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

time fighting the drivers that are rushing to get their kids to school. thank you. and then, i also wanted to say about the light rail that i want to thank t.a. for actually putting in these recommendations. my vote is 50% on whole on reserve. thank you very much for putting those in and those assurances that those moneys are going to be spent most effectively. i just want to be completely transparent that i'm concerned about, you know, places like chinatown that are already suffering an economic crisis there do, quite frank -- due, quite frankly, to subway and other issues. i just wanted to be completely transparent as you start the study. i look forward to the results and happy to approve the

funding to do the study, but i just wanted to be transparent of my other colleagues on this commission that i am right now i'm sort of not digging it and not in favor. thank you very much. >> chair peskin: thank you very much for those transparent comments, commissioner fewer. commissioner mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: yeah. i have a question or questions about the bredas, and then, comments on the congestion pricing. so a whole lot of our train woes are being kind of laid at the foot of these bredas not performing or breaking down relatively early in their life cycle, and that's driving our desire to acquire as many as we can as quickly as we can and repair or switch them out as quickly as possible. i guess in retroexpect, was

there some way -- retrospect, was there some way we could know these trains -- how old are these? >> 20 years old. >> supervisor mandelman: so 20 years ago, did someone screw up, and when we spent hundreds of millions of dollars acquiring a fleet, that we're acquiring a fleet that's going to last us not 20 years, but 30 years. >> yeah. i think there were a number of contributing factors. the first is that the bredas were designed in what i would call an overly prescriptive way. when we acquired the l.r.v. 4's, we did a request for information from the industry, and we said these are the --

our challenges, this is what we're struggling with. what's the state of the industry, and then, we developed a performance-based spec. so for example, in the bredas, we said exactly how we wanted the doors and steps are designed, which ended up with a model that have about 100 mechanical levers, all of which have to be perfectly aligned to work. second, we said the doors and steps aren't going to breakdown except maybe once a year. how do you want to design them to meet that criteria. that was the first issue we encountered with the bredas. the second issue is whether this's a bus, a train, any sort of public vehicle, when we say the useful life is 25 years, it really means the shell can last

25 years. so the system, to continue to perform at a very high level, it needs a full new life overhaul, which we have built into and is sort of one of the cornerstones of our bus program, but it's not something historically that the agency has done. so for the bredas, we've done these sort of periodic capital campaigns of the worst failure point, but we didn't do a completely rebuild of the train, which is also why they're not lasting their full intended 25 years. >> supervisor mandelman: are we anticipating changing that -- do we have a different protocol in place for our negaw acquisition. >> absolutely. we're developing new performance specs and really

trying to learn from the industry. the second is we're making sure all of our vehicle requirements meets or exceeds the manufacturer recommendations. and then, the third leg of that stool is we're programming for midlife overhauls, which is basically a major rebuild which is the subsystems, like computers -- a computer doesn't last 25 years. that technology doesn't last that long. >> supervisor mandelman: i want to thank c.t.a. staff for coming back to us with this proposal, but as indicated by my colleague to my right, i think this is a heavy lift. today, i was at the chamber of commerce breakfast today, and

they have their polling which shows that 3% of people in san francisco think congestion has gotten better over the last year, and the rest think that it's gotten worse. so everybody knows the city is overly congested, but the polling also showed 30% support for a congestion pricing strategy, so i think there is inherently concern and doubt about this approach of charging to use our roads. i am also keenly aware that our tools for dealing at the local government for uber and lyft, increasing uses of our streets are very limited. and one of the few potential tools we may have left is something related to congestion pricing, so i remain strongly interested in figuring out if

we can craft congestion pricing solutions that address the concerns of san franciscans, address the concerns of my colleagues to my right, deal with the equity issue and give san francisco government a little more control over what is happening on our overly clogged streets. so i thank you for bringing this proposal to you, and i'm eager to see what you come up with. >> thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you for that comments, commissioner mandelman. why don't we go to public comment on this item. are there any members of the public who would like to testify on item number eight? >> supervisors, in the two minutes that i have, so i haven't seen this discussion at m.t.a., which these people bring before the board of supervisors.

