delivery. i think this is on all of our minds. the public is very excited. we have also heard comments about why did it take so long to get here. i have concerned we will then take until 2025 to do phase i without even talking about phase two, the continuous protected bike paths all the way down to the embarcadero. i just wonder if we can reflect on the lessons we have learned on van ness, perhaps, or other project delays and lessons learned and how we can get this on the ground more quickly. i know it is a funding issue, but there are other mechanisms. you have heard from the public that they want this. >> right. our biggest challenge is funding we have funding for phase one a and we are working on phase i be we know that phase ii will be fifth to second street, so extending all of the improvements including the sidewalk level bikeway east where we don't have a bike lane today. we are working closely with

m.t.a., public utilities commission in the transportation authority and even m.t.c. to identify funding at federal state at regional level. that is our biggest challenge right now. >> of course, revisiting and making sure we have resources allocated to complete the design of the project on public works in the m.t.a. side. and in terms of the lessons learned, the utilities and what happens with this covering some of the things underground. and i think this particular project, we are in a better space where we have been doing some preliminary work to see what is underground, to see if we can mitigate the netiquette -- negative impacts we have seen on the van ness construction schedule as a result of that. >> last comment. i just want to say this is the kind of project that makes me proud to be affiliated with the sfmta. it is bold, it is transformative , it is 100% on our city's goal. i'm struck by how many of the commenters wanted this adjusting

in the beginning with car free spaces all throughout san francisco. this is about the kind of city we want to be. i just want to echo that call and say very clearly to the hard-working sfmta and public works staff, please bring us more proposals for creating carvery spaces in the city that can help to prioritize walking, cycling, transit use and other city variables. thank you. >> any other director? >> first, i want to command the project team for doing such incredible outreach. in particular, i want to highlight the work you did with the mayor's office on disability , particularly around the sidewalk level bikeway, which was a grave concern to the disability community initially. you guys did a great demo at. thirty-eight where you had different things so people with different types of disabilities could test out the barrier and the different sidewalks. i'm excited that the mayor's office of disability set in a

letter of support for this project. other people have expressed concerns about the stops. it means a lot to me that the mayor's office of disabilities behind this and we haven't heard concern, at least from the people i have talked to in the community about this. you have done a great job of balancing the needs there. i have a question about the 27 bryant impact. i know in the sequel document it is kind of left like we will figure it out later, but i suppose the project -- i support the project. i want it done as soon as possible. i am wondering if maybe we can get a report back on our plans on the 27 bryant and mitigating the impacts to that line. i don't know what would be the appropriate time, but sometime early next year maybe? >> great. and then i think the final comment or question i have is about another thing that the transit riders raised, which is

the curbside bus stops and the pedestrian crossing the bike lane. what does that look like? i know you said you will put in some paint on the bikeway to inform bikers. i am just wondering, will we be monitoring that to make sure that that is going well, and if necessary, add more stuff to make that work better, i guess? i do think it is important to make sure the curbside stops are accessible to all of our transit riders. >> yes. part of better market street is to clarify where people walking and biking should be and our transit riders. the transit stops will be both wider and longer to accommodate people, especially those in wheelchairs. what we're doing for the curbside boarding islands, you would have to cross the bikeway to get from the pedestrian area over to the transit boarding

islands. we are providing clearly marked crosswalks with truncated domes to identify were people walking should enter into the transit boarding island. we are also providing railings along the boarding island, similar to what we have today, to also help direct people crossing the bikeway, and also letting bicyclists know that people will be crossing the bikeway at these locations. i put up a slide on the laptop on the proposed munimobile service which also serves -- shows the boarding islands. the one on the left is an example of a center boarding island. you can see the railing is, the additional shelters that are wide enough for seats. it also has the many high platform for getting onto the f. line. the idea there is you would enter the center boarding island from the crosswalk, which will have a traffic signal there, and

then enter into the center boarding island. the photo on the right, or the rendering on the right shows a curbside stop. you can see the crosswalks there the bikeway also narrows behind the curbside stops, also signifying that cyclists should slow down as they passed this area. and you can see where the crosswalks are and the bikes that are coming through. >> great. >> i guess i will add that i agree that we need to be really careful about making sure we have strong enforcement both for blocking the bike lane and as well as the cars crossing market to make sure that we don't have people, you know, we don't want buses in the red lanes to be stuck behind cars that are trying to cross. that is it. thank you very much for all your work on this. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have two questions and two comments. the first question, returning to

