about it. isn't there any sensors? because our old trains had sensors, and i know sometimes when they were packed trains, they had a hard time closing because people were standing two close to them too close to them. it seems like it is old technology, but it works. having the doors have sensors, so if they sense anything, they won't close. >> that's a good question, and there are sensors on these doors. i think one of the things that is important to remember about these systems is that even in the presence of sensors -- and there are sensors, and i can describe them in more detail to you -- no one system, whether it is sensors or anything else in terms of technology on the car, carries all of the responsibility for safety. there are three key elements necessary for a safe operation, and they are largely: the vehicle

technology, which is obviously a key piece; the operation's staff and the operators: anoperators; and alse passenger behavior. the reason i say that is because there is -- as i mentioned with all of the standards, it's practically an i impossibility to eliminate completely a risk of things happening. >> are there sensors all the way down -- >> so there are sensors in these doors. there are two levels of sensors. there is a sensitive edge on the doorway, and that's basically a sensor which if you hit it, it creates an electrical contact -- >> right. >> and there is also an overcurrent protection, so basically if the door encounters any obstruction over the way, the door overcurrent sensors basically says i've got an obstruction and reverses operation. and when a door is moving

and it hits somebody, that you want it to stop and reverse open. and that is present in the doors on the san francisco cars. >> so what happened to a lot of these doors? because i also have heard people say that it -- you know, it has closed on their backpack or something, and this isn't just a couple of isolated cases. so could you explain what happened? >> so -- a good question. the upta standards -- and, again, the upta standard is put there to address the most likely scenarios. it makes an allowance for objects that are smaller than a certain width because they realize two things: it is very difficult to reliably and repeatedly sense something that is too narrow or two small. too small -- >> like a hand? >> the standard is quite clear. it basically asks for

recognition of an object that is three inches wide and a quarter inch thick, or a bar that is three-eighths-of-an-inch wide in the closing process, and basically should react to it as the door is moving, and should react to that. and those tests are done accordance to the upta standards. and the doors on the car passed that. a backpack strap, for example, would not be detected because it wouldn't -- >> what about a child's hand? >> a child's hand put between the two doors, if it is broader than the quarter inch, and less than the three inches, would be detected and the doors would reverse. >> all right. thank you. >> chairman: maybe i can just jump in. does seaman's manufacture the door? or do you get it from another company? >> we contract that out to a third-party company that manufactures the doors.

>> chairman: and that company is what company? >> a company called ultimate. >> chairman: and they are located where? >> they are located in a couple of different countries. the key herkts fo headquarters r the design is in australia. and they have a facility here in heyward, california, as well. >> chairman: do you know what other transit properties use doors that they manufacture? >> yes. there is a long list of another major transit authorities, both in north america and also in -- across the world. i can provide that to you. i don't have it with me at the moment. >> chairman: and perhaps this is not a question for you, but do you know whether the cpuc, the california public utilities commission, independently tests and verifies, or do they rely on the testing and verification that is provided to them by the m.t.a.? >> i'll defer that question to julie. i will say during the testing processes and the

certification, the cpuc was very much involved. >> i think that's how i would describe it as well. they are invited to, and often attend, many of the tests that we conduct. and then they also review all of the documentation to confirm that the safety tests were completed. >> chairman: thank you. commissioner haney. >> thank you, chair peskin. i think probably my questions are more more for the m.t.a. representative. obviously we can't have these kind of questions around safety with regards to our trains. anyone who saw the incident that took place, it was absolutely shocking and horrific and unacceptable that we would put our residents and passengers in this kind of situation. i don't remember or recall having any situation like this with the prior trains.

