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,

reliability program they worked on with calgary, as they rammed up the vehicles they saw performance in the 5 to 10,000 mean distance between failure range and then escalated up to the performance goals. as we look to the next vehicle, the phase two, we collected information from a lot of different sources. we had a lot of information that came in organically, just people's experiences on the vehicles through 311, twitter, and letters. we also solicited input through a survey from our operators, we got ongoing feedback from our mechanics, and then most recently, to really make sure that we had kind of an objective set of input as we considered design changes, especially to the interior of the vehicles, we conducted an intercept survey of the customers so we weren't just hearing from people happy about

the vehicle, not just hearing from people upset, but more of a random sampling and complicated that with two focus groups. i'm incredibly grateful to our communications group for putting that survey together. we surveyed over 300 people, two focus groups on the trains. lower portion of the 3rd street is closed right now, so we took two groups of people, both focus groups included seniors and people with disabilities, one was conducted in english, one was conducted in cantonese, and we were getting more nuanced feedback. in may we will be bringing more formally a request for change orders to the phase two vehicles, but i wanted to give you a sense of the three categories of changes we are considering. the first is things that will help the operators in the

vehicles. we've gotten some very simple and actionable feedback. so, for example, the driver panel right now, there's a lot of buttons that open different doors, for example, and they are all the same color. and we got the feedback. could the door that we used to open the front door for customers using the wheelchair ramps on the rail system, could we make that blue so when i just have to open the front door i can quickly spot that button. great idea. we are definitely going to be incorporating that. the maintenance side, also looking at ideas that will make the vehicles easier to maintain, so one example is right now there is not a very easy way to grip the wheels when we want to true them, to round them out when they flattened out. so, we are working with siemens that has three prongs in it, to more easily grab it to do the

wheel trueing. the passenger changes as i said were informed not only by what we heard through 311 and through twitter, but also through the passenger and surveys and the focus groups. and the first thing we looked at was just generally how satisfied folks were with the vehicles. and this was i think really exciting to see the customer feedback very much matched our experiences with the trains, in fact, folks that were very satisfied outpaced people that were very dissatisfied by 4-1. some of the areas that we really had kind of strong positive feedback really spoke back to the key features we were trying to design into the trains. plenty of place to stand, the train is attractive, trains are easy to enter and exit and they are quiet.

so, the survey reinforced that design features we intended really did translate. there were also some places where the survey identified room for improvement, and that primarily had to do with the seat design and the interior of the vehicles, but i will point out that even here we saw more than 50% of the people were satisfied with the current seating configuration, but about a third disagree with the current design of the seats. the focus group feedback allowed us to drill down further and understand some of the input that we were getting. some of the feedback that we heard mirrored what we heard from this board, including seats being uncomfortable and slippery, the need for more seat definition. we also got some requests for more handles and also multiple

lengths so that somebody very tall could have a hand hold and somebody very short. we did also hear from people who were in the focus group who use wheelchairs but they did really appreciate the vehicle was easy to get into, that it was more spacious and easier to navigate in a wheelchair than our current vehicles. when we drilled down further to some of the feedback from customers with disabilities and some of our shorter customers who participated in the focus group, again still very strong overwhelming satisfaction with the vehicles, really mirroring what we were hearing from everyone, but lower satisfaction with the seat height and the overall seat design.

so, what we are hear today then to get feedback on is how we have taken all of that feedback and basically created three categories that we need board input. the first is additional hand holds to make sure the open space we have were utilizing as effectively as possible. second is the seating type and the third is the seating layout, perhaps the most complex. so, the first category is on the additional handhelds. what we are recommending is more handhelds and also multi-length handheld, shown at the front edge of the photo on the right. it's something that bart has been using, fairly successful use of these kind of multi-height hand straps.

