if we can offer it to someone with red lanes, curb space and things we do control. >> i think that this has been an incredibly informative and painful day. the way i look at it, we really have two choices. we do nothing and we watch this industry just continue to die. death by a thousand cuts. everybody goes down the drain with it. or we do something and we hopefully drive value back to those purchase medallions and i'll be honest, i am empathy for everybody but i have so much empathy for the people who stepped up and purchased medallions and the fact that they are forecasting and the fact that they are stuck. they invested in this industry. i know all the drivers invested many, many years driving. i think opening up the buyer market without doing other

things that drive value back to purchase the medallions it will do anything. i don't think anybody will step up to purchase unless we have another basket of benefits. another something that we know is going to drive value back to those medallions. we've been talking about this and these specific proposals for six months, nine months. i've gone back and fourth on them. i still sit here in support of this as a full package that i think can help this industry and i think it can drive value back to these purchased medallion. if we do nothing and we wait and sit back and look for another six months and talk about 10 more proposals, we'll see more foreclosures on those purchased medallion and we'll see taxis at the airport and we'll see the congestion there. one question, kate, do you think

that people have said -- >> quiet. we listen to you for a number of hours. i will clear this room right now if you can't be quiet and let us have our discussion. i kid you not. this discussion will happen in private if i clear the room and you won't hear any of this so please be quiet. all right. so kate, the question they wanted to astheyi wanttoday aske take the action where only purchased medallions can pick up at the airport and we see that's not enough taxis at the airport, how quickly can we respond and change that? can we change it for times of day? can we change it for times of year? do we have a good indication of the ebb and flow of taxi pick ups at the airport we can respond to that problem? >> we've been working with sfo and i don't know if my colleague is still here. he still is. well that's great. he is in for the long hall.

we have been talking with sfo to make sure that there is enough supply for the trips, for the demand at sfo and we feel that we are well within that maximum needed. and if there is a concern and we need to change that or something we can build into the rules that the director of transportation could set. again, we can change those rules if needed. so we have various options but we have for sure been working with sfo to make sure that we will have enough supply. >> do you think, i mean, i really see this as a complete set of proposals if we enact all of them we might move the needle. if we start picking them apart up here and approve one and not the others or approve two and not the others, are we going to sacrifice all of the gain we

might get out of approving these all together? >> that could be my contention is yes it's part a package. there's supply and demand considerations and various aspects and the driving requirement piece is in the opening up of the buyers market so i see them as part of a whole, obviously it's up to the board how the board wants to take them but that's how i see them and i see that they will be most beneficial as part of a package. >> i would say to that, there is the opportunity for what i think is the spirit of what the supervisor's letter as for which is an incremental approach and that opening up the market actions could happen immediately. we could director point, it will take time to develop regulations for the airport and even that

could be done potentially as an enforcement charge but it could be done on an incremental basis and the non renewable doesn't happen for another -- not until next summerment even as proposed, i believe that this package does allow for an incremental approach. it's not waving a wand tomorrow and the world is different. i think because there are some unknowns, it allows us to step things into place and make sure that we're not doing damage to the point for no benefit. >> i would just say, as i said before, i'm certainly in favor of opening the markets and reducing the transfer fee. i hear everything that you are saying and i guess my flip side of that is i can't support this as it is and and that may be a one-year maybe a one-year

suspension to see if it's working. a set review to see if this is having an effect. look, your points are very well taken. something needs to be done to sort of rescue this purchase medallion system. i think the most honest thing we can say is we don't know if this will work. i mean, it's just the rea we're in sort of unchartered waters with a new program and we don't know. and so i'm just -- based on what i've heard, from people who run the taxi industry that removing these pre ks the ability to go to the airport. they're not going to drive? that's a serious unintended consequence. some of the other things that are going on. i realize this isn't going to happen overnight. i realize we're giving you discretion on the airport if we approve this but unless there's a back-end guarantee and to me,