this issue of utilities, my understanding is that when we rip the street up for the bart tube, we learned a lot about what's underneath there, and we retained that information. so now we have a lot of as built drawings and the like so we shouldn't be duplicating then this. is that all true? >> it is. a lot of the utilities were not just identified, but also relocated as part of the bart construction. we know where those are and we know a lot of what is under our streets. there are some conduits that have been abandoned since then over the past 40 some years, but we have done trenching recently to identify or to see what is under there. so it -- we are constantly trying to monitor or investigate what is under our streets. we do have a pretty detailed and congested utility map that will be in our construction drawings

subcontractors will have access to that. we also have a pretty lengthy notice of intent and final preliminary plans that we send to all the utility companies so that they are aware of our scope of work. we also notified them of any conflicts between their infrastructure and our project. >> that is good to hear. the second question is about the cost and i think the first time i heard about this project it cost a lot less, too. now that it's up to $600 million , it begs the question for me about the procurement method and i guess this is probably a rubicon we have probably already crossed, but my understanding is the project, the first phase of it at least, is designed with the traditional approach. i do think, just based upon my limited tenure here, that a lot of the trouble that we run into is the fact that we want to control the design so we hold onto it, and when we do that, would basically hold onto all

the liability that adheres to that design. if we did something like design build, the idea there is to shift some of that responsibility and accountability to the contractor now you obviously are going to pay a higher price for that in all likelihood, but if you can succeed in shifting that responsibility, i think in the long run it will be better. was there any point at which you considered design build for this project, and if not, why not? >> not that i'm aware of, but it may have been discussed early on i know then now his be rt is being constructed using -- i know the van ness be rt is being constructed using a general contractor, which is a route we didn't want to take. we do traditionally do design in-house, and that has been our approach for phase one a. and for construction, design bid

build. in the past, we have only done a low bid, which meant whoever is the lowest bidder wins the bid, but public works has started doing best value contracts which take into account meeting at minimum qualifications, quality of work on past projects, references, and so we are considering best value for phase one a. we haven't started design -- well, we are at 10% design for the full corridor. we have not started detailed design on the future phases so that is a conversation we can have. >> maybe that gets back to director ekin's commented that if we are really looking at this project from end to end, it is not just the first phase and it is not just too late in my opinion to start thinking about a different approach for the second and third phases that might dramatically accelerate them. at the same time, it means you lose some control over the design. you have to give some of that to the contractor if the contractor is going to take on the risk.

but right now, in my opinion, we have held onto the design and held onto the risk, and that is not always the best place to be. the first comment, and colleagues, this went right by you because it was so small, but the profile of the project, and i don't know if you can get that back up on the screen, the two middle lanes are described as munimobile only, and that seems sort of self-evident, but there are other transit operators operating bus service in san francisco, and i think if we are going to paint something on the street, it ought to say transit only and not munimobile only. i know that might complicate the service delivery a little bit, but people want to use the bus. they really don't focus on the logo on the side. that is one urging i would make. >> can we just ask about that? i am soup -- i assume the intent for the middle two lanes is if there is a different bus that

they would get to use the middle two lanes. it was not the intent to exclude them. >> they are allowed to use the curb lane. the intent is only of the center lane for the f. line, the five, the five r., the nine, and the nine are. >> is your proposal that we would amend that? >> my suggestion would be that whenever legitimate transit operators of a public service wants to use that lane, they should be able to use it. now that will require, perhaps some coordination between munimobile and those other operators. that is what is supposed to happen. that is what the public expects is that we can make that kind of coordination occur. >> to get the change that the director wants would require an amendment to the current proposal. >> yes. change to the legislation that is before you. the way that it is written is munimobile only.

