trains, is siemens paying for all that? >> yes. >> directives, any other questions on these two issues? >> i guess my only question is, if we discussed -- usually we expect siemens to expect -- should we expect them to pay for those things. have we discussed them paying for the interim and the long-term solution, has that been part of our solution, or are we assuming that? >> for those issues that we have clearly identified as a design problem, that's a very clear that siemens is responsible for that. >> for those issues, siemens has accepted responsibility for those. there are a number of different changes that we are making, some of them are based on correcting design issues, some of them are things that we are adding, or we are requesting of them, so each one has a different story, but

the coupler, for example, it is a very clear case of the design is not working as intended, that is wholly the responsibility in the contract. >> very good. and a related question, thank you, that was an important clarification. when you told the story about how we discovered the coupler issue, it was that there was another issue, and then we went and expected -- inspected it and found it on other trains. was there an incident on an end train presumably out by the beach, and you sort of found it, and then you said maybe other trains are having this problem, and you went out and looked to see if there were other problems , and you found them. back to our earlier discussion about being proactive, these trains have been in service now for a while. if there's other design flaws, they would probably be showing. have we done for inspections of the siemens trains be on the issues we know about to see if there are other issues looking like pieces fraying, were other things that could turn into real problems after one year of use,

as opposed to six months, that sort of proactive inspection of these new trains. >> we are. we are finding some issues that are, for example, related to being in service multiple seasons, and, for example, we are tracking along and meeting the goals of our reliability program, but in february, we saw a decline, and it was in part because the camera system that serves as the operator monitors was getting water in it, and it was because of the design of the gasket that wasn't really strong enough to make it through our washer, which is not something that was identified in the first year, but was identified in the second rainy season we went through, and that again has been corrected. >> okay. i would encourage such proactivity. i suspect it will not to speak the camera on the washer, but

there will be other things. maybe other things you have found that time prevents you from sharing with us, but we will be relying on these trains a great deal. we already are, and even more so if we can identify these issues now and do it proactively, i would strongly encourage that. >> i have one related question to that. do we have -- when you bright -- by your product, there's a warranty, there's a certain amount of time in which if things go wrong, it gets clear that the person providing it is responsible. for these types of projects, like the trains, what is their warranty, so to speak? >> i believe there is a five year warranty, and there maybe some parts that have extended warranty, but i believe it is typically five years, and there is also the contract outline with certain type of failures that require a complete redesign versus just a one-off part breaking than them being

replaced. >> we need to get everything covered. >> yes. >> and we thought seeds would be the biggest issue. i'm glad i could make you laugh once today. anything else? okay if you still have a little report left, i believe. >> a little bit left. >> thank you, julie. >> as i indicated, i want to ask tom to come back up to give a brief highlight on vision zero, including a little bit of information on these two incidents since our last meeting that killed two people in our city. >> good afternoon, again, directors. i will start with the incident updates on the most recent fatalities that have occurred since we last met. the 11th fatality of 2019 occurred on april 23rd at

12:15 p.m. on seventh street approaching mission. an individual was killed when he was run over by the wheels of a dump truck. you have most likely read the media reports. it seems like he was running -- holding onto the dump truck when that happened. this was there was an incident in april 2017 where we implemented a road diet and a protected bike lane, so this street is in good condition from an engineering point of view. the 12th fatality of the year took place on may 1st, at 8:30 . a 77-year-old pedestrian was struck by a driver travelling southbound, turning left from divisive narrow onto sector. the driver failed to yield when approaching the crosswalk. this is an intersection where we recently upgraded the traffic signals and leaving pedestrian intervals that give the pedestrians the right-of-way against this kind of turn. we increased the size of the signal heads and we have striped

visibility crosswalks. this is another -- unfortunately both of these took place at locations where we have very recently deployed many of the tools in our toolkit to make the streets safer, with the fatality that took place on the morning of the first, we are at 12 fatalities for 2019, which as a director reports, is ahead of the pace for last year and the year before. i'm also here to give an update on the 90 day plan and to continue to respond to the challenge that may or breed depth -- may or breed gave us on march 6 of this year. if i can get this to work here so on march 6th, the mayor said these very words and said the m.t.a. will develop a policy requiring sfmta staff to move forward with quick safety enhancements on high injury cord

