>> chair peskin: good morning and welcome to the transportation authority board meeting for february 12, 2019.

our clerk is mr. albert qui quintanilla. mr. quintanilla, could you please call the roll. [roll call] >> clerk: we have quorum. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. quintanilla, could you please read the consent agenda. >> clerk: items two through time compromise the consendient. items three through five were discussed at the last meeting. items two three five were presented at the last meeting and if there are any comments on them, staff is available to answer 234i questions. >> chair peskin: thank you.

is there any motion on the consent agenda? there is a motion and a second. on that consend agenda, roll call, please. [roll call] >> clerk: we have final af approval. >> chair peskin: thank you. next item, please. >> clerk: item six, approve the 2018 state and federal legislation program. this is an action item. >> good morning, commissioners. amber crabbe, public transportation authority. the item before you, you see it every year, it is public strategies to guide our legislation throughout the year. we come back to you recommendations for positions on specific bills, but this is something that is meant to

inform that. and we do -- we have worked, as we develop it closely with sfmta as well as other city agencies, the metropolitan transportation commission and other regional partners and congestion management agencies across the state. so there's some areas of focus this year that i wanted to call out. the first pretty much usually on top of our list is seeking revenues for transportation. however, with the passage of senate bill one and the failure of proposition six last year, there isn't much appetite for new revenue, but we will be working to ensure that san francisco priorities advance and that any formula distribution benefits our city. at the federal level, i don't think we can expect much positive there, but we will be working as they start the process to reauthorize the federal transportation bill, which is expiring in 2020 as

well as working to ensure that the caltrain electrification gets the funding that yis due o it this year. a second item that we'll be working on is a lens that we will be looking overall the legislation crossing our desk advancing vision zero goals. thirdly, we'll be looking at legislation around emerging technologies. we saw a handful of those last year. we're working to make sure the public is protected and the city gets the information it needs from the technology companies to study the impacts of those new modes on san francisco. and then finally, a big focus and effort of ours this year will be the reintroduction of measure from assembly member bloom that would authorize for

go-zone pilots, two in the north, two in the south. specifically, we'll be working to make sure the legislation would cover the pricing program that came out of the planning study from last year on the crooked part of lamb boombard, we're working on it with senator wiener's office last year, so we can get started on it this year. as you know, a big focus of the legislature and governor this year is housing. so while our program focuses prime yearly on transportation, there are a couple of housing items on there. these are pretty much bread and butter, like identifying sources of new housing, and supporting affordable housing production while ensuring that san francisco's growth strategies are also consistent. and then finally, relevant to

that is the region recently has been working on the casa process. a compact was signed by the san francisco regional transportation commission and a lot of other parties. there's more than likely going to be legislation needed toand with that, we'll be bringing you legislation every month. with that, i'm happy to answer any questions. >> chair peskin: thank you. commissioner mandelman, would you like to say something? >> supervisor mandelman: sure. i'm curious what you're anticipating will come to us over the casa compact over the next few months. >> it includes kind of funding, policies and protections, so there's bits and pieces in all of that regarding inclusionary zoning, of course, new revenue

measures at the regional level, and luckily, i think policy wise, are a lot of the measures that the city already has, but it's like bringing the rest of the region onto the good strategies that we're already pursuing. but we'll bring them to you as -- month by month. >> supervisor mandelman: i guess it's been one of the things that are unclear to me about the cost of compact. there are many parts of the cost of compact to me are very appealing, but it's hard for me to believe how those can turn into anything actionable by anybody. what are your thought oz that? >> i guess we'll see when it -- as -- thoughts on that? >> i guess we'll see when it comes as to that.

