chariot to operate and we have scooter share and shared mopeds. we have a division one transportation code amendment that will go before the board of supervisors that will establish the violation for operating a mobility service without a permit or authorization and it expands existing parking restrictions to have the right umbrella to include both bike share and scooter share. so we have one care for these shared mobility services. and that legislation was introduced -- again division one was introduced to the board of supervisors in early october.

now i'm going to turn it over to my colleague. >> my name is darten eto and i lead the innovation team at sfmta. so to complement the division one amendments that kate just mentioned, for your consideration today are changes to division two of the transportation code. the first is to define what we mean by the shared mobility device service. so these are not meant to -- that definition is not meant to cover personally owned devices or devices that are used by an individual. rather, they're shared and used in the public space, either stored or operated. our general definition is that it's a mobility device or group of devices that are capable of carrying ten or more people

separately or together. we were looking at something that wasn't just the number of devices but potential impact it can have based on the size or the ability to carry people. the second part is the establishment of the proof of concept authorization. so while the division one changes would create the prohibition on operating without a permit or approval by the city, the proof of concept authorization would provide the clear path for a company to work with the city. within the transportation code, it would describe the basic requirements, the requirement for an application, a testing plan, the ability to require fees for both application and, if approved, for the ongoing administration of the program. finally, it would establish fines and authorize the agency to terminate if the conditions

weren't being met. so the general purpose is to provide a path to permits. this is for something new to the city being used or deployed in a new way. our goal is to open up a discussion with the company early on, collect informations, and inform pilot programs as we move forward. we're hoping we can prevent unregulated launches and have the opportunity to work with the communities to establish the right framework going forward. we're proposing that the proof of concept authorization be approved by the director of

transportation and we're looking for this to be of things of a limited duration or geography. so not full deployment across the city, start small, and then fill out if we see success or promise from the service going forwa forward. so accompanying the transportation code would be a policy directive that would be issued by the director of transportation that would talk about how we would implement the proof of concept authorization. this would provide transparency to the companies and clearly indicate that the expectations of the city are. there would be application who, what, when, how the service would operate. our process for reviewing the operations and what criteria we would use to approve or disallow.

public engagement plans. and then the criteria for establishing the terms and potentially terminating the authorization. so then real quickly want to cover the outreach we've done so far. we've put together a project website with contact information and listing different copy of the presentation very similar to this. we've reviewed the proposal with a number of advisory bodies representing accessibility, pedestrians, bicycle groups. also the cacs for the transportation authority and the sfmta. we've contacted other city departments or other government agencies that operate within san francisco. and then we held a community formum that was attended by both

industry and community representatives. some of the things that we heard were the need to ensure pedestrian safety, that there's a process to hold the users of the services accountable, that complaints can be addressed. one of the things that we heard repeatedly was that there's ongoing community engagement. so not just when a service starts, but throughout its operation. and finally, the need to provide infrastructure to support the services. we'll be looking to incorporate these into the authorization for any particular service as would be appropriate for that service. i'll turn it back over to kate to talk about where we hope to go next. >> thank you very much.

>> we put together a schematic. sometimes the timelines can be confusing so we wanted to lay out a division 1 and division # approval process. and moving onto the next phase is contingent on approval. as i mentioned, we introduced the division 1 transportation amendment to the board of supervisors early in october. it has to sit for 30 days. it is now able to be scheduled at committee. we understand it's intended to be heard before the land use and transportation committee. we don't have yet a date by which this will be scheduled. we're hoping soon. so it takes two hearings for division 1. if approved, it goes to the mayor's desk and you'll see by the end of january 2020 based on

that approval, that division 1 transportation amendment will be in effect. and below the listing of the months, we see the process for the division 2 amendment. so now we're at the mta board for consideration. if adopted, it's 30 days and is ratified. notice we sync of edition 1 and 2. so the actual operative date will be when division 1 and 2 are finally approved and ready to go. we do have next steps. this is just phase 1 that's before you today, but phase 2 we're going to take a look at the existing permit programs and create a package of amendments for your approval. so that will be coming soon.

