para transit conferences and look forward to improving wheelchair services. will realize to improve the services and access. with that i welcome your questions. >> thank you for your presentation. do i have any councilmember questions or comments? cochair zarda? >> first of all thank you for coming here today. the council and the general public appreciate when you show up to our meetings and can talk a little bit more and open up a dialogue about accessibility and working with the senior and disability population. what is the current access training and vehicle inspection that is in place? >> so with respect to the

vehicle inspections, as i mentioned rides that are fulfilled on our platform are provided through our standard vehicle supply. those are our typical lyft vehicles which to my knowledge don't require any special equipment. they are not vehicles equipped with a ramp or lift, they are for meeting the same mechanical requirement and go through that same inspection process that has been required by us and the puc which complies with the general population. there is not special training with respect to the provision of rides to individuals with disabilities and i certainly would be open to conversation about any content that you would recommend be included for those individuals who will be receiving rides on the lyft platform. for example i mentioned that these individuals will receive a text

message inviting them to communicate with the driver to communicate their access needs. those individuals that can enter a standard vehicle, if it's your opinion that there are specific types of training that are helpful for drivers to receive, i would be open to that feedback. >> just the way it might help in trying to do this by a case by case basis understanding across the board of all drivers, this is something that you really cannot just do through a handout or wait and sigh -- see type of approach especially if this is a small app program just a start up getting ready to go. if you have a lot of drivers in place, having the training required for all drivers, you know having

access specialist coming to speak, not just a few hours. having a before and after test. like having members of the public volunteer to try out these drivers and they are being taught properly how to go about these procedures ahead of time, proactive instead of reactive. >> if i can respond to this. it might be help handout you to become a lyft drivers. we have 10s of thousands of lyft drivers in san francisco. it's not a stable application. there is a constant change who drivers are. they come on the flat forms, they are not professionals. they don't intend to do this for a career. the barriers of entry for them must be seamless. the way we provide training for them which is also important for them as a standard operation. i worked with lyft and we used to do it in three 3-hour workshops which made it

really hard for us to get enough drivers fast enough. what we did over time was make those pieces of content available online and have them go through an online training experience and quizzes them and makes sure the rides go smoothly. that's the way we administer educational information to our drivers. for example if you have a day long training in our office. we have 10s of thousands of people and physically bringing them in and the frequency if they plan to be a driver for a few weeks, it becomes extremely difficult to administer reliably. if someone actually hits some of those training and being able to accommodate that. the only line provision is a model for distribution of information for them. that's a powerful channel an where information can be conveyed really well to be considered as a great thing to distribute content to them on this

topic. >> you bring up a good point here, oversight, right, kind of hard with this peer to peer platform and keeping track of the drivers and whether they are professionally trained and whether they are actually able to provide these services and needs. as far as, do you believe or do you think it's in lyft's best interest to having regulations in place. we heard from uber and now from lyft, sounds like you have two taxi driving services in existence now in san francisco, you have one with regulations in place and they are put there for a reason to ensure that you have accessible van services and that you have a certain amount of vehicles in a fleet and doing the advance appointment scheduling is not, it's like a separate but equal status. you are not providing the

same level of accessibility. you have someone in advance saying i think i will run out of eggs on time. it's a very low low, it's hard to try to compare that. what i'm asking that despite the fact that you are a peer to peer model, do you believe and do you think it is in lyft's best interest to fore go that peer to peer model to meet the needs of the community. it's sounds like with 10s and thousands of drivers and the advertising, all the money that has gone into it, it seems that the money is there and it's more we are not regulated to provide these vans, that is not our business model. you have done research as you said to come up on this issue and it's hard to find drivers. if you think it's in the best

interest of lyft to fore go this population, 15-18 percent of san francisco to provide these vehicles in place and say we know we are peer to peer but we know this community is important to us, we want to guarantee that they will be served. do you believe that will possibly be in their best interest. >> lyft has never owned a vehicle. lyft does not operate vehicles in an hourly basis. to me lift is our peer to peer model. so it's hard for me to imagine a scenario under which we would not be operating as who we are. that's like asking an apple to be an orange. i think the interest of public policy are to make sure the services are available that taylor to the needs of the public but not every service has to be identical. for example, with respect, if you look at some of the features of

our service that far is surpass for certain categories with individuals with disabilities the capability of existing services. for example with tax easy, if you were to require that they do as good as we do to allow in facilitating and tracking communication between driver and passenger by the use of smartphone technology and telephone communication between driver and passenger and voice over accessibility features and all of those things that i described earlier, i'm guess ing that they might not like that idea, perhaps there is no need to do that because we do it well and maybe it's possible that there can be a portfolio of transportation services that are brought to the city which is what i think sf mta does that such the needs of the public

for transportation is met. if what we do is provide an on demand instant service, is on a peer to peer basis, we are legally structured that we don't own vehicles. there are many aspects of our engineering that has been created on this premise and on the nature of the scheduling of rides on an instant basis. that's like the mass of our code base of dispatching -- algorithms for the ride. >> are you sure because it sounds to me the taxi cab services took a note from lift and uber and adapted to this by using flywheel and trying to increase the usage among smart app users as opposed to tossing out the entire existing center you are for lyft, simply to have 20-30, starting off with wheelchair