the second thing we would like feedback on is potential archway that we could put over the top of the train. there will be a tradeoff, we estimate that folks 6'4" and under will clear that archway. but taller folks will not. incidentally, the passenger -- the passenger -- >> tom maguire made a face back there. >> the -- >> wait 'til public comment, tom. [laughter] >> the passenger messenging find is lower than this arch, so it's not the only place that we ask tall people to duck on the train. but it is -- it will be a tradeoff. the second thing we are bringing you for consideration is three

different seat types. the current seat design we have is a bench design, and the second seat option b is more closer to what we have on the busses, so, kind of a more individualized seat and the third type mirrors most closely what we have on the current. the seats themselves, we do estimate that we'll lose about one official seat per quarter of the train but that's really debateable. we are seeing on the benches, people spreading out intentionally or in the intentionally and not realizing the full potential of the benching. the one place we have gotten positive feedback from the current seat design, parents, like scoop up myself and two

kids and we can scoop into a smaller area than we might otherwise be able to do. and then the third area for feedback has to do with the seat layout, and as i said, this has some of the biggest tradeoffs, both cost implications as well as the schedule. as a baseline change, what we are recommending is that we do lower three-quarters of the seats about two inches. that would put them similar to the height of the bradas. the seats currently are higher than the bradas because they match the section where we keep the train control box and we are recommending that we don't redesign that section of the train because it would be a substantial redesign of the vehicle. that's the train control box is sort of a fixed dimension that

we don't have another obvious good place to move it. one kind of additional advocacy for the bench seating design, although it does raise concerns for some people, one benefit, nobody is riding backwards. that's something that the forward-facing seats, forward some of the time but backwards other times. so, some of the benefits of just dropping the seat, you know, we do retaken the aisle width, preserve the current number of seats, it does not have a scheduled impact, but it does not provide any seating variety, does not address where the people are looking for more forward-facing seats and one of the nicer things, they come with a stanchion built-in so you don't have the increasing in handholds. the second thing we looked at was in addition to lowering the seat bench, we also looked at an

option where we would convert a small section of the vehicle to forward-facing seats. this would allow, for example, somebody who has a disability and really can't stabilize themselves on a bench seat to have a forward-facing seat but it leaves the majority of the seat design intact. this also, you know, retains the wide aisle. it does start to introduce some seating variety. it would reduce seats to about four fewer, but it meets the accelerated schedule and where we have the seats we would also then have the handholds. the second option that we looked at builds on that kind of smaller section of forward-facing seats and extends forward-facing seats to the whole side of the vehicle, except where we would have space for people who use wheelchairs.

this is -- retains again the aisle width, it actually increases the aisle width, you don't have the people's legs to compete with. it provides more seating variety, meets the schedule, adds a lot of handholds. reduces the seats, optimal seating of the bench seat by 12 seats or fewer. and then the last thing that we looked at was a kind of a combination, where we kept the bench seating on one side, and then looked at double transverse seating. the nice thing about this design is that it does preserve the current number of seats but it is a significant redesign of the car body. the seats right now cantilever

from the car body. it's very easy for us to clean under the seats right now because they are, they -- they are not connected to the ground, but this design would require up to seven months of design and engineering work to carry the additional weight. it would -- it would give us back to kind of the contract schedule, not necessarily the accelerated schedule. and there would be costs associated with it. so, this is just a summary chart to potentially guide our discussion. and ultimately this comes down to what i think is, it's a somewhat subjective decision, and that's why i included this survey at the bottom here, we

asked two questions. being able to fit more standing in each train is more important than seating. 50% of the people say i agree with that, and then we asked the same group of people, you know, is seating more important than the train's overall capacity, and 50% of the people absolutely agreed with that. so, what i think in all these choices what we tried to do is consider things we thought went back and preserved the performance goals, how does the space flow, get in and out of the vehicle, and a balancing act of seats versus standing spaces and some kind of time tradeoffs built in. in terms of our next steps, in addition to this conversation, i'm also going to be sharing this presentation with our

citizens advisory committee with their feedback. we'll begin this month and work through april to negotiate these change orders and pricing with siemens. bringing it back to you for final change order approval in may. the final expansion vehicles will arrive this summer and then our goal is to get the first replacement vehicle, this is december, i think we are pushing more for october if not, if not sooner with ultimately the last vehicle being replaced. oh, no, sorry, the december date is solid, it's the october of 2025 when we see the last brada off into the sunset. so, that's my presentation. i appreciate your attention and happy to answer any questions you have. we have very interested to hear your comments. >> public comment on this item?