it seems to me there are a lot of issues, and sometimes every time people board, of kind of being in some way stuck between the doors and they open up and they don't, as i recall, ever have shut on somebody and dragged them along. so this sa very is a very, very serious concern, and thank god this particular person survived. it was awful that she was injured in the way that she was. there are a couple of questions i have about that. it seems like there are a number of changes that we're going to make with regard to improvements to address some of these safety questions. are we going to continue to have trains that are out there right now that people are using that don't have these improvements around the doors and the brakes? and can you be confident, in light of what we've seen, that people are safe to use these trains, in light of the fact that you

know there needs to be improvements, and yet they haven't been made on all of the trains yet. >> thank you for that question. i think it also harkens back to where i probably should have started with this item, which is that my request to you today would be that you do not take action on this item for exactly the reasons that you raised. we have had a number of questions that have come up in the last two weeks that we need to better understand, that you as decision-makers need to better understand, and certainly that the riding public deserves to understand. so i just wanted to start with that ask, is that we do continue this item, if possible, so that we can follow through on some of these important questions. on the door safety

specifically, after last -- a week ago friday, we've been looking very closely at the doors to try to make sure that we understand all aspects of what's going on here. because we take the safety of every customer extremely seriously. and it is a huge responsibility, and really safety is our primary responsibility. our initial focus was on pursuing an enhancement that was already under way. we had gotten feedback from staff that the doors were different than the brada's. on the brada's, the sensitive edge for the single door is on the car. and on the seaman's, it is on the car body. so they behave a little

bit differently. so we were already pursuing, and had tested on seven of our vehicles, i believe, a second sensitive edge. and that was our focus. but in kind of pursuing that, what we identified is that although the vehicles were passing the upta standards, they weren't, in my opinion, meeting the spirit of the standard or the intent of the standard because in some instances, including initially with my own hand, we were able to replicate somebody's hand getting stuck in the door. and when we -- over the weekend, we tested the vehicles, as well as the manufacturer tested the vehicles. and when we reconvened on monday and basically shared this data with each other, we determined that we needed to do something right away. so what we've done to

ensure that the vehicles continue to remain safe for our costumers in service, is that we have instructed operators to lock the back door of the train so that they can focus on the front door and make insurin making sure the front door is clear before the train moves forward. we have also increased the presence of ambassadors and some staff on the platforms, encouraging costumers to stand behind the yellow line, which is always the safest process, as well as making announcements in the subway. so what we will continue to do until we have a design improvement to make sure that we're not replicate a hand getting stuck in the door is we've closed the back door and are adding additional vigilance to the front door and making sure that

we're monitoring it before the vehicles leave service. >> thank you for that. a couple of things. so do we still have cars that are out there that do not have this second sensor, and that you've been able to replicate this same situation in the doors that can get a hand caught? what i'm concerned about here is i recognize we're doing some things to protect against it to give additional -- you know, people who are looking at it and that sort of thing, but as long as we have cars that are out there that we know can have this same issue, where people get their hands caught, seems to me to be very concerning and problematic. are there cars out there right now that do not have a second sensor and you believe could have the same exact issue that we saw last week? >> i want to clarify we did see this issue with both the double sensor, as

well as the single sensor. we do have vehicles with the single sensor out in the system, but with these added safety measures. we did weigh very heavily that tradeoff between not having the vehicles in service, which would be about a 15 to -- about a 15% reduction in the capacity and would likely mean pretty significant crowding and passups for costumers. so we did weigh that tradeoff with what we pro proposed here. we did, just before this meeting -- i did get confirmation from the cpuc staff that we reviewed this proposal with yesterday, and they also agreed that it was a reasonable and measured approach given the tradeoff in front of us. >> so, um, just the last thing i would say -- i appreciate the path you've taken, but it is still

very concerning to me that we have these cars that are out there that have this known issue. and even with a second sensor, we feel we might not be addressing it fully. so safety has to be our top concern here and our top responsibility. and i know we say, of course, that passengers have a responsibility as well with their behavior, but these kind of things happen in terms of people getting stuck in or around the doors. we cannot have doors that close on them and drag them. it is going to be a regular thing that happens. commissioner brown brought up children, the level of concern around safety has to be at the highest level. in the past, we did not have doors that closed on people and dragged them, and we can't have cars out there that will do that in the future. and i read that the operators also had raised concerns about the trains. and i wonder if that is something that you had heard, and are you working

closely with them to make sure that the things that they're seeing are always escalated in terms of responses? i saw a quote from the director of the union who said that they had been raising these concerns for some time about these trains. >> yes, thank you for that. we have very proactively solicited feedback from both our operators, our supervisors' staff, as well as our mechanics, and have made dozens of changes to the trains based on their feedback. an example would be that when we initially started to share the train with our training department and we were preparing to certify two car trains, one of the concerns that they raised was that the cameras which serve as the mirrors for these vehicles were too small. some of the benefits of having cameras, as opposed

