fabulously inclusive, like san francisco, sometimes we have to agree to disagree. we need to document all sharing analysis and continue to be responsive. thank you for letting me present. >> chairman: okay. board members, are there any questions for adrian? >> one clarifying question before we go to public comment. thank you, great presentation. i know there has been a lot of discussion about the proposed bike share location at vandel and chenry, and the memo received, i think it was in january, said that the f.m. t.a. did decide to approve the permit. so that one is not blocked or stopped, it is just progressing forward? >> the permit was issued for that station. the m.t. board came back with inquiry. so we've been closing that idea, and hopefully the culmination today will be closure of the inquiry.

>> closure of the inquiry and then the station approval can move forward -- >> there are no other approvals. technically we do not need another approval. >> okay. thank you. that's my only clarifying question. >> i have a question clarifying. you mentioned that one of the benefits of bike shares is reducing parking and congestion. can you speak to us about the surveys and tat data analysis, when people use the bike share, what they're doing that of instead of of? >?>> you mean if they weren't using bike share, would else would they be using? >> yes. >> i don't have any direct data at hand. but we did it for some of the stations in the city, another shared mobility user survey. and i don't know if that is exactly the same, but it is similar in spirit, and it is this idea of

people having access to a shared device. and they're using that. and because that system is in place, they don't have to drive or take a t.n.c. i think the data says more than 40% of the users we have interviewed said they were -- that their trip was replacing a private vehicle or t.n.c. trip. >> thank you. >> chairman: any further questions. i suppose the one question i have -- and thank you very much for your presentation, which is professional and thorough -- is the complaint that i've heard from some -- not many -- is that this thing almost pops up overnight and they didn't know about it. now, in my experience here on this board, i've learned that that means one of two things. one, it popped up overnight and they didn't know about it, despite whatever outreach there was. or, two, it was implemented, as everything is, at a time and they just didn't like it. so i'm going to focus on

the first category. and ask you what specifically is done at the actual site, where the station will go in, and is there signage, a picture, a mock-up, something so that someone who is going to be affected by this thing cannot really possibly say i didn't know about it? if you're going to say that bike station is going to have an affect on my daily, weekly, even monthly routines, is there something at the physical location, like a sign and a picture and a phone number that is big enough and sort of replicates the impact that this station is going to have, such that no one can say, i didn't know about it. >> per the standards for public hearing, we're required to post things out. and the postings we have mod fighmodified, specifically r bike sharing stations, to

show what the stations will look like. >> chairman: a posting, i get that. i'm just wondering if there is more, and if there is room to go more? because there are a lot of postings, and a piece of paper doesn't take up parking spots. it is just a piece of paper. >> absolutely. i understand what you're saying. and on top of that, to your point, we've had cases where public hearing postings get torn down, too. we wrap them in saran wrap, but they are not meant to stay there forever, and people will take them down. this concern you're bringing up is exactly why we implemented the mailer system for this program. no other program, no other kind of spot-based improvement that we perform has to do that level of mailing. and that's because we wanted everybody to know. and we have fine tuned that mailing. that mailing is not the same thing that goes up on the poster. he hait has an image and a

street view. it has a drawing saying, this is what it will look like, and these are the spaces it will take up. so it is much more detailed. you can imagine, it is difficult to do something at the site, a posting, that is in between the actual station. but properly conveys what the station will be without maybe doing a temporary cardboard station. my mind goes to creative at that point. >> chairman: so you guys are covering this, and i understand the mailing and this and that. i'll just say, the feedback i got is -- i'm not suggesting you put up a cardboard thing. but i just wonder if as we go further in this, if there is a way to actually do something at the site that can't be mixed. a sign in between parking spots. just something so that we can look back and say, if this piece of property really is a part of your

daily, weekly, monthly activity, there is no way you could have missed this. and maybe that is just not possible. maybe signs and signage get torn down and all of that. but as least as we start with this, because as you know, we've gotten a little bit of resistance because this is new. and those issues we're going to have to deal with, but the last thing i want is for someone to be able to credibly or correctly say they didn't know this was going to happen. >> your response encapsulates kind of our challenge. what you're feeling is exactly why we try to do so much research and outreach engagement before with the supervisor's help -- >> chairman: and i get all of that, and i think it is fantastic. but it is just the one thing that seems to me that maybe a little bit of a hole in this was a more demonstrative suggestion of what is going to happen at the site. when we change bus lines, we can send out mailers