having it be a one-year suspension to see it plays with the assumption they'll be renewed or you can do it either way, the following year. that is the sort of protection that i think i would need to be comfortable with this to know that if this isn't working, we're going to at least undo the damage we did in association with a fix that didn't fix anything. i appreciate the city attorney's guidance on that and similarly, i mean i realize and we've done this before, we did it and wore doing with the rv thing we talked about at the beginning of the meeting. if you are going to implement the airport restriction and we're going to give you the discretion to do that, i would want to set time lines on when we hear back. i would want your guidance on how long it will take for you guys to know whether that's working. if it's not working and people are still defaulting, and we now have camen islands owners who aren't driving, i mean it's just

around the world pain for no gain and i -- we feed to know when you would know if that's working. i have a lot of concerns about this proposal as it is. i certainly can't vote for it unless we have back-end assurances where we can check it and reverse it if it's not working. >> can i respond to that? first, i want to echo that for a package that's meant to benefit a sector of the taxi industry, i'm similarly surprised that we didn't hear more voices in support of that benefit today. i'm quite struck by that omission in today's conversation. we've also heard a lot about over regulation of the taxi industry and under regulation of the tnc and this is why we're in this situation we're in. we're proposing, further regulation of the taxi industry.

i just want to make that observation that further regulation is what is going to save the taxi industry. similarly, the cost, the pain that this is going to create is real. it's tangible. we've heard about it all daylong. so our job is to balance the potential cost with the potential benefit. and i think we're in an interesting situation where the cost is quite real and quite clearly articulated and the benefit seems fairly abstract and fairly uncertain. so we've got to weigh that out and if our decision is to go ahead, i agree that we are going to learn and measure and i would similarly support making anything we do sort of a pilot, tested, since there's clear cost and not a clear benefit. if that cost persists and we get no benefit it's a bad policy and that policy should be reversed. furthermore, i want to say, i do not believe it's necessarily

possible to right size the market. to perfectly match the supply and the demand for taxi services because there's a fact or out there of lyft and uber that can add 2 othe 250 cars like that. it's an illusion that we can balance the supply and demand. if the idea of not renewing the pre k and k permits is on this premise that we can balance that. there's just a big world out there. we're not operating in a vacuum. i just don't buy that premise. and i just want to finally say, i do believe there's a larger elephant in the room that many have commented on which is the t.n.c. i i just wonder has the city done everything that we could do to improve the lot of the taxi industry?

it seems very, very narrow potential strategy to benefit another sector of the taxi industry when it seems they're all strategies out there. you have just as a example. i didn't know. i wonder how many people know that the could hav cost of a tas not fixed. they could get a cheaper ride from the airport. if people knew that a taxi ride is more cost competitive with a t.n.c. ride, maybe more people would chose taxis instead of t.n.c. but no one knows that. we haven't done the basic education and information is just one example. i'm just not sure that all of the creative thinking around the role of a city in california and t.n.c. has been explored. i'm not prepared to support the proposal. >> so do we have -- no thank

you. do we have a way, kate and stephanie, looking at this before us to add in a safety valve, as you will or a backing up measure if we do this and we allow a period of time for it to sit and it to perk and see what happens. is there a way to add in. >> we could not add this in this evening. it hasn't been -- >> it can't be done by amendment at the board level. >> no, that's a -- i think that's enough of a departure from the proposal and it's not something that has been adequately advertised and subject and in addition, our

office would like to look at that for any potential legal implications of implementing that sort of re struckion or back top. >> with do that all the time. we say and for a year and you have to come back to us in six months and it's just a temporarial change. >> the concept of and it's different concept than allowing the permit to expire. >> there's the opening up the market, which i think is some support for. there's delegate gating to access to the airport and it's not irreversible. the delegation itself is not

irreversible and any action is not irreversible. >> the will of the board is if you do this we need to hear back from you in six months to see if it's having the effect we want? >> correct. the way this is written they would cease to exist. based on what a few of you are saying, it's something we would require coming back. we cannot amend it to make that and it's reversible. >> i was going to get to that. so, i'm sensing the comments were meant to apply to the pre k and the separate issue of the corporate. so just to split those all apart, it could be non renewable