to mirrors, is there is no vertical obstructions. they always stay adjusted. you don't have to worry if you go by a tree that your mirror is going to go out of adjustment. and there is a forward camera, as well as a camera that looks from the rear. so there is enhanced viiveltdvisibility, and there is also a change, and it is something that our operators are getting used to, and not always something we've gotten positive feedback on. but the key feedback we got from the training department is that the monitors were two small. we wanted to make sure that we really took that feedback to heart. so all of the vehicles were adjusted and larger monitors were put in place, and they also had the opportunity for an operator, if they do have a question, they can click on the split camera and

then zoom in to get an even closer view, which is, again, another e enhancement that you wouldn't get from a more traditional mirror. >> chairman: before i call on commissioner mar, there is obviously the one incident that we're all aware of, that was the video that circulated online. how many other incidents relative to the door closing are you aware of? >> i am aware of four. in two of the instances -- in one instance a good samaritan was going to hold the door for a passenger who was moving a little more slowly. the operator observed what had happened and immediately stopped the train and opened the doors. and that's, again, what we look for in this situation.

we also had a second very unfortunate situation where an older customer was dragged by the train. in that instance, it wasn't his hand that got stuck in the door. he actually had a plastic bag of doughnuts with him. and the bag got in the door and then instead of letting go of the bag, unfortunately, this gentleman was dragged. and then we had a third instance in the subway, which a passenger's hand got stuck in the door. i'm aware of those four instances. as i said, we take every instance extremely seriously. and then what has been more concerning to me, in sort of the recent days, in addition to these kind kind d

of intermittent situations, we were able to, in some instances, replicate the issue ourselves, which is why we have taken these additional safety precautions. >> chairman: and these instances happened over what timeframe? when was the first one? >> i believe it was in the fall, but i'll have to get back to you on that. >> chairman: i think it was october of 2018. and were all four of those incidents reported to the california public utilities commission? >> i'm not sure that all of them were reportable. i will have to get back to you on that. >> chairman: were reportable or reported? >> both. i just don't want to speculate if i'm not sure. >> chairman: at the end of this, we're going to give our staff direction to work with you, so i would like that to be answered. what is the threshold for reporting, what was reporting, whether it was

reported timely, and whether the reporting was required. commissioner mar? >> thank you, chair peskin, for leading this discussion on this really -- these really serious issues. thank you, ms. curshbalm for all of your updates, and even your recommendation that the board withhold action on this item today. i do want to say, you know, i think the number of incidences of the doors improperly closing and causing serious safety concerns to riders is a lot more than the four you just mentioned. even my wife just reported to me in the wake of all of the injury from the doors incident, she, several weeks ago, was boarding one of the new trains inbound, and nobody was in front of her. and when the door opened and she started getting on the train, the door

immediately closed and closed on her. she was, fortunately, able to get into the train. but i think -- i believe there are many, many more examples of the -- of these safety concerns with the doors, other than the instances you've highlighter. i just wanted to share my remarks. i don't really have additional questions on these issues, kind of echoing my colleagues on this. i do understand the importance of updating our fleet to improve the reliability of our public transit system. however, i also understand that reliability must start and end with public safety. in my position on this board, you know, i must represent my constituents, including the woman who was gravely injured in the alarming incident, who reportedly is a sunset resident. that this happened at all is inexcusable.

and that we're being asked to expedite purchasing with a -- expedite $62 million to expedite purchasing of these vehicles while serious safety concerns remain is in-defensible. i cannot support the allocation of additional funds for these vehicles until we have concrete answers on the steps being taken to address the existing issues with the seats, the doors, the couplers, the braking systems, until we have clarity on how these issues were missed in the design review and safety testing process session, anes, anduntil we have confidene that these will not be issues going forward. >> chairman: thank you, commissioner mar. before i call on commissioner walton, it is rather mind-boggling to me that we've had these cars for almost three years,

