also support a motion to continue. i think this would be a great opportunity to -- for lyft to step up and provide this benefit to students that deserve it and need it. and i think they should do that. i just -- by way of example, on valencia street, where we've been having nonstop difficulties with the bike lanes and pulling over into the bake lane, making it very dangerous. i sent a letter to lyft asking them just out of goodwill and the fact that they're contributing to this problem, to geo fence and make sure that their drivers were pulling on side streets. to my great surprise, they took the letter very seriously. they answered it and they did, in fact, not only do that geo sensing, but they're sharing data with us about how that

pilot is going and looking at expanding it. so this has been a company, at least in this one circumstance, looking to solve these issues and i think it's completely appropriate to ask them to step up here as well. >> supervisor safai: thank you. i also would support an opportunity to continue this item. i agree with the sentiment of what commissioner cohen is saying here, but i also agree with the sentiment of what you're saying. and i think there's an opportunity. the agreement is between s.f. state and motivate, but it would be good -- maybe we can have someone -- someone from the sfmta to come talk about the contract with motivate. i'm assuming that lyft is just assuming that contract, so this is one, small piece of it. having the opportunity to have someone from lyft to come in and talk about what they're willing to do to participate in this program.

we have limited grant dollars that we want to spread around the city this is a multibillion dollar company. i'm almost certain without even talking to them that it is something that they would want to subsidize and should subsidize. is there anyone from sfmta that can talk about this for a moment? >> there's a lot of folks from mta. i saw mr. mcgwire. >> supervisor safai: i will not needle you about the fact that you are before this body and we told you that jump would be required by uber. nevermind, go ahead. >> tom mcgwire, sfmta. i will speak to the details that i'm certain of and then maybe ask to come back to the board with areas i'm not entirely confident of. the contract between motivate

and the mtc is in the aquisition of motivate, the company that runs go bike by lyft, current thinking is that lyft will take on that contract. so they will have the same relationship with mtc that motivate has had. we're writing to mtc and asking them to confirm that at mtc's understanding, that's what lyft's understanding is. in regards to low income, many of you will remember that when we finalize that contract, one of the provisions is that 20% of the bikes were required to be in communities of concern and also that the -- that motivate was required to offer what they called bike share for all, the $5, first-year membership for any applicant that qualified for the transit pass program. as one of the previous speakers

said, it's probably the most comprehensive income-based equity program of any of the bike share systems in the country. >> supervisor safai: that lifeline bike program, is that based on income and does it affect and have any impact on students? >> it is based on income. what would i like to get a little more information about and come back with is whether there are any restrictions or special conditions for students to participate in that program. >> supervisor safai: through the chair, if they're already subsidizing. doesn't make sense that we should be double subsidizing if they're required to do that. so it would be good to have that information. thank you, mr. mcgwire. i would also be in favor of continuing the item and letting them come forward and present. >> supervisor peskin: i think we can continue the balance of the item, but i assume we should let the four contracts that there is

no controversy about move forward. >> president cohen: i was going to suggest that. first of all, this is a pilot program. we started this conversation with san francisco state before lyft acquired go bikes. and i understand the push and pull about t.n.c.s. i'm a little concerned and probably very sensitive to the fact that we're talking about students. we're talking about 400 students, not very many of them. we're not giving money away. the aquisition of lyft occurred july 2. so it's relatively new. although the chairman, mr. peskin, in his prophetic speaking, said it before it went

down. i don't know how he did that, but he knew some things. >> supervisor peskin: i have good staff. >> president cohen: and i mentioned it on the record before or right around the time that the announcement was made public. so what we're doing is, this a grant with san francisco state. the funding is up for 400 san francisco state pell grant recipients to qualify for free bike share with yearly passes and 300 single-month passes that are not pell grant-eligible. so it's a little bit of a wider umbrella than i originally said in my remarks. it is encompassing some pell grant students as well as those that are not eligible for pell grant but still meet the basic requirements. i just -- i think -- i don't need to say anything else. i'm happy to support the continuance to allow the representatives of the respective companies to come and