we want to allow the regulatory framework to be such that if and when new programs come online, they can slot in easily to the existing structure. we have heard a feedback movement of goods. we have listed that as phase 3. we think that that would be a great topic to collaborate with the office of emerging technologies on. this is going to be a really big conversation. this will require a lot of community engagement and outreach because it could touch a lot of businesses. so we wanted to note that as well as a phase 3. we also have ongoing efforts similar to looking at the regulatory structure and how the code should be rationalized. we're having the same look with the data.

we want to make sure the data we're requiring and collecting and analyzing makes sense on whole. we want to be able to say something about each program as compared to the others. that's an ongoing internal process. we're working to make sure we have the right organizational structure. so we're prepared to manage and handle. we feel by harmonizing these programs we'll achieve staffing efficiencies. as i mentioned earlier, this is a collaborative effort. the sustainable street office of innovation is that front door. they work on program incubation, proof of concept authorization. really when there are new programs, that's the front door. taxis and accessible services help support as needed.

then when there are ongoing regulatory permit programs, the idea is that they move under one umbrella, again, to make sure we have efficiencies. so that's a lot of information. i want to bring it back to the here and now and what we're requesting the board today. so our staff recommendations, we are requesting that the board of directors and division 2 the transportation code to establish the shared mobility device service definition to delegate authority to the director of transportation to authorize a proof of concept authorization program if there's not an existing permit program, establish fees and administrative penalties for violations, and to recommend that the board of supervisors approve an amendment to division 1 of the transportation code to permit authorization of a shared mobility device without a permit or authorization.

we're happy to take any questions you may have. >> directors, any questions? >> are there any other jurisdictions that are doing anything like this just out of curiosity? >> this is a hot topic almost everywhere we go. we were up in sacramento speaking before committees, and there were five california jurisdictions talking about how they're handling scooters and micro mobility. so i would say this is a big topic, how each jurisdiction is establishing that front door and making sure they have a program that looks different in different places, but there is a need for the conversation. >> you mentioned reaching out to industry groups, but did we reach out to the various companies and do a focus group

with them. the valuation information of doing a proof of concept can help them get funding and set them up in different positions. i wonder if you had those conversations. >> what we did is invited the permit holders to our outreach session and we met with the chamber. the chamber of commerce was interested and supportive of this effort, in the same vein of it creating claritied and a path in the front door. it was very well received and we will continue having those conversations, but the feedback we heard is this is kind of the right path. >> to do what we can do to get the -- the chamber is great, but to get the people working in the transportation mobility services generally and have them be part of a -- maybe sort of an advisory group or a group we can talk to about what's coming online and what kinds of things

people are looking at in terms of mobility and things they want to test so that we aren't surprised. i imagine in the future there will be more services just to go straight to sales as opposed to rentals because it might be easier in some ways. that presents itself as a problem if you're not talking to them. the other thing is getting the word out early and often and going to all the places where people are creating innovation to let them know that this our process, number one, but number two, it is a real opportunity for them to better plan how to do their proof of concept in a place like san francisco where we could ultimately think about how to partner. >> i think those are great points and particularly the advisory body and the need for the two-way conversation. also, the community is hungry to have a voice in an ongoing way.

that's a lot we've heard about in our outreach session. so i'm making notes. >> any other questions? any public comment on this? >> clerk: mr. chair, nobody has a speaker card and it doesn't look like anybody is moving to stand up. >> wonderful. well, you've bitten off a lot to chew, but i know you of all people can do it. given where we are, i'll entertain a motion on the adoption of this proposal. all in favour, please say "aye." that's passed. >> agenda item 13.

>> ms. kirshbaum, back so soon. >> i thought perhaps you continued because you missed me last week. hello, i'm a transcript director. i will keep this brief because i know this is the second time this item has come before you, but i did want to try to address the important questions that you raised at your last meeting. this is our zero emissions program is a program that i am

incredibly proud of. we have really made incredible progress both through increment investments in things like hybrid vehicles before anybody was doing hybrid vehicles. [ please stand by ]