>> chair peskin: proceed carefully. do not get ahead of this body. the casa compact has not been done in consultation with local elected officials, so that does not mean that it's a bad thing, but it does mean that the people who elect people like us have not been consulted in the beginning, which is why supervisor commissioner mandelman voted in the negative in another incarnation. it's a discussion that we should all be having. it's an important discussion, but proceed with caution. >> absolutely. we're splee we're completely aware of that and sensitive to your needs and have been working closely with the planning department to analyze these bills and will bring them to you as we bring these bills forward. >> chair peskin: thank you. is there any comments or questions for miss crabbe? seeing none, is there any

public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel]. >> chair peskin: is there a motion to approve said program? made by commissioner -- yee, seconded by kmithscommissioner, and we have a different house. roll call, please. [roll call] >> clerk: we have first approval. >> chair peskin: excellent. next item, please. >> clerk: item seven, state and federal legislation item, this is an action item. >> chair peskin: mr. watts. the session has begun, and next

friday is the last day to introduce bills. welcome. >> thank you, chair and commissioners. i think that's a good point to make because i'm a little bit concerned about the pace of introductions. we expect probably 2,000 bills to be introduced by the end of next week, so i'll be wearing my reading glasses for the next several weeks. with that in mind, the staff has prepared several recommendations for you on the table in the agenda, two of which are measures that they're recommending support, several bills that are recommending watch positions on and one constitutional amendment at this time is being recommended for watch. the two measured that are recommended for support at this time, the first one is assembly bill 252 by assembly member daily, which provides the -- on

behalf of the federal government to be handled by the state of california nepa. they're proposing to take away the sunset date and make it an authorization consistent with federal law. the other measure for support that's being recommended is senate bill 127 by senator wiener. this bill would establish a new division within caltrans, a division of active transportation, and beyond that, and the duties they would inculcate for that division, it would also require for the state's major rehab program, the shop program, when they -- when caltrans performs projects under that program, that they strive to enhance bike, walking and other mobility alternatives within that same project. so that'll be in bill i think

that'll be set pretty soon, and we'll be able to testify and work on your behalf if you support the position. the items on watch i want to briefly highlight to you. they highlight ab 11 and sb 50. these are bills that deal with redevelopment and housing. and these will be probably the earliest of a slate of housing-related bills. so at this point, the staff is recommendi recommendi recommending watch these as we see what other alternatives are announced over the next 1 appoints 5 weeks. beyond that, assembly member ting announced a bill that would champion all new vehicle does sold in the -- vehicles sold in the state zero emission

vehicles. ab 47, this would deal with cell phone use in vehicles. it is not counted as a point against motorists, it's an exemption, and we'll see how that moves through the process. assembly bill 1, which would adjustment the vote threshold for sales taxes that are dedicated to rehabilitation and construction of infrastructure or affordable housing from the two thirds level to 55% level. this, too, i believe is going to go through wordsmithing through the various committees

to make sure it'll do whatface he trying to achieve. -- do what it's trying to achieve. so with that, that brings my presentation to a close for the two support recommendations. >> chair peskin: thank you. we have a number of members that have commissioner comments or questions. commissioner yee? >> president yee: thank you, chair peskin. i have a couple of comments on these. i want to highlight that assembly bill 252 and senate bill 127, that -- wand to remind my -- want to remind my colleagues here that board passes a -- passed a resolution in support of sb 127. i want to thank supervisors mar, haney -- i mean, mar, haney, safai, mandelman, brown, and ronen for cosponsoring

that. and these -- these two bills are really important for us to get things done along the caltrans-controlled corridors. and it's so compatible to what we're trying to do in san francisco, that hopefully, everybody's going to be supporting these two bills. i -- the sb-59, i think we need to -- i'd like to ask our staff or -- to work on this a little bit. it's something that is currently happening in san francisco in terms of testing automated vehicles, and so it's coming down the pike pretty -- pretty soon i think. and one of the things that it doesn't have in there, in terms of the language of the bill, it doesn't mention anything about vision zero, and i think it's important that we -- we ask the

author to include some language in there so that it's also compatible with what we're trying to do in san francisco, and it seems like there's some movement statewide. and then lastly, the question i have, i didn't see it, but sb 50, it talks about housing a lot. and one of the issues that i have with many of these were when it's state mandated that we do certain things, that they also consider what's the impact on the local jurisdiction, on things like transportation, and if we're building more -- and they're telling us to do this, then, where's the funding for transportation infrastructure that we need. you can't just have another 100,000 people and not have