doors that we have been working ever since to materialize that, and come up with some concrete ways in which we can make those enhancements faster. there are three general areas of work that go into the 90 day plan. a program of quick build projects, projects we can get done without digging up the street for years and years without complicated construction projects. these are projects in-house with m.t.a. forces. second is policy changes that we will bring back to to formalize our next meeting on may 21st, but these would formalize staff ability to install things on a pilot basis so we can get these safety improvements on the ground faster, and finally, identifying and getting the additional resources needed to do this in housework -- this in house work. i remind you of of the list that we presented when we presented in april, a list of quick build projects that are underway at

the howard street, projected between third and six. the bicycle protection is already complete. this will be checking off the boxes a little bit over the course of 2019, and even as we do that, developing our list for the quick build projects that we will be wanting to do in early 2020. we're thinking this is a living list, and it will be a rolling program of quick build projects that will be going at all times. secondly, we know that we can change the way that we bring forward improvements on the street, and we hear very loud and clear from you that your expectation about how fast we will act has changed. our current practice is that we bring legislation to you and we done extensive reviews of public outreach and try to get every last detail of a project right. there are some pros to that. the biggest one is that our very patient engineers and planners.

we have also worked to every detail that can be resolved, every conflict can be resolved before we come to you for legislation, but there are some cons as well. the biggest con being it takes a long time to reach this level of a consensus and it prevents us from putting out many uncontroversial aspects of these projects. there's lots of times that we might be having a really tough conversation with stakeholders about a few parking spaces, but there are blocks and blocks of other safety elements that we could be doing right away, and we think we should be moving forward with those, even as he continue you continue the more complicated planning conversations. so we are asking, what if we were to look just at the 13% of our streets are constitute the high injury network? and say this is a different approach to delivering projects on the short-term, specifically delivering them as pilots.

the pro is we don't have to wait for a big construction project to begin, but also there the project themselves would get better. we talked a month or two ago about bike share that we got through you that people have a hard time understanding is the fear is they can't touch it, they can't feel it and moving forward with pilots, even as we doing more extensive research can give stakeholders a chance to see and feel what those look like, what does the bike lane look like, what do those look like, so we think that not only could we have done things faster , we could consider these pilots be part of the engagement process and the outreach, and it could result in the projects we build and they finally come through the project, that we would be better. is very critical that we have

measures of accountability if we will try to work that way. i think any discussion of pilots that are done for legislation by this board need to be clearly reversible. we need to use paint and plastic post and things that if they don't work, or there are objections that we need to tweak them without a lot of back-and-forth. we need to be coming back to you with measures of effectiveness to demonstrate whether pilots are working, and then we will make it much more permanent and come back to you with the results of the outreach process and our analysis of the streets. the section of division two with the transportation code, of what you have exclusive authority, that it governs who makes what decisions, already delegates some decision-making power diversity engineer and m.t.a. staff. what we will be coming to you in two weeks to ask you to

formalize in a resolution is clarifying and extending that authority to build these quick build pilots, only on high injury network streets, and only if you're using the tools that you see on the right-hand side of the slide here. paint, plastic post, changing traffic signals, parking and loading, and using those tools to create things like protected bike lanes, things like quarter wide daylighting, and painted pedestrian safety zones on our streets. finally, there is the resource question. the way we have been doing projects to date puts a lots of money, a lot of pressure on delivering private contractors and partners a public works. we are suggesting that by beefing up some of our own staffing and some of our own abilities to deliver in-house through our paint shop, hiring a new paint crew, hiring a sign crew, and a small amount of resources on engineers and planners, we could build

permanent rolling pilot programs where directories -- we're constantly looking for and executing opportunities opportunities to improve every street in the high injury network going forward over time. this approach would bring more in-house -- bring work in-house and using paint and posts as a best practice within the network and in other cities that are facing the vision zero challenge that we set before. >> obviously some of those projects that require refurbishing which would then be part of our in-house work, i assume. >> we would take on the maintenance task as well. if we do the pilots right, they can be a placeholder for a much more permanent reconstruction network. >> okay. >> lastly, we have some really positive signals from the board of supervisors and the transportation authority. couple of the supervisors are interested in bringing forward a resolution at the t.a. to provide support and resources for some baskets of projects here. we would be able to report back