and in the four presentations that were given, i don't see empirical data, i see generalities. so the congestion, as one of the supervisors pointed out, the majority of san franciscans cannot tolerate it anymore. so 100,000 families have left san francisco in the last seven years, and our population is about 830,000. and our supervisors think that when this millennials or whatever they call them come over here with some of their drab formulas that they learn in the universities, but they're not practical, then, they're just wasting our time. not once have i heard you all

talk about the operators. they know what the hell is happening. not once have i heard you talk about the machinists to talk about what is really happening in those maintenance facilities. not once have you heard some really stellar operator, operations management specialist talk to us. we need to have a hearing so that people can come to this hearing and ask the relevant questions, rather than these presentations that there's no empirical data and somebody talks about lights, and then says no, no, no, and i'm wondering what the hell is she talking about, and then moves onto something else. i don't want to mention it in my blog because i don't think it's the right thing to do, but i will talk about it. thank you very much. >> chair peskin: are there any other people that would like to talk about item number eight?

thank you very much. >> i wanted to testify to congestion pricing. in support of it. transform took a look at congestion pricing over the last eight months to see if this could be one of the conclusions that we need. we know that it's an efficiency solution, but could we turn it

take into an efficacy solution. i have a 30-page report with an akpg 30-page toolkit that looks at the steps that my pricing proposal would advance equity. when we say advance equity, we're really looking here along three different criteria. one would be to advance access to opportunities for those most in need. can it advance affordable, and it can improve health? we looked at the scope of work that your staff has put together, and we actually think it's pretty excellent, having engagement being a major part of it is critical, having equity be a major focus of the study, which you can see it is. you'll be joining seattle,

l.a., and others that are now seeing the potential for this as both as equity efficiency and climate solution. so thank you and i urge you to support this measure. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. cohen. are there any other members of the public wor for public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel]. >> chair peskin: so colleagues, we have a couple of different proposals before us relative to the preserves and commissioner yee's solemnonic splitting of the numbers. >> it would be 35% of the propulsion gate drivers, the master controllers, and the train control system parts. >> chair peskin: i actually about 33%, and the way i got to

that number was i took the 1,662,500, which was 50%, pl t multiplied it by two, and then divided it by three. >> and does that include the contingency? i don't have a calculator. >> chair peskin: the 624,500 contingency, i left alone because that was the same in both of your proposals. >> i had it calculated at 25% being on reserve would be 831,000, so i need to do some math. >> chair peskin: if 831,250 times 4, and then you multiply that by .33, i think you need

up with 1,250,000. but there's a housekeeping issue, which is how staff suggests we incorporate these conditions into this resolution. good morning, stan. >> good morning, commissioners. i think what you need to do is resolve the percentage of the issue for the set aside, and if that can be resolved by consensus. >> chair peskin: stan, can you speak into the mic? i understand. the way this currently reads, it says these additional conditions are proposed to be included in the three conditions included in the allocation request form. i'm saying that's absolutely -- i would be more comfortable if there was an actual mention in the resolution as compared to the additional request form. so what i'm saying is i think

somewhere here in the resolves, we need to have some -- >> yeah, the resolution will be amended to reflect that. >> chair peskin: all right. so ms. la fort, are we good on the math? >> yes. >> chair peskin: okay. so colleagues, there are now three conceptual proposals. the 25% reserve, the 50% reserve, and the one-third reserve. what is the will of this body? >> chair peskin: commissioner safai? >> supervisor safai: i would do the one-third, just round it up. >> chair peskin: is that a motion? motion made by commissioner safai, seconded by commissioner walton. colleagues, can we take that without objection, and on the item as amended, same house,

same call. [gavel]. >> chair peskin: passed on first reading as amended. all right. next item, please. >> clerk: item nine, adopt the valencia street -- >> chair peskin: i did. that was my same house, same call. all right. next item, please. >> clerk: item nine, adopt the have a lens i can't street bake way implementation plan report. this is an action item. >> chair peskin: all right. who do we have to present on this? miss leon. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is kimberly leung, and i am the sfmta project manager for the have a lens i can't street bikeway implementation plan. thank you for having me here

today to share with you the progress that we've made on the planning process for this project. have a lens i can't street has been a constantly evolving roadway. the bike lanes were first striped on valencia in 1999. it is one of the busiest bike facilities in san francisco with over 2100 cyclists on an average weekday. through the years, it's seen numerous improvements for both cyclists and pedestrians. even with these continued