resources to improve your transportation system. i have not seen it in there. i don't know if it's in there, but certainly as we move forward, we should make sure that senator wiener understands that portion. >> chair peskin: thank you for those comments. mr. watts, it sounds like you heard them, and staff, it sounds like you heard them, and perhaps we can work with mr. allen's office and senator wiener's office to watch for supervisor yee's comments that he expressed. commissioner mar? >> supervisor mar: yes. i just want to echo some of the comments that commissioner yee made, and particularly thank you, sfcta for recommending support of sb 127. which commissioner yee, i was proud to cosponsor on. pedestrian safety is a personal

and public interest of mine. and the th and then actually, i did have a similar point. i'll maybe turn it over to mr. chang. curious to hear your thoughts on sf -- or sfcta's thoughts on sb 50. and what specific aspects of this bill you're watching moving forward. >> chair peskin: mr. chang or miss crabbe, who would like to respond. >> commissioner mar, we are still relying on a bit more analysis from the planning department, who are looking into the details of the latest version of the bill. our understanding is that it seeks to address some of the concerns that were raised locally and statewide regarding the impact to vulnerable

communities what are at risk of displacement. iible there have been other change to see the standard as far as -- changes to the standard as far as what would trigger these types of policies to come in. there's also some way to respond without raising heights, but perhaps the density or f.a.r., which is the floor area ratio. does this mean that there would be a change to san francisco density or is it a neighborhood response no so those are the three areas that we're aware there could be refinements to last year's bill, but we're not fully aware of that. we're waiting for the planning department's analysis. regarding the transportation and adequacy, i -- of infrastructure, i believe sb 50 is silent with regard to infrastructure funding or investment. however, last year, the state

will pass sb 1 and within that, senator wiener did advocate and ultimately succeed in include the tripling i think of transit funds, so there's a sizeable amount of funding that's within the sb 1 tax fund. >> chair peskin: does that answer your question, commissioner mar? anything you'd like to add, miss crabbe? excellent. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, mr. watts, good luck with your 2,000 bills and your reading glasses. is there a motion to support assembly bill 252 and senate bill 127? made by commissioner yee, seconded by commissioner brown,

and we will take that same house, same call. [gavel]. >> chair peskin: next item, please. >> clerk: item 8, allocate approximately 11.1 million and appropriate $500,000 in prop k sales tax funds. this is an action item. >> chair peskin: miss lefleur. >> good morning, commissioners. maybe i could ask oscar if you could come up and get this going on the slide show. my name is ana la fort, and i'm the director of policy and programming at the transportation authority. i am here to present requests today from the sfmta and from the port of san francisco, which is the first request that is before you. this is for 60,000 for the design phase of the pedestrian walkway. if you look at the bottom picture, you'll see the conflict between vehicles and

pedestrians that currently exists, and so the walkway will enhance the design of the plaza that's currently under construction and enhance safety and comfort of passengers as they're heading to board the ferries. port will be back next year to request construction funds. the next request is from the m.t.a. for implementation of the safe routes to school program. this is currently housed within the department of public health. it will be transition is to the municipal transportation -- transportationing to the municipal transportation -- transitioning to the municipal transportation agency. these prop k funds will help with the transition. they'll fund the establishment of a program manager and then, when the program transitions in

july, m.t.a. will be back to request additional prop k funds that will ultimately be the local match over the next two years to this one bay area grant. as a condition of the funding, we are asking the m.t.a. to come back in june and present the status of this program, reporting on the traffic calming to schools program, so the board can provide input and feedback on that. >> chair peskin: and commissioner tang, if you're watching, thank you for all your incredible work to make that happen. >> okay. and the next request is from the m.t.a. this is for the residential transportation demand management program. so this is essentially a program that is to identify cost effective strategies to get new residents out of their single-occupant vehicles and onto transit or biking or carpooling and so it's a program to let folks now what's

available to them and for encouragement and education. this is a multiyear effort. this is for the early work to establish the program and to ultimately impact -- implement a pilot and work will be done by m.t.a. and the department of the environment. the next two requests are related to the sfmta's light rail vehicle program, and i'll just node that i'll make my presentation, and then, we also have here, julia kirschbaum, the acting director of transit. we've heard a lot of great feedback over the last couple of weeks from board members and we actually have a couple of options for amendments to the staff recommendations which i'll present in just a few