present and, mr. peskin, i definitely see your point and desire to not further reward bad behavior, but i appreciate you entertaining my concerns about not punishing the young people. thank you. >> thank you very much for the thoughtful conversation. we're happy to bring a new item back. in fact it, with not be a continuation, if you agree to the staff recommendation to the other four items. we can approve that today and come back with a new item inviting lyft and s.f. state. >> supervisor peskin: commissioner cohen and to commissioner cohen's second, would you like to withdraw and then take a motion to withdraw the item and then once we come back with a new item consider that? >> president cohen: yes. i will withdraw my motion. make a motion to move forward with the four projects that we have accepted and we will table and continue the item about the

pell grant-eligible students for a later meeting. i'm not quite sure when. one week's time? >> supervisor peskin: we meet again in two weeks. i don't know if the c.a.c. will have time to review it. >> president cohen: an unspecified time. >> supervisor peskin: you will introduce a new item. is that okay with commissioner kim? yes. is there a motion to approve item 7 as recommended by staff made by commissioner yee? is there a second? seconded by commissioner sheehy. on that item, same house -- wait. before we do that, i apologize. there was an individual that wanteded to speak after i closed public comment and so, colleagues, if there is no objection, before we take an action, i would like to reopen public comment. so, please, come forward.

>> thank you very much. i wanted to support the proposal for grace cathedral for two v. fast chargers. many individuals and communities look at houses of worship for guidance and opportunity. so installing electric vehicle charging will provide opportunity for individuals that worship there and also to the many, many houses of worship across san francisco to be inspired to do the same and reduce our emissions and clean our air. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. any other additional public comment on item 7? seeing none, public item is closed. motion made by supervisor yee. seconded by kim. in that commissioner safai has walked out, roll call, please. [roll call]

>> clerk: we have first approval. item 8, approve a three-year professional service contract with civic edge consulting in an amount not to exceed $150,000 for strategic communications, med meada, community relations services for connectsf program. >> supervisor peskin: mr. young? >> good morning. eric young, senior communications officer here to present item 8. transportation authority is working with the sfmta and planning department on connectsf, a long-range planning program to build an equitable, sustainable and effective transportation system for san francisco's future.

regarding the overall outreach, we're in our second stage. the first stage defined a 50-year vision for san francisco's future. our current stage under the connectsf umbrella involves major studies looking at transportation network, transit corridors, streets, and freeways. it will help to move us closer to achieving the 50-year vision. given connectsf's vision, it's critical that we reach the largest possible audience. to assist staff in that effort, we issued an r.f.p., seeking to hire a communications consultant. i'm here to report staff has selected civic edge consulting and staff is seeking board approval to finalize a contract with that firm. civic edge will help staff devise outreach and involve multimedia and traditional

outreach methods. civic edge distinguished itself from the four terms that responded to the r.f.p. with understanding the objectives, capabilities, and experience. civic edge has shown a breath of capabilities that will help us to engage communities of concern, people with low incomes and other vulnerable populations and other organizations that support these communities. civic edge has recent experience coordinating across agencies. they have experience working on long-term planning. team members have experienced looking for the seawall project, the mta's muni strategy, planning department and others. we established a d.b.e. goal of 14%. civic edge includes 17% for two

sub-consultants. we have budgeted $150,000 for this contract with a federal surface planning grant. with me today, representatives from civic edge and r.d.j. and we're happy to take questions. that concludes my presentation. >> supervisor peskin: any public comment on this item? thank you, mr. young. seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. commissioner tang, do you have any comments about spending $150,000 of the people's money on your favorite program? [laughter] all right. is there a motion to approve item 8? made by safai. seconded by cohen. vice chair tang, would you like a roll call? all right. different house. roll call, please. [roll call]