and that there was nine months of testing, and whether it was wheel-flattening or coup icouplers or the doors, that none of this was identified in that nine months. and, yes, you had a press conference this morning, at 8:30 this morning, that you're going to keep the back doors closed, and you're going to have more ambassadors, which is very expensive, but that's six months since the first incident. i mean, it's kind of -- i'm deeply troubled by the fact that we did not grab the bull by the horns when we first figured this out. i guess i needed to say that because i'm not comfortable telling you that, but it is not okay when a major transit property is waiting a half a year over these safety concerns that you were able to replicate by getting your own hand caught in the door. and then i still go back

to the original thing, which is who is going to pay for all of this? is this under warranty? is seaman's going to pay for this? is seaman's going to pay for our additional ambassadors? is seaman's going to pay for the fact we're running single car trains because we can't couple them? are we pursuing any guarantees, warranties? that's my question. >> thank you. we -- our immediate focus is answering these critical and complicated design questions. from there it's going to guide the response to what is covered under warranty, what is the expectation of the car manufacturer, and what is the expectation of the city? it may come out that we don't necessarily agree in all of those questions or

all of those answers. but first and foremost, our focus is to understand the root cause and to get to an improved design. >> chairman: and not to put you on the spot, but do you have any response as to why it took a half a year between the first incidents and the most recent incident to inform the public and close the back doors? these things cost $3.5 million each. you would expect that people would be able to go through both doors? do you have a response as to why the m.t.a. did not make these announcements earlier? >> as i said, we made the change today based on the information and the facts that were in front of us on monday. we have been working, as you know, to enhance the doors over the last several months, including the second sensitive edge. while the second sensitive

edge is not the only solution, we know that we also need to better understand this issue of why we're passing the standard but still having the very concerning and practical problem of a hand getting stuck in the door. i think it would not be accurate to say we've taken those steps over the last six months. there has been quite a bit of attention and work done on the doors in that period. >> chairman: thank you. commissioner walton? >> thank you, chair peskin, and thank you ms. cur ishbalm.shbalm. do we have any update on the woman who's hand got stuck? >> we do not. we wish her the very best, but we do not have any information, nor if we did, do i believe we would be able to share it for

privacy reasons. >> also, obviously we're not going to be able to move forward with approving this allocation at this point. but once we press pause on this, what kind of contractual obligations do we have with seaman's? what kind of consequences for us as a city are at play here? >> that's something i think will really depend on how extended of a process we face. i'm very hopeful that the key questions that are in front of us related to the shear pins and the doors are something that we can understand and have a path forward in the next several months. but part of why we're bringing in an outside expert is to review those assumptions and to make sure that while we are all very close to these issues, that we have

somebody who's asking tough questions from the outside, that can inform that work. >> i don't know if we always need outside experts to come in and help us do our work, but the one thing i am concerned about is we should be able to answer the question of what happens to us? what are we liable for? if we decide not to move forward in the future with this fleet, particularly with all of the safety issues that we know exist. i guess my other question would be: what is our plan "b" and plan "c" and plan "d" on how we move forward? in ensuring we have the right fleet to deliver service, but also keep our constituents safe. >> i think our most prudent course of action is to focus on the vehicle that we have at hand. and that, in many ways, is

exceeding the expectations of the current fleet. to, for example, start over, which would be a pretty extreme solution, would be an extensive process that would take about six years, potentially, to have the first vehicle here. with no guarantees that we wouldn't be facing similar challenges to what we have today. in the meantime, we will be relying on our brada fleets, which is, in my opinion, will not be able to make it past the time period we have them for, which is why we were pursuing the acceleration in the first place. i think it is important that we weigh those tradeoffs as we consider what to do moving forward, and what it would mean to our costumers to be on a brada fleet 10 years from now as opposed to, you know, four or five, when we hope to see the last

brada go. >> so as we look at the brada fleet and seaman's and we look at what the doors are able to detect -- because i heard some troubling words from a gentleman, that it sounds like we wouldn't be able to detect the hand of most children, or at least small children. how does that compare to the brada fleet, or what is the research that has been done out there on any other vehicle or the sensors -- do the sensors answer that question? the additional sensors. because it is very concerning to me that a small child's hand cannot be detected. it should be concerning to all of us as parents, and all of us who love children and work with children, and everyone out there. >> as you may or may not know, i regularly travel the system with four

little hands. and i do take that extremely seriously. we will make sure that we understand how the vehicle is going to perform for all of our users, small and large. part of why the upta standard exists is to add some consistency to the testing process. so, for example, it requires you to test at multiple heights because we do have multiple-height costumers entering the vehicle. and it also anticipates different size hands. what we do need to understand in what we continue to have our focus be on is why the doors are passing this test, but then not passing the kind of common-sense test, if you will.