improvements on havevalencia, e are still concerned which prompted the projects in 2017. vision zero is san francisco's commitment to eliminate all san francisco ducts by 2024. today, the majority of valencia is a high injury network which is the 13% of city streets that account for 75% of severe and fatal collisions. in the graphic on the right, you can see the portions of valencia on the high injury network, highlighted in orange being and the extents of the the highlight project highlighted in blue. the most common bike crash type was dooring, and almost half of

the bike collisions involved the loading and unloading of passengers. through some additional data collection, the sfmta found that about a quarter of vehicles blocked the loading. the majority of these blockages occurred during the evening. improving safety on valencia is not simply a matter of improving bikeway designs. community outreach has been a fundamental component, and some of our activities are outlined on the slide here. in spring 2018, the sfmta sat down with over 40 stakeholders groups, reached out to 215 merchants in a door to door survey, and conducted a

customer survey. the sfmta then hosted two community workshops in july 2018 to share three concepts for long-term improvements on the corridor. over 200 fem attended these workshops. -- people attended these workshops. with the projects moving on an expedited timeline, stakeholders input became more crucial for this project. the sfmta continue targeted stakeholder meetings with community and advocacy groups including the san francisco bike coalition, walk sf, and the san francisco interfaith council. in addition, several meetings were held between sfmta and san francisco friends school, millennium school to address

specific concerns regarding passenger loading zones and the safety of students crossing the parking protects bikeway. a community workshop with 90 attendees was held on november 14 to showcase the bikeway pilot. over 470 letters of support and 40 letters of concern was submitted to the pilot. the pilot was unanimously approved by the board on september 4. during the workshop, three alternatives were shared with the community. with the directions from mayor breed to implement a bike pilot bring spring 2019, the focus shifted to designing a

pedestrian bikeway. the key elements are a parking protected bikeway, school leading considerations, and curb management improvements. shown on this slide is the block of valencia between duboce and 14th street with north oriented on the right of the slide. the intersection of valencia and duboce shown on the slides is within the sections of the project limits to provide signal upgrades to providing separate spaces for cyclists. concrete loading islands with an accessible railing have been

installed to channel crossers to designated crossing points. all the existing passenger loading zones have been retained, and the number of commercial loading zones on valencia have been increased by 50%. commercial loading zones are in operation seven days a week and convert to five minute loading zones after 6 pm m. the improvements between market and 15th have been installed as an 18 month pilot and will be evaluated on several factors. observations will be made of driver behavior at mixing zones, conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists, vehicle blockages of the bike lanes, and the positioning of cyst willists in the road way. -- cyclists in the roadway.

the findings from this bikeway pilot will ultimately help perform the long-term design for the valencia corridor. [inaudible] >> no later than spring 2020, the sfmta will report back on the findings from the bikeway pilot to the sfmta board. before i conclude this presentation, i would like to acknowledge the leadership of mayor breed and the support of former commissioner sheehy, commissioner mandelman, and commissioner ronen for their support of this project, now happy to take any questions that you may have. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you,

miss leung. commissioner ronen? >> supervisor ronen: thank you. thanks for the report. i just wanted to share a few thoughts on this. the feedback that i'm getting from constituents and bikers is sort of mixed, which i think is to be expected given how short the protected bike lane is and how there's sort of a dramatic change between the regular bike lane and the short bike lane, and while i was very supportive of this, a complete study would have been good to make sure that we were -- we had a smooth transition through the whole block. and i'm excited to see what the evaluation is because of the mixed sort of opinions i'm hearing from constituents. but i wanted to talk a little bit about sort of the -- what isn't considered in this and the impact of uber and lyft on

the valencia street corridor and the 268 collisions that we've seen and how dangerous it is for bikers and how little responsibility those companies have taken in really improving safety on the corridor. i will say when i made a call to lyft and uber, i don't know, over a year ago, to do just that, i -- i never got any response from uber basically. lyft did do a pilot program to geofence between 16 and 19 with pick ups, not dropoffs. i don't know how much it improved the situation, but at least it was an attempt. but i haven't heard sense whether the company has expanded that to the rest of valencia or if they're continuing with that program and how that has impacted the