slides to address the feedback and concerns that we've heard. as most folks now, sfmta is going to be replacing all of the light rail vehicles in its current fleet. we've been working with m.t.a. and the metropolitan transportation commission to see if we can advance this sooner than what's scheduled, to accelerate the schedule. but in the meantime, these vehicles, regardless of whether it's an accelerated schedule or current standard schedule for replacement, these vehicles that are currently in service need to operate until they are replaced, so -- and they're breaking down. so m.t.a. is requesting funds to overhaul -- these are major overhauls, not routine maintenance. these are overhauls to the systems that lead most commonly to vehicles being taken out of service. so this is to improve the

reliability and performance of the existing fleet. and you can see the systems that are to be overhauled on your screen. the second request is for refurbishing the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems in a portion of the fleet, and this is to improve reliability and passenger comfort because the current refridgerant that is used to cool the vehicles no longer meets the policy standards, so they have to be replaced on a portion of the fleet. we currently have special conditions and amendments that are already contained in the allocation request enclose you were.

the first is a five-year prioritization program amendment. the funds are coming from a 30-foot vehicle replacement project, which is going to be put on hold. we have about $62 million left to allocation, and we speak that m. -- we expect that m.t.a. will be requesting those funds in the next couple of months, that m.t.l. will come and report on the appropriated schedule, and if it is an expedited schedule, if the

appropriation of funds are pursued. next, two requests what m.t.a. is planning to do so which vehicles when. because what we don't want to happen is doing overhauls on a vehicle that is then turned around and replaced in the next couple of months. we don't want that to happen and ensure that m.t.a. doesn't have in its schedule. so what we need to see in the next couple of weeks, we have draft language that shows by the next board meeting, february 26. i've been made aware this morning that m.t.a. would like a little more time to provide this information, it would be probably march 15 or march 10, the date of the first board meeting in mar, how m.t.a. would cabeer out the overhaul, so that what -- whould carry ot

the overhaul. the second amendment we would like to add is to place a portion of the funds on reserve, and these are the funds that are slated for the systems for the entire fleet. so it's putting some kind of a hold on the funds in case they're not needed for the entire fleet, so if they're only needed for a portion. so we could reserve either 15% or 25% of the funds -- of the cost of the overhauls that are planned for the full fleet, plus the contingency, and these would be placed on a board reserve, so these are two different conditions. one is for the purchase orders

and one is for the contingen contingencicy. we would need to come back to this body no later than november 2019 rksz did . they can better align that with the schedule for the overhauls, so they can report to this body and determine the amount of funding that will be needed to over y'all these vehicles and keep these vehicles in service until they will be replaced. so with that, i will invite julie kirschbaum to make a few comments to the board. >> chair peskin: miss kirschbaum, long time no see. >> i'm julie kirschbaum, the director of transit. some of the things that i'd

like you to consider on this item is our breakdowns are the single biggest issue in the subway right now. in looking at data from 2018, breakdowns of trains made up about 30% of our overall mechanical failures, but they represented 50% of our delay time. and that's in part because once a train breaks, it's real hard to get it moving again. even with the acceleration of the l.r.v.-4s, we need to keep the majority of the bredas, we need them to last three to four weeks, with the majority needing to last six years. so we're taking a vehicle that is already not performing for us and figuring out how we can

limp through this next three-to-five-year period. we looked at what would be needed to do a completely rebuild of the breda, to the tune of $80 million. what we've done instead is look at the $10 million of most crucial investments that would get us through this period. in addition to the components that ana identified, we are looking at two critical components in house that don't need parts replacements but actually do need kind of continuous adjustments to limp along. so our big breda overhaul involves what we're doing with staff time. the first is coupler adjustments. it's what holds the two trains together, and when the trains are not perfectly aligned, we

end up with all sorts of other related problems. the doors don't work, and other problems. we are as a point of practice, every 20,000 miles, which is about every six months in the lifetime of a breda car, we're doing a complete cleanup of the doors and steps, including leveling them, taking out all the parts, doing all these very fine adjustments. and then, we have these capital pieces to kpleemt that. so the first one is related to the propulsion system. so that's essentially.