on that on the 21st and become back to you. >> okay. anything else, mr. maguire? >> that is it. >> any questions or mr. maguire? >> i have a couple, but you can go ahead. >> please. >> thinking to the two most recent fatalities you spoke of on april 23rd and may 1st, you mentioned that we had already implement did some of the basic safety improvements to those places, so i guess, thinking along the same lines of the conversation we had earlier, how do you make sense of what happened, and what are your lessons learned knowing that we had already deployed some of the more basic tools and interventions in those intersections? >> good question. this is probably a good time to remind ourselves that while our approach in san francisco is to lead with engineering and lead with design because that is the way to get permanent, effective speed reduction in safety changes, there is a key role for

enforcement, a key role for education in these efforts as well. the seventh street crash is really anomalous. i've never seen a fatality resulting from that kind of behaviour in my five years here, so it is a little hard to draw too many conclusions from that one. the other crash, however, is a pattern that we do see. left-hand turns from a two way street hitting a pedestrian who has the right of way, and we are doing a major campaign to our vision communication strategy to address, to inform drivers of the caution that they need to use when they are making those left hand turns. even if they have the legal right of way over other vehicles , they need to be careful of pedestrians and vehicles. and when there is a pedestrian in the crosswalk in california, the pedestrian does have the right of way. by giving that legal and system safety message out to our communications channels is my take away from that crash.

>> do we believe that will be effective? i know just thinking about driving on the sonic sometimes, you're taking a left turn, there's a lot of focus on. there are bikes, their cars coming towards you, you're focused on all that, and he also have to think about the pedestrians who may have materialized since you did your first scan. it is a lot. i just wonder if an education campaign is a realistic solution to that challenge. >> it is a good question. there is some research that says that driver education is targeted really specific behaviours like careful when you turn left, giving way ontario vale when we were introducing new designs for the way in which cars had to stop. there is evidence to say that educating drivers about those very, very specific behaviours can be effective, but like you said, driving in san francisco is really complicated, and we

need to keep looking for ways to make it simpler and simpler -- simpler and safer. >> the last thing i will ask, this is around me everywhere, this is your vision zero strategy. this has 58 discrete actions to achieve vision zero, and i just wonder, the same way you have done with the mapping out the resources here, the paint shop, the sign shop, and what is needed, have we done the serious planning in terms of what it would take to actually deliver on all 58 of these items, and is it realistic to assume -- assume we can do all of these to hit vision zero by 2024? it is quite robust and i worry a little bit that we don't have the capacity to do everything in here and i wonder if it needs to be prioritized somehow. >> that is a good question. that is a very ambitious plan. it is a resource constraint. does not completely unfunded or completely and staffed they will

require multiple agencies and the m.t.a. to come together to do aggressive and novel things. it is a resource that we publish as a benchmark. >> thank you. >> we moved the quick toolbox of things. we know one of the highest injury corridors is market street. do you have any plans to use any of these tools on the interim on market street? >> i think market street is a special case because we are working through the project and hoping to bring you legislation this fall to basically do the quick build version of market street. it is not on my list because we haven't really done enough planning work at this point to say we can go out there with a can of paint and we are

confident that everything will work. we need to do more engineering work, which will happen over the course of the summer. >> i will accept that for now, but you can't move quick enough on market street, and i know there are external limitations on you, i'm not suggesting this is all as infant -- sfmta-driven , but i want to keep the pressure on. i know there has been public calls on this, and i know you are sensitive to that. if we are going to show a commitment to this safety, getting the market street project done as quickly as possible, and with whatever interim steps we can, please do those engineering feats. i liken that to our earlier conversation about modelling. that is a street that many citizens come in contact with on a regular basis, and my hope, frankly, my vision, is when we see some of these projects working well on market street

and people are swayed by how well -- which was once ten years ago, described as a crazy idea when we started it, to see how well it works and how much safety it creates, it may inspire similar projects in other places in the city. thank you for coming back with the toolbox and showing your attentiveness to this. it is quite literally a life and death matter, it is just that simple. okay. >> the good news on market is that the comments for the draft environmental review period closed in mid april, and so the planning department is now working through the processing of those comments, still on track to bring a final e.i.r. to the planning commission for consideration in september, and as tom mentioned, it is our plan , and has been, to your direction, suit -- as soon as possible, bring parking and traffic changes. we have funds that you approve to implement those should the e.i.r. get certified, and you