>> okay. >> i would rather not be the guy who slows down the train here, but at the same time, there ought to be some appropriate instance while we are delivering the project over several years that we can consider that to change, which i think does make sense. finally, let me describe why i will vote for the project, and i think in a very short phrase, we have been designing our cities around the automobile for about 70 years now in the united states and i think it's time, it is probably well past time that we give some of these other travel modes a chance to grow and coexist. that is why i will be voting yesterday. >> wonderful. thank you. i will take that as you were not making any amendments to the current proposal. >> no. [laughter]. >> director torres? >> i'm unclear as to what you

are including. >> just other buses. my understanding is in the corridor, i don't know whether sam tran his operates in the corridor, i think a.c. transit might. amtrak does, and i think they are being treated differently under the current proposal. >> all of those transit operators are allowed to use the curb lane. >> i understand. >> amtrak has a couple of stops, a.c. transit runs at night and some trans operates on two blocks. who operates on market? >> a.c. transit has an l service we have reached out to them and they are not interested in being in the munimobile lane in the center. we have also been in coronation with golden gate. they're happy with being on mission as they are today. they find our market service, i believe -- i don't want to put words in their mouths, but our market service is quite frequent we have 60 buses in our when we

are fully built up in each lane, and if we were to allow other services into that lane, it would end up delaying munimobile i think the curb lane is going to be far improved with the removal of private vehicles. so i think that it is a -- an appropriate way to treat the service. however, you guys are the directors. >> this doesn't include ucsf? >> if we were to legislate as a bus only lane, it could be used by any bus. a camera never the exact limit, but any vehicle that is over 15 or 20 passengers would be able to use it. >> all right. anything else, director torres? >> no, thank you. other than to say that you are correct. the senators from northern california destroyed our public transit system. [laughter] all those damn freeways and

doing away with our rest stops. it was destroyed and public transportation never came back until just recently. i am glad we are doing this. i am in favor. >> thank you. director brinkman? >> i will be super brief. thank you so much for the work on this. i know this has been a multiyear process and it will echo the public in thanks. i will director just echo the director and say let's just have this be the first of many car free streets we have in san francisco. we will all probably be astonished by how fantastic this will be when it gets done and we will be chomping at the bit to do more of them. thank you to ed riskin and matt ford. was he here when he his -- when we started the work on this? has it been that long? i think it has. [laughter] you are right. this took way too long. thank you to the chair for continually championing this and bringing it up multi- times every year to remind us how important this is.

i look forward to supporting this and i will even make a motion to approve. >> there is a motion to approve and a second. if i may take a moment of time before we vote, thank you for that. that was very generous of you. i don't know if this is the happiest day of my life, but it is definitely on the list. [laughter] as i said downstairs, this will not just be a better market street, this will be a magnificent market street. it will be a magnificent market street because we will be doing exactly what director torres just urged and prioritizing modes of transit that need to be prioritized. we will have the aboveground subway for our bus lines. i personally favorite being munimobile only, but understand the concern that is being raised we will have similar priorities for bikes, for taxis, and for pedestrians. this is a wonderful project. i don't want it to end at market street. i will not be astonished when this is a success.

i'm expecting this to be a success. i will be astonished if this is not a success. and planning on that success, i have, as you know, already asked our director at the next retreat to give us the options for the next few streets so that we can start assuming that this will be a success and plan for the next streets that will prioritize transit and pedestrians and bicycles to the exclusion of private cars and bring us into the 21st century as far as transit and mobility go. so this will not just be a magnificent market street, it will be a model market street. we will have other market streets throughout the city as we go. obviously with key study and input, this is not something to be taken lightly, but let's not wait to see if this will be a success. it will be a success. let's start building for the future. now on the topic of waiting, i don't know whether this is for

you or miss wise, but we have waited too long. 2025 is too far. have you ever seen a project of this scope, with this amount of impact on the city so uniformly approved? so uniformly supported? this is not even at the controversy stage anymore. this is what folks want. my understanding is that maybe it is in a bit of the design work, but really this is about money. so let me just ask the question. why is it going to take until 2025 to get this done? is it because we don't have the money identified for the various phases? the final phase is beginning in 2025. >> thank you for that question, director. that is one of the biggest challenges that we have. that is correct. we are going to work really hard

and are going to figure out how to find the funding that we are missing to deliver this project, and accordingly, also reprioritize staff resources to make sure we can deliver it as fast as possible. i could not agree with you more. we need to move faster and we will do everything we can to do so. >> is there something you would like to add to that answer? >> the issue of schedule has a couple of dimensions. the first is i don't want to lose what victoria said in her opening parts of the presentation, which is we will be quick building this, more or less immediately, in january we will be painting the new bus lanes, we will remove all the private traffic from market street so by the end of january 2020, the operational conditions that we are legislating and agreeing to today will be in effect. it is a question of one to the cars leave market street, the answer is january 2020. >> i appreciate that. we put pressure on you to do that and i'm not suggesting that