>> just my last comment: he gave very specific dimensions of what the doors could and could not detect. and, you know, without having the proper measuring tools here, it does seem very clear that a child of a certain age, of a certain size, the hand would not detect under the current system. i hope as we move forward that we're doing everything we can to to change that dynamic, regardless of what fleet we have in place, because that is very, very troubling. >> thank you. >> chairman: commissioner fewer. >> yes. ms. curshbalm, i think there are a couple of things having been said here that are really troubling. first i want to talk about the doors and how unsafe

they are, and actually the fact that your agency actually knew about these instances before six months ago, and that actually when you come to us for funding for $62 million, that none of this is mentioned. i think it doesn't allow us to actually make a solid vote that is fully informed when you don't let us know that, actually, there have been four instances already that you have documented that actually passengers have gotten stuck in the door, or there is an issue with the door. so, one, i'm a little shocked we're asked to fund a $62 million contract, and yet we are not hearing this type of information on what has happened and what you have discovered and what some of the problems are actually with these new vehicles.

i also wants to say about being able to detect a certain size -- when you give an example of an older gentleman being dragged because he had a bag of doughnuts in a plastic bag and he didn't release, i just want to say that when we talk about things that can happen on the ground, that is a very real instance. many times when we have plastic bags in our hands, they are wrapped around our hands. an.and when they are being pulled, you're not able to get your hand out of the plastic bag. this is a real, practical thing that happens. another thing is, what is sort of -- what is the seaman's track record on safety? did we look at other jurisdictions that have bought vehicles from them that are similar to ours, and what the track records

are on those vehicles, and what sort of instances or accidents have happened in those vehicles? and another thing is, i think that when we look at that the doors are being contracted from someone else, and seaman's is putting them on, but it is seaman's responsibility that we're having a contract with them about the vehicles and these cars. i get that they're manufactured by someone else, but, really, have we looked at the safety track record of other seaman's vehicles all over the united states, and maybe internationally, and what those instances are. regardless of -- the second thing i really want to bring up is also that we have had people dragged before on the muni line, haven't we, on the tracks? i vaguely remember years back there was a gentleman that was dragged and

actually died under the wheels. is that correct? >> i don't want to speculate that specific incident, but to your larger point, i don't think that the bradas have been immune to safety issues. and like this one, we do try to learn from it and make sure that we come out with a stronger, better vehicle. an example of that is, on the bradas, we were having -- it was actually the opposite problem of what we're here talking about today. which is, because the doors are not reliable, when we needed -- when we had a door malfunction in service and the operator was then required to lock out that door to continue the training service, it was not always being done properly. and we did have a couple

of instances where a train moved with the door open. we learned from that, and we were able to identify a electrical modification to the vehicle, which, coincidentally, the seaman's car also has built into its design that would prevent prevent the vehice from moving with the door improperly closed. so it is true that unfortunately we do occasionally experience very serious equipment issues. but i think that it is important that we learn and respond to it. i do take your broader feedback about being transparent about those experiences, and i appreciate the comments.

and we will do better next time. >> thank you very much. i think a secondary issue to this is really about, also, having to "true" the wheels, these flat wheels. what i would like from you is actually a financial analysis of how much this adds to the cost, also, of the procurement of vehicles? that if this is happening, and to, i think -- to a lot of our vehicles, and we have to ship away for the wheels to come back and the whole thing, what is the actual cost? i think if you're telling us that some of this is training and that we've been training a certain way, and they need to be trained another way, so i would like to add that cost into also -- in a separate line item -- the training and the retraining, and how much

that overall costs. because i think when we're looking at a procurement for something like this, we're not adding in all of the other costs that we're finding that seems to be fairly prevalent around the braking system, these flattened wheels. i actually think -- i want to thank you for saying, let's put a pause on this, actually. but, again, i have to say that all of these things, as a board -- i don't know. i can't speak to my whole committee here -- or commission here -- i don't know how much individuals knew about these issues. i know i didn't. i know i was not briefed on this when i was briefed on this allocation. the briefing that i received from this did not include any of this information at all. and i don't know if you have shared this information with the board, but when you come before us and ask for almost $63 million for a contract and we do not