approve the parking and traffic changes that will be ready to implement all the noncivil engineering aspects of aftermarket street for this year it is inherently on the list, as well for the quick build for this year. i do want to comment on your question. i went out to the vigil on friday evening, not trying to be a traffic engineering, -- engineer, but if you go up to the intersection and you look around, it is almost picture-perfect out of the design playbook in terms of all of the things you would want to see in a well-designed intersection. very clear sightlines, it had good, clear markings of crosswalks, it had been daylight

it, everything had been upgraded , it looked great, nevertheless, in broad daylight, at 830 in the morning, and i think he was even a sunny morning, a woman was hit in the crosswalk. to me, part of the lesson is, and in terms of it is busy, it is difficult, you could think, well, maybe we can restrict all left turns on the road, but even that, we have other areas of the city where we have restricted left turns that people violate. to me, part of the lesson, as tom said, is we can't design our way out of every eventuality. design should be first, and there's lots that we can do around the city, but i think the behaviour change aspect of vision zero is significant, and we have lobbied and advocated at state and federal levels for increased levels of funding. and as we think -- as i think we've shown in this country,

when we have had a very significant public relations effort such as for seatbelts, that we can really make a change we have invested local u-haul and authorized millions of dollars in the budget for education, and we have had some targeted successes. we will continue to do that. the behaviour change, whether it is somebody -- if this is what happens hitching a ride on a dump truck while riding a skateboard, or making a turn into a very clearly visible crosswalk, where there is a very late -- very clearly visible pedestrian, may be beyond the limits of just design. there are other aspects every it -- vision zero education and reinforcement that are critically important, as well. and so that is just my observation from these last two. it is not excuses that everyone of these is preventable, everyone is tragic. i believe it is achievable, but

not through design alone. >> and to mr. mcguire's point about it being a simple message, click your seatbelt and you will save her life was a salient message because it was targeted and easy to understand. it was not just, be safe. for me, and i would encourage this as we have these crashes, as we talk to the folks who are responsible for setting up driver education and just part of our discussion, there is a very simple message here. that crosswalk is the final lane of traffic. every person who is taught how to drive doesn't make a left turn until they see all the lanes of traffic clear in front of them. that crosswalk is the final lane of traffic. do not make a left turn until traffic in the crosswalk is clear. and when drivers conceptualize it that way and realize they have one more lane to think about before they make that left turn, it becomes a pretty simple message that we can communicate. >> all due respect, we will have tours here driving around forever, and we will not be able to train all those store -- all those people.

we do this on the bike lane through the panhandle. we protect the space for pedestrians and cyclists, we do not allow cars to move through that space. i believe that is a design solution that could work here. i don't necessarily believe that behaviour change campaigns will get every single person. i don't necessarily buy it. >> i guess that is my point as well. there is no single solution, but i don't think we can fully design our way duality. we have no left turn restrictions, and people still make the left turn. there is an enforcement section of it to, whether it is protected and -- >> when will we have a deep conversation on the enforcement needs? i keep hearing enforcement, but i don't have a good sense of how far we are from being able to realistically deliver on enforcement strategy. can we table that for an upcoming meeting? >> we can schedule a time for me

to bring back our colleagues from sfpd to talk about their enforcement efforts. >> that would be great, thank you. >> that would be great to know how many citations and intersections, that kind of stuff. i think people do feel like things are not enforced, and it would be useful to know. >> obviously the collaboration to make sure that the police officers are targeting the area that we think are the highest risk. we have that information, and they have the enforcement power, which i realize is another design flaw, a little bit, but we have to deal with that through state law. you are still in your director's report. >> i am. it is a new record for the length of my report. i have four quick items. one, and then kind of related to flexibility in the system, you recall that we redesigned one of our platforms on third street to provide capacity to serve as --

serve the new arena. also part of that project was parked -- putting in a number of new crossovers to give us flexibility to use in regular service as well as an emergency or special service. we completed the bulk of that work during the shutdown earlier this year. because of some of the rain that happened during that time, there is work we need to go back and complete, and while we looked at trying to do it all during nonrevenue hours, it would be too efficient to do that way, so we do plan on using the short week, the holiday week of memorial day to shut down the tee line again to complete the work for the platform, the overhead wires, electrifying the crossovers that are in place, and pouring the final concrete. we will have the same bus substitution plan that worked very well from all accounts. we will have the same level of ambassadors, public information