>> supervisor peskin: next item, please? >> clerk: adopt emerging mobility evaluation report. this is an action item. >> supervisor peskin: mr. hobson. >> i will be there as soon as power point starts up. thank you very much, chair peskin and commissioners. so over the past decade, many new mobility services and technologies has appeared on our streets. you just talked about a couple of them for about a half-hour just recently. all of these provide new ways of getting around and they also

present some challenges and impacts to other travelers. so we launched this project, the emerging mobility evaluation report to understand the services better and guide the industry to help us better meet our transportation goals. today this item proposes that you adopt a final version of the emerging mobility evaluation report, which we brought to you as a draft back in may. and in that process, i will highlight a few of the recommendations that we've made progress towards. before i do, i want to thank some people that have been vital to the work. first off, staff member warren logan. he can't be here today. he would be presenting this instead of me, but he's at a workshop with transportation officials from around the country, jointly strategizing on these very issues right now. and i suspect possibly watching this on sfgov-tv.

so also many staff at m.t.a. have done some invaluable work on it. i will mention a couple, danielle harris is in the back along with her boss, who is at the same workshop with warren. they've been very key from the office of innovation, as have many other m.t.a. staff, where i could spend all of my time listing all of them. on transit taxis, parking and curb management, i.t., etc., have been very helpful. and this work also benefited from numerous conversations with staff from the emerging mobility companies themselves, as well as from several advocates and community stake holders. so this report is really the result of a partnership on many different levels. with that, on to the evaluation. to do this, we first define seven different types of emerging mobility services from

t.n.c.s and private transit to bike share and moped share. we evaluated the seven types, according to 10 guiding principles that you adopted last june these principles are all based on existing plans, strategies and policies such as vision zero, transit first policy, etc. so then we developed a series of questions for each guiding principle including out come metrics as well as policy and design features. since we presented detailed information on these in may, i won't go into them further now, but i'm happy to answer questions now if you have any. after the release of the draft report, some of the emerging mobility companies approached us and said, some of the places where you have question marks, we can fill those in for you and provided us with additional data allowing us to fill in a few question marks in the report.

the changes didn't substantially change the report, but did indicate, as supervisor ronen spoke of an interest in working together. with that, here are our findings. first, the companies that performed pilots with our public agencies provided data and experience that informed the development of permit systems for mobility types. that's a good thing. second, on data, some of the services aren't providing much, if any, useful data, but others are. in the public sector, we can do a better job of harmonizing and analyzing the data we do get to do apples-to-apples comparisons with mobility types, as well as making more effort to collect data on our own. services are available in late night and weekend hours in areas

less well covered by public transit. and some of these may provide opportunities to partner to provide more equitable access than the public sector is able to provide at the moment. fourth, there are some significant conflicts with public transit, such as blocking red lanes as well as bike lanes and curb ramps and sidewalks. and some of these may be reducing ridership or threatening safety. also on safety, we note that operator training is very inconsistent, both in micro transit and moped share and train and test vehicle operators, but the others do not. finally, on congestion, many, if not all, of the services rely on ci city right-of-way and curbs and the city has not consistly coordinated to develop a robust

curb management approach. on congestion, some studies have found that some users choose to drive personal vehicles less when they use these services but others find increases in driving. so it's a bit of a mixed bag. with that, we have seven recommendations. we tried to boil them down to one word on each that we should partner by creating a framework for emerging mobility pilots and proactively partner with these companies. we need to conduct additional research. we need to regulate the industry and harmonize the current systems and recover costs associated with permits and impacts. we need to bridge mobility and access gaps. and we need to prioritize public transit. we need to increase enforcement

in known conflict areas and hotspots and we need to use price as a tool. we need to move towards decongestion pricing and incentives, particularly in the downtown area and implement curb management strategies. i ccan explain any of these in more detail if you would like or have questions. before i conclude, i want to highlight a few of these that are already in progress. here at the transportation authority in our district 10 mobility management study, we're working with the community and with some of these emerging mobility companies to identify potential strategies and pilots that we could pursue. and we have also -- also to fulfill the measure recommendation partnering with mta. our colleagues at mta, have several efforts under way on harmonizing permits and data, developing a curb management

strategy and developing an overall strategy on emerging mobility to try to do this in a more integrated fashion. following up on supervisor yee's request, a new emerging technology task force just had its first meeting yesterday. and just last week, latco staff picked up on one of the study's recommendations and starting a study on labor in the emerging mobility sector. we would be happy to arranged a agesal briefings or info items to follow up on these if you would like. with that, i'm happy to take questions. >> supervisor peskin: why don't we hear from members of the public, because i think we have a number of speaker cards on this item. let's open up public comment. if you want to line up to your right, my left. first speaker, please.