accessible vans, car styles, to have them there. you know where they are at. you have drivers trained on site. this is a suggestion oovment to me that sounds like a taxi services. sounds like a fleet of drivers with a taxi services. i would suggest to you that there are taxi services in the city that are operating that business model. maybe they are best equipped to fulfill that. one thing we have done in chicago is we support the requirement of the city there to contribute revenue towards the on going viability of the wheelchair accessible taxi in chicago. that model was best to fulfill those rides and markets like in austin texas. they are better at

being a taxi service than we are. >> in the interest on time. i apologize. when you do step into a pond and taking a lot of space and looking around why can't i find that many accessible van vehicles is because there were already fleets of taxis progress that service and it also diminishes and decreases the taxi companies. to point off other taxi cab companies to say they provide this, it's fine. the reality is that no, these services are decreasing exponentially with each passing year because of this. that's why i'm suggesting because part of you in existence is decreasing those vans, picking up that point and saying we admit that we are actually part of this issue and we are going to try to rectify it by providing our own. >> it could be that we can

support that financially. one of the things from the sf mta report study this week of accessible taxi service, i'm not sure if you had a chance to read that but i understand tlg -- there is a large number of taxis not put on the street owned by these companies. i understand there are a market dynamics which we are a part that get back to the decisions of taxi companies but still remain taxi companies to do that however someone who use under utilized assets, those seem like they are to me and i wonder if there is anything they can do to encourage those vehicles. they are not being used right now and that's exactly what they need. >> i appreciate your comments. >> councilmember kostanian?

>> i heard you saying about that you had drivers that were deaf and one thing that we right of way, if they are driving how are they aware of ambulances and sounds? >> through sight. they are legal drivers in the state of california. it's not illegal to be a driver when you are deaf. the state decided that is safe and there are things like the flashing lights that emergency vehicles have which are detected by our stoplights that will make it safe for them to drive. >> thank you. >> go ahead. councilmember senhaux? >> one quick question, what was the

criteria. i'm interested in being a driver. so i want to work for you whether it's short-term or long-term. what's the criteria? >> sure. this criteria is accept set up by the puc with respect to our standards. there is a requirement that drivers be at least 21 years old, that they have a vehicle that is fewer than 10 years old, that it be current with their personal auto insurance and in good mechanical condition and level of cleanliness and the driver undergoes a criminal background check and similar to those like taxi drivers in california and to ensure they have a good driving record and not criminal to commit any unsafe acts with their passengers. those are the requirements for the drivers. drivers would first apply on

our website and they will be contacted by an existing driver who we have a category of drivers of who are already with us who are high performing and who have been invited to help on board drivers. they will receive a car from those drivers who will help them to get a test driver with a mentor. they will give a ride to that mentor and have a photograph taken of the vehicle and 20 point inspection of the vehicle in person and that person can be approved to drive on a lyft platform. there are no physical abilities that i believe other than sight. certainly one must be a holder of a legal california drivers license. >> if i pass the test and chip is a great driver and he's going to assess me driving on the road and if

i'm a good driver is that assessing life skills is if someone will pretty much dialogue and tell you a report back if i'm doing a good or bad job. is that pretty much it? >> there is a pretty clear criteria, there are basically check boxes with respect to the performance of that ride along. but yes, there is a recommendation made by the mentor at the conclusion of the ride about whether that person should be a driver. >> thank you. >> all right. i have a quick comment piggy back on your conversation. the fact is that not only are tnc ruizing -- reducing the demand for taxis but robbing the drivers who can operate the vehicles with

wheelchair lifts. they are being attacked on both ends. i just wanted to make that comment. you don't have to respond. i would like to move to staff. >> this is jonah from the mayor's office on disability. you talked about the success of your model for people with certain disabilities. do you have any statistics or numbers of percentage of deaf drivers versus folks with some other disabilities, do you keep track of those numbers? >> that is information i would love to have. under the new changes to our app we will be able to start collecting data on people who check that profile option. well submit data to that to the c puc finally which will happen this week and subsequently all the data

regarding any elements of our product that are specifically inviting action from the user. we send a text message. >> i'm sorry, i think you misunderstood my question. let me try again. you talked about having a large number of deaf drivers who work with the lyft platform where you have lyft options. do you have those statistics. how many drivers are you employing using your app and how many of them are people with disabilities? >> thank you for clarifying. we left lane that passenger data, with respect to drivers, we don't ask people if they have a disability. which i'm guessing you might not like. we don't address that as a screening question but in research and doing is surveys of our research can

deal with that information and will help identify with the communities or if you have other suggestions about how we could appropriately collect that information. we can have it. >> so that is what i'm bringing up and that's my focus. we have heard from you and from the representative from uber previously that this anecdotal information about people with disabilities using working for cnc as an employment avenue. i would like to certainly see more numbers on that. you also talked about the person personally who uses her own accessible vehicle to work for you guys. so i would like to know those statistics before you can actually make those assertations in