available, and this will get us ready for the opening of the arena this fall. something that we haven't really talked about much, and we have covered it during one of the board workshops, but we just completed a move of some of the folks over here earlier of overhead lunch -- -- from the overhead line decision -- division, to a renovated facility of hours on first street. it is the one that you see from the expressway. it says municipal railway, a beautiful brick building. beautiful, but seismically unsafe. so thanks to many years of planning and work through the facilities program, we were able to take an existing facility of hours on burke avenue in the bayview, which was being used as a warehouse, seismically upgrade it, modernize it, make the

warehouse space more efficient by condensing it into a part of the facility to free up space and the balance of the facility to house our mission-critical overhead lines division. that project was completed with a budget of about $43 million, including $9 million in a federal grant, and we successfully moved folks into a new home that will survive an earthquake so that they can do their job to deal with the aftermath of it. it also just gives them a modern , new facility to work out of. we are transferring jurisdiction of that old facility to the general services agencies so that they can start seismic revalidation of it, and it will then serve as a new home for animal care and control. we are swapping facilities with them so that we can house some of our other needs. it is a win-win situation all

around. a little bit behind the scenes stuff, but important for mission-critical function like our overhead lines group to be in a seismically safe and modern facility. moving on, we also have not talked about, but in terms of workforce development, i am happy to let you know that last week, the sfmta was recognized as the employer of the year during the jewish vocational services strictly business luncheon, which was a very large event. it celebrated what is possible when people are able to build skills for in demand jobs, and transform their lives by being able to access those opportunities. the award that we received was based on apprenticeship programs that we have with machinists and mechanics. obviously, as you know, we take hundreds of mechanics and machinists to make munimobile work every day to get the buses and the trains out into service

and do infrastructure work that we did earlier. these are high-quality, high-paying jobs with great benefits that don't require a college degree, yet what we found is that they can be positions that are hard to fill, and that folks from disadvantaged communities in san francisco were having trouble accessing those jobs, so gbs is a bay area job-training nonprofit that we previously worked with, and together with city college, with local 1414 and the machinists and the mechanic union, we established a couple of programs. the summer fellows program has eight recent high school graduates who are interning at various machine shops this summer, and the summer exploration program, which is hosted at washington high school for six weeks. it will have more than 20 students who are enrolled in auto classes, and then shadow at the sfmta maintenance shops for two days a week during the summer.

together with getting meth and -- math and reading skills from city college, they bring soft skills, job readiness skills, and together, what this program does it serve as a bridge for young people, they don't have to be young people, but generally young people in disadvantaged communities with programs serving as a bridge to get them into these good paying, quality union careers, so it is a win-win, providing opportunity for disadvantaged san franciscans, and it is filling a need that we have for mechanics for the future of operating the munimobile system. so the partnership was coordinated by our best maintenance managers, as well as our h.r. operations manager. although i know it has been a long report, we have a brief video that they commissioned that we want to show you to give the flavour of what this program is. >> thank you.

>> san francisco go t.v. -- san francisco government t.v., can you give us the laptop? >> look at that. >> it is pretty, but we have no sound. >> every day, we carry 725,000 people to work, school, hospitals, and to visit friends and families. san franciscans depend on the sfmta, and more to the point, on dedicated transportation professionals to keep our city moving. it takes about 200 mechanics to keep our more than 1,000 munimobile vehicles operating safely and efficiently. these are high-quality, high-paying jobs with great benefits that don't require a college degree, and yet, the requirements are still too high for many applicants. as our workforce starts to retire, we need to them prove the next generation of skilled workers to keep our buses and trains running. we knew that they had launched a

training program through the utility sector, and we are collaborating with them through their work with the san francisco unified school district. we knew that they would be a great organization for our department. by working together with the city college of san francisco and local 1414 and the machinist union, we establish the automotive technician pre apprenticeship program. this training before the training provides an avenue for participants to brush up on the math and reading skills with city college, develop their soft skills, and then get paid to complete on-the-job training. by the end of the program, we are ready to take -- they are ready to take the test become an sfmta apprentice. this apprenticeship program attracts me because i always liked to fix stuff and i always wanted to be a mechanic. >> i have been trying to find my path in life, and i always love to work with my hands. additionally do you think we need more female mechanics. >> i would not have done it alone to do math and score an a+ i would not have done that

without this school. >> my future is already different because of this program. >> it is not just a job, is more of a career. >> my career goal is to become an apprentice, and then become a journeyman level mechanic and it would really help my family to get a better life. >> i would love to work with the sfmta. >> they were working with our second cohort, and our workforce pipeline for stronger and more diverse community. it is an example of what can happen when government and nonprofit sectors work together. through this collaboration, we are providing our community members valid careers and keeping san francisco moving. [♪] >> great work by our maintenance staff and our h.r. staff to earn that recognition. more importantly, a great win-win for us. >> everything but the narration was fantastic. [laughter]