given us the options clearly and not making a final decision today. so, if we can call public comment. >> edward, followed by katherine howard, and then greg miller, the first three speakers. >> mr. mason, welcome back. >> hopefully the new seats will be designed to the military standard for considering the passenger comfort. existing seats are unacceptable, they are too hard to sit on. there's no drain holes for water as i experienced today with a puddle of water on a seat. passengers currently avoid sitting as closely as they can on the bench seating. on the grate at the park, you go up the hill, you are really going sideways and if you have

back support problems, that's an issue right there. we are focussing on capacity and we are i think this whole thing is really treating the passengers as cattle on this. we are expanding the fleet and my question is, what is the eventual design if senate bill 50 is approved where we are going to increase the capacity of san francisco's population. this is what it really boils down to. you are really not considering the customers capacity here. also, we talk about forward-riding. well, once you get to embarcadero station that becomes backwards riding, keep that in mind in any discussion that goes on. and the development impacts of san francisco, we are developing south of market area, but the way i'm reading this, we are really talking about the expansion of housing in the sunset district and that.

so, that's really what i think is the design behind it. you are already going to have, from 151 cars, another 100 cars going, and operating. so, there's your excess capacity. so why are we sacrificing individual comfort that you expect? and, what's going to be the future of transportation in san francisco because you've got so many competing with rideshare and everything else, you are really -- >> thank you, mr. mason. >> decreasing the ability. >> kathryn howard, greg miller, miss krup. the last person to turn in a speaker card. >> kathryn howard. first of all, specific seats should be lowered two inches. use the model of the seating options, option three is the best of a bad group of choices. where is option 4, 4 across? your survey a choice between seating and people being able to get on the train. of course, people who have to

get to work want to be able to get on the train and they'll accept just about anything. is this your goal, the worst experience possible as long as people can get somewhere? i live at the end of the nju line. i see people at the stop taking uber and lyft, at the end of the line where they could get a seat. could it be that taking muni is such a bad experience people will pay more not to do it? eliminating seating is adding to that feeling. it discourages people so is that soon only the desperate will ride public transit. you will have to subsidize it more and more and some day public transit will become infeasible and it will go away. instead of what is sometimes termed and i had the term before ed used it, a cattle car mentality, i suggest thinking more about how to make the street cars more comfortable

to ride in, and to attract everyone, not just those who have no other choice. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> greg miller, followed by robin krup. >> hello. greg miller. i'm 70 years old, 5'7", and regard myself as relatively fit and agile for my age. with regard to the seating, i find it very uncomfortable. given the height and slickness of the seats and their orientation relative to the path of travel and acceleration, i find i cannot maintain a comfortable position, i can barely get my feet on the ground to get steady at times. i often end the ride with a distinct pain in my back. i wonder what it's going to be like when i'm 80 or 85, i don't drive, i would like to take muni, and not uber. with regard to getting a seat,

that can be a problem. if i'm returning to the sunset from downtown after about 3:30 in the afternoon, i find i can't get a seat about half the time. and then i'm going to have to stand for maybe 30 minutes to an hour, depending upon how slow the travel is to get home. finally, i'm worried about the wide aisle design and the lack of effective handholds and not sure the presentation with the overhead bar will help people who are relatively short. a few weeks ago standing on one of the new trains in the center of the aisle, because he could not get close to the age, a sudden deceleration and i lost that handhold. i skidded back on my heels, flailing my arms and narrowly avoided falling and pulling down other passengers at the same time. i think the wide aisles present a real risk to passengers and financial exposure to our city. i would encourage lowering the seats, certainly. testing out different handhold

techniques, they all won't work, and i encourage option three or something like that that would both give more seats and also narrow that wide center section, which i think is going to be a risk for people. >> thank you for coming down and sharing that with us. >> robin krup. >> welcome, thank you for coming. >> hi, everyone. i came before you last july and testified. i want to repeat what i said last july. took one ride on the new cars and got injured because i cannot ride on a bench going sideways. my pelvis, back and neck went out, i had to go for my chiropractor, that was it for riding the new trains. then i did my own survey. surveyed 100 people approximately in muni stations and half of them said they were fine with the new trains and i said is that sitting and standing, and they said yes. so, you have 50% able-bodied population i found that could

hang upside down if you needed to. they are fine with the trains and i used to be like that, too, when i was healthy. the other 50% said no, this is a problem, and that's why with we are up here. we have not solved the problems with the other 50%. the first statement out of some people's mind, muni took out half the seats. that's a group of people that do not want to stand, they want to sit down. the other basic half was unhappy with the sliding on the benches or we want the transfer seats. so i need to tell you, that's the only kind of seat i can ride. i cannot ride any other seat. only transfers for my back. i need for back support. i looked at the options. none of the three options will work for me. the first one, the cars are -- the transfer seats are in the back. i can't negotiate from the front car door where i board and i thought that train takes off while i'm walking or standing i get injured. so i need to get immediately to a transfer seat as a disabled

