we believe the resolution as it stands is the appropriate target. we would rather i guess underpromise and over deliver and in the future we can bring that back then that's great. the end date the 2035 date is really the critical one which as director haley said puts us ahead of the state resources board target. >> chairman brinkman: yes. >> one of the concerns is being confined in what we are doing. obviously what we do want to make sure is we have enough buses to meet the needs of the riders and that thing. so i don't have a problem with a proposed timeline as i understand it. as i also understand this plan, this is not a situation where we are going to in any way sacrifice capacity. i mean, because of coursevens - obviously the most important thing is getting people back on the buses and not in their cars.

this is not coming ing with an effect on our capacity. is that correct? >> that's absolutely right. the point you made i think it gets lost as we get in the weeds of what year we should consider the much, much bigger story is that the way that we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the city is to get people onto buses even dirty old diesel transit. right now it's close to 50% of the greenhouse gas emissions in san francisco. it comes from the transportation sector. of those it's less than 2% that come from transit. so there's a, you know, nearly 50% that comes from cars and trucks and to the extent that those in cars can move onto buses no matter what their situation that's where we get the bang from our buck in reduces greenhouse emissions. this is kind of the icing on the

cake. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. that's a very good point.

>> the bus lines tend to serve steeper grades. it's unlikely but possible there could be a scenario where the technology would be good enough to replace coaches that serve lines that aren't as steep and not yet there. for electric trolleys, we're speculating what the technology is going to be many years from now. the intent is to get to zero emission fleet. we're already there with half of our fleet. >> directors, any other questions? comments? >> these have a longer life-span, too, the electric buses in theory? >> anything we know about them is only in theory. they've not been in service long enough for us to know that. >> thank you. >> and that sort of brings up a second question. this is somewhat in theory and

we're going to be staking bets on a theory. that's fine. that's how progress happens. it's a significant bet. my question is, do we have enough intelligence that we're comfortable making this bet and then more really importantly from the other side, what is the plan with regard to who we're going to partner with to do this and make sure they have significant resources and expertise to make sure that something bad doesn't happen with the technology and if it does, we're not left holding the bag with that technology. >> well, so, our intel is what has gotten us to the resolution as it's written with the 2025 start date. >> right. >> part of our due diligence are some of the pilots we've talking about, the electric procurements that we're seeking to do and others will be doing thanks to the grant. there are a few that have already been done. they are all part of what we're using to gather intelligence.

in terms of the performance of the vehicles, we will structure our contracts just as we do for our other vehicle contracts to allocate the risk between the agency and provider. we don't intend to partner, per se, with electric bus manufacturers. >> i understand. >> but we will have our ready through this 30-foot coach procurement and subsequently we'll be inviting them to compete and working as we have been very closely with california transit association, which represents all the transit agencies in the state, to be sure that they understand what our requirements are to deliver reliable transit conservative is. i believe the bar will be increasing, and i think the performance, from what i understand of the electric buses, it has been increasing pretty significantly. >> forgive the ignorance, but these buses are produced by manage manufacturers? they can stand by their product?

this is new technology, but it's not produced by sort of start-up or -- >> it's somewhere about -- but the industry is growing and maturing fairly rapidly. >> thank you. >> thank you, directors, any other questions? motion to approve and a second? >> yes. >> if i may, before we vote, i want to thank everybody that's been engaged with this work here. i think that i personally and i think that probably the agency and there's been a lot of conversation about this over the past few, feels like, years, but i want to appreciate the leadership on the part of director and ms. rush and the bright line. everybody that's had the opportunity, they have been pushing the envelope. i don't think this would have come without their advocacy. i want to appreciate director

hailey in his work. we met with him and have been talking about making sure that we're pushing the envelope on this as best as possible. i think it's really clear that we all have an interest in getting us to 0 emissions as quickly as possible. i want to make it clear the statistic that director reiskin mentioned about 50% of the emotions and most of those are coming from cars. from the director's point, the stuff you're spraying off, 3% is coming from you're vehicles, if that. the majority are coming from cars. i think that buses get a bad rap. the diesel and everything is a concern, but the biggest concern is keeping people out of cars or giving them real choices. i think that's the one thing we need to keep in mind as we go about this business. we need to make sure we're delivering reliable service, and i think we're going about this as best we can with an eye to

beat l.a., of course, and of course to get to zero emissions as quickly as possible. >> thank you very much for that reminder, director ramos. it is important to not only bring on board electric buses but do everything that we can to make sure that you're bus routes run as quickly and efficiently as they can and, of course, safely. >> to beat l.a. >> to beat l.a. >> i thought that's what you were going to say. >> i have a motion and a second. all in favor. any opposed? this one passes as well. thank you for all your work and all the people who came to comment. thank you very much, we appreciate your focus on this. some people on this board will be off by the time these deadlines roll around. we'll have to hold each other to our word on this one. i would like to actually, ms. boomer, go back to 10.4 and 10.5 and see if we can close those out. i think ms. jones that's information for us.