brain of the propulsion system. we've already done 60 of them, and we're looking to do the last 40, which we've identified as our biggest vulnerability. the second is headlights. here is an example where we need to replacement all 149 -- replace all 149. they're currently incandescent. if we do a one-time replacement to l.e.d.s, that would last the life cycle of the vehicle, whether it's one we're able to release at the beginning, 2.5 years from now or at the end, six years from now. then, the next two items are circuit board on the propulsion system, which is basically like

the -- is the -- no, is the brain -- i'm sorry. i switched the a.c.t.s. and the propulsion. the a.t.c.s. system is the train control system, and the consequence of having a bad a.t.c.s. system is the train is operating in manual mode, which means instead of traveling 40-plus miles in the subway, it's travel 20 miles, dragging everything else down. the propulsion system is the brain of the propulsion system, and there, we had set in our calendar item that we wanted to do up to 149, but realistically looking at it, we think that if we replace about 120, we can limp through and by it being able to accelerate the l.r.v., four l.r.v.s will be able to

mean -- we can get rid of the first 20 to 30 within the first 2.5 to three years. the next area is the master controller, and that is what was in the presentation powerpoint. that's actually what the operators use to give the train power. so without that, the train doesn't work. there's such a vulnerability for us right now, we're doing a detailed inspection for all of them. what they really need to do is be replaced. there again, do we need to do all 149? probably not, but i think we're going to need to do 120 to get through this process. we're very comfortable with the recommendation to come back with a tighter schedule. we want to do that, as well. we want to maximize our time to benefits, and we want to get

the train as reliability as possible because these trains are causing issues now. and then, we're also comfortable with the reserve, although more comfortable putting 25% of the funds in reserve rather than 50%. we think while we can live without doing the replacements on the ones that are immediately going out the door, we still need to keep the majority of the vehicles, and these are issues that we're having today. with that, i'm happy to answer any questions. >> chair peskin: thank you. i see we have a number of commissioners on the roster, and i want to thank those commissioners that contacted the staff, and i want to thank staff for the recommendations that they've made, the 50% or 25% that we'll be discussing shortly. commissioner yee -- or miss la

forge, is there anything you want to say? >> i do have one presentation that i want to do -- >> chair peskin: yes. >> and i'll invite colin to present on the downtown congestion pricing request. >> thank you. this is a follow-up item from the december presentation we made of a proposed scope for a new congestion pricing study. at the time in december, the direction that you provided was to proceed with the -- the proposed scope and to seek funding for it, as well. so here we are, seeking funding. this is a request for 500,000 in prop k funds to get us started on the study. the total study budget is 1.8 million, and we're finalizing ways to secure the rest of that budget from --

there's $1 million that is programmed in developer fees from the transbay transit center district. there's also -- m.t.c. is a potential source we're working with and some other seriouses, as well -- sources, as well. the scope would be for an 18-month study. we're going to start identifying specifically with stakeholders the exact goals that we're looking to accomplish through the study and some measures -- or metrics that we can use to measure the effectiveness that different scenarios would have towards meeting those goals. we also want to do some documentation and looking at data of the existing system, and particularly with a focus on the equity of the existing system, and we know that we don't have very good data right now on how -- who is driving downtown, what their income ranges are, why people are making those trips during peak

hours, and so we want to go out and gather some data on that, and we think that's important to set an existing picture of who those folks are, their incomes, their trip purposes, where they're coming from, and so forth. and that will then help us when we move to the next step, which is building some potential scenarios, which is building some incentive and essential packages, which would be improving the existing system and helping low-income travelers innic it. we'll then -- in particular. we'll then evaluate those scenarios that we develop and then develop some implementation plans and next steps to move forward before we bring that back to you at the planned study conclusion to give us direction on how to move forward. throughout this study, there's