number of cars that are picking up and dropping off passengers on valencia. i would love to hear that, and then, i'd love for uber to step up to the plate to do their piece. so i'm not thrilled about m.t.a.s curb management sort of initial findings that once again we're going to adjust and use public spaces to accommodate these private subpoenas that have done little to participate in helping us improve safety on this corridor for bikers and pedestrians, much of which they've caused the unsafe situation, and i'm not going to be supportive of any curb management changes if they don't involve heavy requirements of those companies to increase safety or contributions for the very

expensive bike lane that we're having to put in basically because of their conduct. i feel like there's a lot of onus being put on the city, we're engaging in these half measures in the interim which have mixed results because they're not fully -- including the entire length of the street and the kind of come in out of nowhere on 14th. so any way, yi have a lot of misgivings and concerns about this program. i think we need full protected bike lanes on valencia and will be supportive of that. i just want the companies that have been causing havoc on the streets to do their fair share in funding it and taking responsibility for their actions. >> chair peskin: hear, hear. commissioner mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: thank you.

well, i am -- i am happy to see the first few blocks in place. i am also grateful for this report perhaps somewhat relates to commissioner ronen's comments. i did note the discussion of enforcement, and it struck me that it gives up a little too soon and a little too early on whether or not enforcement can make a difference in that category. maybe this is sort of echoing commissioner fewer's comments earlier. i really do think that people see so much flagrant violation of the law as we go forward,

however long this takes, we've got to devote some resources and establish this is not a great place to be driving into bike lanes. commissioner ronen's gotten some mixed feedback, i've got some mixed feedback over the last few maz. i'm wondering what the -- months. i'm wondering what the m.t.a. is seeing over the first few months what this is looking like? >> yeah, it's a learning curve. we moved very quickly with this pilot project. everything was moving very quickly. in general, we're hearing a lot of support from the bike -- the

cycling community with the new improvement bikeway. we've worked closely with the schools and the church in that area in developing a loading zone. we've heard some concerns about parking loss and how the area is redirected for passenger loading zones and passenger loading zones, and as a part of our evaluation, you know, we're going to be collecting video data, we'll be doing counts out there, and of course we're also going to be doing public opinion surveys from all users, not just cyclists, folks driving through here, walking through here, and i just want to here from everybody that's using this new bikeway pilot.

>> supervisor mandelman: i've heard from some of the businesses along those blocks who feel they've taken a hit in terms of parking. and not to open up an entirely new can of worms but if there's been any consideration of additional new metering on the side streets to create some spots for some of those merchants that seem to believe that they are losing some customers -- >> that's definitely something that i can take back to our parking group to see what we're able to do with metering particularly on the side streets. >> supervisor mandelman: and what's our sense of how the islands are working? there was a lot of concern in the sense of kids crossing the bike lanes. >> with the way that bike lane and island was designed, the bikeway is widen when you're

approaching the island, but it narrows as it get this. we are working on -- as you get there. we encourage cyclists and pedestrians to make sure they're looking out for one another. we're working with the schools in the area to help students understand how they can cross the bikeway. san francisco unified school district are helping students cross -- we're working with the schools very closely to make sure that it's going as smoothly as possible. >> supervisor mandelman: i want to can you and the c.m.t. for moving on this so quickly. do you see this moving to a report in 2020 that goes to the m.t.a. feels slow to me, and i would hope that we could find a

way to move this along more expeditiously. >> we are beginning to move the pilot immediately, and anything that we see there, we are trying to make improvements as quickly as possible. this continues -- improving the safety overall in the corridor, so we are doing an evaluation now. we will do a more robust one this fall, and throughout the rest of this year, we'll be going back and evaluating the three alternatives that i showed very quickly in my powerpoint, but those are the ones that we had shown back in july to the community. we received a lot of feedback, so we wanted to take a lot of time to analyze those three alternatives. >> supervisor mandelman: why does it take so long to work this through and get to the point where we can roll something out? i mean, this isn't just this project, this is just, like, everything. >> there's a lot of projects that we are working on throughout the city, so i think that's part of it.