>> thank you. yes. good afternoon, director. sara jones, planning director at mta took a look at both items 10.4 and 10.5. 10.4 did point back to the statutory exemption determination for the budget. this is the appropriate determination to be pointing back to because it was an add-on or an adjustment to the budget but captured the same kinds of fee and -- not fair changes, but essentially the same kinds of rates, tolls, fairs, and charges under that exemption. so i think 10.4, the ceqa review picks it up. >> okay. thank you.

>> on 10.5, i would like to make some further consultation with the planning department. that's kind of an unusual item and we just want to confirm that that's the appropriate ceqa determination. >> thank you. we will take up 10.4 again and we'll still hold on 10.5 and should you get it resolved, we can act on that one. thank you very much for doing that. 10.4, do i have a motion to approve? >> move to approve. >> a second. >> all in favor. any opposed? hearing none, 10.4 is approved. now item 12. >> good afternoon, directors. i lead the innovation team in the sustainable streets division. about -- last summer, we brought to you 10 guiding principles for emerging mobility services and technologies.

since that time, we've been partnering with the san francisco county transportation authority staff so do an assessment of how different emerging mobility services are living up to those principles. we've reached a milestone where a draft report has been released and with this i would like to introduce mr. logan with the transportation authority. >> welcome. >> good afternoon, i'm a senior transportation planner for the county of transportation authority and i'm excited to bring this report to all of you. i'm going to give awe brief overview of our report and kind of how it got here today. the first and foremost is that the nexus of this report is that both our board and yours have seen a lot of different services on our streets and some of them we didn't recognize. we want to make sure we're

understanding what was out on our streets and evaluate whether or not they are helping us meet our long-range and short range transportation goals. i'll go over briefly what we're saying when we're talking about emerging mobility services and technologies. i'll remind everyone, again, about the 10 guiding principles that both this board and the transportation commission adopted last june. then go into the evaluation methodology that we both worked with the sf mta on. finally provide recommendations for our side and yours. >> thank you. >> when i say emerging -- am i talking loud enough? i'm sorry. when i say emerging mobility services and technologies, this is covering bike sharing, car sharing, scooter sharing, and sidewalk robots. who knows what will come down in six months. >> who knows. >> last june, this board and

ours adopted 10 principles for emerging mobility and these are all based on existing policies, plans, strategies, so as an example, safety is based on vision 0, our transit guiding principles is based on our transit first policy and finally as a last exam, sustainability based on climate action strategies. these are an existing city policy and adopted plans, et cetera. but they are to declare guiding the different services and their companies towards what our goals are so that it's making clear to them what we stand or and what we're looking for them to do. we use these 10 principles to develop criteria and i'm going to walk through this carefully because it's new. the first is we identified outcome metrics. these are the outcomes that are specifically listed in the guiding principles. in this case, you're seeing safety. safety principle is, of course, related to vision 0. so measure them, we want to see

a reduction in the collision rates. this is the outcome metric for collisions. that said, we also, through a series of conversations with community stakeholders and the companies themselves, recognize that there are other ways to measure and understand these different services and their offerings and so we added policy and design features that often relate to the outcome metric we're trying to measure and in some cases, there are other pieces of the puzzle. you'll see it listed here, whether or not the services avoid messaging related to distracted driving. we know that might have a correlation with a collision rate. so i'm going to stick mostly to high level results. our main goal was to talk about the industry at large, but the report that you have also goes into all the results by guiding principle and by emerging mobility service type. i'm happy to answer questions at the end about any one of those