and make phone calls, but the best way to tell someone whatever number bus is going to change, is to put notice on the whatever number bus and whatever number bus stops. i think i may have sparked some more cardboard art suggestions. >> i do have a question. on the website, you can see where our key bike projects are. but where is it for the go bike project? is that a separate website? >> there is a bike share website on that signage, and that one will link to the proposed go bike stations. so there is a map that has all of the stations. and that was actually recently covered in a discussion with the supervisory committee. >> i'm just trying to see how easy it is to find. because people go to our website, and that's where we put notice up for weaver sort of hearings or things that we have. do we typically put the bike share notices on our

calendar, like we do with the other kinds of meetings? >> it has a regular notification -- >> is it among the regular calendar of notices? because on our front page of the website there is a calendar of notices, and i know it is a pain in the butt, probably, but if we could put every meeting about everything -- whatever meetings we're having, if we just put them there, because people do look, first and foremost, on our home page for these things. and that's -- even if they would miss everything else, if it was on the home page, under our calendar, i believ i think that would help quite a bit. i mean, in general our projects at m.t.a. don't happen that quickly, and i think that is part of the challenge with the bike share program. granted, i don't think

that's where we are with all of our projects, the solution of where we want to be, but whatever we can do in the upfront, so, yes, we weren't trying to play hideball. and the fact that the process doesn't seem as transparent as the other processes we have. >> chairman: yes, please. >> what about paint on the surface of the street? some kind of temporary paint where it would mark out where the bikes would go. >> chairman: bike share station coming? [laughter] >> chairman: coming attraction. >> but that couldn't be torn off. it is a little more permanent. >> you could. there is a logicistical challenge. you have to reserve the

place before you actually implemented the station in order to stripe the potential station. and are you putting this paint down in advance of public hearing? are we painting the station and then possibly not permitting the station? because then we have to go and erase the paint. but i like where you're going with it. but, you can imagine there are some logistical challenges here. >> chairman: we're not going to solve this with the discussion here today. and we appreciate everything you're doing, and don't take it as anything other than appreciation. we're just trying to give you some feedback. we get the same feedback you do, and sometimes it makes us unhappy. and that notion along the lines of what director shue was saying, that was is permanent -- not permanent, a very visible suggestion beyond just a poster hanging, or

something, so no one can really miss what's coming would seem to me, if feasible, would extentuate ouour outreachreach -- >> i have one more comment. >> chairman: sure. >> the question always comes up, and i think about the bike share -- i went in front of a u a u. p.s.store. that's a terrible a location. there are issues because -- it's a little bit of a bottleneck, but luckily it is not a highly trafficked street, but, still, it begs the question if a u. p.s.

store isn't a frontage, what property fronting would not be an appropriate location that wouldn't cause conflicts? i want people to use bike share. i don't like to drive. i am that person. but i also hate -- i wouldn't want to be going around a u. p. s. truck to get a bike. can you tell us how you look on what is on the block space and. >> dana: indetermining what goes there. can you talk about that? >> if you're asking me to talk about block spaces in general, that's more complicated. i can tell you about the bike share program, we do not -- as a policy, we're very proud we have a

history of not putting stations in front of any organizations that said, hey, don't put this here. a home or an organization. we have a pretty good record for that. in terms of that u.p.s. organization, i think they talked to the store manager there, and the store manager was excited about it. but i do know that it has been led to other loading issues, like you're talking about. >> so my only point isn't necessarily about whether or not an owner or a person gets to veto in front of their place -- what i meant is, how do we determine a use, or types of uses, on a street in which you probably wouldn't want to have a bike share pod. that's my point. that's kind of the consideration that people get concerned about. i don't personally think it is great that someone can veto it just because they don't want it in front of their house. but i do believe if there

is an actual natural conflict in terms of traffic flow, how do we look at that in this conversation? >> director, i just wanted to add one piece to this discussion, is when the first generation of bike share stations, including the one at 29th and tiffany were installed, i think the m.t.a m.t.a. was probably more reliant on the public partner to do a lot of the outreach. one of the things that adrian and his team have brought to this -- we've brought it up to the standards you set for all of our projects. i don't think any of us will pretend that there might not have been some stations that were cited with outreach, which we look back on and which we have done more. but today we're doing more outreach and indepth conversations with the public, than we do for