>> good morning. thank you, commissioners, for the opportunity to provide public comment. i'm a summer associate at the environmental equity team at greenlanding institute. i'm here today to support item 9 and want to emphasize the principles of equitable access in collaboration with community. black and brown communities are hit hardest by the transportation costs and get stuck footing transportation pollution bills while they're white counterparts enjoy cleaner air and more mobility options. there are often greater legacy problems at play than just bike-share, car-share or risk of displacement. often what's the the core dissent, is the desire for equality and desire to use

investments like in transportation to help communities of color become clean, thriving and healthy neighborhoods. greenlanding recommends the equity approach and how to make transportation work for people. our framework offers planners, community advocates and transportation practitioners to a more community centered transportation process that focuses on the needs of the communities and puts them at the sender of decision making. the framework urging using a participatory process that has gained support at the m.t.c. and caltrans. the greenland institute encourages the equity outcomes incorporating the framework into the implementation in the emerging mobility work.

thank you. >> hi. my name is bob walsh. i'm the general manager for scoot networks. and we operate a network of shared electric vehicles that are picked up and dropped off anywhere in the city. our motto is simply, shared electric vehicles for everyone. many things to warren, the c.t.a., and everyone else involved in creating this thoughtful and comprehensive report. i want to emphasize how important and vital this report really is. understanding the city's needs and requirements can be complicated, confusing and conflicted. this document creates a shared framework in understanding for scoot so we know how we're perceived by the city and where we can thrive as a business while remaining a responsible,

effective player. scoot is genuinely and passionately dedicated to improving transit for all san franciscans. we align with the report's guiding principles for emerging mobility. we're the fastest, most affordable, shared option available today. our riders include teachers, surface workers, delivery couriers and even elected officials. we reduce congestion. we minimize noise and are environmentally friendly. at the same time, we value our workers at scoot. we don't rely on contractors or part-time labor. close to 75% of scoot workers live in the city. our team is well paid and fully benefited. we employ a variety of skills labor from certified field mechanicses to software engineers. scoot takes our partnership with the city seriously. we proactively worked with

m.t.a. to create a shared electric moped permit. we are in dialogue with department of environment, c.t.a., and really, anybody that will put up with me. we provide data, offer collaboration and share future plans and establish as a solid basis for all shared mobility companies. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. you are the model. if only uber and lyft could behave reilike you do. >> i'm nadia marquez. i share the support of the sfmta for emerging services and technologies. it is to engage, support and compliment the leading transportation and safety initiatives, from vision zero to

transit first, companies like this play an integral role. lauren logan, and denito have driven a much-needed dialogue and public-private workshops to provide a collaborative vision for san franciscos. promote passenger and road user safety and reducing congestion on our streets. crews is a self-driving car company where we provide competitive jobs. we're on track to hit 1,000 employees by the end of the year, a sleep from 40 in 2016. we have high-level engineers to entry level vehicle technicians. in addition to a number of

initiatives, we are helping to train communities that have felt on the margins of today's tech economy. we're committed to being part of the solution and look forward to sharing more information on this initiative. equal to our community to people is our incredible equipment for safety. we break down every action to determine how to execute in each condition and environment. our mission is simple -- zero crashes, zero emissions, zero congestion. we believe this complementary for emerging technologies and look to working with the city and county on this important effort. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, commissioners. i'm josie arens. walk san francisco. on behalf of walk-sf and our

members, i'm here to express our strong support for adopting the emerging mobilities evaluation report. we like to thank the sfcta staff for including us in this preoces and listening to our input with safety and accessibility in researching and writing this report. walking and biking infrastructure will be the backbone of our city come . we think it's vital for the city to get ahead of emerging technologies before unintended consequences compromise the safety and accessibility of our streets and public spaces. pedestrians should not have to pay the price while the market corrects itself and technology learned from potentially

life-threatening mistakes. we encourage the city to partner with technology companies, especially and they continue to collaborate across other agencies in order to plan, fund and maintain a mass public transit system. better collaborating across city agencies and will achieve vision zero, public health and sustainability goals. adopting this report is an important first step to ensure that the city has safe, beautiful, green streets, where people are the priority. we look forward to the city implementing all the recommendations such as collecting data, managing congestion and enforcing safe streets for the public transportation system. thank you so much.