all of this is moving too slowly , but i am happy this will take place in january, i think we will see the short-term effects and benefits to that in january, but this is a grantor project, as you know. i'm gathering from your response that you don't disagree with me. i seen this agency move lots of money around. i've seen this city move even larger amounts of money around when there is enthusiasm and prioritize a show for something. there is here. i haven't heard from any major constituency. it is almost astonishing how well supported this is. it is not just supported because it will be beautiful and there will be trees on market street, although that is nice. it is supported because it will save people's lives. i guess what i would say is i think i have the support of the board on this that there is a real urgency here, and if i will say this, for my six months or many on the board, if you come

to me with a new capital project or some new spend, i will ask you the question, can we spend this on market street instead and speed that up? i would ask that you ask your partner agencies in this to ask the same question. it is time to move this along and i would also ask that you think very closely about what the director said, which is changing my thinking a bit, that if there are widths -- ways to bid this and contract that will speeded up, let's really look at that. >> maybe i could suggest that you have been mentioning this retreat, which i guess comes up in what month? >> february. >> january. [laughter]. >> like i said. >> next time i will ask the right person. [laughter] can we have at least a couple of different ideas on a funding plan for better market street at that meeting, too? >> excellent idea. >> i hear the direction loud and clear. we will leave no rock unturned

here. >> also please communicate that direction to the partner agencies, and if their boards or the constituencies to whom they report feel differently, please let us know so we can make an effort to convince them otherwise. okay. directors, anything else? we do have a motion and a second if there is no further discussion, i will call for a vote. all those in favor of the this item please the aye? >> aye. >> any opposed? okay. unanimous. congratulations, folks. [cheers and applause] >> item 12, directors, authorizing the director to execute three contracts, one with new flyer, one with be why d. coach, one with pro terra for the procurement of a 40-foot low floor battery electric buses.

>> where are you all going? do you not care about bus contracts? [laughter] >> special tools with options for additional coaches from each contractor. mr. chair, there are no speaker codes for this item. >> okay. mr. maguire, how would you like to proceed? >> my colleague will present. >> thank you. if it is too loud still you may wait, otherwise you may proceed when you are ready. >> good afternoon. i am the project manager at sfmta in the transit division. i am also the project manager for the electric bus pilot program.

this can be achieved by acquiring the purchase of a gradually increasing percentage of zero emission buses as part of the bus. remained with hundred% bus purchases being zero emission by 2029 with the goal of achieving full electrification by 2040. in may 2018, under your leadership of this board, we passed a resolution to begin procuring zero emission battery buses to replace our electric hybrid vehicles starting in 2025 , with the goal of achieving 100% electric vehicles by 2035. please note that this commitment exceeds the goal of achieving statewide zero emissions by 2040

sfmta has been one of the foremost national leaders in pursuing sustainable, reduced and zero emissions transit vehicles. >> san francisco government tv? >> sfmta has operated zero emission electric trolley coaches for decades. in 2007, we adopted the hybrid electric buses. in 2016, we incorporated the engine start stop feature on our hybrid buses to reduce emissions and noise. earlier this year, we launched a green zone pilot program. this is when one of our specially adopted hybrid electric buses enters a designated green zone. g.p.s. device triggers and switching to battery mode only. as part of this resolution that

we adopted in 2018, one of the commitments for sfmta was to conduct a battery electric bus pilot program. we intend to run the pilot program for a period of over a year, at least a year, and we intend to test battery buses from three manufacturers. they are the leading battery bus manufacturers in north america at the moment. there are several reasons why we are conducting this pilot program with several manufacturers. not only are we going to compare those buses side-by-side, but we are going to compare them with our hybrid buses and trolley buses, and then the pilot will be used to evaluate the performance, reliability, operate ability and maintainability of battery electric buses in our unique operating environment. there are quite a few numbers of

new manufacturers that i have -- that have entered this market. we want to make sure that we are not just testing bus technology, but ability for the manufacturer to build quality, safe, and reliable buses. we will incorporate many new features and next generation system interface and the pilot. this is a perfect opportunity for us to test that as well. and then we will use the experience gained in the pilot program to develop sfmta's future procurement strategy to realize the goal of fairly battery electric buses by 2035. in closing, i want to say that in addition to helping the environment, buses have the potential to make buses quieter, a more comfortable experience. the battery electric buses will bring lots of jobs.