of the corporate and it could be the delegation with the required report back and there may not be support for the non renewal of the pre k if it's currently written. >> it's the breakdown between the corporate and pre k just for everybody. >> we have 84 corporates. >> it would apply to the 84 corporate pre ks. >> they would not be renewed. from my perspective, and i am disappointed that we can't do this tonight, but from my perspective i couldn't move forward in a way that we may

have no effect. it's use less pain. that's my concern. if we have drivers we want them to work in the pickup medallions. it's the different conversation about that. >> i'm sorry i i got distracted in that. to your mind, if we take the balance fleet size and trip volumes, allow the corporates to expire and strike the pre k. >> i wasn't commenting on that.

i was making a separate point. >> ok. >> directors, it's sounds like let's work with what we are ok with. waving the 5% retransfer fees. >> opening the market. >> corporate medallion revoindication. >> it's non renewal. >> that's a -- >> for corporate can i see shakes or heads. >> i need to hear more about who that is. a corporation can mean different things. i would just -- >> in general these are corporation that's have held medallions since at least 1978.

there's no driving requirement. they can hold multiple medallion. there are 84 of them. i mentioned that. they've had the ability to enjoy value from the taxi industry without adding as drivers in the industry and so, given the current context we feel it's better for those medallion not to be renewed and -- >> how many corporations? >> yes. >> 84. >> we have -- they're held by 25 businesses. >> are these large corporations? you could have a two-member corporation. >> they're pretty small. more on the mom and pop side. >> thank you, no audience participation. >> does that help? >> i can't support that without

knowing more about the demographic and about who. five minute break. we're going to take a five-minute break because my directors need a little break and we'll take a five minute break and come back. >> all right. thank you. okay. we're back in session. thank you very much. director heinicke.

>> yeah. okay. so the way i see this, there's essentially five things before us. three at least -- [inaudible] >> the wisdom meter, his wisdom meter is going off. thank you, mike. i appreciate that vote of confidence. yeah. so there are three things -- three things that i think -- i don't want to presuppose, but three things i think the board agrees on, which is one, open the markets for the sale of the medallions, two, waiving the transfer fee as has been proposed, and three, nonrenewal of the corporate medallions. the more controversial are the others. it's not my meeting to run, but maybe the first thing i would suggest to the chair is that we

just see -- we know director hsu has expressed concern with the corporate medallions, but i don't know about issues with the first three. >> can we hear about concerns with the issues. >> i think director hsu is concerned with the corporate pre-k. >> i guess my instinct is whatever we're going to do with the nonrenewal, we push it to another meeting. we haven't had sufficient discussion on the corporate piece, i feel, today, to unpack it. >> i think to that point, we can better understand who's in that group, that would be helpful. >> okay. >> so it sounds like -- i'm sorry i asked. >> okay. so it sounds as if we can pull this apart, open up the buyer market, give the authorization

to he had reiskin ed reiskin to medallions picked up at s.f.o., waive the transfer fee for three years but in terms of corporate and pre-k medallions, we are not there yet. am i correct? >> so that is my view, and where i would say we are not there, i would like to hear back from the city attorney whether we can pursue the idea of simply suspending those permits -- well, i think there's two things. i think board members want to better understand who the corporate medallion holders are are before we nonrenew those. we've certainly heard from the corporate medallion holders loud and clearly and eloquently. what i'm saying, me personally, i would not want to undo those medallions in a way that cannot be fixed when we're unsure of the effect it's going to have on

the market. what i would be supportive of is the proposal whereby once you have those airport restrictions in place, we suspend the medallions for a year to see if it has the intended effect, and if it does not undo the suspension so there's no needless pain to those medallion holders. >> that's what the part that the city important would need to look into it, if we could do a temporary suspension on that. we could not take action on that because we just don't have the support for it, and we don't have the answers about the corporate pre-k million district attorn attorney -- medallions. it's only you and me. i don't think anybody else is there with suspending the corporate pre-k's. it doesn't look like it. >> okay. so that remains the next question to my -- i'm sorry. may i?