>> good morning, mr. chair, commissioners. brian goebel, new executive officer of lasco. as a former transportation journalist, i was anxious to read this report and i think it does an excellent job of getting a handle on all the services that are sprouting up. as you know, there's still a lot that we don't know, especially in asking the questions of how these services alone with the city's labor principle. so i'm very happy to say as part of lasco's working plan for the coming year, we will be partnering with the t.a. to examine mobility services and effect on labor. we really want to understand the demographics of the contractor labor force, where they live, and i think the city treasurer's office may be able to help us in that regard. what are the commute patterns? and what are other jurisdictions doing? i will be meeting with t.a. staff in coming days to develop

the scope for our study. it's a very broad issue. i would urge your adoption. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mr. goebel. next speaker, please. >> good morning. thank you, commissioners, for the opportunity to provide public comment. i'm alexa diaz. i'm a summer associate on the environmental equity team at greenlanding institute. i'm in such report of item 9, adopting the report and equitable access. digital divide and digital red lining are used to describe the access across race and class lines. as emerging mobility options grow, limited access to wi-fi and broadband will increasing i will be a significant barrier for low-income people of color, to access emerging mobility and

transportation services. while low-income people have access to smart phones, there is affordability and spotty coverage. language can be a significant barrier to using mobile applications. and a lack of familiarity with mobility technologies can limit utilization and make implementation difficult. we encourage the sfcta to incorporate strategies that both increase access to realible internet and address language and ensure equitable access. we strongly recommend that sfcta continue to engage and collaborate with groups with transportation and justice stake holders to ensure that there's a just and fair transportation system in the city of san francisco. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good morning, commissioners. thank you for the opportunity to comment. i'm legal counsel at greenlanding institute. want to echo many of the remarks that my colleagues have made and i will keep my comments brief. i want to take this opportunity to also recognize the great work of yowarren logan and devin hars and their colleagues who have been critical in advancing the framework on mobility services. warren and danielle have done a tremendous job of creating a diverse set of stake holders to weigh in on the guiding principles and evaluation report. with that, the greenlanding in institute thanks you for your time. >> good evening.

caris carissa scoggins from transform. i would like to express my gratitude. sfcta has done a tremendous job, heavy lift, of convening a number of stake holders in the region, to think through how to better do this in san francisco. my family has been in san francisco's south-southeast neighborhoods for over 40 years. we are still stuck in our cars and we want choices. i've been doing transportation advocacy for 10 years. my family does not know what i do as an advocate. and so today, i will tell you that when i ask them, what would it take for them to give up their cars, they understand what it means to have access to bike share. they've asked me, when are we getting our scooter share? when are we getting car share? i will tell you, the same neighborhood i grew up in, looks

exactly the same in terms of options. and so today, i thank you for this tremendous effort that lets these companies play by city rules and helps us to get to a place where we don't have this drastic inequity between communities. and so i do want to highlight the fact that even as companies are starting to acquire one another, there are those that are already responding to this call. on scooter share, i was reached out to by a number of companies. the only one that actually desired partnership from transform and our community partners on equity outreach was lyft. thank you so much. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, president peskin, and the board. i'm danielle harris, office of

innovation at sfmta. i first want to thank joey chang, jeff hobson and my counterpart, warren logan for this great opportunity to partner on this effort, with the sfcta. this was a collaborative effort with city departments and the companies to better understand emerging mobilities. we must seek to understand before we can figure out how to handle things, right? these are new things. the sfmta office of innovation will continue this work in development of emerging strategy. the strategy will ensure the implementation of the transportation services support san francisco's goals for safe, sustainable and equity transportation network. we will ensure that we continue to align and help the companies align with the guiding principles for emerging mobility. we look forward to your input on this effort and we look forward