our number one goal is to provide safe, reliable and sustainable service for writers. the battery electric bus program is an important step to realize a goal of full electrification by 2025. thank you. >> thank you very much. is any public comment on this item? >> there is no one who has turned in a speaker card. >> all right. mr. gill bertie, so patient today. the floor is all years. >> thank you. how long do we plan the life of the street? when we repave it? how long do we expect it to exist in a smooth ribbon before it needs to be redone? the reason i bring that up is because their sections of market and van ness right now that would be a wonderful test ground to quiet buses, not to the exterior sound of a bus, but the interior sound of a bus. we have all these new buses that

came on and on van ness and down at union, doughnut chestnut chestnut, as they enter into market street, they just rattle so awful that the bus driver can't hear of what's going on in the bus. you can't hear what is going on next to a person sitting next to you. can we check that out again? it is ridiculous to have buses that make more and more noise on the inside of the bus than the outside of the bus. please. thank you. >> thank you very much. anyone else on this item? seeing non, public comment is closed. directors, any questions or comments? >> thank you. just a few questions. i'm excited we are doing this pilot program. i know that some other cities have tried out electric buses and have been disappointed. i'm assuming since we have a full complement of new buses already that if we get these

buses and they turn out to have problems, our writers are not going to suffer, i assume, while we work out the flaws are any flaws that might exist. >> absolutely. that is the reason why we are doing this pilot. a very systematic approach. we want to test it. we will test them on some of our toughest routes to make sure they are operation ready before we deploy them into service. >> good. and the maintenance impacts or scenarios to that, do our maintenance people now have to handle all these different types of buses, or will they be spread out so the mechanics will have to work on these buses and are ready to go? >> one of the agencies that is important in this front, as we have hybrid buses. we have electric trolley buses and battery electric buses. our workhorses, my opinion, they are already trained to work on

this. >> great. thank you. i'm so excited about the use. this is a great step forward in our ability to put out more emission free buses. >> very good. any other questions or comments? >> i want to talk about the prices we are paying here. you are trying to spread it among three providers, and each of them has a different price. the spread between low and high is 50% of the price. that leads to two questions for me. why don't we buy from the lowest price and save 3 million bucks? >> the whole idea is we want to test multiple manufacturers. our commitments are we will only by battery electric -- electric buses. we want to have more competition it is a good operation on the price itself. the price of the amount of battery that is on the bus constitutes 40% of the bus price that is why you are seeing one

of the manufacturers who have given us the largest battery size, which means we will be able to go a lot more long distance with that. >> i thought you might say that. that leaves the second question, which is, why don't you ask all three of them to meet the low price? these guys stand to make a fortune on this bus, especially given the city's policy will only by buses at this time. why not put the squeeze on it a little bit and save the money? >> like i said, what we did is we did not specify the size of the battery. we want 160-mile in operating range. they determined the technology in the early stages. there's a lot of variation of what people will take to do 160 miles. this is why you are saying such a wide range of the battery sizes. but eventually when we have the

pilot established, we will know exactly what we will need and we can put that in our specification. >> i think it is not a battery specification problem, it is a bargaining question. if we go ahead with this, how many buses? how me buses would we buy from that vendor. >> eventually, 800 of them. >> that is bargaining power. >> absolutely. >> if someone realizes that someone stands to win a get a contract for 800 buses, they might be better to do the rock price. if we bought 800 buses from one of these vendors, when we pay the same price per bus that we are paying in this? i have to guess no. but i will ask the question. >> absolutely not. this is a lot of new requirements. this is why it is reflected in the price. we definitely would bid. >> there are two things that we have tested here.

but the other thing we are testing is the ability to do business is one of these vendors i don't want to slow this down, but i had the same reaction and i wonder if what we want to do was go back to the vendors and say they are 800 buses at play here. how much would you charge us per bus if we bought 800 of them and why don't you use that price for the pilot project? because if you come back to us and with three buses, and one of them a rattled way too much and we are not using that one and the other two, it was really close. i know that i wouldn't be here but i know whatever for if i were still here. i would save that money and get us more buses for the slight difference.