>> this pilot will help us in a small scale understand a facility upgrade, but we're also working on a larger consultant study to really help us understand what is needed for the facility piece of this

investment. the pilot program aims to purchase nine vehicles on three routes. it also installs charging structure at the wood division, and although these companies each have their own data and tracking for performance, we've required them to use a standardized system so we know we're making an apples to apples comparison. i also want to flag that while i was at the american public transit association conference last month, another large manufacturer, nova, also announced that they were introducing an electric bus, so that's something we could look

to pilot in the future to complement this work. the goals of the pilot are really to inform the larger procurement and to encourage future competition. we have not been very successful in attracting competition from bus manufacturers. i think the most significant was when we bought the 526 hybrids, and we only had one firm that bid. a lot of that has to do with what's going on in the industry itself. in the late 90s, there were six major bus manufacturers. they have consolidated down to three, so the electric bus industry actually has the potential to attract new manufacturers. and in fact two of the companies that we're piloting, b.y.d. and potrero, are relati

relatively new to the industry, so we have to ask ourselves questions. for those newer to the industry, we have to ask, are they scaleable, and what is the full bus? so great that we have the battery technology, but what are your brakes like, and your systems, and how do you manage warranties? and for management, tried and true, we want to see how their batteries perform when they enter the market, so we'll be testing the batteries ourselves on the existing fleet. we'll be looking at what is the very best technology in the market and you'll see in a minute that what they have to offer at the current point does vary. we'll be evaluating the full bus, not just the battery components, and then, we're also using this as an opportunity to put on some bells and whistles that we don't typically put on our

vehicles. so not only do we have all these things on a pilot, but we're also looking at new seats, new security systems, a different type of door that opens out and offers more space, so an opportunity to consider all the things that customers have been asking us for to see if they make sense as we prepare for the larger purchase. as you noted in your last meeting, there is a range in price. the price for all three vehicles ranged from $3.5 million to $5.2 million. this includes not only a base price, but all the other items like a warranty and all the other items folded into the procurement. >> questions? >> please. >> yes. >> on the three questions that you cite in the proposal,

you're asking for all three to be answered to go forward. now b.y.d. is a chinese owned business? >> yes. >> is there a ban on chinese doing business in america? >> i'll defer that question. >> yes. there is currently two pieces of federal legislation, one passed by the house and one by the senate that would preclude using federal funds for some procurements. the one in the house i think would procure a federal -- i'm sorry, would prevent federal funds from using all rolling stock, and the other would prevent using federal funds just on railing rolling stocks, so those two bills that have been passed are in conference and need to be reconciled, so

depending how they are reconciled may prevent using funds for buses and rails. >> so in your opinion, should we delay using b.y.d. until this is resolved? >> we believe that there's enough potential that it is my recommendation that you proceed, but it would certainly reasonable if the board so chose to hold. >> well, i'm unclear as to what percentage of the funding that we're talking about here is federally oriented. is it all federal money that we're talking about? >> to clarify, the -- the regulations that are going through at the federal level right now would not apply retroactively, so they would not apply to the current contract in front of you, but they would potentially apply to the larger procurement that we would make in 2025. >> well, it could apply to the current contract because we haven't approved it yet.

>> again, deputy city attorney susan cleaveland again through the chair. if we were to approve the contract today, that would be permitted. it would be a question of whether you can use federal funds for a later procurement. >> but why would we spend money to pilot a bus or test a bus that we may not federally precluded from buying later? >> that's my question. >> i think because of the uncertainty that it's very possible that they will not proceed forward with the bus piece of that regulation as it's only in one half of the house -- of the government at this point. >> but that's what conference committees are for, to resolve discrepancies between the houses. given the president's current position, i think that might prevail. >> i do have a question related to that. i know we have a timeline by

which we need to order these buses and have them tested out and if you could walk that out so we know what to expect? >> yes. thank you for that question. so it takes about 35 weeks to prepare for and build the bus. our current schedule would have the buses being delivered in the fall of -- the first bus of each manufacturer being delivered in the fall of 2020, and then all nine by january of '21. and that would allow us about 18 to 24 months of data collections. we will essentially have to develop and issue the r.f.p. for the 2025 buses in 2023 because it takes two years to

execute a contract of that scale. >> so even then -- i mean, i guess -- i mean, i understand the point that you're both making, but i guess in two years, things could go a lot of directions. so we're not really sure how long -- with everything going on in congress, we're not really sure how quickly that'll happen. if it's -- i mean, if it's -- if it's worth it to us because of the type of technology that they're looking at and there aren't that many operators out there, and it's true that many other jurisdictions are going in the same direction, and as i understand in this contract, a lot of people are looking at us to kind of test these buses for procurement. if this bus happens to perform well and be the one that we want, i would imagine there would be a huge push to create an exemption at the congressional level.