to continuing our work to work closely with sfcta. we hope you will support and adopt the report for mobility. >> supervisor peskin: thank you and thank you for your work with mr. logan. >> good morning. i'm aerial fleisher, senior transportation associate. i'm here to support the report. we appreciate all the hard work that's gone into developing this report. this document was developed through a great deal of research and out reach and dialogue with the public and private transportation sectors. it's a thorough and thoughtful document and it demonstrates a commitment to understanding, learning, and collaboration to support transportation innovation to promote the public about. we appreciate the emphasis on regulation and also on how public transportation can grow and take advantage of new technologies and support a greater focus on this going

forward. we encourage the city to heed the recommendation to partner with private companies to bridge low-income transportation gaps. final finally, emerging mobility services are popping up all over the region. we comment the sfcta for this document and encourage you to collaborate with city agencies and other cities, taking a region-wide report will further learning and growing and make it easy for people to engage with new services. thank you very much. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> >> good morning. my name is jason height. i'm here on behalf of aaa of northern california and mobility service car share, only one-way car share service here in california. we're here in support of the resolution today. i currently serve as the president of gig andreas --

and recently was at aaa in mobility. we announced that we'll launch in sacramento. for 118 years, we've been bringing safety to drivers and passengers on our roads. 118 years ago, we led the way into a new era when the horse and buggy was replaced by the automobile. again, aaa is in a new area, where vehicles are connected, autonomous, shared, electric. aaa is here to support the accelerated adoption of mobility services. aaa has been activen the discussion with sfcta and sfmta that shaped the guiding principles for emerging mobility technology. we support the structure and framework of the standards. it will help to ensure the safe adoption of mobility services bringing convenience,

affordability, and improved air quality to the residents of san francisco. we thank you for the ability to participate today and look forward to bringing car share to san francisco, namely reduce regional travel, reduce congestion, improve air quality and access. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm megan mitchell and i work for jump bikes. it was an honor to actually launch this service in district 10 in hunter's point, where i was born and raised. and since the launch about a year ago, we've worked with communities. we've partnered with different organizations, everything from a bike coalition to a lot of bayview-hunter's point businesses. we're committed to working with communities of concern and of color and i just am here to represent the company and say that i support this. thank you. that's it.

>> supervisor peskin: thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. i want to add my voice to the chorus of folks singing the praises of this and i have no doubt that we will shortly adopt the emerging mobility evaluation report. i want to thank mr. hobson, ms. harris and mr. logan and the others at sfmta and other public agencies that collaborated as well as emerging mobility companies and community stake holders, which i think made the final collaborative product all that it is today. there's a number of things that i would like to drill down into around the seven recommendations. first, and this is related to recommendation number 3, wherein on page 72 of the report, there

is a recommendation that we develop and implement an emerging mobility business tax. and if i read this correctly, mr. hobson, what you seem to say here is that emerging mobility companies are not exactly paying their fair share commensurate with the business activities. to that end, this is a shameless plug for our thursday budget and finance committee meeting. and i want to thank the co-sponsors what really is a narrowly tailored emerging mobility tax that i think there are now five co-sponsors in addition to the sponsor and if we put that thing on the ballot, hopefully the voters will embrace it and these companies will pay their fair share. so i wanted to start with that. i would like our t.a. staff to prepare an information item on

the recommendation about decongestion, pricing and incentives. it's time to dust that report off. it's now, i think, eight years old. and i would like to know what's happened since then. and, finally, as to recommendation number 7, as it relates to one of the places that we actually do have some power and authority, and that's curb management, i would like to agendize a time to talk about curbs and mobility services. so i think that's 3 and 7. with that, commissioner fewer? >> supervisor fewer: thank you. and thank you for the report. i want to talk about item number 3. i'm hoping that we are looking at the total cost and i'm including the labor costs of what it is doing to our labor