details if you'd like. so here are some results. the first and foremost is that -- i think all of you know that. the companies that partnered with the sfmta provided key experience in data that informed future permit types. those permits are actually able to guide the larger service types, bike sharing or car sharing as an example, to be more in line with the city's principles. that's great news there. the challenge is that what we are finding is that sort of permit -- pilot to permit alignment pipeline is more informal and not a standardized process. what's happening -- this brings me to the second point -- is that the information that we're collecting is actually not aligning often with itself. one of the major findings of this report is that while a lot of our permitting systems are collecting good data, it is not an apples to apples to apples to more apples comparison. we want to understand how to look at all these across the board and have a bas baseline fr

how they are helping or hurting the city's goals. the first finding is that a lot of services are in fact providing service late at night, 24 hours a day, and on weekends. often, in areas that are less served by transit. we want to recognize that some of these services may in fact play a part in filling gaps and that we should look towards that when we think about, again, future pilots or permitting as an example. fourth finding, there are some impacts on safety that i want to highlight. the first is that when we looked at a lot of the different services the way that they provide training for their operators, whether you, the service operator, or your driver, let's say, it's not standard and safe for a chariot, which is the private transit vehicle operator. no one tests for the operator after they've offered optional training. so one of the things that we're connecting the dots here is that, perhaps, one of the biggest issues is that people who are using these services, whether it's the operator or

being driven around, are not used to our streets. training might help that as an issue. the other issue, though, is that a lot of people are aware of this, some of these services are stopping in bike lanes, stopping in crosswalks, stopping in transit lanes and so this also has the impact on safety and we documented all of those in this report as well. that brings me, in fact, to the -- i jumped around. excuse me -- conflicts of public transit. some of these services have some documented evidence that they're pulling riders off our transit service. that's not a issue for us, of course, being a transit first city. the other areas are conflicts with red carpet lanes. there's documented in here the study that the police department did over in soma where over the last couple of months, early spring, they were able to show a lot of citations were riding in

receipt carpet lanes, et cetera. all of those have an operational conflict that, you know, makes being on a bus slower. that's a problem. last but not least, there are impacts on congestion. again, we have reports that there may be in fact more vehicles on our roadways because of some of these services. we just want to document if we're looking at reducing the numbers of vehicles. some of these services might impact increasing the numbers. we're going to look toward that in the future. we have several recommendations and i want to highlight top level pieces, but again, i'm happy to dive into some of the details if any one of those are problematic discussions. first and foremost, we recommend that the city partner with these different companies before they come into our city ideally. this will give us an opportunity to understand how their services operate, collect data and then inform permitting types. with that, we're recommending providing a framework for future pilots and sort of saying, here are gaps.

you help us fill them before you show up. the second is called measure. we want to encourage collecting additional travel behavior information. we want to understand better how people might be using some of these services to connect to transit and then moving forward. the third is regulating and recovering costs. this falls primarily on the sfmta. our recommend here is to harmonize the existing permits you have on your boards and then also create a framework for future permits so that ideally, it's not one, but there's a larger umbrella we can slide? whatever services we haven't thought of yet. there will be some soon enough. fourth, we want to continue to bridge molt gaps for low income users and people with mobility needs. that's a big issue across the board not just in this city but in other areas as well. we also recommend prioritizing public transit because we're a transit first city, continuing to roll out red carpet lanes and

provide additional signal timing as an example. fifth, we recommend increasing enforcements at known hotspots f we know there's double sparking in areas of the -- parking in areas of the city, we can encourage better behavior by increasing enforcement. that said, we recognize that there are not enough people literally in the city to handle that issue sometimes and so we're also identifying ways to automate some future enforcement capability. last but not least, price, so there are two elements here to this recommendation, which include both moving towards could not justing pricing -- congestion pricing. we haven't looked at how that will look, but we're opening that conversation. finally, moving forwards a comprehensive strategy across the board in the city. i just want to end by thanking several people that worked very, very closely with me at the sfmta. we've spent a lot of time on

this project. we have worked very, very closely on all the workshops, bringing the guiding principles forward. i just want to say thank you to these strong collaborative effort that we've brought together to make this happen. >> thank you very much, mr. logan. this was quite a massive undertaking. i know the amount of time it took for me to read through this report, and i still feel like i don't understand, obviously, completely. this was really huge. there's so much good information in there, and i do come away with it -- my sense of frustration is, perhaps, a bit reduced and i'm hopeful we're going to be able to wrap our arms around it and work towards it. i think that some of the things that stuck out to me was the actual identifying how much of our traffic is tmzs. i think that number that lept out was 20% of the traffic is probably tncs.

that to me is just appalling. everything we're doing to make our city move more efficiently and we're getting stymied on every street and important transit corridor. so thank you so much for the work on this. going forward, is this going to continue to be a joint ta mta project as we try and kind of work with this and figure out some options that we can implement to make things work a bit better? >> i'll let her speak a little bit to that and then hand it off. there's an overlap here. there are recommendations. a lot of them were developed in great part by staff at your agency, which they -- the other part, though, is that there is an emerging mobility strategy that's coming as sort of a call of response to the findings in this report. i'll hand it off to discuss that. >> the strategy is coming next.