i think we can't really anticipate what the federal level circumstance help us determine today because i think there's so much -- a long window on all these sort of things that need to happen. >> being okay. anyone else have questions? this is a bit of a thicket here. director rubke? >> if we were to move forward on this recommendation and we did this evaluation on the b.y.d. data buses, and all this regulation materialized, and we're unable to use the federal funding on those buses, on those b.y.d. buses that we can't get, would that still be useful in developing the r.f.p. for eventual procurement? >> i believe it would because we're testing a range of battery strengths. it's actually a good transition to this next slide which talks about the similarities and the

differences of -- of each vehicle. >> i might point out also that b.y.d. was the cheapest when we were -- no, but ironically, we were trying to -- going to get everyone to come down. >> so did you have a further comment? sk >> i think the final comment, b.y.d., are they manufactured all of their parts in the u.s. or are they manufactured in china and then imported here? >> so the company's american presence is b.y.d. america. they meet all the by america requirements, and the vehicles are manufactured outside of los angeles. >> where? >> outside of los angeles, industrial city, i believe. in lancaster. >> not your former district, but close. >> i knew you were thinking it, so i just put it out there. north of your former district.

>> thank you. >> so stepping back, the conversation last week started with why are we paying anything for someone who wants to sell us 800 buses? and director hemminger and director torres said that doesn't make sense. so to answer that question, i think what we're hearing is maybe contrary to something that was said up here is that there are a lot of places looking to test these buses, so there's a lot of demand for these buses on a pilot basis, and your assessment is that that's valid, that they're not bluffing, that that's for real because they have enough other cities interested in these buses. is that a fair summary of how we got to today?

>> it is. >> okay. so now, today, this legal issue comes up, and i have to say, i have the same concern that director torres just enunciated, which is spending $3.5 million to pilot something that we may not eventually be able to buy concerns me. $3.5 million is a lot of money. you can give, for example, a lot of youth free passes, as we know -- we've dollared these things out, and having been through many budget cycles, and having heard 80 people's comments about $600,000, i take $3.5 million seriously. here's what i will say to you: can you proceed with this pilot project with just new flier and proterra? >> i'm going to defer that to susan. >> again, deputy city attorney

susan cleaveland-knowles. yes, if you have a reason not to go ahead with one of the three. we'd ask that you approve today with the resolution that's in your packet but deny the referral to your consent calendar at the next meeting if that's acceptable to the secretary. >> okay. realizing there may be a difference of opinion on this from a policy basis as enunciated by some of my colleagues, is the fact that this is pending legislation that may eliminate them as a viable vendor, is that a defensible part of this contract? >> i believe that's defensible. >> okay. i've set the stage for the one issue that we've addressed -- i won't say resolved because i see other mistakcs going up.

director eaken? >> would our hands be tide if we could use nonfederal sources of funding to procure those buses in the future? >> i'm going to defer that question, as well. >> well, 800 buses is a mess of money. i wouldn't want to put the agency on the hook without -- for doing that without federal money. >> i think that's a more concise -- >> sorry to take your thunder, susan. >> if b.y.d. turns out to be the best and they work out to be -- for us to be the best, there would be a marketplace for either someone else to buy b.y.d. or someone else to replicate what they were doing? i just can't imagine if they are the best out there, that somehow we won't be able to get ahold of them. i just have a hard time, and we all the time take action to

counter what president trump decides every day, you know, at the governor's office and the mayor's office. i really think it will turn out for the best, that we'll be getting it from them or somebody else because the company will change hands or somebody else will replicate. i don't believe it's the best solution, that it will be the thing that goes away. i think a lot of things will change between now and 2023, and who knows? they may not be the best performer. but one of the things we talked about last time was testing slightly different things with different buses, and you see they have things in the check marks that the other two things just don't have. while i guess we couldn't find another person to fit the backfill. that's problem number one. for problem none two, it completely sets back the pilot significantly in terms of time. so then, we're going to be looking at a procurement in 2027 if we're trying to get