know about this, this is a problem. this is an issue. this is a problem. i would expect it to be fixed because we are responsible for the people's money and the idea and the people's lives. and when we vote on these things and we don't know about it, actually it is our responsibility to know about this. so i have to say, i'm a little shocked. i'm disappointed, quite frankly. and i think this is actually showing me a different level of transparency that is actually necessary to take these huge votes of tens of millions of dollars that we actually, as a commission, have the authority to actually release. ms. curshbalm, i know you are the messenger.

this is not in any way a personal attack on you. i think this is a system that we're dealing with here. i also want to say -- i don't know if my colleagues feel the same way, but i feel that we should have known about some of these things, and i'm really disappointed that we didn't. but thank you. >> chairman: thank you. commissioner stefani. >> thank you, chair peskin. i just want to reiterate i, too, am quite shocked this has happened. i think it erodes people faith in not just our transportation system, but any regulatory board that oversees the transportation system, and that would be us. and the fact that we don't know about these incidences are wrongment and wrong.and i want to check oe older gentleman with the bag of doughnuts, and i was wondering what happened to that

gentleman? >> as with the previous incident, i don't have that information, but he was transported, as a result of the incident, to a hospital. >> and when did that happen? >> i don't want to give misinformation. we'll be happen to follow up. >> did it happen before the video that we saw? >> it happened before last friday. >> and you talked about -- you said reported -- chair peskin asked you whether or not these were reported, and you you dwriewfused theword "reportable" and i'm wondering what is the protocol for reporting these incidences. do you report them to the m.t.a., to us -- to whom do you report and where is the protocol for reporting? >> the two primary bodies that rail collisions and rule violations are

reported to are the california public utility commission, and in some cases, depending on the severity, also to the national transit data base, which is essentially the department of transportation for the federal government. it is a li little bit nuanced, what does and doesn't get reported. i rely on our partners in the safety department to do that reporting. i would prefer to follow up on that in writing so i don't provide inaccurate information here. >> thank you. >> we report, in our control center, every incident to our safety department, and then they make the judgment as to what needs to be reported based on the regulations. >> do you reports to the m.t.a. board of directors? >> we do not, as i'm

aware, to the m.t.a. board of directors. >> i would like information on what incidents are reportable, because i'm assuming that someone being dragged underneath a muni train after getting their hand stuck would be something that would be report ableable to somebody or some agency. thank you. >> chairman: commissioner yee. >> thank you. i just want to thank everybody for their comments. there has been a lot of comments made already, and i don't need to repeat them. i appreciate your explanation of the flattening of the wheels, where the mushroom thing gives you a quick stop in emergencies. hopefully operators will learn how to use the other emergency mechanism without flattening the wheels. i want to make is motion to continue this item. >> chairman: so before

we do that, commissioner, i think we have some directions and comments for staff. we have not touched on one issue, and that is the coupling issue. ms. curshbalm, could you please let us know what you know about the phail the fae of two is shear pins, and the fact that you're not coupling trains. can you talk to us about that? >> absolutely. a week ago thursday, while on the curve at the enjuda terminal, we had a shear pin break in service. the shear pin is one of several redundant mem mechanisms that connect two parts of the coupler heads together. when it broke, we immediately investigated it, identified one additional pin that was

broken. as a result, until we can understand more about why the shear pin broke, we are in an abundance of caution, operating a one-car train. and we're looking at two causes: what is the metal composition of the pins itself, as well as what are the lateral forces on the trains, and is there any place that it's kind of -- where there is more lateral force than we expected? in this particular instance, there were no costumers on board, and i do want to repeat that at no time did two trains separate. there are multiple redundancies that would prevent that from happening. a shear pin, is a pin that

goes through to connect to parts that is actually intended under the force of a collision to crumble. what that does is allow for the ca coupler head to move, and have an anti-climber to climb on top of the vehicle. the kind of end result of that is less force is absorbed by the vehicle and the costumers on it. and it also does protect the equipment. so it is an important design enhancement, and one that we want to make sure is working as designed. e>> chairman: not to put too fine a report on it, but for $3.5 million, we have failing couplings, and we're not putting our