>> seriously, we'll see you in the next ten -- ten burton documentary. >> finally, as you all know, next week -- thursday is like to work day, so we just want to remind everybody and ask everybody to join the tens of thousands of san franciscans and members of the board of supervisors. the mayor will be out there with the san francisco bicycle coalition peddling to work on the biggest biking day of the year. the basics of bikes on munimobile can be found on our website, and just as a reminder, you all have authorized $150 million for a bikeway project through 2023. we have talked about it here, but just in recent years, we have gone from zero protected bike lanes in the city, to lots of protected bike lanes in the city, and lots more to come. there will be a rally on the city hall steps around 8:30 a.m.

on thursday, so i hope to see everybody out there. that concludes my report. >> excellent. very good. one issue, there has been some discussion about traffic changes at west portal. will we see that on our next agenda? one will that be discussed? >> yeah, i think it is coming to the next meeting. we are doing some final outreach , but that is coming your way. >> very good. okay. i assume we have public comment on the director's report. please call the public comment. >> first three. >> mr. weiner, welcome back. the floor is yours. >> i hope my presentation isn't a blowtorch. basically the disaster that occurred with the tunnel, it is

due to flaw munication, command, and control structure that the public has no knowledge of. as a result, breakdowns oak her, and in addition to bad communication within the agency, there is poor communication with the public. and there has to be better communication with the public and planning, and not these dog and pony shows.

>> my plea to bicyclists is please do not ride on the sidewalk. please do not go through traffic signs on bike-to-work day. basically, we have to address safety on the sidewalks as well as safety in the intersection. thank you. >> thank you, mr. winier. next speaker, please. >> i think mr. petersson was called first. >> nice to see you, robert, please.

>> i apologize. i normally don't speak on other issues because it bends the sword. however, with vision zero, i have to ask the question from the board, how many of you actually walk in san francisco. because, the problems with a lot of these injuries are the sidewalks are too congested. with sign boards, with bicycles, riding the wrong way. and a absolute no-no that i think you have to look at is you have to put a speed limit on wheelchairs. because wheelchairs ride at two or three times the speed that people walk at. and the result is that people

step off the curb in order to get out of their way. and i'm sure, i know it's happened. i've observed it happen. so you are going to have to start fighting these bicycles, state boards, rollerblades, and all these new toys that are riding on the sidewalk. there's got to be a message out there. the sidewalk is for pedestrians, wheelchairs and push chairs. it's not for any of these toys. thank you. >> welcome back, mr. peterson. good afternoon. christopher peterson. here to talk today about a different systematic problem with muni service that seems to be getting worse. that's the muni driver situation. unless muni resolves or at least manages that situation better, i

think it's at risk of alienating and losing even more ridership. a couple of personal anecdotes, when the case was supposed to be running every 12 minutes, get to the station. prediction is the next k is due in 45 minutes. one after that. almost an hour later. called 311 and they said it was a staffing issue. just last week, friday afternoon, riding the 24, the driver had us get off and told us it was the end of his shift. he didn't have a replacement driver. so, he said the next bus is expected in eight minutes. i decided i would walk towards my destination. the castor street station. i got there before the next 24. according to next muni.

it wasn't expected for another six minutes. multiply those instances city wide, you are alienating a lot of passengers, risking going down the route of l.a. transit or the taxi industry. i hope you can figure out how to manage the driver staffing situation. thank you. >> thank you, very much, mr. peterson. next speaker, please. >> hello, board. this is a very long director board over an hour. i wanted to latch on to one specific thing that mr. mcgwire presented about expedited pilot projects. i understand you will take up this issue properly in two weeks. i won't be here to say this then so i'll say it now. this is fantastic idea. you should definitely do it and i think you should go one step

further and do what port of oregon did. they passed a resolution last year where they said we're going to get rid of 1,000 park spaces in downtown. m.t.a. plannersers you have a budget of 1,000 parking spaces you mow best where to move them. go and do it. and don't come to us for individual approval so we're moving individual parking spaces because this is your budget. i think that's an approach that this agency should move towards more. this staff are better equipped to decide nitty gritty details than high-level group like yourselves so give them a budget, give them guidelines and goals and let them do their thing, thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon.