person from the front door. eight is too small, for the volume of people that want to sit down and be comfortable, so i want us to think about the transferred seats again, when i look at a solid car, over 20 seats. the driver helps me, he says can somebody get up for this person and somebody usually does because there are over 20 people in the car. if you have only eight maximum i may not be able to ride, and i'm very concerned about that. >> thank you very much for your time. >> herbert wiener, followed by rachel height. those are the last two speakers. >> if anybody else wants to speak on this item, turn in a card. otherwise miss height will be the last speaker. >> herbert wiener, i'm an 80-year-old passenger.

now, i rode the new l.r.v. and one problem i have with it is the seating, it is uncomfortable, and i'm thinking of people with back problems, and this is -- this is not considerate of that. also, there should be some forward-facing seats. and what i'm wondering about, if the car has to come to a sudden stop and you are sitting, you know, on the side, are people going to be colliding with each other? that's the other consideration. also, i'm concerned about the exterior of the l.r.v. what is -- is it made out of metal, made out of plastic? it doesn't seem to be as durable as the brata. so, vr many good things about it, but these are questions that have to be considered and you really have to take seniors and the disabled into consideration.

they constitute at least 20% of ridership, and they have been consistently neglected by this board. the bicyclists carry more clout as seniors and disabled and this is disgraceful. because seniors and the disabled are the most vulnerable of our population. >> thank you, mr. wiener. >> good afternoon, chair, directors, executive director of san francisco transit riders. we are the city's reader-based advocate for public transit. as an organization, i think a lot of you know this. we do a lot of talking to transit riders, we don't just listen to twitter. and what i want to say is the survey results today are very much in line with what we are hearing. we know people like the new train, they like the way they look, they like the new and improved on board announcements and signage, and just generally

they are pretty cool. but i -- what a lot of people said today and what we are hearing is that the seats are absolutely terrible. we are excited to hear muni is moving forward so we are super supportive of that, with the two-inch reduction. we don't have an opinion on how you do the seating configuration but are supportive of some type of divot. i'm a daily rider, so i like the bus style seating because it's very comfortable on muni. i want to quickly thank director kirchbaum and her team, and the focus group with cantonese and people, seniors and people with disabilities that's awesome, and my organization as well. thank everyone, especially the transit team, for actually listening to riders, and considering making changes that are going to improve the experience for riding muni. thank you. >> ok.

i'll close public comment. julie, come back up. directors, any specific questions? procedurally, we are not making a decision today. a final recommendation will be coming back to us, so today is the day to provide input, if you have it.

>> so we're really looking for some guidance today so that we can negotiate the final arrangement with the contractor and come back to you for authorization the end of may. we're looking for feedback today and soon thereafter. not at the end of may. >> so you can put director torez down for the seating needs to be reformed and needs to be lowered and we need to deal with the sliding forward and backward that the current horizontal or current vertical non-dented seats pose. anything else? >> i would be happy to serve on any subcommittee to work with the contractors directly. >> look at that. >> pro bono, of course.

[laughter] >> anyone else? we're just going to go around the horn then. >> i think that of the options, i mean, option one was the most appealing. i do understand and i want to figure out how he can deal better with seniors and people with disabilities who are having challenges. i mean, i know that at peak hours, when the trains are crowded, people really just want to get on them. that's the number one challenge. i see it, whether it's on bart, people don't want to sit. they want to stand close to the doors. now you've literally have a situation on the trains where people are standing like sardineses and the they will stand in their face because they're just trying to get on the train. so, as much as i would like to figure out how we can accommodate more seating and maybe in the longer terms, since

we have trains coming as late as 2025, maybe we can add back more seats on some of those ladder trains. right now, we're having massive crowding particularly at peak rush hours and people are literally squeezing to get on the trains. having more is standing room available and wider aisles makes a lot of sense. and just because the behavior is even when the seats are empty, people are just choosing to stand as opposed to sit in a seat because they don't want not get out of the seat when the train is crowded, right. lowering the seat height of course, i'm 100% supportive of because i don't reach the floor. obviously that means i also slide around. so either options two or three with the seats, i'm not really -- i personally think