trains together, and because of a sensitive edge, we're closing the back door. this is very disappointing in the face of our being asked for $63 million, but i want to also spread that disappointment around, not just to the m.t.a. but, frankly, with all respect, to our staff. the reason we have an independent oversight body that is the staff of the t.a.?.d i a., is to actually ask these questions before woe appropriate $62 million. these are the kinds of questions you have to ask the m.t.a. before you recommend an acceleration of what is a huge amount of money. i frankly take exception to the fact that staff did not identify these issues.

and interestingly enough, some of these things came to us. and that's precisely why on april 9th that i asked the m.t.a. about coupling issues because i was hearing about them from within your agency. i know people on the procurement team who actually recommended against procuring the seaman's. there are people in the maintenance division who have contacted me personally to let me know that these trains have been plagued with problems from day one, which i think based on the evidence, nine months of testing, issues you've none about for six months, is becoming abundantly clear. this is not on you, ms. curshbalm, as one of my colleagues said, this is systemic. at some point, if we made a mistake, we have to be transparent about, we have to fix that mistake, or we have to find a different vendor. i'm not going to spend

good money after bad. ms. chang? >> thank you, chair peskin. we also want to express our disappointment and that we have always expected any type of information of this sort to be disclosed to us as your staff. i don't know that we would have asked about some of these questions, not knowing, having any indication that there was a problem. but it is on us. it is our job to make sure that we are checking on the qaqc procedures at our sponsor agencies, so i will be going back and reviewing those procedures internally with our team, to ensure we've been having those regular meetings. i believe we have been having those meetings, but they've been maybe a little more routine. i honestly do think this is something i would expect our sponsors to disclose to us. i think that is a protocol and expectation that most

funding agencies would expect. we need an open and honest dialogue, and we have that with the m.t.a. the vehicles -- we had only heard really positive things about the vehicles, and in fact had been working very hard on accelerating -- working out the financing, our potential funding arrangement, to accelerate the vehicles so that the passengers could enjoy them sooner. i hear your message, chair peskin, and i share your disappointment. we would be glad to take whatever action that you recommend. i would propose we bring on independent consultants to help us perform the oversight function, to be able to drill down what happened in each of these cases, what is the affective fix in each of those cases, what is the cost, and who should pay. who bears the responsibility for paying for those fix? and how, again, do we avoid this in the future as a city? thank you.

>> chairman: i think that would probably be the direction from this body. let me ask staff this -- and i don't know if anybody noted this, out of that almost $63 million, there was, i, quote, "a modest amount, $96,661, to be used for the warranty phase of the additional 68 lrvs to expand muni's light-rail fleet." what is that? >> anna lofward. this is lose change that was left over in one of the categories for funding for expansion vehicles. so it is related to the 24 expansion vehicles as part of the central subway project. so it literally -- when we updated the strategic plan in the fall, there was a little bit of extra revenue in that plan. >> chairman: so it came from another pot? >> right.

>> chairman: it is not being used to extend an existing warranty? >> correct. >> chairman: got it. let me drill down on the warranty. how long is the warranty period for each one of these vehicles? >> i think if we're going to take a deep dive into warranty, i might ask for some help. >> so the warranty is five years for the vehicle -- per vehicle. >> chairman: and when does the warranty begin? >> the warranty begins when we conditionally accept the vehicle, which is when we put it into service. so after all of its testing. >> chairman: so that's after testing? >> correct. >> chairman: and so of

the -- let's start at the top. there are 68 of these, of which you have obtained how many? >> we have about 60 on property, and 50 have been conditionally accepted. >> chairman: 5-0 are conditionally accepted. i assume they are conditionally accepted over time -- >> correct. >> chairman: -- and so those warranties start at different times and last for five years? >> correct. >> chairman: have you made any claims pursuant to the warranty? >> the warranty claims are made, and we process them with seaman's. when the issues come in, we have a log, which we log all of the issues. we run through them and evaluate them. we determine whether it is a warranty issue, whether it is vandalism, some other form of work that needs to be done.