almost anything else. and we're really talking about one or two parking spaces here. so i think the level of effort to do outreach here is proportionately much higher per amount of parking space than we do for a lot of the other things, to achieve all of the goals you've set up for us. >> chairman: good perspective. thank you, tom. if there are no further questions from the board, we'll entertain public comments, subject to director brinkman's clarification on where we are. [names called] >> hello, my name is christopher peterson. i want to give a big picture comment, of course, affective and expeditious noticing and public review of projects

such as this is important. but it is also crucial that it really be genuinely expeditious review. in my experience, far too often, projects that are about improving access from the automobile, just take too long. the board of supervisors is considering an emergency regulation regarding climate change. the intent of that is to get the city to really act quickly on the kinds of things it needs to do if it wants to play a positive role in addressing climate change. and certainly reducing the use of the automobile is a core part of that, and bike share stations is an important part of that strategy. so as the agency considers the procedures to use for these bike stations, i implore you not to do anything that results in a prolonged plotting process that just ends up killing things through delay.

thank you. >> chairman: thank you very much. that's difficult news. i love prolonged plotting, but i will try... >> charles debarge. >> charles debarge. a successful bike share system is in line with our mission to promote the bicycle for every day transportation. we want to connect san francisco to a safe, equitable, and sustainable transportation system. in november of 2015, this board of directors passed a resolution for bike share to be fully deployed by early 2018. here we are, a year later, past that timeframe, and we're not there. and we still aren't in many of the outer neighborhoods. so given the current state of expansion, which is moving pretty slowly, we are concerned that this agency is not providing

adequate leadership to successfully expand bike share in san francisco and make it the system we know it can be. san francisco is often a city in paradox, and i think we've heard that through comments. we're looking for urgent solutions, but often after indefinite bureaucracy. so i'm here today to ask you directors, please don't add to that bureaucracy of bike share, in this case, and respect the exceptional work that often shorthanded staff, such as adrian, they've done that for individual stations, for entire neighborhoods, to get this system really moving. what this board needs to do is increase the resources available to the livable streets team so that can staff up. new york's d.o.t. has at least a dozen staff working specifically on city bikemen bike. we need to step up and do the same. we urge forgo bike to expand services, and have a more thoughtful and

affective strategy on how they can successful expand more quickly. if we can't expand, that means fewer people are able to access this system, leaving some neighborhoods with little to no access to bike share. we hope this board will actively support bike stations, including the one at glen park. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm ericka emson, and i live on route 56, which is a small, but mighty sliver of district 8, up from glen park. i have engaged in the extensive community outreach that has been undertaken for this bike share. and i have written to wholeheartedly support this bike station. as this station is the next link in the bike share network that will hopefully extend to the southeastern

neighborhoods. adrian alluded that bike share goes nicely with many city policies. i wanted to public note the language in the transit first policy, section 8a, which states "all officers, boards, commissions, and departments shall implement these principles in conducting the city and county affairs, including to public transit, making sure it is an economically sound alternative to automobiles. within san francisco, travel by public transit, by bicycle, and on foot, must be an attractive alternative to private automobile. three, the decisions regarding the use of limited public street and sidewalk space, shall encourage these spaces, and shall strive to reduce traffic and improve public health and safety." skipping to number six "bicycling shall be promoted by providing convenience access to transit, secured lanes and bicycle parking."

anpublic bike shares are innovative, and already in successful use, where demand often outstrips supply. i ask that you please do not ignore the for transit first policies that you're governed by. there is equity, climate change, and affordability, all of which bike shares contribute to. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker. >> i'm dan connelly. and go bike is a major issue i don't use a car. one, biking sphraw infrastructue is prioritized by the city's transit first provision, passed in 1973, amended in 2007, and supported by 62% of the voters in 2014. san francisco has been in