partners, especially our taxi drivers. are we also looking at those kind of costs and what the displacement of those vehicles and what impact that has on individuals in san francisco. and then also about labor also is that, i understand the 10 guiding principles for emerging mobility is for their own labor force to have local hire, promote equitable job training opportunities. i would like the impact of our existing labor force with these emerging mobilities in san francisco. and so i -- i like this report. i think i haven't had a chance to read through it completely, but i will, and i think it's a good start, but again, i think that we're talking about cost recovery. we cannot talk just about

vehicle miles traveled, but also the cost of added enforcement. we just heard at the budget committee that the airport is experiencing 800,000 rides monthly to the airport, therefore, has to hire way more police officers to meet the need. so i think those are added costs to the city and county of san francisco that we also need to capture. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: are there any other comments from commissioners? if not, is there a motion to adopt the report made by commissioner ronen. seconded by commission er sheeh. with that, can we take that item, same house, same call? item adopted on first read. next item, please. >> clerk: adopt bay area rapid

transit perks evaluation findings document. this is an action item. >> good morning, chair peskin, commissioners. i'm camille grba, transportation planner. i'm here to talk to you about perks evaluation report from bart perks test program. we presented about bart perks in the past. as a reminder, bart perks was a partnership with bart, where we offered a six-month test program. the idea was to offer riders small cash incentives to shift their morning commute time away from the busiest time, peak hour, that we identified as 7:30 to 8:30 in the morning.

people signed up on our website, bartperks.com, win is no longer active, and provided their clipper card i.d. number, which allowed us to reward points based on the trips they took. by joining, participants gave us permission to look at their bart travel data for the six months before the program started, the six months of the program. and also the six months after the program. and having that robust data gave us the opportunity to conduct the comprehensive evaluation and prepare the report that's before you today. and so the big question, did incentives get people to shift? this chart shows that before the program, 30% of trans-bay morning trips occurred during 7:30 and 8:30. with the incentives provided,

that number went down to 26%. there was even some persistent change of that shift of people keeping out of the peak hour after the program ended, with only half of those who shifted out returning back to the peak hour. and so we're glad to say that we did demonstrate that incentives did work, although the number of trips that were reduced averaged 183 trans-bay inbound trips per day, which is a small amount and didn't create a big dent. some other findings we saw that were participants were more likely to shift if their average departure time was close to one of the bonus hours, the incentivized hours on the shoulder of the peak. again, i said, i mentioned before, that some of the shifts persisted after the program and

we also saw strong interest in the program with 18,000 people signing up for the program. after surveying those participants, many had positive reviews of the program being somewhat satisfied or very satisfied with the program. bart received another grant from the f.t.a. and doing a smaller, second pilot phase this fall, starting this fall, where we'll try to focus the rewards on behavior change. and that concludes my presentation. if you have any questions, i'm available to answer them as well as ryan green from bart. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. any questions. seeing none. is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. and is there a motion to adopt the evaluation findings document? made by cohen. seconded by tang.

colleagues, same house, same call? the item is adopted on first read. next item, please. and, colleagues, given the late hour, i'm going to suggest that we continue item number 12, so this will be our last item other than public comment. go ahead. >> clerk: transportation management for major corridor projects update. >> i are -- will be as short as possible. thank you for asking about the major projects that will occur in san francisco. our intent is to inform you right now as to what the projects are very quickly and to, frankly, come back in the fall with some more details as it relates to traffic management strategies. there are significant amount of projects that will move the construction. i will go through a slide deck here to go through the major ones here quickly. these are much-needed projects.

there's substantial, long-term benefits, but it's important that we implement robust traffic strategies and be effective in that regard. i will goo through the series of projects here because there are lots of projects here that are north-south, east-west. let's start with van ness, which is under construction, and tagged to be completed by 2020. then the lombard street project recently awarded is set to start construction this summer and will take over a year to complete, almost two years to complete. after that, we're talking about resurfacing lombard. it's a much-needed improvement. that street needs some resurfacing there. we have to implement the best traffic management strategies. and department of public works is working to gain approvals to move the construction in early