anesthetically the option b looks better than c. i don't really have a -- >> so your top two would be two or three? >> option one but the seats, there was a, b and c. seat for a, b or c and option 1. i prefer seats in b but i'm fine with b or c. which is more secure and people sliding? situations with quick stops on buses and obviously more hand-holds. the over arching once are top for me and i typically can't get the high ones. the strap once are the ones i can typically reach and because on a crowded bus, people are reaching across each other so straps of differing heights makes the most sense. >> thank you. thank you. good presentation. it's quite a challenging task to try and make these street cars work for everybody at all times

of the day. i think the lowering of the benching ibenches is a great id. i think as far as the seating type, actually i prefer c because i feel like with b, people put trash behind those seats when they are higher than the edge of the window. i think for the people who are cleaning our cars at night, c will be easier. we do need some different ot therdivot to keeppeople from sl. i wonder if that transverse seating should be blue to indicate it should be given up for people who need that seating. that's the only input i have on the seating. i don't know which option -- i of course want to go with the option that continues to meet our excession rated schedule, that's the only input i have for that and in addition to the fact we need some forward-facing seating for people who do have back problems that prevent them from riding sideways. other than that, that's my only

input. good work. we look forward to you making everybody happy. [laughter] >> thank you. >> one of the things i think about when we look at this is out until 2025, it's just that that is six years from now. how quickly the world is changing. are we just thinking about how we're future proofing the system as much as we can knowing that the demand is going to look different for whatever reason in 2025. i make that as a general comment how we are protecting against future change. it's a game of maximizing different factors, right. and so, when i get on the train, i just want a seat. for me, maximizing the number of seats would be one principle to keep in mind. there's different comfort of seats and it's kind of like, a seat is better than no seat i think. a second one would be i agree with dr. borden, it's so crowded

at the peak period. people are just jamming each other so just more standing space. you see it with the older buses where you have two and two and just a tiny little alley and people don't know if you can have one person or two people. it's just so packed. i do think also, maximizing standing spaces is another core principle. but i think there are options. >> we may have surveyed her. [laughter] >> twice. they maximize standing and seating. the other thing is i agree with the director brinkman we do want to delay. no one wants a delay. we want to hit the schedule and minimize cost. we can all agree. a general principle. we want to carry ford. i would just think that you should make this decision not us in terms of what is the configuration but we should giving you high-level guidance in terms of the goals we should

achieve in the final design. >> not to refute everything, i do just want to point out i appreciate that you included people with disabilities and focus groups. it's so important because those folks have more particular needs that aren't as flexible as other riders. i think it's a really good factor. to the folks who really wanted smaller aisles, that is a problem for some people with disabilities because obviously for me, in a wheelchair, if it's a narrow aisle, people won't move into the aisle and i can't even get on a train if it's crowded. the more standing room in the middle actually that pro voids better access for wheelchair users. as far as the options go, i agree with the majority of the folks who have spoken. options 1 and 2 preserving the schedule and offering some seat options facing ford for those who need it that would be my preference. and i think yeah, cost

considerations obviously is going to keep things under control and on schedule. that's my -- thank you so much for doing this. >> you are not going to make everyone happy. i will tell you that. it's a question of, you know, how unhappy and where can we draw the compromise. the main feedback you are hearing is the current configuration is not widely popular. everything else about the train is. so let's focus on the positive for a moment. they're quieter, they seem to break down less. they have better communication systems, it's a smoother ride and there's a lot of good going on here. and so, people are excited about the new trains and i'm glad we're bringing them online. but the one consistent source of negative feedback is the seats. so let me give you. >> mikaela: my view on that. if it's clear we need a change. lowering the seating, you are getting unanimous support for that. as far as the overhead or the

hand-held, i think i'm hearing pretty consistent support for that. the reality is if you have a wide aisles but not the ability for three people to stand across, you've lost tractor-trailer capacity benefit of the wide aisle. so the arches and maybe even hang-downs from the center of the train to accommodate that person in the middle of the group could be something that you could look at. but certainly the arches to me are something that make sense. and so we come to the seats. this is where, you know, it's interesting. you understand the pressure we're getting too. capacity is important but safety and comfort matter too. if we're trying to design a system that will make it attractive for people to ride, we can't simply focus on

capacity. my personal view is that the alignment that we went to most recently with the breed of cars with two across and four backwards and one on the side was what i've seen the best balance of safety and comfort with capacity. i think that's probably most well struck by option c2 or 3 here. my preference for for 3. at the least we have to have option 2. i don't know if it's possible to have a mixture within the trains and i suspect it's cost prohibitive to have different designs train to train. >> it is more expensive. >> yeah, ok. so not cost prohibitive but more expensive. if we were to go to option 3, the delay is seven months. >> up to seven months? >> up to seven months with the first roll out and the roll out after that would continue as planned over the course of several years. >> you would still shave the 18 months off at the end.