flagrant non-compliance with the city laws. go bike is a network which requires global, not local design. it depletes bikes from the glen park, and it means bart commuters cannot rely on the bikes being available. which means they need to drive or bring their own bikes on the train. three, it has been claimed the station is unsafe. this is patently absurd. we're a data-driven city. boston, new york, austin, chicago, barcelona, paris, and tokyo -- in each case the networks were rolled out quickly and broadly. there is no safety problem with bike share in these cities. to the contrary, putting more people on bikes makes the intersections more safe. so in summary, this process has made a mockery of san francisco's claim to be a transit first

station. it makes a mockery of reducing pollution. i strongly urge you to facilitate the roll out of go bike. >> chairman: thank you very much. next speaker please. >> matt hill, laurie, and john winston. >> thank you. my name is matt hill, and i'm a san francisco resident, and i have one daughter at delores fuerte elementary school and a second one starting in the fall. i support the bike share system. i think it will make that intersection safer. it's not a safe intersection right now. and i also wanted to comment quickly on the bike share community outreach process. it takes way too long right now, as we've seen with this station, taking over two years to approve it. s.m.t.a. and the city have the climate goal to be sustainable by 2030, and

the vision zero goal of eliminating all traffic deaths in san francisco. and we should be a world leader on both climate action and safe streets. we still have a lot of co2 transmissions from cars. and we've had traffic fatalities this year involving cars, and we need to embrace mode shift away from cars. and bike share is a great way to get people out of cars, moving us towards our climate and vision zero goals. if we allow an over two-year process for a single bike share station, then we're not taking these goals seriously. we cannot do anything about people with intractable positions. i've met several people in san francisco who will never approve of removing on-street parking. they're locked into a car culture. and the bike share should take that into account. don't shy away from informative change and

embrace mode shift from cars to bikes. >> chairman: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> laurie stasakelus, john winston. >> hello. let it be on the record because in the newspaper and recent social media, i've been vilified by saying i'm against bike share. i am not. i'm very much in favor of a bike share. i just think there is a better location, somewhere near randall and chenery that is not on the main streets. so it is really about an issue of safety. there are plenty of spots within 100 yards th that they should be considering. i think outreach should equal active listening. what has been our experience is it has been completely one way. going back, in spring 2018, motivate told the world from glen park news, and they said they would go door to door.

our experience is no one ever knocked on our door. in fact, he talks about getting notices of people of 250 feet away. i live within 250 feet away, and i've never seen a thing. the notice on july 5th of the hearing was posted, so i give them credit for that. and also for director borden's clarification, the way that the notices go out now is about the bike share is that there is a sub-note within the engineering hearing notice. there is nothing that comes out and says, by the way, bike sharing is coming to your neighborhood. it is usually item 20, 22, 23, on the year ago agenda. at that meeting, which was held on the 6th of july, the friday when nobody was at school, nobody was in town, people -- and nobody at the school was even notified. there was not a proper situation. the bike coalition did send a member, who admitted to us in the hallway, he didn't even

know where randall street was. motmotivate sent a hired hand. and the other eight people who attended were in opposition. >> chairman: thank you. >> i have many more things i would like to discuss if there are any questions at a later time. >> chairman: thank you very much. and thank you for coming down. >> john winston, chris spouse, henry hartville. >> my name is john winston. i'm going to wear my hat as the chair of the balboa reservoir c.a.c., and i'm not a neighbor of this bike station. but i am an integral part of the neighborhood in that the balboa reservoir, we're removing 1,000 parking spots to build 11 units of much-needed housing. and those 1,000 parking spots are not allowed to be used in the e.i. r. as an impact.

that's california law. it's true, that said, we are removing a thousand spots, and the people in that neighborhood, the people at city college, are depending on some way to get to school. and it's not going to be the way they're getting there now. so we as a city will have to mitigate that issue, that impact. and one way -- the biggest way to do that is to give people choice in their transportation decisions. and bike share is one. not everyone can ride a bike, but it is one of many choices that people can make. getting back to randall and chenery, that's not a neighborhood issue. that's a city-wid city-wide iss. it is part of a network of bike share stations in the city. without any one of them, the whole thing falls apart because you need to be within an easy walk to a bike share station. people need to be able to get from city college to glen park, to randall and chenery. and i really think that