one of the things were attesting here, while we are protesting performance and range, we are also testing price. i would like to know what these vendors will say is there a place for 800 of these buses and maybe once we have that information, they would charge that here. maybe it is pie-in-the-sky, maybe i don't understand. i don't understand bus negotiations. i will admit that. but i will say i have the question, and especially now that i just moments ago vowed to pinch every penny for market street, i realize there are two different pots of money, i guess the thing that we step back and say is you hear what the director are saying. i think director torres is aligning himself with that. maybe i should stop and say is there an answer to this question >> i will jump in. we're talking about buying a product that is very much in the bleeding edge of the battery bus technology. when we buy 800 buses, the

technology will be much more proven. we will not be the only properties buying these buses and they will hopefully be a much more robust market with competitive pricing at that point. san francisco and new york and seattle will all be buying battery electric buses. i think on one hand, we're doing our part to move the industry forward by bringing pretty credible manufacturers into san francisco to test our difficult operating environment, but the price, if any of these three will prove they are part of the 800 vehicle purchase, i would expect we would pay this price here, not just because of the volume, what it will be five or 10 years from now. this industry which will be much more mature. we will not be paying for prototype, but paying for an established product -- project. >> i hear that.

i will say this. it is not a fully satisfying answer. if someone stands to sell us 800 buses, they should want to pay more. what i heard from your answer is they are going to fill more than 800 buses if they win because protesting for other transit properties around the country, so it is almost like, it is almost like they should be giving us these buses for free so they win the competition and be the standard battery bus. i know that is ridiculous, but at the same time, that is my question. and maybe the answer is no, but i have trouble voting for this. i don't think we have leveraged the best possible way to get a low price. this is not insignificant money. it is millions of dollars. >> it is billions. >> is there anything in the procurement process that would require us to take these and not negotiate like this? >> we did take it. this is the negotiated part.

>> pardon me, mr. chairman. >> go ahead. >> i guess i'm a little bit puzzled about then what the pilot will demonstrate. he basically are letting them write the specification for the vehicle and give them different battery silent -- sizes and different range characteristics. is that right? >> our requirement is that we send 160 miles. now because the technology is so new, not many know what it takes , what size of battery to provide to get to that range, so some people have given us a much larger about -- larger battery. some have given us a smaller battery pack because they think that will suffice. this item will tell us. that is exactly the reason for this pilot. >> essentially, what the bitters

-- bidders are doing is negotiating with us, but we are not negotiating with them. do you know what i mean? >> usually have to take the lowest bid, specifically. >> would it allow us to do what the vice chair just said? >> the procurement process is 160 miles. that is what they are going by. >> so you have one best and final offer. >> correct. >> could you do a second one? >> we could, but i don't suspect we would see any different results. >> could you do a second one that introduces this idea? >> i don't think anyone of these guys will drop off -- drop out for a couple million bucks. >> you are suggesting issuing another one at the three-point 5 million, which is the lowest

of the three? >> right. >> to see if they would match it >> right. >> we are actually subsidizing to be competitive. >> is that something that has ever successfully been done? i know this is unusual because electric buses are new, but do you feel that we have any opportunity here to get the price down on booze -- on these? >> we need to compare apples to apples on that point. the whole reason we are conducting this pilot is to qualify successful bidders. you might get a bus, but in the end, it will not work out for us , for the buses they will give us. that is the concern here. >> i hear what my fellow directors are saying we absolutely want to get the best price that we want to spend with taxpayer money that we want to have in the most efficient way we can. i also don't want to hold of this pilot project in hopes that

we might get something that we know we can't get. the art so many of these companies that are in incredibly strong negotiating positions here. so mu new cities will be switching over to these. what is the harm if we do delay this and go back to trying to negotiate better prices? how much damage do we do to the timeline of receiv you not even answer that. >> it would be about 35 weeks in advance once we enter the production line. and right now as the market is, everyone's trying to buy battery electric busses and there's not enough manufacturing capabilities. >> so we lose our place in line we're delaying the whole decision about which are the better busses. >> correct. >> can i chime in again because