it coordinating with our sister agencies, whether it be the fire department, to have them walk-through the corridor with us to see what our concerns are. there's a lot of different people that we're working with throughout the city, and we do have a lot of projects going on. you can see through the number of bikeway projects that we're rolling out right now. >> well, to the extend that you can expedite this, i would encourage that and support that, so thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you, commissioner mandelman. commissioner haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you, chair peskin and thank you for this report and for all your work on this. i had a couple things that sort of continued around some of the concerns that were brought up by commissioners ronen and mandelman. obviously, i don't represent valencia street, but it's a very important corridor for all of us, and i think some of the

things that come out of this work will hopefully be extended and replicated in other parts of the city, including in part do s of district six. is the data collected reported collisions, or is it somehow retained another way because if it's reported collisioned, it's going to be -- collisions, it's going to be vastly underreporting the total number. the other concern i had was uber and lyft, obviously, the big elephant in the room is the role that they play, have they been involved directly with this at all? do you talk to them regularly? do they share data with you?

are you evaluating, as part of that, some of the impact of some of their geofencing and what the consequences of that are? obviously, they -- that will have impact not just on valencia street, but some of site streets -- side streets where pick ups and drop offs are happening, and an understanding of how that's going and some of the other things going on. two other things. enforcement. it seems like we have a lot of video data about, you know, essentially blocking bike lanes and other violations of law. i realize what we look at in enforcement is being there so we can observe it and ticket it, but is there a way we can

use that video data in some way -- maybe uber and lyft says we can show you that the same driver is violating it again and again and again, they should go off the platform, and that's a way -- obviously, we have limitations in terms of what we can do in regulating this 'em on that, but that would be something how we can use that video data for enforcement in any way, and i realize threw as some limitations to that. lastly, it says 40% of the small businesses here on valencia say they use these courier services. how are you holding them accountable and recognizing their needs for pick up and drop off and how they're doing that and how we're making sure that that's happening in a safeway because i don't think that those are going anywhere. >> so for the first question regarding the number of collisions in the corridor, so

the 268 collisions we have shown in our -- we got that from the police records. your second question regarding, umm, whether or not we have met with ub oreger or lyft, we do with them regularly. within the project area, we did do some curb management in conjunction with the bikeway pilot, so they do know where we have zones that have passenger loading, umm, allowed for five minutes between 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., but we in no way tell the t.n.c.s that they should be gey fencing or they should be using those zones, but they are aware and it's up to them whether they geofence. what is your third question?

umm, i'm so sorry. i don't have a good answer if we can use the video to kick uber and lyft off the platform. i'm not sure if it's something we can use them to ticket these drivers? i can get back to you on that. >> chair peskin: and commissioners, i think it might also be helpful to hear the perspective of our own staff as it relates to curb management. miss chang, would you like to weigh in on behalf of the c.t.a. >> thank you, chair peskin. so as a result of our last year's policy work on the emerging mobility in terms of how the whole sector is changing rapidly, there was some recommendations that included curb management strategy for the city, and that was an m.t.a.-led item. so i would suggest inviting the

staff back, the staff that are working on the curb management strategy. that is something we've been tracking, but also more so from the side supporting m.t.a., and as needed, we'd be happy to get more involved. >> chair peskin: commissioner haney, are you done? commissioner fewer, followed by commissioner ronen? somebody just got married. >> supervisor fewer: congratulations to them. i just wanted to know, you know, when you listed off the list of people that you've engaged in conversation with, i didn't hear that any senior groups or disabled groups were actually a part of your conversation, so could you clarify on that. >> sure. so as a part of our initial outreach in the spring of 2018, we actually sat down with over 40 stakeholder groups. i didn't list every one. the ones i listed were some of

our key constituents during the public planning process. we did coordinate with our a.d.a. coordinators within public works as well as the m.t.a. to make sure our designs were addressing these needs. >> supervisor fewer: so you didn't meet -- you didn't have senior disability action there or any representatives? >> i can't recall if they were on our h-list, but i can check that and get back to you. >> supervisor fewer: this is a point of contention with seniors and disabilitied in my neighborhood, thoo these decisions are made with regard to youth a lot, with bicyclists, but seniors and disabled are out of the conversation. i just want to say they are an important and viable part of the community. there are seniors here, and there are disabled people that do live here in san francisco, and even in that area, also.