another -- a third party to be a part of it. >> okay. anyone else have further comments? how many public comment cards do we have? >> one. >> one? my second favorite number. >> thank you, chair heinicke. if this board decides to only approve the two bus manufacturers, which i don't support. i would like to support all three of them. is there another one out there that would possibly be able to purchase some test bus from or are these truly the top three and only the three that we really think will work in our situation? >> thank you for that question. it was announced in october that nova, which is one of the three large bus manufacturers is partnering with b.a.e. which currently makes about two thirds of our hybrid bus engines to produce a battery bus, so we're currently exploring other competitively

bid consortiums to see if we could possibly include them in our pilot. >> so it's possible we could approve two or three today, and then sometime we might say there's another one we want to test, as well. >> yes, i do think there would be a strong benefit to doing that. >> okay. so the pricing issue and the legal issue have been teed up. i know we were in the middle of your slide presentation. would you like to proceed? >> just -- just very briefly. some of the distinctions are that both b.y.d. and the proterra bus have the -- a dual traction motor, which is ultimately what we think we're going to need for our hills. if we don't, it's better. it's a simpler and more standardized vehicle.

proterra has a greater number of standardized batteries in their bus and they were the only one that met the requirement that they had to be a range of 160 miles a day, which is nice because these batteries degrade over time. i think new flier does have the benefit of the fact that they just have produced over 800 buses for us, so they already have long-standing relationships with our vendors, for example, our camera system, our transit signal priority system. b.y.d. i think in some ways is subsidizing that cost. and then lastly, i will say they did meet our extended warranties and our data. we did ask -- we didn't go so far as to ask for free buses, but we did ask if there was

opportunities to bring down the costs without compromising functionality, and what we heard is that although they sound relatively high, these costs really are quite lean. both companies did offer opportunities to either reduce scope, so we would lose functionality like the dual traction motor, or we would shift responsibility to the agency. so for example, if we had the warranty structured differently or if they were not on the hook for the battery life, it was reduced cost, but there's a lot of uncertainty in those areas which is why we built it into the contract in the first place. it -- it -- it gives me a lot of pause after the robust discussion that you had to bring this item back essentially unchanged, but that is my recommendation, and

really driving that recommendation is the competition. i think that what we spend today to build those relationships with our subsuppliers, to understand the relationships that we build in san francisco, so understand that in the last five years, we've transformed how we maintain our vehicles, and we really are meeting and exceeding all the manufacturer's warranties. that's what ultimately i think is going to want to attract companies to bid on our specs. i don't, for a variety of reasons, recommend reducing scope or changing the price element. and i -- i am hopeful that we'll take at least some action today because although far out, i do feel that our window for these -- this pilot to inform our larger procurement is shrinking.

>> very good. >> i have one more question. so at the end of the pilot, is it -- is it -- is it our thinking that we would only choose between these three buses to purchase or we would know the specs and we could end up purchasing another company's buses other than these three. >> the latter. >> so i think that's the point to point out here, that because we choose these three, it's not one of the them that will get the bid at the end. if b.y.d. has all these various functionalities, i can't imagine that there wouldn't be other companies that had also figured these things out. >> okay. the one public comment card that we have, would you please call that individual? >> okay. aiden miller. >> hello. i just had a bit of a concern with the plug door design. like, i know we have -- i believe it's just one that's already out in the streets kind of testing that design, and i've ridden on it a couple of

timings, and i've just noticed that it's a lot slower to open and close. it seems like it's more sensitive, so if, like, somebody's trying to hold it, like, it seems easier to, like, delay the bus that way. and then also, like, with customer information systems, i'd love to see something, like, on our l.r.v. fours where we're not, like, announcing all the lines, but i think that's helpful for tourists. >> anyone else -- mr. gilberti, i was waiting, hoping that we'd hear from you today, so thank you. >> thank you. the new flyer, i have experience with, too. it's cabinetry. it's not anything really mechanical that creates all this noise inside the buses. please, let's try and get a