>> no, yes. please go ahead. >> with respect to the airport restriction, understand the goal. i continue to have the very serious concern that what mr. sweiss said will come true, and those medallions will be undrivable. the city is denied all of these taxi cabs. so i guess as you all look into assuming you're granted the discretion to pursue this, the report back i would want before it's even implemented, frankly, is when once you implement, you're going to come back to tell us whether it's working or not. once we tell you whether you have the discretion, you can throw the switch, you cannot throw the switch. i have to say when we're several months into a situation with the

airport, we're seeing just totally unintended consequence, i'd want to throw the switchback, and the seven people in these chairs have an assured timeline as to whether there would be a report back. >> yeah, so we can certainly come back at whatever interval you would like. i will say that conception here was that these things work together and that the -- the -- whatever loss came from not being able to service the airport was offset at least partially by the gains from the additional trips that are currently being covered by the 40-plus-year-old medallions. so we're -- we're taking away one part of the equation that may make the other part less likely to be successful. >> regardless, we can report back at whatever intervals you would like. >> well, and i think -- so if i may procedurally try to sum this up, i would move to amend the

current proposal to remove, even though it personally isn't my preference in total but to reflect the will of the board, amend the current proposal to remove the corporate and pre-k nonrenewal. and then once we have approval for that, i would move the remainder of the provision with the understanding that when you euro implement airport restrictions, you tell us -- tell us what they are and get board input on how quickly you have to be back to us and tell us that they're working. okay. so again, i'm sorry, i'm sort of usurping -- don't hit me with your hammer. i would amend director's -- >> it's the final sentence of

the final clause. we would do some more research on that going forward; and it sounds like, then, that was a motion approval. >> that's a motion to amend. i think i need to amend it first. >> do i have a second to amend? >> second. >> i do have a question. so when would the -- if you're going to start doing -- 'cause that wasn't going to go into effect until the end of the fiscal year, any way, so we weren't going to see any sort of change in the short-term. what about the s.f.o.? was that going into effect immediately? because the thing is you'll know information -- if you start doing it now, we'll have information before that point, so i'm just trying to figure out when -- when that was intended to happen. >> well, the idea would be within the next 30 days, right, that we would develop it. >> develop a timeline. >> to actually develop the actual guidelines and the

recommendation and the memo from the director of transportation. >> does that answer your question? >> i guess when would it procedurally go into effect? >> we can do it at a slow pace, a fast pace, we could have it go into effect at the end of the month, we can have it go into effect january 1. i know the idea of doing things incrementally, we can do it as the board wishes. the intent of the proposal was to do it once the regulations were developed. >> with that, a motion and a second to amend it to remove the nonrenewal of the corporate and pre-k. all in favor? [voting] >> any opposed? nope, hearing none, we've amended this.

>> okay and can i ask a procedural question, there's two different things baked in there. one we're going to hear back from the city attorneys on the ability to suspend maybe both classes or at least the predid-predid--k, do you have an estimate of how long that would take? >> i think we could come back to you with the results of our research by the december meeting. >> okay. thank you very much. the second part of this is the corporate medallions. i don't think the major holdup there is the legal one. i think the holdup is director -- well, a few of the directors want to know more about it. so may i -- it seemed to me that would be an isolated hearing item that director torin could come back and meet with directors privately to provide

the information. so that might be something that we want to figure out how we get that on the agenda sooner thaernt rater, if it remains your recommendation and to get the directors the information they need on that. >> sure, we can do that. >> quiet. we're almost there. >> okay. sorry. >> that's okay. >> thank you for sharing that, but quiet. quiet. all right. don't make me clear the room now. we've gone this far with mutual respect to a certain extent, so lets finish this meeting. we have a motion and a second and a resolution in front of us. do i have a motion to approve in front of us? go ahead, director hsu. >> no, i was just going to say with the airport, can i get a