>> you know, i mean, we're hearing people say that the current seating alignment without forward and backward seating is unsafe and leads to injuries and is not hospitable for a large number of our riders. we can't ignore that. we need to change. i personally favor 3. but i think 2 at the least gets us some of that and i wouldn't mind looking at whether there's something akin to the breed of style with the 2 and 3 or something that is a hybrid of two and three but to be clear, again, i just think we have a safety and a comfort issues and those are valid issues for our rider base. i don't think the current configuration is addressing them and we need a change. my preference would be c3 of the current options and i've tried to give you broader concepts so if you can look at different

options. if you want to look at different options you can. >> >> the design implications of two and one like the most recent design would mirror and be no more extensive than option three. we could secretary manufacture t -- ask the manufactureto do e. >> i might favor doing that and talking to our ridersy unions and interesting parties to see what those options look like. you've talked about capacity elimination but if you factor these things together, the addition of the arch and the hand held in the middle should increase capacity. is that correct?

we try to preserve as many seats as we can sort of along the lines of design that we've talked about. i get that the goal here is to really address this during crunch time but again, these are trains people are riding often. we need to address the comfort and safety issues clearly. that's loud and clear. >> all the discussion of sliding on the seats reminds us that we need to minimize the stopping and starting and our transit effectiveness work we're doing towards that helps. as the director pointed out, it's when the train is breaking or accelerating that people get that uncomfortable sliding action. anything we can do to get these trains moving more smoothly and more quickly only stopping to pick up and drop off passengers never getting stuck at a signal and never getting stuck behind a

car in the train's right-of-way that will help so much and it's going to main people won't be sliding if they're on the side way seat and people won't do this except when they're coming to a stop. we'll just keep this in mind and i'll remind everybody of this next time we're talking about a transit priority signal or a red transit lane for our street cars. thank you. >> the train doesn't turn the way the buses do. the train goes laterally. the most comfortable season position is forwards or backwards. that's just the reality of it. it's the beauty of train riding. there's not a lot of heavy turning and it makes the train such an attractive thing. so here, i think we went to a seating style that doesn't really work with the way the train operates. we're fixing that. you've got my view on how we make our riders comfortable. >> our next challenge is the

seating. make it more comfortable. and number two, i know you can't change this and thank you again to staff for all the hard work you all put into this. one thing i keep on getting from my staff, who commute from here to oakland, is backpacks. why can't people be courteous to remove the backpack once they get on a train. it might make a little more space for people and it becomes less crowded. it's si a simple courtesy. i know you can't do anything about it. >> >> we have signage on the new train. >> can i make one more comment. when i think about the new york city subway, we have a lot of bench seats situations and that

is a fast-moving train. it works ok. they have a little but it looks to be a much more comfortable design than contemplated in either b and c in terms if there's a scenario where the family you talk about needs to spread across multiple seats. are these the only options because i agree the current benches are uncomfortable. are we limit today this universe or are there other opportunities that allow a maximum use of the increased comfort? >> we're not -- we're only limited by time and research. we can certainly look at how new york is handling their trains. >> is there anymore feedback? not that you wanted it in the first place? >> we're good. >> you have cross purposes here. that's the difficulty of this assignment. i get it.

i think we've all tried to give you our views and i appreciate your willingness to look at the additional option of how the two and one. >> we appreciate it. it's been very helpful discussion. >> ok. >> one that you can tell the public has a great deal of interest in. more outreach would be wonderful. that was just a discussion item. we will move on to item 13. >> awarding contract 1306 improvement project to sunset boulevard to ntk construction for capital improvements along the corridor between the zoo and sunset boulevard and not to exceed $29,000,000.39357 in 600 days. and you are making environmental reviews findings. >> so this will help us set the bet. do people care about the train seat or $29 million contract? i have my bets. please. >> good afternoon.