>> yes. my team had overlapped with this effort, looking to learn, you know, what types of issues or potential solutions are we seeing, and developing a strategy to capture those. we've identified a number of potential actions starting a process to, you know, understand what some of those high priorities were or will be. some of those are likely to show up in the action plan for the upcoming strategic plan which we'll talk about in august. you'll get a preview of what we look to undertake in the next few years there. >> i'm sure we'll bring in outside groups because there's a big movement in cities or data to flow both ways for the emerging mobility companies to provide us with data, but for city agencies to also send data out the other way. so it's a two-way street.

correct? >> yeah. that's correct. we've engaged in preliminary discussions with some companies about their willingness to share certain information, you know. the personally protected information or personally identifiable information is one of the things that often trips us up. so figuring out how we can get the information to help us understand these services without, you know, revealing personal information is one of the biggest challenges, not just this city, but many cities are facing. >> yes. >> i just wanted to add to the statement that as part of the outreach for the evaluation, we actually submitted to all the companies we were working with an industry survey to help us understand and several of the companies actually provided a lot of helpful information that colors how their services work. so i just want to sort of applaud the good faith effort that several companies did. >> that's good to hear. directors, do i have questions? >> i know you might have mentioned robots and drones, but

we heard recently that they might have helicopter-type pickups to take people from point a to about the. in terms of overall flying objects -- i think that's more of the future, sadly, than we're worried about the street space. i don't know how -- what kind of jurisdiction or how that will play for us to regulate, if it's in the air but not in the air. so i mean, that's something we need to be talking, i guess, to the airport about or -- i'm not really sure who would be dealing with that space. i think that the future isn't on the ground. >> yeah. i think that's probably right. i think these principles would be applicable, but what we do in response might be quite different. i think the faa has asserted jurisdiction down to a certain limit, you about i think it's -- but i think it's unclear and quite low. a lot of us may be preempted at the federal level from

regulating. but takeoffs and stud attitudesd b -- andtouchdowns would certai. i've are conversations with others around the state and we would want to engage the airport given their experience and working with traffic as well as the planning department because the use of facility as you may recall, helicopter pads have been in the past a bit of a point in the city. so i think it's a great point. i think it's an area that is maybe the next frontier after the latest wave of surface transportation options emerge. >> i think with the drones, i think more focus on the delivery of products, not people, but i think we need to think more about that the and changing technology just related to the trucking industry and how goods and services get to people. i know it touches a little bit on that in this report. i think we're focused much more

on the individual patterns, but i think we need -- that really will define a lot of the things that happened on our streets. >> so thank you for all this, and i'm glad we're thinking about it. it brings me back to the point that was sort of focused in on in the scooter discussion we had last time. i think, to me, one of the things that we can do as a regulator and we can sort of build into these pilots as we go forward, is these companies are all using technology and exploring technology to make a profit, which is fine. that's the test of their success in the market. but we don't see the same enthusiasm about using their technology to ensure compliance. and i guess where i come out is that's really going to be the solution to this. for example, if you were going to be a vehicle provider with a very sophisticated gps system that allows you to pick up your

customers and know where your customers are, that same system should be able to keep you out of bike lanes or report when you're in a bike lane, keep you out of double parking when you shouldn't be double parking. the excuse that the gps doesn't work that well in the midst of skyscrapers, i've got to say, i just don't buy it. i think if we, as a regulator, say, look, you guys are the technology experts. you figured out a way to serve your customers that's going to be a success. god bless you. at the same time, you have to figure out how your technology will work with our rules and show us that. we shouldn't be getting into the technology business. we're not going to be as good. we're good at what we do. they're good at what they do. but i think that has to be part of our paradigm for the regulation going forward. here's what we're going to demand of you service provider, if you want a license. you're going to have to show us some technology that's going to enforce these basic safety requirements that are critical.