quarterly report on that? i would love to say to the airport commission, i'm sure there's a flood of t.n.c.'s, as well, maybe if they can look into limiting that, as well, because i think if they're having issues with crowding, that it's not fair just to have it impact the taxis. >> director hsu. >> well, thank you, so that's kind of the question i also had is why limit just the cabs as opposed to someone that's on t&c's, as well. >> i think that's a great idea. that's not within the m.t.a.'s jurisdiction, but that's within the city's jurisdiction. that's a great opinion to pursue. it may not have the immediate impact -- again, i'm trying to bring a focus on the m.t.a. board, on what jurisdiction we have. >> i'm just -- i'm not

comfortable with the airport -- >> okay. all right. >> so if it's a no, it's because of that, and not -- >> not the rest of it. any other concerns regarding the airport -- >> i mean, i have the same issues or concerns that director hsu has, as well. >> okay. i think we need to go ahead and take a vote on this, and it sounds like there's enough confusion -- enough discrepancy in here that we have a motion to approve? >> can you just clarify -- >> as amended. >> -- is this just a report back request or not a sunset or pilot request for the s.f.o. piece? >> for the s.f.o., what this legislation does is it gives director reiskin the authority to make the changes at s.f.o., but what we're asking him for is how it will be phased in with some sensitivity around it and a little phasing in, and also yes,

the report back on how it's working to measure it and tell us, is it having the intended effect? are we actually driving value back to the purchased medallions. quiet, please. >> director, you can -- >> what i'm willing to play out is if -- if we find that it's had no beneficial effect, he has the -- >> yeah, ed has the -- >> we rely on director reiskin to change the program. >> so madam chair, just for clarification, the motion that i'm hearing you consider is to delegate to the director the authority -- delegate to the director of transportation the authority to limit the types of medallions to pick up to s.f.o. with a report back to this board prior to implementation.

>> and after. >> and quarterly there after. >> and quarterly there after. >> yeah. i mean -- the only other thing i would say is the metric of success no more medallion revocations? i mean, that's the -- >> defaults. >> defaults, rather. >> well, i'd want to say i'd want to pick something we control. and we don't control that. we had foreclosures in situations where one would think the loans are being paid and there are other factors involved, so i would want to set th that -- wouldn't want to set that as the metric given we don't control that. i would compare it to the pro forma analysis and look at the airport analysis. >> we can get that data from s.f.o.? >> yeah. >> okay. is that acceptable, directors?

yes, vice chair heinicke? i just want to make sure everybody is comfortable with that airport piece if we vote to give director reiskin the authority to do that, so i need to hear your concerns. and if you can even be made comfortable with it. >> maybe you could bring us the -- the program you're developing and a timeline for implementation. >> before implementation? >> 'cause i feel like that's where i'm having a lot of concerns. i never was a huge fan of the dead head trip back, that people can pick somebody up, but they can't -- can drop somebody off, but they can't pick somebody off, that there's a way that we can stop it if it's not working. >> so report a program about how it's going to be phased in and then also quarterly reports, and we can phase it out, stop it, if

it's not working. >> yes. >> does that sound acceptable, director reiskin? >> whatever the board desires. >> okay. i think we need to vote on this. do i have a motion to approve as amended. >> the motion before the board is to approve the motion of delegation, the authority to limit types of medallions to pick up at s.f.o. with a report to the board prior to implementation and a quarterly report there after. >> and including the open the markets and the way of the 5%. >> yes. okay. yeah, you have a motion. >> i have a first. do i have a second? >> second. >> okay. i think we better do a roll call vote on this. >>clerk: okay. so the motion before the board is to approve delegation to the director of transportation the authority to limit types of medallions to pick up at s.f.o. with a report to the board prior to implementation and a quarterly report there after,