so i'm amy lam, the project manager for this project from cpnc. i'm here for your approval to award the contract improvement project to sunset boulevard to ntk construction company. so i just want to give you a general overview for this project. we will put also we pace our track and then overhead contract system and p.u.c. will join the project to repave the sewer and water. of course, the intent of the project is to improve the chances, performance and make it more safer and accessible to the pedestrian and also we replace our city over 100 years. the limit of the work is from

sunset boulevard to the zoo. that is we're still in design and we're working transit for all this consider dinnation. my plan is up to today, i will work with the contractor. what is the game plan? what is the baseline construction and then i'm very fortunate, i have a good team. we will continuous low update our set of community. and our supervisor. >> thank you, very much. are there any questions on the presentation? seeing none. we'll open it up for public comment. is there any public comment? >> just one person. >> hello. welcome. podium is all yours. >> eileen, coalition for san

francisco neighborhoods here on my own behalf. i'm requesting a 90 day continuance for this item. i have been advocating for three modifications for contract 1306 replacing concrete boarding islands with modular boarding islands for the out bound stops, retain the inbound clear zones and re-evaluating the need for transit-only lanes. both the mta and the fire department have openly acknowledged that concrete boarding island slow down emergency response. rank-and-file firefighters have also stated they slow down when they approach the boarding islands and they court the median and they cross the median to give the boarding i'll more clearance by crossing the median they place themselves at risk. and improving pedestrians safety should not be at the expensive emergency response. if it's forward looking concrete boarding islands should be re-evaluated.

and in terms of vision zero and ada compliance, modular boarding islands are com rable to concrete boarding islands. in terms of cost performance, modular boarding items are $50,000 compared to $150,000 for concrete. photo 1, on the overhead is a boarding island in oakland. photo number 2 is a boarding platform in downtown los angeles. i took this photograph myself. i showed it this morning at the -- modular boarding island would be a transition to hi-tech solutions. i believe the mta should proactively fund development of hi-tech alternatives to concrete boarding islands that way we would not have to do trade offs between pedestrian safety and emergency response. >> thank you. any other public comments on

this item? seeing none. ok mr. winier. >> herbert winier. i want to plead that you not have this idea with feet and concrete about the boarding island. i think overhead traffic lights, you know, would ensure safety. and i think it's very important that these boarding islands not endangerer the life of people who are in critical need. i mean, seconds count sometimes in saving the life of a person in mortal danger. and you don't want to place a person at extreme mortal risk. and these islands do this. i think there must be a better solution for this. certainly the mta planner should really explore this.

they're expensive and the money for the boarding islands can be used for other purposes. possibly to add more coaches on the l line. which i think have remaine remae same. the service hasn't improved, the only thing we have are boarding islands. really nothing to show for it. thank you. >> seeing no further public comments. we'll close public comment. does anyone have any questions or comments for director riskin or staff? >> just one quick comment. i so appreciate and i know a lot of people in the city do, when we do these big projects we touch all the infrastructure in the street. i know it's something former mayor lee really supported doing the water, the sewer. when we explain to people, for example, on van ness, that the transit portion of the project has not even started yet, people are kind of amazed the infrastructure work under the

street can take so long and i don't want to throw our fellow agencies under the bus by any means -- made a joke there, but if we could just rebehind people the important work, it's not just transit, it's actually sewer, water, infrastructure and it's going to be a really good project and the safety improvements and travel time provements and the infrastructure improvements will be much appreciated. thank you. >> thank you so much. fortunately, we know how to build a sewer and water so i really understand how they build the utility work. i will explain it to the public and share what is the status of that work. >> this project is going to make it safer for people to ride. it's going to be safer for pedestrians and it's going to be more attractive for people to ride. this absolutely serves our transit needs as well as our vision zero goals. i fully support the project. this action item is to do with the contract. how many bids did you receive?

>> total five. >> right. >> this is the lowest qualifying bid of five? >> yes. >> so this is a robust outreach and contracting process and your comfortable that this is the best bid that will meet the requirements of that bid? >> yes. >> very good. >> is there a motion on this item? >> so moved. >> second. >> second. >> all those in favor please say aye. >> aye. >> any opposed. ok. good luck. >> thank you. >> outreach with that community. they like that. [laughter] >> item 14, whether to invoke the attorney client privilege and conduct a closed session. >> motion. >> motion. >> second. >> all in favor please say aye. >> aye. >> they discussed the city

attorney and the board voted to settle the case. 16 appropriate to disclose or not disclose the position discussed. >> motion to not disclose. >> is there a second. >> all those if favor say aye. >> aye. >> my opposed. that passes. we are adjourned. thank you, very much, everyone.