going to be a lot of outreach and stakeholder involvement that's going on. it's about half of the proposed study budget, and that's going to be targeted at really understanding what the issues are that -- that various stakeholder groups are interested in so that we can build those considerations into our scenarios and our recommendations as we go along. there's going to be ongoing outreach through a technical advisory committee, which will involve agency, stakeholders and then also a policy advisory committee with a wide range of stakeholders that's going to be advising us by meeting all throughout the course of the study and sitting down at the table with all of those different interests to really understand how we can balance those and meet as many of folks different interests as possible. it will have a diverse range of stakeholders, and we'll be working with you and

commissioners offices to finalize who we should be including on that. we'll also be engaged in a couple of larger rings of outreach through key points in the study. so the first of those would be later this year, where we will be getting a lot of feedback and going -- try to reach as many people as possible to get input on the issues we should be looking at and ideas for things we should be incorporating in these sta scenarios. and then, we'll come back inform that outreach later next year when we have some potential scenarios and what they look like to get feedback on how we should move forward and what our recommendations should be. and we'll also make sure to come back to you as -- at key mile stones through the process of the study to get feedback as we go along. so with that, i'm happy to take

questions on this, as well. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you, colin. so why don't we start with -- any questions for the port with regard to their money? no, mr. hodak, you can go back to the ferry building. so now, i think there are a bunch of questions for -- with regard to the bredas. commissioner yee? >> president yee: i think the staff might have addressed my issue. when i sort of looks at the funding for the repairs and -- repairs that m.t.a. want to do for repairs of light vehicles, one of the things when you take up with estimates, you can

taken into consideration the acceleration of the replacement vehicles that would be coming in. knowing that the services that they were doing on the vehicles couldn't happen all at once, and you'd probably have to do a little bit at a time, and if it's coming in sooner than you had anticipated, then, you wouldn't have to repair or refurbish some of the vehicles which means that the amount of money that you would need to do the work would be decreased. and i think staff's amendments seem to take this into consideration. so i'm okay with it, and i would be supporting the amendments. >> chair peskin: and do you have any preference as to the 50% reserve or 20% reserve, commissioner yee? >> president yee: i think it should be 35. >> chair peskin: there you go. all right. commissioner walton?

>> supervisor walton: thank you, chair peskin. question, just -- just for my understanding. so is the current demand for the overhauls -- it doesn't meet or exceed the costs? >> we're asking for a reserve because why? >> they're asking for a reserve 'cause the recommendation is the cost estimate is based on a per unit, assuming we would do all 149 bredas that we currently have in service. so the intent of a reserve would be that we don't do, say, the kind of best 30 with the intent that we would limp along until they're retired. so it's just kind of trying to weigh the benefit of the invest versus risk of the failure. >> chair peskin: or stated differently, commissioner wall son.

insofar as we are on -- walton, insofar as we are on the verge of acquiring new l.r.v.s, and we have to patch that period of time, we might not need all of it, and plow that into the new l.v.s. we really just need information how many need to be refurbished and how many might not. >> supervisor walton: which brings me to my next question. as we setup the reserve because there's so many needs from operations and infrastructure, if we find out we don't need those resources, can they be used somewhere else? >> so from a particular expenditure category, if the funds are not needed at any point in the project, they go back to that line item in the

expenditure plan. so in this case, the funds would be returned to the muni vehicles category, and they could be used for l.r.v. replacement, next generation of motor coaches, vehicles. >> supervisor walton: thank you. >> chair peskin: commissioner mar -- or commissioner walton, are you done? okay. commissioner mar? >> supervisor mar: i guess i had some questions and what's the timeline for overhauling and refurbishing the breda l.r.v.s by these finance allocations. and mean you can talk a little bit about which -- which lines would get the refurbished vehicles versus the newly purchased ones? >> the way we manage our fleet, we do not dedicate specific vehicles to specific lines, so we have a mix of service on all

of our lines, and we will continue to do that as we phase in the new trains. the -- in terms of the schedule, the biggest unknown for us is how long it will take to procure these parts, many of which are relatively rare, bordering on obsolete, but i think the schedule that we included in the staff report is too conservative. so our goal would really be to wrap all of this workup in 18 months rather than about the 2.5 years that we included in the report, and that's something that when we submit the vehicle-by-vehicle proposal to the t.a. staff, we'll also include an updated schedule with the understanding that a