open up the buyer's market and waive the transfer fee for three years. all right. [roll call] >>clerk: four votes to -- in the affirmative, the ayes carry it. >> thank you. all right. we need to -- we need to go on with our agenda, so i need you to clear the room quietly because we have at least one more item we need to get through -- two items we need to get through. we definitely need to get through howard street, and we definitely need to move onto great highway, as well. let's do howard street. >> okay. howard street, let me just get

back up there. >>clerk: okay. item 11 -- >> quiet as you exit the room, please. [inaudibl [inaudible] >>clerk: i will not read the parking modifications. >> all right. and i know we have an excellent -- i know we have excellent staff report in our agenda, and i think we have somebody here to present once we're -- [inaudible] >> okay. let's go let him in the side. >> i think it's unlocked. >> it's open.

>> good evening, directors. today, i'm very excited to present to you the howard near term project. it's a project that seeks to implement quick and effective bicycle pedestrian transit and curb site management on a quicker timeline than a much larger project that we are planning for both folsom and

howard. can you see the powerpoint showing up? >> yes. >> okay. great. talking about the howard near term project, we really have to talk about folsom and howard on the much larger context. while we have a streetscape project for howard and for folsom for long stretches, we realize that that project is going to include a lot of transit improvements, a lot of signal work, a lot of concrete, and we realize if construction doesn't start for this much larger project for another three or four years, we want to identify solutions for some of the safety concerns that we hear on these streets. so last year, if you recall, i came and presented about the folsom near term project, which ran from 11th to nearly 5th street, and at the time, we mentioned there were some technical challenges with howard street, especially with the overhead wires. in the past year, we've been able to work through some of those challenges with the fire department very closely. so what i'm presenting to you

today is a near term project on howard from 11th to sixth street, and an additional block on follow comfrom 5th to 4th street. so thinking about some of our guiding considerations for this project, these two streets that i'm proposing these measures are on the high injury corridor, which as you know are 13% of city streets that account for 75% of our is he vee and fatal crashes. in the past five years, we know that at least 76 people have been injured on howard between sixth street skm 11th street, and during the same time frame, at least 24 people have been injured on folsom between fourth and fifth streets. i do want to being acknowledge while this is a map, there are real people hienz these lines and this high injury network, which have added additional urgency to do something on these

streets to make thmake thestreem -- making bicycling and walking a more comfortable experience, elevating the role of transit on these streets, and finally, informing the final streetscape project and really drilling down into what we hear from the public not only on folsom over the past year, but especially on howard, as well. and i should mention that some of the -- the feedback that we have heard on folsom, specifically wider buffers for people who are getting out of

their car, we are implementing those changes onto howard, so we're even accelerating some of the feedback and implementing some of the feedback that we hear on a much quicker timeline. so moving to some of the improvements that we would like to see on these streets, the first one is is parking protects bike lanes for an additional three-quarters of a mile on folsom and on howard. we're looking at implementing or upgrading three two stage left turn boxes, implementing new ones or painting them green, and we're also looking at implementing improved highway marks, highway strieling, and gre -- striping. that's something we started implementing on seventh and folsom, and we'd like to continue to do that on howard,

as well. if we're looking at transit, pedestrian, and loading improvements, we are looking to implement one transit boarding island at fifth and howard, and that really increases transit reliability and on time performance. it also moved people who are waiting for the bus off of the sidewalk and onto specifically dedicated pave and concrete for -- pavement and concrete for people who are waiting for the bus. we are also looking at daylighting a lot of the alleys and then at intersections, we're upgrading our -- our intersection striping and our crosswalk striping to staggered continental, so making them more visible, and also making sure that vehicles are stopping even farther back from the crosswalk

at least 10 feet. one other thing we're looking at doing, this is really something that we learned about through our public outreach process, if we're -- if we're removing some of the tendency and the space for people to double park, which is pretty prevalent along howard, we want to make sure we are providing space for vehicles to load and unload goods, so we're actually doubling the number of yellow zones along these two segments of folsom and howard, and we're going to provide an additional 22 loading zones. a big part of our project process is working with the community not only for the near term project but really for the much larger term streetscape project. we've talked to a lot of people up and down the corner, and knocked on every single door, trying to get people's input, how they use the street, how are