removal of three parking spots should not be an impact that should be considered at all in this issue. thank you. >> chairman: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> chris spouse, henry hartville. >> good afternoon, chris spouse. i do a lot of things in the neighborhood. i see a lot. i'm representing northern glen park and southern millie valley. look, i didn't want to come here today. we've said our piece already. but what i saw in social media, and now employing joe back there to vilify my neighbors and this board for simply standing up for process, for people who are standing up and saying -- this is what they're saying, but this is not what's happening. so this whole process that adrian explained -- i like adrian, he is a nice guy,

but he is just wrong. i am on all these boards. i am very much in tune with the neighborhood. i had no idea this was going on randall because i would have been to every single meeting. that street is a nightmare. there is no study. there is no traffic data. it is an on-ramp to 280, and yet they're treating it like it is just some suburban street. okay? the school traffic is just one aspect of it. those people going to the southern tier, going down to silicone valley, are not going to get on a go bike. parents dropping their kids off are not going to get on a go bike. it may take a few cars off the street, that's fine. we support it. put it down the street. put it on the side of the street. put it some place nearby. that's all we ask. and yet there has not been a single compromise. we didn't get notified about it. when we rant about it, then they finally did some

outreach, not before. never gave us a meeting, never showed us data. and they have simply never offered a compromise or any kind of alternative. they haven't even looked at it -- at an alternative. that's all we ask. and then finally, they asked that this board approve all go bike stations from now on. >> chairman: thank you very much. >> because clearly the bike share stations -- >> chairman: you're time is up. >> henry hartville. constance flannery, jean barrish. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thank you. my name is henry hartville. and two things to know: one, i am a homeowner on randall street, near chenery. when i say homeowner, i paid off my mortgage last year. i saved and accelerated my parns. payments. two, i do not own a car. i rely on public transit, on car sharing, and i

walk. so i'm certainly open to bike sharing. the concern that i have about this location is i can see the location but i never received any communication in advance that this location was being considered. the discussion that there are postings or graphical drawings of what the bike share will be are not factual. i haven't seen anything around the neighborhood about that. i do understand the value of the network affect of having regularly positioned bike share stations. in a previous life, i built airline hubs, so i know how you can generate use and utility by having more frequently used locations. this location is not the ideal location. it seems that there are options available. and it just seems there seems to be r resistance to

moving it to somewhere that would be safer. there is a lot of high-speed traffic on randall treat street, and that, i think, would also place bike users in jeopardy. thank you very much. >> chairman: thank you very much. next speaker. >> constance flannery. >> hi. i first appeared before you in early july of 2018 with a petition from 40 immediate neighbors of the proposed sites forg for go bike. all opposed the site. i live across the street from the miguel arlington spot. i have a car. i have a garage. i'm not against bikes either. bikes are great. but this is not the issue. the issue is safety. these are unsafe sites. since i last was here and had a petition from 40 neighbors, i now have it

from 80. all of them live within a quarter of a mile of the proposed sites. all feel these are dangerous sites. the parking -- excuse me, the street of randall -- i'm particularly concerned about the side of the school because i feel it is really unsafe for the children and the traffic with people going down randall, people going down chenery, people going down arlington, trying to get to 280. it is a really unsafe location. i didn't get any of the notices, either. i found out about it from a friend, and i went door to door, and for. go bike difor go bike did not go to door to door. >> chairman: thank you very much. the next speaker. >> my name is jean barrish. i came here to listen. i didn't intend to speak. but in hearing the presentation on the go bikes, and having read something about it, there is kind of an overriding

issue that i want to address. how do you justify the privatization of our public streets? in my understanding of the agreement that has been reached with the city is that the go bike company will reap practically all of the projects without paying for the use of the streets, and the city is going to get practically nothing. i'm just puzzled by this. maybe there is an explanation. i like the idea of using bikes. i don't have a car. i rely on public transit. so some of these other issues people are raising don't bother me. i think bike riding is great. this whole idea of giving the private streets away troubles me. it is starting to feel like the google bus 2.0 system. i wonder if you can address that. >> chairman: thank you very much. next speaker please. >> bill foley, and our last speaker will be david emmanuel. >> hi, my name is bill foley.