i did work on this issue a little bit a bit in my former life. california's in a unique position here, right. we have a state agency the air resources board that's essentially compelling the conversion of our public transit bus market to electric vehicles. so we are going first. and we are i think at great risk of paying a significant premium for doing so. i don't think we should be piloting a price. because i don't think we want do give these businesses any idea this is what they're going to get when we belly up to the bar for $800 -- 800 busses. i don't know why it can't be a flat price or no price because

what they've got to gain say huge leg up on a market. whoever conquers california will probably conquer the rest of the country. >> if i may add to that, we're actually one of the last of the major agencies around the country and bigger agencies new york, seattle have already purchased the battery busses. >> and they purchased them at scale? like how many? >> same as us, nine, 10 pilot busses. >> they're pilots then. no one's ahead of us if everyone's doing a pilot. >> right. >> and then so you're understanding is that the pilot busses the other cities have purchased, they've purchased at these same prices? >> correct.

>> okay. i still want to move forward on this. think it's an important enough goal nor city and an important -- for the city and an important enough step i'd like to move to approve this and move ahead with the procurement. >> okay. so there is a motion on the item as it stand before us. is there a second? >> second. >> very good. a motion and second on this we can continue discussion but that's now moved. director heminger, i understand your point so eileen -- i'll lean on you would you care to propose an amendment or proceed on this? >> maybe a subsequent motion to clarify the differences. my motion would be to direct staff to issue a second best and

final offer or bafo to reduce the price of all of the procurement to the lowest price received to date. >> okay. so we have a motion and a second on the amendment. let me first ask mr. mcgwire if the amendment makes sense to you and your staff so we can proved. >> and what the -- proceed. >> and what the hit to the time line of the busses would be. >> the first answer is it clear enough? >> you're directing us to go back to the three manufacturers and ask them or ask new flyer and proterra to match byd's price. is that right? >> yes. and i don't know if there's a way to craft this in the language but i think staff ought to have some decision --

discretion if they can save us $200 million than $300 million. it's one way of skinning the cat but if there's a way to avoid paying the price they're suggesting because it's a pilot i think we ought to take it. >> the issue is it's a public proceeding. the folks paying for this are aware of what we did. we have to give a clear direction and if that direction is if you want to participate in the project you have to bid the low bid or you don't participate, that's clear enough. directing our staff to do the best you can with negotiation puts them in a very difficult place that will be hard for them to win. >> then i'll make the substitute motion as stated previously. >> very good. director torres with you seconded it. we have an amendment and second on the floor. now, mr. mcgwire's answers the question it's clear enough and you had a question to what that would be to the time line of the

pilot if you'd be so good as to answer that that'd be great. >> as things stand today they'll be expected to be delivered in october 2020. we'll have to look at it if you're going to issue a bafo. one thing i want to mention on the issuing of the bafo to match byd's pricing, we will not get the same bus from the other two oems. while -- we'll have to give up something. >> i don't understand that. so if we succeed in get lower price it will be a modified bus in some way? >> yes, it won't meet the range. >> i'm confused. so they're not apple to apple comparisons. >> correct. >> i guess it would be helpful to understand you mentioned battery size but is that the

goal to test the range? >> director heminger's amendment doesn't give us a different bus for less. i understand it's give us the bus you were going to sell us for $4.4 million or $5.2 million for the $3.5 million price if you want to play in the pilot. is that correct? >> yes. >> you don't say take off the windows and have a smaller batteries to meet the $3.5 million. we're doing you a favor by letting you play. >> do you have an idea on their mark up or their profit? >> it's usually 10% to 15%. >> for something like this it may be higher? >> i don't think so. it's a pilot program lots of engineer is need on their end. one they finalize the vehicle they know our requirements we

have one of the strict requirements. >> i'm not trying to mess around with your different battery approaches and see what you get but i think we're under the current approach missing a pretty significant moment of leverage it's not insignificant. it's $3 million. >> the only way they'd be able to reduce the price -- >> is just decide to. >> and also the question is if we're testing slightly different things. the battery is more expensive because it's battery then that's different than they all have the same range but the batteries are different size for a different reason. i think it would be helpful to understand if the price differential is related to something different or greater that we asked for in the testing.