if you can't, one of your competitors is going to, and that competitor is going to get the licenses from us. and i think that really can be a paradigm for how we go forward. i will tell you, i think there are some companies that just are more responsible than others. i will tell you when i drive around, i know who is double parking and blocking muni buses. it's not chariot vehicles or scooters. i don't see that. i think they've built it into their culture they're going to comply with rules. it's the tncs. they are loaded, loaded with more computing power than the apollo mission had and yet, we can't build in -- i realize there's preemption issues, but we can't build in a reliable system that comes them from double parking and blocking our buses and drivers as well. i realize we don't have a specific proposal before us today, but for me, it's technology that's driving all of

this, and i don't think we have to feel the responsibility as an agency to invent enforcement technology. i think we as an agency can require self-enforcing technology these companies have to put it in before they get a license from us. >> that's a good point. thank you very much. directors, any more questions or comments? i do need to go to public comment still. thank you both very much for the work on this. it will be interesting to see this strategy report that comes out. it's important work you're doing. thank you again, both of you. >> thank you. >> we have two people who have turned in speaker cards. >> good afternoon, directors. i work for a chariot. we're very proud of chariot seeing in the emerging mobility report. while there's still more work to do the results of the report

show that chariot today is setting the bar for emerging mobility providers and their alignment with san francisco values. first and most importantly, chariot works with the city of san francisco as opposed to floating city regulations. we're proud. part of the program, chariot is sharing the type of data that director heinicke is referring to. chariot is paying for the cost of running the program. chariot suggested over 100 stops to comply with permit requirements and to address public concerns. chariot will only design routes that complement public transit and not compete with it. in addition to working with sf mta, chariot invests in the community. chariot employs the entire workforce half of them who live in the bayview. they pay for each driver to

complete a commercial driver's licensing program. they pay for the cost of the program and the drivers to sit through the program at $16.50 an hour. we are proud of our partnership with the teamsters local 665 who negotiated good wages and benefits for the members, setting the bar for micro transit in the bay area. they reduce congestion by removing ten single occupancy vehicles per chariot on the road. we're committed to safety as he ca -- accessibility with a fleet of wheelchair accessible vehicles we have and we have an in-app function that you can request a wheelchair accessible vehicle through the app. we're also providing service to areas of -- >> thank you. >> thank you so much.

>> thank you, again, directors. i did spend much of the morning looking over this report. i think it's a good first step. i hope that some effective regulation comes out of it. but i wanted to specifically talk about the tncs and has been noted by a couple of directors, this -- the biggest part of the congestion problem in the city is undoubtedly the tncs. the city has thus far taken the position they don't have regulatory authority over tncs, but certainly you have regulatory authority in so far as it goes -- the general rules, the rules of application that apply citywide to all vehicles or even, i would say, to certain classes of vehicles such as the ones that are contained in this

report. so i would love to see some effective regulation having to do with that. i would particularly call attention to the idea of congestion pricing because it's more than just stopping in bike lanes and double parking. it's sheer numbers. it's the sheer numbers of them that are on the street. if a handle can be gotten on that, i think it will have a tremendous benefit across the board and across the city. so i hope you take a good, close look at that. i hope you also take a look at regulations that find ways that you can regulate tnc as long with other forms of transportation. thank you. >> thank you. yes, mr. gilberte.

>> tom gilberte. numbers matter. i heard just recently that it's 6,000 uber lifts on the road at one time versus 35,000 uber on the road at some point. numbers matter. again, quality of life. do we want 6,000 more cars downtown? even if they're giving another government will take a nice profit or tax or, you know -- but do we want them? is that where we want to go? insurance, if a scooter with a helmet hits a person in a wheelchair or a little kid or an old folk, we get broken a whole lot easier. the uber lit insurance pattern, if there's no one in the car, they have a different set of insurance, what they'll pay. this is a billion dollar --

billions of dollars corporation. i'm sitting here thinking that if you had children and they were going to spend the rest of their life paralyzed, duh. and 6,000 or 40,000 or 30,000 cars are going to add more tension to drivers that are on the street. that includes the tourist drivers that don't know what they're doing. if you're driving in the city and you're making money in the city, you should sign into a $5 million damage policy per person. the city can arrange that funding through a public bank. we need to go that route. we don't need more sprawl of mechanical machines in this city. thank you. >> thank you. herbert winer is the last