i have lived on the 100 block of randall street for over 30 years. i do not support the bike racks going on on randall street. i cannot think of a worst location for them, to be honest with you. it is primarily due to the safety concerns with the traffic along with the narrow street. i would support a rack about 150 away, around the corner, on san jose avenue, that is on the actual bike route to glen park, and it is flat. this location is on a hill, and honestly, it makes no sense. i'm surprised that people who look at it think it is an actual alternative. thank you. >> chairman: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> david emmanuel, followed by howard strasner. >> >> thank you. good afternoon, i'm david emmanuel. i live in glen park, about

a block away from the randall street proposal. my experience is a lot like my neighbors. i had no idea this was being proposed until a notice came out. it was a technical notice, and it was very difficult to even understand the footprint. the director who offered the idea of striping the area, that would be extremely helpful. even if just done on the sidewalk. during the last six months of the outreach, i think it has been very lacking in the fact it was very difficult to find out the specific criteria that was being used to select sites. m.t.a. did not share any kind of traffic or safety studies that were conducted at this location. and they didn't justify during their outreach meetings why they rejected alternatives and what we thought were very viable nearby sites. i support bike share. i think the randall street is a bad and unsafe

location. i think there are locations several hundred feet away that will be viable. i think at these outreach meetings, there could have been a consensus reached, and we could have come to agreement, and we could have already had a bike rack installed on a parallel street on arlington, and we wouldn't be in this sort of confrontation right now. my request is that the directors approve any type of type of final sites so we don't have to go through this process again. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. >> howard strasner followed by herbert weiner. who will be the last person. >> director, i have to speak again. so recently they did some work on my street in front of the house, and they put little sandwich boards for a few days. these may have to be more permanent and stay there for a couple of months. of course, if you really had an expedited process, a few weeks would be enough, but that is not going to happen.

that would be the first thing. the next thing is everybody comes here and makes it sound like, gee, it is going to be unsafe for the bicyclist to come down through this area. the question has to be asked: will keeping that space as a parking space make it safer for anybody or better for anybody? that's your basic question. now, maybe it is better to be 50 feet away, around the corner, but not 200 feet. we went through that on the mission. this is our space. everybody has their space. so maybe a few feet is okay, if it really is unsafe for bicyclists. but parking spaces aren't safe for anybody. thank you very much. >> chairman: thank you. mr. weiner. >> herbert weiner. i do not live in this area at all, but i do have a public concern. i'm concerned about the encroachment of go bikes

in every area of the city. it is ford motor company, paradoxicalley ownically owns go bike. there is ford motor company logo on the bike station. now, are we giving away the city to private interests? this is my concern about it. also, okay, it is only three parking spaces, but so many parking spaces have been given up. we don't see the concerns of motorists at all expressed before this board. we don't even see them sitting on the board. and i feel this is an unfair representation. the community meetings are basically dog and pony shows. i have never seen this

board reject proposals for bike sharing. maybe i'm wrong about this. i'd like to know. but i basically don't like this whole business of giving things away to privatization. my gut reaction is i would rather privat privatize this whole board than to give away the city to privatization. anyway, those are my sentiments. thank you. >> chairman: thank you very much, mr. weiner. any further public comment on item 11? seeing none, we'll close public comment. directors, is there anyone with further questions for adrian or staff? if not, are we prepared to discuss this and move on? >> i've been patiently waiting to discuss this. >> chairman: proceed. >> thank you. thank you. >> chairman: feel free to prod or applaud. >> we already established this spot has issued the permits. is it up to you when that

station goes in, or is that motivate, the company that puts the -- that's the big question, when is that station going in. >> i'm not sure i've ever seen you run someone off like that. that was pretty good. >> well, i guess -- >> if he gets it wrong, adrian, just punch him. >> i didn't want to leave the impression that adrian was personally -- i think in our last meeting, i told adrian we were going to put the deployment of the station on hold until we had a chance to brief you on all of the processes we use. i wasn't going to -- >> and that's perfect. we had talked about that. and i think our city attorney addressed us, what sort of was the process. that was perfect. because as we heard, there was a lot of still public feedback to here. so that's great.