>> no, i think the price is strictly due to the size of the battery. >> i know we have two motions on. just as a procedural matter and the fact that i don't like writing multi-million dollar contracts from the board's seat, may i suggest something, dr. mcgwire and see what you think. i think you've heard concerns about the pricing arrangement and a perhaps missed chance of leverage from at least three directors. rather than amending this and doing something now, might it make sense for you and your colleagues to consider this feedback and the opportunities presents and come back to us at the next meeting with answers more detailed and more answers. i'm not mandating this but i'm suggesting we're getting into a lot of stuff we may not have answers and i fear we're missing each other a little bit on the question but i think the issues the three of us have raised and

i raised it, may be significant enough it may be worth waiting two weeks. table the item until the next meeting and you and your staff can come back and say, we've looked into it, there really is an opportunity for leverage, here's how we want to exploit it or there isn't an opportunity for leverage and be prepared to answer why. you'll have some skeptical board members if that's the answer. >> it would be good to see if there were comparable prices the other agencies referred to paid that would be helpful information for us if it's available. >> and has anyone bought these busses at scale? >> 50 to 60 orders. >> i'd be interested to see what the prices are. guys know this stuff. >> it's a good suggestion. my preference would be to continue to the next meeting. >> so let's pause on that.

there was a motion and a motion to amend and a want to follow proper procedure. so directors, does anyone object to kicking it two weeks? okay. so director brinkman may i ask you to withdraw your motion? >> i withdraw the motion. >> director heminger. >> likewise. >> thank you for answers the questions. we didn't mean to put you in the hot seat in the hot room but there it is. we'll look forward to seeing you. let me ask, ms. boomer do we have room on the calendar next time? >> for november 5,y. >> november 5 we'll look forward to talking about it then. thank you. do i need to do a formal motion to table? the power that is mine? awesome. let's wield more off that. >> clerk: and item 13 presentation and discussion regarding the scooter share program. >> another controversial issue

coming to us. what a day this is. >> chair hieineke and board of directors i oversee the scooter share policy and i've been working on it a little over two and a half years and presented four or face-off times and it's -- four or five times and it's a wrapped ily changing -- rapidly changing field and the latest iteration in our process in developing our scooter program there's a lot of detail in the presentation recognizing where we are. i'm going to go through a relatively efficiently and happy to go back to any areas you want more detail on as part of the questions. in terms of context, in may, 2018 this board approved a one-year pilot program which we started in october and presented

the pilot results this spring. the one finding for that i wanted to highlight i have the graphic up here on the board and really the finding that keeps us coming back to why we want to expand the program is that when we did the user survey over 40% of the scooter trips would have been taken by a single occupancy vehicles. otherwise 36% are by uber or lyft and while there's challenges to figuring out the equity of the program the number of sustainable trip was incredibly important to us and we developed a permanent program. in july of 2019, this board approv approved amendments to create a scooter program in san francisco and based on the direction and guidance we heard we put together an application process and selected applicants this fall.

very quick summary by the numbers. we got 11 applicants and selected four perm -- permittees with a 12-month permit date and the first day of the permit is today. and we wanted to time the presentation as close as possible to the launch but we ended up getting exactly. the four main areas i wanted to go through today is kind of what we feel are critical keys to the success of the program. and rather than reading the slide i'll just jump into them. and the first one of those is defining a really detailed and rigorous application process. something we learned from the pilot program frankly we didn't know enough about what we wanted. there was less clarity in the application process than was ideal. in this case we had eight categories clearly defined and 62 criteria in which we scored each applicant and we did a very

thorough review at every one of the 62 criteria. rather than the one thing to point out to the top four scoring am can'ts were ahead of the lower scoring applicants and we went with four. we've had a couple questions about the numbers and people have asked why 4,000. the answer is simple and why i just said the four had the strongest applicants based on the criteria.

>> we want to push the service to neighborhoods where it's needed and we're doing that in two different way. one, we have target densities for disadvantaged expects or communities of concern by the mtc and then the follow-up sued of that isuedandside.so no moree located in the financial

district core. in addition to providing scooters in disadvantaged communities, we know that's not enough to have an equitable program. you need programs in place so people know why they're useful. it comes with equity and engagement o. it includes multiple li lingual services. then making sure scooters are affordable to everyone and all very robust low income plans that need to be available to everyone who is at the 200% federal poverty line or below and they do all have cash payment options