chairman and directors. so, dealing with that intersection. there's a cab customer that lives near there. a regular cab customer. i don't understand how you can't be safe there. if you drive carefully, that's the question. if you drive carefully or you drive and look at the lights system and everything, then that intersection is safe. the problem is we have -- i watch everyday and every night uber and lyft drivers making a right turn from the left lane. making u-turns on castro street and other streets. i have never seen so much -- what do they call it? cowboy activity in my entire life. you need to reach out to the tnt

and tell them we're going to ticket them right and left, left and right, up and down, east and west, everywhere, until they get the message. and they're going to ex bac comk and scream at you for giving you tickets. i spy on their facebook pages and they hate getting tickets. keep doing it. it's getting them mad. it maybe will get them to change behavior. i want to let you know that you need to contact the police. we did read they've added more motorcycle officers. well, they need to do more motorcycle officers in certain areas that you tell them. not where they decide to go. but where you tell them where the problems are and where the taxi inspectors and the p.c. o.s and your muni inspectors notice where the problems are and that's where they should operate. that is how we're going to get this problem solved.

thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, directors. charles, senior organizer at the san francisco bicycle coalition. as we heard this year, it continues to be really bad in terms of traffic fatalities. we had just wrapped up a walk through with the mayor on the previous fatality site when we heard about the skate boarder so we were there will be o there od mission as well. not something i like to do. i want to bring back our strong support for the 90 day action plan. couple of comments from directors today i want to echo and build upon. thank you for calling out market street. the list of quick-built projects is good. we think it could go farther. market street is one of those and one thing would be private automobile restrictions which could come sooner than anything built or any painted post even.

director eakin, thank you for calling out engineering, we need to strive towards engineering streets that preclude these known, dangerous and fatal behaviors. we can do that so the pilot program is a very exciting idea, a very exciting tool to start doing that faster and preventative non reactive way and i want to push this board and will continue to do so, to include as many aggressive engineering solutions in that pilot program so we can have things like turn restrictions at intersections, so we can things like protected intersections. whatever it is, these things we know make the streets safer so you would be included in the pilot program but we're excited to see that move forward and we'll be happy to speak more to it in two week's time. >> thank you, very much. >> mike spain. >> nice to see you. >> last person to turn in a speaker card. >> enforcement. it was brought up.

i know what it means. driver reeducation and we talk about picketing drivers. as if that is really going to help. they've been ticketing people for make nothing left turns or wrong left turns since i came here. i don't think that's going to be a solution to the zero program, the zero fatality program. the group you really have to educate are pedestrians. pedestrians are the biggest group of people that violate the do not walk sign. when that orange hand comes up, you see people just stepping off the curb and walking because they're on their cellphones or they're just ignoring it. when it starts to flash, it seems they really try to cross. when you are trying to make turns, and you are getting impatient because the light is

going to change really soon, drivers, intuitively they start to move fast to make those left happened turn or right hand turns and it's one of the sources of the problems. if you go to the front of this building and watch that sign, that do not walk sign, you will see people in front of city hall while i'm talking walking against the sign. they do not wait for the white walk sign. so if you need to educate anyone, it's the pedestrians in san francisco. and the next group, of course, are the people who ride bikes. i mean, when have you enforced against a bike rider the fact he blasted through a stop sign? either a red light or a diagonal sign. >> i've ner seen this happen. and yet this is a real problem for drivers. not only do they have to watch people who are making illegal.