they loading, how long are they loading, everything like that. so what we have found out bypassing out and getting back 100 loading surveys, we have a very good picture of how people specifically use the street. and that's additionally interesting since it is a rapidly changing street, street that used to be light industrial with some residential pockets, it's been changing drastically over the past few decades. so we wanted to make sure that the needs of the street and the people who use it every single day had their voices heard through this public process. we work with a lot of different community groups. we work with united players, western soma voice, west bay filipino center, and soma filipinos, and through this process of sharing the design with people, and modifying the design, we identified certain areas where we should modify the design, and one of those is stanley guided designs who has a very specific unique loading and

unloading structure for his business. and for that 100-foot section on howard street near eighth street, we will not be implementing a parking protected bike way, but we'll keep that bike way the way it is right now. so in terms of project timeline, we had an open house in the fall where we had about 100 people who were able to view the renderings of the design and provided final input. hopefully, we'll have it approved today, and then, we expect to have this full project implemented on howard street this winter. folsom street, maybe next year at some point, probably in the spring or summer, and that's really because of challenges -- additional challenges with the overhead wiring, and we do recognize that we have to move the overhead wire on folsom, so if we're going to do it, let's do it once for the near term project and the long-term project, rather than doing it twice in five years.

so with that, thank you very much, and i look forward to public comment. >> thank you. thank you, mr. stannis and your patience in waiting to present to us. >> miss clerk, public comment? >> yes. ron and justin, and if there's anybody else. >> hello. i spoke five hours ago about the previous bike project. >> can you give us your name. >> i went to oakland and came back. >> could you give us your name. >> my name is roland kitao. i bike on howard quite a lot, and it's pretty scary. there's a nice parking protected bike way on folsom that's a lot less scary. we don't have a real network if you can't make ground trips, so

i'm very happy that m.t.a. is fixing that, and i'm very happy with the timeline. if you listened to my comment five hours ago, we need to do more. the project at howard goes out from sixth to 11th, and folsom will go down folsom when this is done. scariest parts are actually easts from there. in front of the moscone, in particular on howard between new montgomery and third. there's always cars in front of it because of pick ups and drop offs. let's do more. let's extend the bike lanes on howard and folsom to the embarcadero. on a more microlevel, i really like the designs for the howard project, but we need bike traffic signals in this like we have on folsom, and i know there's issues with conduit availability that make it hard to do it quickly, but let's start now.

for the long-term project, we should build protected intersections. we have build just one, one protected intersection in san francisco and then we stopped. let's study it, learn from it and build more. we know from experience in other countries that they work. let's put it in the long-term project and have one in the ground in 2022, 2023, when the thing is ready. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> justin zucker. >> good evening, board of supervisors. i justin zucker from reuben s junius and rose. we would like to thank m.t.a. staff for all of their efforts.

[inaudible] >> i received staff's october 9 letter in response to our letter of september 7, 2018. we endorse bicycle safety and advance efforts for such in conjunction with mr. gotti's unimpeded conduction of his business. [inaudible] >> the work arounds for the eighth street bicycle -- protected bicycle lane however did not work seamlessly. there have been unintended consequences continuing to impact mr. gotti's business operations. as a result, we ask the m.t.a. work with mr. gotti and others as the parking protects bicycle lane is implemented on howard

street. we request the m.t.a. reserve the right to make minor modifications to the bicycle line to make it work as intended, to tweak any configurations to the lane. we ask an ombudsman to be elected to this board. [inaudible] >> once again, we thank m.t.a. and thank you for your time. >> thank you, mr. zucker. next speaker. >> good evening, board of directors. charles defarge, san francisco bicycle coalition. very happy to be here late this evening to express my strong support for this protected bike lane project. it was almost exactly a year ago