2019. and it will take about a year plus for that work. and then once again, caltrans has the money and project to resurface all of 19th avenue from lake street to juniper. one project you may not have heard much about, but the highway 101 decree policement. the deck replacement needs to be replaced. we're working with the state to establish and better understand the potential temporary highway closures and traffic diversions for that project. we'll come back with a lot are details in the fall of this year. the intent is to move that project to construction in the spring of 2020. as you all know, the geary rapid transit project is move forward in different phases. this is phase one that will be under construction starting in early 2019 and it will take 1

1/2 years to 2 years to complete. finally, the larger portion to the western side of the city will move forward to construction in the fall of 2020 and will take a couple of years to construct. this in essence shows a map in 2018/2019 where the different projects will be under construction, the major corridor projects and then move into construction efforts, as you move forward into that 2020-2022 time frame. i want to go ahead now and show you a schedule that shows all the projects. we have a lot more data here on numerous projects that i haven't gone through and i have a lot of other slides that given the time i won't go through right now, but i do want to introduce tom mcgwire from sfmta, so he can talk to you about the city's traffic management plan efforts and after that, it will be john thomas from dpw to give you an update on some of the other

efforts that dpw is undertaking. >> okay. thank you, eric. tom mcgwire, sustainable streets at the mta. i will go quickly and give an overview of what we're doing and why we're doing it from the viewpoint of traffic management around the city. i want to observe something, as you all know, all the projects on the slide shown are about delivering on high policy priorities that you and the voters have put before us. we have an obligation to the voters dating back to the general obligation bond to get these projects done as quickly as possible. a delay to any project, even a result to try to optimize construction, can affect our projects, as contractor availability is scarce and project costs continue to escalate. we look at a lot of factors when

we issue construction permits and schedule end-stage construction. it starts with a planning effort. contractors and agencies that want to close lanes of traffic, come to us for a permit. there's a lot of variables that we look at -- number of lanes they want to close, hours they want to work. we're prioritizing congestion relief and especially traffic safety, pedestrian safety, and transit first goals. as we move from planning to implementation for any projects, we're getting into the nitty gritty details, things like where the contractors can set out their work. we take very seriously the idea of construction headways, making sure that worksites are not too close to one another. so any congestion that does develop has a chance to dissipate before drivers hit another construction site. and a focus on enforcement.

we have inspectors that can enforce the permits and make sure that the public's interest and public safety is protected. finally, another really important principle that i know we'll come back to talk more about in the fall, increasing efforts to improve our communication to drivers, residents and businesses, all the stake holders affected by the construction. the construction has to happen. we have to improve our infrastructure, but we have to make sure that the people that are affected have the latest information and know how to plan around it. finally, the last piece of the puzzle, always our parking control officers. on any given day, there are 140 parking control officers working on all kinds of safety issues. they play a critical role in reducing congestion. they're often the glue that makes the plans, permits and coordination efforts work. with that, i will turn it over to my colleague, john thomas.

>> supervisor peskin: before you do that, mr. mcgwire, are there private managers tasked with compiling a look-ahead? >> yes. we do look-ahead at a couple of scales. we have traffic routing group that does nothing but review and issue permits. they schedule 60- to 100-day look-aheads looking to are cumulative impacts and adjusting permits as necessary to make sure that two parallel streets, for example, are not both impacted on the same block at the same time. and more broadly, work to make sure that we're stacking things at a city-wide scale. >> supervisor peskin: so it's a separate section in sfmta? >> yes. within the mta, on a regular

basis, we do the 60- to 100-day look-ahead. >> supervisor peskin: relative to standards on these projects. yesterday you said in your comments, not just about congestion, but pedestrian safrt, i -- safety, i notice on van ness avenue that on the northbound direction north of broadway, the concrete barriers are such that there is no way for a bicycle to go northbound without being in the middle of traffic. and if those barriers could be moved over a little bit, there could be a little safe space. there were tourists going northbound to fishermen's wharf, i was scared to death for them. is there -- do you have standards that you take into account? >> we do. i didn't want to get into too much detaiec