companies, in show place square to help them consolidate some of their shuttle operations and for the reason of identifying an entity to have and to hold the liability they are working with tma sf connect, to be that over arching umbrella who is going to be the designated operator of the shuttle they will obviously contract out on the ground operations but then, once that comes on board, they will be considered a non-profit, and entity but, the folks that they are benefiting are zenga and adobe and folks like that. >> okay, thank you. >> you are saying that they were already stopping in bus stops? >> yes, they are. >> it sounds like many of them are on one end using white

zones and tend to use at some locations a red zone or just if they want to continue to use any of the muni zones and those are in this approved network, that we have put forward, they must get a permit. >> we are not requireding them to use the muni zones and they are welcome to pursue the white zones or find other places to do their loading or unloading. >> i know that there has to be a nexus related to the fee that is charged and i would think that different axels or kind of weight of the vehicles could trigger that, no? >> there are so many complicated parts and developing something new that we have, not, that is not something that we have used as a differential. and it could be something that we look at for a longer term, proposal, but, we are keeping the fee as something that is

set for an individual stop event, which is one time loading and or unloading at a stop. >> thank you, members of the board? >> director? >> no i have no other questions, thank you, you have answered all of the questions thatvy and thanks to the director for the clarifications and i am willing to make a motion to approve. >> there is a motion and is there a second >> second. >> and i guess that i will support it but i am concerned about that aspect of it and it does seem to me that it is a different kind of a thing, than you know, the big, debate or the big corporations or i appreciate you saying that the big corporations support the non-profit and the greater good out weighs the concerns. >> and i think that i want to say that i support that as well and what i would say also, is i think that i for those people who supported the shuttle program, and the people were a bit frustrated by the fee that they thought was attached to stopping in the bus stops and i

recognized that because of, whether it is the fees or the non-profits but i am going to support the measure. >> thank you, do i have a motion and a second? >> all in favor, aye. >> and director, rubke has recould youseded on this one as well. >> i propose that we take a short break now, thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. >> thinking about life in general and not responding. >> so...

>> and this number eleven on consent? >> could we really? >> yeah. >> and it is 1.2 billion >> all right. >> we are back for the mta board of directors is back. >> item 11. authorizing the director of transportation to execute contract no. 2013-19: procurement of new light rail vehicles (lrv4), with siemens industry to procure up to 260 lrvs, associated services, spare parts, special tools, training and documentation, in an amount not to exceed $1,192,651,577, and for a term not to exceed 15 years; and authorizing the director to enter into negotiations with siemens industry to provide financing for approximately 40 option vehicles to be delivered between 2018 and 2021 >> directors... >> and what? >> 2018 and 2021, not 2012.

that would be quite a trick. >> directors as previously mentioned there is a request to amend your resolution, the first whereas, clause, and to add, the language, at the end subject to the fta's resolution of the protest submitted by them, by caf, usa. >> and the staff, and the recommended. >> the staff recommendation. >> it is a result. >> sorry it is a whereas and a resolve clause and it is the first resolve clause. >> do we need to do a motion to change that. >> yes. >> and the motion to move the amendment. >> second >> all in favor. >> aye. >> and so now we have the amended resolution before us. >> director? >> yes, thank you, mr. chair, and as our transit director makes our way to the mic to present the item and just a little bit of context. not just because it is 1.2

billion dollars item, but, for a number of reasons, i think that this probably ranks among the most significant items that at least in my tenure have been before the board of directors along, perhaps with the approval of the transit effectiveness project in terms of the most significant actions that this body can take to advance service and improvements and service expansions that we need to be today's demand and as well as the demand that we are going to have in the future and just so happens that within the last hour, the board of supervisors, acted to place the $500 million obligation bond on this november's ballot which will mean the significant investment in the muni system and in the street safety and in particular, to the recommendations of the transit effectiveness project, however, geo bonds by the state law cannot be used for the vehicle

purchase. and we have significant needs for the vehicle expansion. and what is before you today, has funding placement of the current fleet as well as the near term extension, but if we are going to meet the demands of the system, and in the future, and particularly the 200,000 people that are projected to move to san francisco, and we will need additional funding that the 2016 proposed vehicle license fee increase would be a funding source to help us meet that expansion and you will hear a little bit about the possible private financing options but it would still require funds for us to service the debt and my point being that this is a very significant, step forward for improving the muni service, and for the hundreds of thousands of people that the light rail system serves.

and but then, our work is not done in securing the funding for all of the expansion needs that are coming sooner rather than later ha we can see as we look out on the sky line and so we are extremely happy to be bringing this item to today and i don't think that anyone on the planet who is happier about this than our transit director john who has worked tirelessly and i think that a great procurement for your consideration and so with that i will turn it to him. >> thank you. >> and walk you through it. >> okay. >> thank you and i have made the long walk on this. and so. >> but thank you for that introduction, because it is right on point, and given the significance of this and i do want to ask that the board a question have any of you ever been in a delay muni? >> well, i would like to tell

you that puts you in and that you are special and that is the fact of the matter is that you are only joining some 1500 of our riders every day that are whose life are impacted by a delay in the system and as that is said, the action that we are going to put in front of you today, will put us on a structured, and a long term course to take care of our most immediate and impressing service need right now to fix the very heart of our transit network, but also, puts us on a footing to establish and be right in the sweet spot for all of our strategic goals and not only to improve the safety and reliability of the transit service and with the hit all other goals as well. and so, before we get into the meat of the presentation, i would ask the indulgence and i know as a board you are

adventurous and i will ask you to do a little time traveling with me to san francisco of 2016. ♪

>> i think that as that said,

to get right into the meat of the presentation, i don't believe that we can over state the significance of the action that we are asking to you take today in terms of its import on improving service, both long term and short term and including the process, to addressing all of the you are gant needs that we have now for crowding and the reliability and we are particularly pleased with the process that we followed, over the last, 13 months, and in this procurement that we believed that we have ended up with the right vehicle, and it is important to know that we have a aggressive schedule, it will be delivered in 2016 and if we move forward on the schedule, and we have worked on, and we will step up in terms of standard of performance and for example, we currently in our lrv