>> chairman: and when there are issues, do they repair the train? do they come and fix it on site? how does that work? >> yes. seaman's as about 10, 12 folks on site that work with us and address the warranty issues. >> chairman: and do they do that timely? >> yes. and we work with them to prioritize the ones we need to get out. yes, we work together on that. >> chairman: does that lead to a savings clause. does it lead to an extension of the warrant for that particular vehicle? >> if for the part that was failed that that needed to be replaced, that would impact the warrant for that part. >> chairman: so i would like staff, or if you need

to hire a consultant, a consultant, to independently verify the line of questioning that i'm going down. commissioner safai? >> thank you, chair peskin. i wanted to over emphasize the point that you made, and some of the other commissioners have made here today. i think one of the most frustrating things for us to hear is when we highlight areas of concern, we ask questions about areas of concern. i just came out of a meeting about a young woman that was hit in the crosswalk. my staff had highlighted that with the school district. with s.f. m.t.a., to talk about adding crossing guards and making improvements in that area, and yet nothing was done. and the e-mail ended by saying, we hope we don't have to have a fatality to mobilize and motivate improvements. and here we are again talking about breaking systems, talking about

faulty doors, talking about things that were highlighted in conversations, that were asked in procurement meetings. and i have to say, i mean, we have multiple staff with the transportation authority -- i know you just came on board, ms. curshbalm, and you weren't here when the procurement happened, but there is general frustration in this body. we don't do this on a daily basis. we're not sitting there focused on these issues on a daily basis, but when we do highlight these areas and focus on some areas that have been brought to our attention either through constituents or complaints on the research that we've done, they go ignored. and to hear that drivers are being trained to use a stopping mechanism that is not an appropriate stopping mechanism for this device, this multiple million dollar device that wears out the breaking system because there is a

faulty or not as reliable braking system that is the real braking system, that is absolutely frustrating for this body. for us to be asked to approve over and over again millions of dollars of purchases for items that then are not utilized either in the right way, or the drivers are not trained in the right manner or the staff is not maintaining them in the right way, why should we continue to approve the purchasing of vehicles we have heighted that are highlighe are other options out there. and then to hear the staff say, let's go hire consultants to make an independent analysis. i feel we have so many people focused on this issue, why are we asking for an independent analysis. we had the analysis. we know what the issues are. why do we need to spend more money on that? this is what people are paid to do at the transportation authority and the s.f. m.t.a. on a

daily basis, and yet we have basic things that don't work with these devices: wheels, doors, braking mechanisms. i mean, it just seems like this is basic stuff. this is absolutely unacceptable. that we would be asked to spend $63 million. sometimes the amount of money we're asked to approve seems mind-boggling to the average person, and even to me. and i've been on this body for two years. we should not approve any of this money going forward until we have some basic answers to some basic functions of these automobiles. thank you, mr. chair. >> chairman: thank you, commissioner safai. just a friendly situation to our sister body, the m-tab, it's it is called, the municipal transportation authority board, which if i were a member of that board, i would want on a monthly basis to get from staff

statistics about collisions, whether it is from the light-rail vehicle fleet or whether it is from buses or trollies or cable cars -- i think that is valuable information that should be publicly shared with the public and with the decision-makers. interestingly enough, because of proposition "e" of 1999, proposition "a" of 1997, we're not the oversight body of the m.t.a. we're having this conversation solely and only because we are the funding agency for the m.t.a. in this particular instance, which is why we're having this public policy conversation about vehicles. but a friendly suggestion to that board, to that board, to that agency, to that commission, there should be a part of staff presentation on a monthly basis. they -- unlike -- we used to settle all of muni's

lawsuit. now that board settles them. it would be good for them to know, and for the public to know, that information for what it is worth. colleagues we have spent an extraordinary amount of time on this. i want to thank all of my colleagues for their real engagement in this issue. and, obviously, we are going to direct staff here in a minute and not be taking a vote today. with that, let me open it up to public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to testify on this item number 10. >> yes, there are. >> chairman: line up to my left, your right. go ahead, sir. >> i can tell you how to take care of this problem with nes doors these doors. mr. safai, i would like you to take that kind of attitude that you just demonstrated to people who are homeless. as far as the