so since we have you up here, then there is another -- there is the question of that station. it is approved. it will be going in at some point. and the second question is: people are asking for us to approve or disapprove every single station, which we don't do because the program is rolling out. and so individual stations don't come to us. in your opinion, do you think that would make it easier and faster? >> i think it would be easier to roll out the bike share -- to catch up to the schedule we submittecommitted to the city, f we continue to have the city traffic engineer and not the m.t.a. board approve it. >> excellent. one more question: have we had any bike share user injured while they're docking or undocking. because i use them all of the time. i'm not aware that we've had any bike share user squished by a car while they're docking or

undocking. >> we've had no reports of a user being squished by a car while docking. >> that's sort of the end of my questions. i just want to reiterate my support for the bike share program. i use them all the time. i'm with you. i was not a skeptic of bike share, i loved the idea of it but i didn't think i would ever use it. i'm anxiously awaiting for it to get out to the oceanview, so i can ride to the elementary school where i volunteer, instead of doing something else to get out there. so i think a lot of us are waiting for the expansion of the program because, as we know, the more the city covers, the more riders we're going to have. i think this is -- we've kind of scratched down to a bigger question than just this one bike share station. and that is: do we, as a board, and do we as a city, accept what we all say? as people pointed out, there is a climate

emergency. the board of supervisors is getting ready to declare there is a climate emergency. the mayor has committed san francisco to climate goals that make us carbon neutral by 2050. and we have vision zero that relies heavily on mode shift and calls out climate action goals as well. we're a policy board. we approve these policies. but then we inadvertently occasionally slow things down or the public slows things down by not sort of accepting we have all discussed these things and talked about them and reiterated our support for these goals time and time again. so i just want to say that the last thing i ever want to do as a board member, and i say this all of the time, is not support staff. so i feel we have approved this over-arching goal, and we send staff out there to do the best job they can. and i appreciate the fact that the outreach for

these bike share pods are improving. i think there are some great ideas about mapping it out on either the sidewalk or the pavement to show exactly where it is going to be because i think that helps. a little stencil that says, coming soon, more information, something so people can't miss you knocking on their door, can't throw owe wa away a public notice with the circ cler circus that come in junk mail. but the last thing i want to do is slow down the expansion of this bike share program because it is proven to be so popular. and what we're hearing from the public is more and faster. what we're hearing, is more jump bikes, more for go bikes. and the idea of this being a privatization of the public right-of-way, one could argue is that every single private car parked on the street is a privatization of the

public roadway. and for those of us who haven't owned a car in the city for about 20 years, i feel like i'm due my little space in the curb around the city. because i've never parked a car in your neighborhood ever in my entire time in your city. but i would use a bike share pod, and park it in other places where i've never done a car. i appreciate all of the work you put into this. this was a great discussion. i'm glad we had it. i really hope this is the last time we have to discuss sort of station by station, or whether we support this program or whether this program is a good thing for san francisco because it is a good thing. >> chairman: director torrez. and you see you didn't want to have this discussion last week? >> and now i glad we $. it is importandid.i do believe i do drive an electric car, and thank god it fits in my garage because i can never find parking,

because -- i still believe that people who drive cars ought to have an opportunity to park their car, but i believe a balance is important. >> i want to say i'm 100% supportive, and i think we need to meet our climate goals, and affordable housing for all of the same reasons. we have -- there are processes and reasons why they exist. i don't want to make this more of a process. i don't want these bike share stations coming to us. one of the challenges is there is not a clear articulation of what the policy exactly is. we decide where a bus zone goes based on street size or street width, and i think the fact we can't easily articulate it, the perception is a private company picked the spots and we just approved them. the question of privatization -- i don't care about the issue -- i think that is a false argument because every

private automobile is privately owned. so that's not an argument for me. but i think the question that we rub up against is this person picked this spot, and do we have any criteria that would unpick that sport, right? is it just because they've decided that the the best place where the network has to be? is there 50 feet difference that would be better or not. that's the big question. because the question i've asked, looking at the 29th street u.p.s. station, because you say, we don't want to see conflicts. if it is a pickup or drop drop-off area, that makes sense. when we talk about experimenting with t.n.c., and pick-up and drop-off zones and all those sorts of things. whatever policy you would create around shared curb space and conflicts you might anticipate. if we were having

conversations about that, i think it would be a little less problematic. i'm not talking about people who genera generally dont want something, but they believe another place may be slightly better. how did we determine this is the best spot? that's my own thing. i think people like going down a check list and saying these are the five criteria and they passed. i think it is easier and cleaner on our part if we say we have these five criteria and that's how we made that choice and that's how we agreed. that's the only thing i would say on that. >> chairman: anything else? >> i have a quick question. thanks for the presentation, it was really informative. what is a typical length of time between kind of the beginning and end of the process you outlined