public. i would like to see the data to support it. technically you are loud -- allowed to ask folks demographic information. you can ask them that you are collecting demographics. it's perfectly illegal to do. you can't just ask them in the preemployment stage. >> we are in the process of conducting is surveys. we don't have good information about the demographics of our driver community from many perspectives. i think that would be a very interesting area of inquiry. >> the other question i have is that you currently you attempted to do outreach to owners of such adapted vehicles and you talked about some of the reasons being that people with diblt -- disabilities maybe

more affluent and don't care about driving, but did you consider that driving and maintaining an accessible vehicle, even a used fully adaptive vehicle can cost upwards of $30,000. the wear and tear and the maintenance is not cost-effective for someone to be able to get the vehicle on the road more. have you taken that into consideration while doing your payment structure for lyft drivers who operate those types of vehicles? >> i don't know enough about the depreciation of an accessible vehicles compared to other types of vehicles. there are a lot of large vehicles that operate on our platform and drivers are conscious of their overhead cost and many drive small vehicles for that reason and we have many vans

and suv's, my guess would be the lyft category would be similar to the depreciation cost to these investigations and i know the fragility may cost more. i'm not sufficiently informed to address that accurately. >> in your research you were trying to get folks with disabilities to join. is that program completely debunk now because your research does not support this? >> the application page is still up. it's still possible for people to apply. i have not been receiving applications, however i found there was very minimal response when we were conducting extensive outreach. so my conclusion is at the very least the method we were using was not effective in identifying individuals who might be inclined to participate in this way. i would welcome suggestions

if you think there are other ways that we could tractor identify the populations that could use those vehicles. i'm in touch with mobility works which is a large company that would be able to have us market from their owners, they were not interested in pursuing that, but that was one idea that we might communicate with people for other categories. if you have other ideas i would welcome that. >> okay. we'll move on to public comment. first i have walter park.

>> thank you mr. chair and thank you members of the commission. i appreciate the report. i do have a question which i'm not allowed to ask but it's my testimony that i have a question i may not ask. and that is the lift and public accommodation. if lyft is a public accommodation then of course this laws of the state of california requires that you serve people with disabilities equally. i think you know that. on the training questions, you said that you don't like doing in person training because it's difficult to do that with so many people and with such a high rate of turnover. the high rate of turnover is something the people of san francisco are familiar with this. they train a lot of non-profit employees and where the turnover is high you train them over and over again. we know that. in the shelters we have a high turnover. that's not something you

throw away. you deal with it. the question i won't ask you does your online training which you do prefer include training and dealing with people with disabilities. i heard you say something a couple times something i don't think you meant to say you refer to standard services and then you refer to special vehicles and special services and special people. i should tell you that the disability community has a problem with the word "special" it is not special. everyone needs training and that includes people with disabilities. the other question i won't ask is whether you finance vehicles. if you finance that vehicle there is some obligation that comes from that. you propose having two systems which you may help to finances the para transit system, separate but

equal is always a problem. always creates a system, where they are asked about accessible taxis and it serves them much better. -- >> thank you. >> next is charles ratsdz bond. >> good afternoon. we would like to say again to the people with disabilities in san francisco thank you for your business. we have no ambiguity about what accessibility means. we understand it does not mean tossing a wheelchair into a trunk or making vague promises. it's providing an accessible

vehicle fully accessible with wheelchairs and with a trains driver to go with it. i suggest that you advocate for a city fee or tax if you will, a is surcharge on every trip that lyft provides. that money should go to provide accessible services by other operators who are actually willing to provide the services to you, not just to their idea of what a special client is which means just about anybody accept you. so, provide those funds to operators that do provide the services. contrary to what you may have heard the city does have extensive authority to regulate these vehicles. the public utilities commission code provides reasonable regulations. we have today in service a

seven wheelchair accessible vehicles. we have 10 unused in our lot today for lack of a qualified driver. make no mistake about it, members, that every time that lyft draws another driver away from a taxi service, they are taking service away from you and making no compensation at all for the damage they are doing to the services that do serve you. out of time. thank you. >> thank you, bob plant hold. >> i'm bob plant hold. i'm going to draw upon what was said here or the mirror image reverse of what wasn't said, remember earlier carla johnson talked about

the website being 508 compliant. notice in today's presentation or earlier, they didn't talk about being 508 compliant. one 1 person i know who works for an agency for someone who is blind, they are not. that's something to check into. the question of public accommodation which was raised which means right from the beginning they should fully accessible. you heard today about accessing these services through a smartphone or tablet. that is not accessible at all. not everybody has or uses a computer or smartphone. just a regular old rotary dial phone. you can't use these services. that seems to rule out some people especially those who have a mobility and low income. there is problems with what

hasn't been said. what hasn't been asked by c puc, by our city attorney, by our supervisors when they have these hearing by not all encompassing the information that you have been given. >> thank you. kevin lee? >> good afternoon. my concern is this: i ride taxis and now it's harder and harder to get a cab because all my regular drivers they all left the company to drive for these independent companies. last night i went to the c puc meeting and i heard a lot of things that are really unexplain able. there was a report and i believe the report is totally bogus. so i ur