speaker. >> there's one thing -- two things that have been left out. one is accessibility to transportation. now, people are expected to walk a quarter of a mile to the bus stop. if you're a senior or a disabled person, it's a hardship. now, that plan should address this. the second thing about congestion, you remove parking spaces, you remove driving lanes. you have an increased volume of cars coming. yeah. you are going to have congestion. that's one contributory factor. in addition to uber and lyft. i think this should be examined as part of the plan. this is a long-standing problem. it's not been addressed. when you increase the walking distance, less people are going to take public transportation. also, when you constrict the driving lanes, there's more of a

pileup of cars. there are areas -- neighborhoods where congestion did not exist before. now it does. try california streets in the richmond district. it didn't used to be this way. now it is. now there's several streets that are could not justed. i recommend that the mta and cta examine their could no congesteg and be more realistic. >> thank you. anymore public comment? no? seeing none, public comment is closed. directors, this is a discussion item only. there's no action, but the public speakers, we did, you know, hear, again, about the hardships that tncs are causing and it will be good to have a strategy to come out of this report. personally, i think congestion charging is an idea with a discussion coming back is very good. i applaud that. that's going to be an interesting one to hear. maybe this time people will see

there is a need and we can do something with it. director rubke, did you have thoughts? >> i'm sorry. thank you. so thanks for this report. it was comprehensive and got into details on a lot of things that i thought were really forward thing and helpful. i just wanted to question the metric used in the accessibility piece. i think they were good in general, but i thought the first one caused me a little concern, by i think, if i'm recalling, the phrasing is something like the percentage of that services users who have disabilities or who identify as disabilities as having disabilities. and i guess i'm concerned about using that as a metric because i think that in a lot of the cases where this service clearly doesn't have accessibility or

disabled access, you're not going to get a very good or useful metric from that in my mind because the user -- people with disabilities won't sign up as a user of a service where there's no obvious access. so, for example, bike share, i love the idea. it's so awesome, but i'm not going to sign up for bike share. but i think it's important that, as we're looking to these emerging technologies and seeing how they com comply with our principles, it's important we keep pressure on then. i understand the report did address those other things. i want to highlight that as a little bit concerning. i think in connection with the other metrics that you have, i think you'll get what you need. i just had a little concern with that. so that's my piece. thank you. >> that's a good point, director. thank you very much. yes, director ramos. >> thank you, madam chair and thank you to the ta staff for

this incredible report. i've been anticipating it for a while, and i was very pleased with what you all produced. it's quite a bunch of information. i hope it's going to be required reading for anybody that's working in transportation today. it really is a nice comprehensive bunch of information. it's very -- it's so comprehensive, there's very little that i can add. i think that speaks to all the brilliant minds that went into the review and the peer review and everybody else that looked at this. it looks really -- you guys covered your bases, which i applaud. there are two questions i had. i saw that you just -- it seems to me like you're going to be evaluating folks with respect to vmt that's related as service

vmt. i see that phrase service vmt a bit. i assume that what you mean by that is that once a car comes into service as opposed to generating to get here from wherever it came, i'm wondering if you can spear to that or if you thought about that much at all and what i would like to do is make sure that we're trying -- this kind of speaks to my next question, which maybe you can do a twofer. with respect to how you're going to be monitoring and rating the percentage of local hire. i saw you refer to the policy, and i applaud that. i didn't quite catch how you would be evaluating the compliance or how they would be effectively hiring people locally, but i do think that those two things are related, which then ultimately gets to sustainability and congestion and what have you. so i'm just hoping that you thought a little bit about that

and i'm sure that you did. i would love to hear more about it. >> sure. to your first question about vmt, it actually is a metric that shows up in several places. i'm going to take your point and sort of project it outward. >> okay. >> when we think about autonomous vehicles as a not too far distant future, they are out of service like you're not in the car, but it is still driving around. that counts in this evaluation. so even though under congestion, we're talking about service vmt, which is your point of -- i'll use this as an example. in the vehicle versus the person that's driving around, vmt finds its way into the financial impact principle under state of good repair. so we are also counting the total vmt that is just associated with that service. so, for example, the driver who picks you up, susan, if they had to drive five miles to get to you and then you took five miles, it will count as five miles in congestion and ten