that we were here supporting the folsom protected bike lane. we've seen great improvement in biking safety for riders along that corridor. we need the same at howard. [inaudible] >> i want to echo what some people have said about doing more. i think one thing that we learned from the folsom parking protected project that we really love these signalized intersections. that's the beginning towards the intersection that roland referenced. right now this project at each intersection where you couldn't make a right turn, they're mixing zones, they can be uncomfortable for inexperienced bikers. the last thing i'll say is

there's got to be a better way to bring contentious issues to these meetings. i invite many of these members to these meetings. i come to just about every one of these. a lot of them had to leave, but i can't invite them in good faith if things are going to strait till 8:00, 9:00 p.m. a shout out to people that are still here. let's not make this the planning commission. usually, these meetings are tidy. maybe a separate meeting when things are going to be like this, but thank you for hearing this important item, and thank you for your support. >> thank you, mr. defarge. next speaker, please. >> hi. tailor elgren, member of the sf

bike coalition. i'm in support of the improvements because it's a low cost, quick to implement and effective upgrades that will save lives of people that are traveling on foot and traveling in the green lane, as we're calling it, the bike lane. i want to say thanks for the great work on the rapid response to the howard and south innes crosswalk where i witnessed russell franklin's horrible tragic fatal collision with a car. there was some -- there could have been better work done that would -- with soft hit posts that could have -- for just $200 more capital cost that could have slowed down traffic. i cross that crosswalk several times a week. cars are still speeding by.

vision is better, but if there's a slicollision there, it's like to be fatal. the collision site is in my neighborhood. i've talked to more than 200 individuals walking, driving, and -- and biking through that area. the majority of these 200 folks are black and brown or homeless, and these folks seem to be disproportionately impacted by our unsafe streets, and howard street and the proposed improvement zone is no exception of that, so as we think about equity and safe streets, i'm really pushing for these improvements -- not only these improvements, but also as many fast, cheap, effective improvements as we can to save our neighborhoods. thank you.

>> thank you. thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is gene natoli. i'm here to speak in support of this. thank you, directors for sticking it out with me. i'm speaking as an advocate for biking. i'm here to support the improvements on howard street. as we all know, howard is a high injury corridor. my story, you probably can't see it from here, but i've got a scar on my finger when it was dark there. i was fortunate to escape with a busted fingers and busted ribs and a bent bike. i'm here to support this design. it's needed and necessary. this is one of our busiest bike routes, and we need safe protection for people riding,

especially for less experienced folks, we can do better with these sorts of intersections, particularly making them safer for our most vulnerable street users. i think this design has some -- we know what -- [inaudible] >> though she was here much, much, early, i want to thank jane kim for her leadership and her conviction on these sorts of projects, and also yours for bringing these forward and moving this forward and just trying to get this done by the end of 2018. i think it's hugely important. i'm really looking forward to your further efforts to make our streets safer. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is brian clofis, and i'm here in support of the parking separated bike lanes .

currently, howard street is danger for cyclists, and think that this proposal is a good solution for howard street for the short-term. long-term, i hope that cameras and lasers are included at each intersection. >> thank you. do i have anymore public comment? seeing none, public comment is close do closed. mr. stannis, thank you for a good presentation. i want to give other directors a chance to ask questions now. >> is there a closure on howard as a result of this? >> no. >> so this all works with the fact that earlier, we're direct are more traffic on howard to accommodate sixth street. i just want to point out this is all going down without a lane closure. this is more of an impact on traffic than it is on -- >> yeah. it's flip-flopping where the parked cars are and the lane closure. >> the question i had was related to the businesses.

there are a lot of businesses that have loading needs and k h concerns, and how do we work with them to ensure, and if we have any sort of, like blinking lights that will go in the bike lane or any way to alert a rider or cyclist that a driver is coming, sort of like when you're in a parking garage, notification to the person coming out. maybe you can talk a little bit about that. >> sure. so wup one of the things we learned about folsom is it would be better if we had a wider striped buffer. so you we've widened it by a foot or howard, so just provides a little extra spags for people getting out of their cars, have a little more room to make sure they look around, see cyclists.