i just think that this is one of those things that continually, we bring up to have them at the table because there are people that do have limited mobility that actually are crossing our intersections every day in the streets of san francisco. if we want to meet our vision goals, they need to be brought to the table to hear their perspective, too, so thanks much. >> chair peskin: thank you for those comments. commissioner ronen? >> supervisor ronen: yes. thank you, supervisor -- chair peskin, through the chair to supervisors raphael mandelman and haney, back in november 2017 when we started this whole process trying to improve safety for bicyclists on valencia, i called for m.t.a. to step up substantially, we sat down, they made all these agreements, they doubled, trup willed, quadrupled the enos --

tripled, quadrupled the presence on valencia, and nothing changed. so somehow, just that sustained increased enforcement has not seemed to change behavior which doesn't mean we shouldn't continue it and increase it anymore, but that alone has not seemed to do the work. and so i'm just wondering -- you know, and i would love to invite m.t.a. to this body to have this conversation with them, but is there a -- you know, to answer supervisor haney's question, i just wrote letters to uber and lyft, and i said you're causing all these problems. we expect you to setup -- setup to the plate and do something about it. you have the power to geofence. we don't have that power, get to it. and lyft, to its credit,

answered and did a small -- a tiny little piece of what we were hoping they would do. uber didn't. but what are we asking from uber and lyft as a city that they step up and pitch in? is there an official meeting as a city where we step up and share how we're accommodating them? >> chair peskin: maybe that's one for our staff. mis-chang. >> -- ms. chang. >> thank you, commissioner ronen. you've been raising that for some time. there was a three-part agreement between lyft, the m.t.a. and the community about what was going to be a sustainable solution. i'm hearing there's a bit more work, but i'm offering our staff to help craft those

solutions. it also triggers the conversation about not just the passenger needs, also the goods movement needs, and it's a bigger topic than just this corridor. we see situations in commissioner haney's district. we have a different situation in the avenues. i think the companies -- i'm hearing the talk, but i'm not necessarily seeing the action. and i would suggest we setup a working group with m.t.a., your office, and any other supervisor's offices to hash out a couple of these situations and figure out how the pilots or the programs or the ask can be clarified in each of these situations. >> supervisor ronen: yes, but i -- it's been a long time, and there hasn't been much improvement. i'm wondering if the m.t.a. can come up.

you know, the m.t.a. is involved in all of this curb management work where we're trying to layout the red carpet and accommodate all of this new industry or not so new anymore. what are we asking for in return? are we asking them to pay for it? 'cause we're eliminating meters, so we're losing revenue. are they making up for that revenue that we're losing, are they doing anything to be heldful to deal with some of the major issues that they're causing in the streets? >> chair peskin: before miss ramos responds, the state of california preempts this body or the board of supervisors or for that matter our mayor from taking any meaningful action with regard to t.m.c.s. if we're going to fix this, we need a bill in the state legislature to give this and other cities the ability to regulate this kind of driving

behavior. >> supervisor ronen: without a doubt, and you and i are the first to say this and have been for a long time, but in the meantime, what are we just asking the companies to do officially as a city, which i did with my little letter, and i got one response from one single supervisor at one company. what are we as a city -- lyft just bought motivate and the running -- we have more power than we're exciting, and it's incredibly. >> chair peskin: and uber bought junk. >> supervisor ronen: so i'm just wondering, what is the m.t.a. asking from these companies, which i will let you know, and i've let the t.a. know, i'm very frustrated about. [please stand by]

. >> but then, of course, we also want to make sure that whatever it is we decide on, we can get behind as a city because it is -- it is incredibly frustrating. there's a sense of urgency because people's lives are at stake. it's something that with this particular project, we're hoping to be a catalyst for projects around the city because this is a place where we're going to see the most impact on curb management, but if we can get it right here, we can get it right in other

places, so it's important that we do coordinate this ask. >> supervisor ronen: okay. i just for the record think we're cutting ourselves short. i think we have more power than we're admitting, and i think we're falling asleep on the job. i think we need to work collectively to work together and demand more of these companies and certainly not give away a damn thing until we get something in return. i look forward to working with all of you to make that happen. i'm not going to approve a curb management program in my district that gives something to these companies without getting anything in return. i've said that over and over, and i'll say it again. >> and we agree wholeheartedly. forward, i want to make it clear that the curb management that we're talking about is responding to a demand that's been expressed by many other business businesses in addition to the