miles under the finance impact principle. that in fact is covered. then under sustainability, we look at people miles traveled because it's a matter of how many people are in that vehicle. are we moving people or vehicles? does that answer your first question? >> i think so. >> is that more information you needed? >> it's more information than i needed. maybe we can talk more after, but i certainly -- i'm glad you took it into consideration because i do think that's part of the issue is because there's driving around out of service that it's something i think we -- i would like to make sure that we as a city are addressing. so it sounds like you thought about it and you're addressing it in some capacity. maybe we can talk more. i don't want to be the only one holding us up. this speaks to the point from what i understand, a lot of the reason why a lot of the state appreciates these tn cs so much is because they're job

providers in towns that don't have a whole lot of alternatives. then they come here to provide services and that contributes to congestion. i appreciate the nod to the local hire policy, i'm wondering if you'll be doing or thinking through more to acknowledge the companies or the providers that are doing their best to give opportunities to our local residents. >> your approximately is with the taken and we're happy to add that as a future consideration. other documents like our tnc report has documented as an example how many drivers had business licenses before the state granted, about where they were originally located and then driving in san francisco. we are well aware of that phenomenon. >> thank you. >> thank you, director ramos. that is good. i would remind everyone, though, in terms of the tncs providing jobs, i think the last data point i heard which was quite recently because that the average ten tour of the uber

drivers is 6 months. they are not providing sustainable jobs and they're not necessarily providing a living wage, but you're right. it's a low barrier to entry. so it's a quick oh, i have a job driving an uber and then it might take them six months to figure out that it's actually not paying -- >> i think that my perception, i could be wrong, but it's such a short tenure because they're tapped into an infinite workforce that they're treating as disposable. you get one star rating now and you're gone or whatever. >> yeah. it's unfortunate. mr. logan, thank you again. do i have any other discussion questions, comments? no. thank you so much both of you for the work on that. i'm glad we'll be seeing you again with a strategy because we look forward to that very much. all right. i see i have a public speaker comment card up there, but we've closed public comment on this item. what is that on? >> this is for discussion as to

whether to invoke -- >> excellent. >> madam chair, would you like to discuss 10.5 at this point? >> yes. do we have -- i believe we need to continue that item. is that correct. >> yes. >> all right. so as we continue that item, i would just remind staff to circle back with the cac since they had concerned around this as well. as we're figuring out what to do about that one, we can also loop back with the cac to explain that as well. all right. so 10.5 we will continue. so we will move on. >> discussion as to whether or not to invoke the important client privilege. we have a comment. >> thank you, again. i note that the closed session concerns the lawsuit that the

san francisco federal credit union has brought against the mta on the medallion sales program. i don't have an opinion on the legal issues in this lawsuit, but i do believe that it is part of a larger discussion that needs to take place around the medallion sales and what to do about it. it's a broken program. it has to be resolved at some point. you can't keep people prisoners in these medallions for the rest of eternity. we've had over 120, i believe, for closures. so we're going to let it go until every last one is foreclosed. and then the problem goes away. no, i don't think so. so again, i think that something needs to be done about this, and in new york, for instance, they're beginning to come to the

same conclusion. there is now a new effort, first of all, to reign in tncs. you may be aware that four taxi and delivery drivers have committed suicide in recent months over desperate economic conditions and that's causing the city to look at this again. a recent editorial in the new york sometimes abou"newyorkt to read you these sentences. over time, the city should consider whether it owes something to drivers who sunk their savings into taxi medallions. many went into debt to buy these permits because the city promised them a monopoly on picking up passengers, a promise it has not been able to keep. so i think the simple answer is that the mta needs to make these people good and needs to find a funding source to do this. thank you. >> thank you. do i have a motion to go into closed -- i have one more public commenter.

>> i want to agree with the comments that my friend mark just made. i hope you'll bear that in mind as you convene your closed session. i just also wanted to clarify your action just know on 10.5. is that to continue it later in the meeting, or is that to continue to t. to a future meeting. >> a future meeting. >> i'm good with that, and i hope to talk to staff before then. >> thank you very much. anymore public comment on closed session? no. seeing number, it's closed. do i have a motion? do i have a second? all in favor. hearing none, we will move to a >> chairman brinkman: all to a right. so we are back into open session. all right. item 14 announcement of closed session, the mta board of directors went in closed section but no action. it would be item 15 would be appropriate for a motion to disclose or not disclose the

information. a first. a second? all in favor of not disclosing? we will not disclose. >> chair, that concludes the business before you. >> chairman brinkman: thank you all for spending your tuesday with us.

. >> good morning and welcome to the government audit and over sight committee. today is may 16, 2018. i am joined by supervisor aaron peskin and london breed. i also want to acknowledge our community clerk