high performing vehicle today may become a problem in the future. we're cobb assistantly pouring over the data. -- constantly pouring over the data. that's where these recommendations came from. even though we're going to provide a vehicle-by-vehicle schedule for when these vehicles would be overhauled, it may be that midway through the program, we do some swapping if a particular component is failing sooner than we expected it. >> supervisor mar: thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. commissioner fewer, congestion pricing? >> supervisor fewer: first, chair peskin, i have a question about this residential transportation demand management program. is there someone to speak from m.t.a. or department of environment? >> i'll invite miriam ssorrell

from the m.t.a., to answer this. >> supervisor fewer: so miriam, i have a question about this. this was a program that m.t.a. administers to try to get people who are moving to san francisco, new residents, to encourage them to use public transportation. is that right? >> it's close. the program that we're currently applying for funds for is actually not specifically for new residents. it's not specifically for public transportation. it could be biking or carpooling or other goals, but it helps people make those decisions. >> supervisor fewer: and how do you do that? >> well, the first part is a literature review, and the second part is conducting local

research. there are a bunch of people around the world trying different tactics, whether it's by providing certain kind of information or providing incentives or disincentives to walking or biking. there's no one thing we have in mind for this project. rather, it's look at the literature review. see what kinds of things have worked in the past and see what could be applicable in the certain areas of san francisco, and we would develop some pilot strategies and see if they're having a positive impact before we would roll out on the larger scale. >> supervisor fewer: and how would you measure the impact? >> we would be measuring those actions and perceptions of the people that we would be testing the pilots on, so finding on whether they had actually changed the mode of transportation that they use for certain trips or -- and along the way, also finding out whether their perceptions may have changed about the nature

of those trips or whether they're more likely to consider doing one of the sustainable modes of transportation or not, knowing we won't get actually every single participant to change the mode chair, but change the way that people are making decisions about transportation habits. >> supervisor fewer: so i'm assuming that you are going to be including a large diversity in your pilot, so that means people from different districts, people who don't have as much access to public transit than others, seniors, disabled, people with different social levels, and i say that because sfmta with its outreach has been lacking in language access. i just want to ensure that it's

including a large portion of san franciscans or people that are going to move to san francisco are include index this. >> yeah. so based on the size of the pilot, we would figure out what the target audience would be for different types, and we would certainly take into consideration language diversity, location diversity, and all the other things you mentioned and how we would do outreach for the groups you targeted. >> supervisor fewer: i think they also make decisions of their transit where they are in their time of life. i think we need to be conscious of it saying that we're not just piloting a bunch of millennials. when we talk sometimes about transportation, and we talk about these alternatives, i think we're not keeping in mind sometimes families, and on that

subject, i'd like to make a recommendation, which i told m.t.a. yesterday, have we ever done something called a family pack? i raised a family in san francisco. you're driving them to school, driving them back, taking them to swimming lessons, taking them to ballet, and it is difficult to get three different kids to three different schools. however on the weekends, i feel this is an opportunity to capture many more people using public transit. if you're in a transit-rich area of san francisco, there is no reason why you shouldn't be using public transit on the

weekend. i just wanted to mention that, and then, i have another thing that i want us to comment on, which are you in charge of the safe routes to school? >> yes. >> supervisor fewer: oh, this is great because i have another question for you on the safe route to school because when i was speaking to -- and this is about hard construction or is it about the overall program? >> the request today is to fund the coordination of the noninfrastructure program partnership, but it includes a lot of the work that sfmta is doing related to traffic calming, operations never schools. it's a little bit of everything. >> supervisor fewer: then i just have to say i've been to a lot of p.t.a. meetings in my district, and they're talking about enforcement. so they're talking about dropoffs at school sites, that

people are having bad driving habits. they're saying there is not enough enforcement around dropping and pick up time, and there is not enough traffic enforcement. so i just wanted to put that bug in your ear. i think we've heard it around a lot of high-injury corridors, but i was surprised to hear that school communities are asking for enforcement. they are just saying that all other attempts, getting school personnel to go out there in year to say move has not helped at all, and they're asking for more enforcement. i just wanted to mention that and whether or not you can write that into our safe route to schools because they're saying that walkers and bicyclists are having a hard