t.n.c.s. but to your point, which is well taken, we're going to make sure that -- that we do get something in return to make sure that the revenues that we may or may not lose -- i mean, if we're taking meters away, we will lose revenues in some respect, so there is a nexus -- >> supervisor ronen: and we are creating a very expensive protected bike lane because of the issues that they're causing. if there wasn't this constant pick up and drop off of passengers in drop off zones, a regular bike lane would be fine in valencia. remember, we planned our entire transit plan in that area with the bike lane being the thoroughfare. that would have worked but for this problem, and i -- i just don't believe that we are

pushing enough to hold these companies responsible for the impact that they're making on our community, but i'm beating a dead horse at this point, so i'm looking forward to continuing this discussion. >> we have a conversation scheduled with you tomorrow. we're looking forward to that moving ahead. >> supervisor ronen: perfect. >> chair peskin: so commissioner, what is your and commissioner mandelman's opinion with regard to the adoption of the final report? >> supervisor ronen: i mean, it's a report on the protected combine lane, so i don't know that holding up -- protected bike lane, so i don't know that holding up would do anything. so i would motion to approve the report personally. >> chair peskin: is there a second on that? all right. is there any public comment on this item? >> supervisors, only one

supervisor brought you guys to a source, and that's the california public utilities -- bothered to provide a source, and that's the california public utilities commission. you guys have all been talking a lot. could you guys all send a giant letter as to the issue at hand relating to health and safety. if i'm not mistaken, gavin newsom was on the taxi commission a long time ago, and if i'm not mistaken, he's the governor. if you have the governor on your side, you could have some bill or legislation passed quickly. now having said that, your supervisors, maybe not the current supervisors, but some of those who have been here for sometime were instrumental in compromising our taxi

commission, and our taxi cabs, our city taxi cabs. the medallions cost nothing. that's a factor that comes into this situation, and some of you supervisors, maybe not those who are sitting here, back to uber, lyft, side car, giving them tax cuts, but now you're one to pelt some stones on them. uber drivers laugh at you all, at the supervisors. they laugh at the m.t.a. when all the drivers go there and plead and say that their families are compromised, they're losing their homes, etc., etc. you know, you all -- you all must be trained to do some medication, so you all can focus on something and go deep and represent the people

correctly. thank you very much. >> chair peskin: next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is kristin, and i am a community organizer on staff at the san francisco bicycle coalition. on behalf of our over 10,000 members i am here to express support for the valencia street bikeway implementation plan. with the mayor's directive, we've seen valencia street transform in the last four months. i'd also like to thank commissioners mandelman and ronen for their continued support for the need for change on the corridor. with the valencia street bikeway implementation plan, a vision was laid out for a comfortable neighborhood street.

with the completion of a pilot, valencia between market and 15th streets have become more pleasant comfortable blocks where bikes no longer have to dodge double parked cars. what was once hard to navigate is four calm blocks with infrastructure like those boarding islands in front of the schools which help facilitate pick ups and drop offs of the students. >> protected bike lanes have transformed valencia from

market to 15th, but we still have more to do. the safety of thousands of daily riders can't wait. thank you for your time. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker. >> hi. i'm mirrian mcdonald, i'm a resident who uses valencia every day on my bicycle, and also on behalf of skip, one of the two scooter companies permitted to operate here in san francisco. through the chair, i would like to thank commissioner ronen for her comments on the prevalence of the t.n.c.s in the bikeways and how big of a problem that is for riders, and i would just like to draw attention to the connection between providing safe infrastructure as an alternative choice for people who are choosing to get into lyfts and ubers that when there is safe intrastructure, people

will choose alternative options instead of in a car. we've seen that our ridership in -- on scooters and what i anticipate will be a bigger and bigger field of micromobility options are new riders who are getting on the bikeways for the first time and are choosing to do so instead of lyft and uber. 37% of our riders say they're taking scooters instead of uber or lyft, so that's a significant percentage. it's the largest percentage who are choosing to get out of their ride share and into alternative modes, so if we can provide our safe alternative for our riders to do so, that will significantly help this problem. thank you very much. >> chair peskin: thank you. next