for when a spot is picked initially. you go through the process you outlined, and it actually gets turned into a bike station. and maybe we can accept the station we were talking about a lot today. >> based on that question, the reality is this actually came up in our preparation for this presentation. the shortest time in two months. i think if everything goes very smoothly. this station is kind of an example of how it can take a lot longer. i think there is an average, but the standard deviation is big. the average is probably four or five months. but the standard deviation is about two months. so anywhere in there. it is a big range. this is intuitive of working in san francisco. different supervisors and different stakeholders. we're trying to be as inclusive as well. >> no. and i appreciate the process and i think it is really important we're

being thoughtful with the neighbors and all of the stakeholderring. i'm very much supportive of the bike sharing network being built out. so i would encourage us to do what we can in terms of kind of following director borden's comments, making sure we're transparent, and efficiently implementing this process so bike share stations can get put in the ground quicker. >> chairman: director e gan? >egan. >> pi i would love to see any data, is it actually reducing the demand for parking? one said they don't own a car. if bike share is part of inducing people to think about living without a car, it does reduce car demand. so i'd love to hear those. i have seen many more electric bikes. it wasn't working before. and it is working now.

i see people all over the place riding them all over places, across the goldengate bridge. they're everywhere. i wonder -- it is interesting to me the demographic if electric bikes are allowing and inviting a kind of person who doesn't think of themselves as a biker to maybe try a different mode because it is just as fast as or faster than sitting in traffic in your own car or taking a lift. any data you can share with us as we proceed in terms of how electric bikes are informing the system would be great. and then we heard safety concerns. i would imagine if a person -- you said 40% are using a bike instead of driving, in the aggregate, that would lead to improved safety outcomes if people are riding bikes instead of driving cars. i wonder, again, it doesn't me need to be now, but if you can bring the stories of what is actually happening and playing on the ground, and we would love to hear those.

>> chairman: okay. anything else. this is an explanation item, where we have gone through what it is you're doing at outreach. i think adrian and tom, you've received some feetback of maybe things you could look at for the future so no one can say they didn't know about this. as far as action, there is no action for us to take, and the projects have already been approved and they will proceed. with that, this item is closed. thank you everybody for coming down who came down on this one. we will move to item 12. >> the discussion on light rail procurement to upgrades. >> my new best friend on the staff. >> i thought i was your old best friend. >> there you go. >> good afternoon. >> you can get everywhere

by sucking up. >> julie kershbalm. i'm here to talk about the procurement. as we discussed when i was here last fall, i believe it was my first presentation in this role, we are working very hard to expedite the brada replacement. most recently, we've talked about the financing aspects of that work. what i'm here to talk about today is some key next steps where we're taking the lessons learned that we've gotten from the expansion vehicles that we've already purchased, and using those to inform the next phase of vehicles. so we're -- if you look at the lifetime of this contract, we're about a quarter of the way through, so we really have an opportunity to learn from these first 68 cars and to build an even more fantastic car for the

future. we continue to make good progress on the expansion vehicles. we have 48 that are available for service. with somwe're seeing on a typicl day between 25 and 35 of these vehicles out in service. we have all of our operators familiarized on the vehicles, which is a huge milestone, and it is contributing to us being able to pick up the mileage on these vehicles. [please stand by]

>> the new vehicles are lighter, which makes for a quieter ride for both passengers and our neighborhoods. the interior design is much more spacious and designed to enhance customer flow. we don't have a perfect apples to apples comparison because we dont don't have automatic counters on the bradas. we have updated passenger information, really clear information about the next stop, as well as these vehicles are delivering on

our goal of having them be very easy to maintain. a lot of the systems can swap out, so without having to slow down the use of a train, we can take a broken component, work on it on a work bench, and then put it back into a vehicle when it is repaired.

so the yellow line is seaman's commitment to us, and we're working with them month by month on some of the key issues that we're seeing, and making sure that they're addressed. we will also be starting with our march reports, will be including the l.r.v. for the breakdowns in our pegged reports as it is one of the key items in our se strategic plan. [please stand b

you can see the ebbs and flows of that graph as we worked out some of the new kinks related to the vehicles. just as a second data point, this is another pro curement,