>> thank you, very much. i don't see any other further commenters. we'll that we'll close public comment on item number 7 and move on to item number 8. >> mr. chair, there's no report from the citizens advisory council for you today. moving on to item 9, public comment, it's an opportunity for members of the public to address the board on matters that within their jurisdiction and not on today's agenda. herbert winier followed by robert and barrie toronto . >> two things, one is i think the composition of the m.t.a. board should be changed. i think it should represent a motorist, a pedestrian, a muni driver, and a bicyclist. we node to have a broader representation on this board. that may be one of the problems

that m.t.a. has run into. they're not reflective of the general sentiments of the public. so, even though there may be doubts on this board, even though there may be some cynicism, i think really this is very important. we need a representative board that is more watchful and more critical. secondly, i want to reiterate my plea that bicyclists do not ride on the sidewalk on bike to workday. if they do so, they should be cited. this is a good way to celebrate bike to workday. presently, the state of m.t.a. is m.t.a. sands for more train wrecks ahead. i'd like to change that. the public of localness as well. thank you. >> thank you, very much. >> robert followed by barrie and

rowen. >> good afternoon, board. i would like to request you a time out between the fight again the taxis and the board. i would like to ask you to wave the fees for this year's medallion and get an arbitrator to look at the problems between the taxi industry and the m.t.a. it's very curious, these are not problems between the city. the board of supervisors at least two or three years ago, predicts 40% of the population of this city will be over 65. we're not going to get no autonomous vehicles because they don't understand them. they are not going to get into ubeubers necessarily because thy

may be extinct by then. you are relying on the fact that there are cheaper modes of transportation and the mayor loves them and everybody else loves them and they're not necessarily going to be there. on the other hand, if you don't want to do it, we'll do what they're doing in australia. in australia, the government after all the protests from the taxi drivers is buying up all the medallions in australia. because they don't know what else to do. so you've got to find a middle way and if you don't, we'll be in court. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, barrie toronto. >> thank you. the floor is yours. >> good afternoon chairman and

fellow directors. i want to say there's a lot more left turns and the problem is that it creates a problem for us to provide better taxi service. a lot of these left turns should be exempt from or relook at them. i'm not sure why they're there. the new one at valencia and we can't make a left turn from valencia and i've seen it has new on top of it but on second street we can't make a left turn from second to howard. it means tough go all the way up to mission and come back around and that is absurd. the other issue is the airport. as you know, i hear rumors and i want to be verified, you might want to ask your director of

transportation, at the end of the week, the impact on the new procedures at the airport on the taxi industry and on the people participating in the program at the airport should be out. that's what i hear. i could be confirmed. the problem is that not the only people who benefit the new program and the medallion holders, there are a lot of people driving these purchase cabs.

>> mike spain, those are the last two speakers who have turned in a speak are card. good afternoon. this last week, we had people protected the action on market street and we protested a lack of turning restrictions. a few of the members of this board made an appearance so i thank you for that. i want to remind you that we did this and it's been a tumultuous couple of weeks. you have a lot on your minds right now but i will continue to remind you that private automobiles do not belong on market street and the sooner you can ban it the better. this begins with enforcing current restrictions. the reason we were out at market and mont tom agree because turns on market are prohibited from the third out to eighth but it means if you ask google maps how

do i get to this spot on market city from north of market they'll say go east to montgomery and go south and turn right on market because it's legal. it dodges all the turns and gives you a legal option to get to where you say you need to go. this means that when people hill and uber or lite, it will get threw just draw you five blocks out of the way. private automobiles. we need to get rid of them. the sooner we can the better. i urge you to work on that. thank you. >> i heard someone very wise just say a similar thing a few moments ago. >> last speaker. mike spain. >> welcome back, mike. >> thank you. to tag on to what i just talked about, the other problem is that i know that you are interested in safety, this is what a high

priority but closing to make everyone safe. the bike lanes, the corners and they're slowing traffic down to a much greater step than uber or lyft. you have the congestion that causes a lot of anxiety for drivers and they're not able to get around the city and in the summer it's particularly bad. anything that happens on the bridge, this city shuts down. this creates people who when they're driving, start to drive a lot faster and a much more aggressive manner than they normally would and i believe that sfta's policies are -- they're meant to keep everyone safe but they are in fact maybe creating a situation that they're making things dangerous in other areas. but the real reason i came up

here to speak today is to remind you this is the three-month anniversary of the policy on the taxi changes at the airport. so, we're expected to hear a report. now, i would really like this to be an action item. you never really voted on the actual changes for the airport. instead, what you voted for was to give it to the director. he and kate turin got together and came up with this policy, this disastrous policy which basically transfers wealth from one group in the cabin does tree to another group. we know that lawsuit, by a federal credit union was the motivating factor in these changes of policies. and i believe it's probably going to work. they're going to make one group in the cabi cab induce tremendos wealthier than the other group. i don't know how it was decided on in the first place. take it back and vote on it yourself. i want to see the votes from