quiet interior of the bus. the next thing is we have a union man, a shop man here? i wouldn't mind hearing what he thinks of the buses and what's needed here. >> all right. you're welcome to public comment if you like. we would, of course, be interested in what you have to say, as well. >> of course. once again, my name is mark jane, and the fact is i've done this job for about 2.5 months. 20 years before that, i was a bus mechanic, and i do have experience on b.y.d. buses. golden gate's got three of them. first run, as is always -- and this is also true of any of the new series of buses that we received, m.c.i., you-name-it,

down the road, you spend a good amount of time in the first few months working out the kinks because a lot of it is trial by fire. and with electric buses, it'll probably end up being more so. my personal opinion is i don't really care for b.y.d. much. their operator manuals -- we basically had to learn to work on it ourselves because their maintenance manuals, they -- they translated direct from chinese to english, and it's very difficult to read and understand. and the help they sent didn't speak english, so it was -- you know, all those were difficult tasks to overcome. it took a while. right now, they're operating fairly well, but it took us a while to get to that point, so -- >> thank you very much. appreciate that. any further public comment on this site? okay. seeing none, director torres, i will do my best to frame what i

think is your proposed amendment, and tell me if i got it wrong, and susan, tell me if i got it impermissible. i believe your amendment would be to amend this to remove the item to authorize, instead of three contracts, two contracts at the proposed prices, one for new flyer, and one for proterra, removing b.y.d. from consideration for now pending the outcome of the conference committee and the federal legislation. >> so moved. >> okay. is that -- are we good with that? is there a second for that item? i will second it. i think i know what the vote's going to be, but all those in favor, please say aye. and all those opposed, please say nay. okay. so 4-2, that amendment fails. we now return to the original item. i'll entertain a motion on item

13. >> motion to approve. >> second. >> okay. all those in favor, please say aye. any opposed? okay. i'll register as a yes now, so 5-1, that passes. julie, get some great buses. that's a lot of money. all right. next item is closed session. >> the appropriate for motion >> mr. chairman -- okay, the m.t.a. board of directors are back in open session. the board of directors voted to settle the aceto case, so that was removed from the agenda at the request of staff. the board also discussed the director of transportation but took no action.

directors, it would be appropriate for a motion to disclose or not disclose. >> motion not to disclose. >> all in favor, say aye. okay. i would like to make a motion to rescind the vote on the entire action item. is there a motion to rescind that vote? >> motion. >> is there a second? >> second. >> okay. all in favor? this is as presented by staff. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor, say aye. all opposed? with that, we are adjourning in memory of buck deventhal and

kathleen knox, and susan, as i said, please tell your office that we are thinking of buck. >> thank you. >> we are adjourned.

>> for joining us here today. we all know that our public transportation system in san

francisco is important to our present and it is definitely critical to the future of our city. as our city grows, as our economy grows, as we build more housing, as more people work here, we know that we can't continue to grow in those areas without thinking about improvements to our public transportation system. as someone who grew up in this city, i relied on muni, the 31, the 22 philmore, the 44, you name it, i was on those buses. the 19, i know the routes by heart. but the fact is, you know, we need to do better. we need to make sure that people, especially people who rely on muni to get to work, school, doctors appointments, so

many of our seniors who can't drive and need to pick up their medications and other things, we need to make sure that our public transportation system is reliable for all of our communities, in all parts of san francisco, especially on those communities that have consistently been neglected. it means safer streets for pedestrians and bicyclists and all of its users. we know over the years the city is a lot more congested than it has ever been, but we also know to make it a better city and to reach our climate goals, we have to leave it less congested. we have a lot of work to do and we are doing the work. in june we created a working group with city leaders and staff and industry leaders with

the goal of making this better. i am looking forward to seeing the recommendations coming out. over the past few years we have made some significant investments. we committed to doubling the pace of building more protected bike lanes. we established a quick build program to increase the delivery of low-cost units. and we expanded our focus on traffic safety. thankfully the voters gave us one more tool to improve streets with the passage of proposition v. this will allow us to invest $30 million in light rail vehicles anduses as well as street safety improvements. so the work continues and we will continue to do the work that we can to move these

objectives forward as quickly as possible. these objectives are the responsibility of the san francisco municipal transportation agency. the m.t.a. managing our streets, public transportation, other mobility options like bike shares and e-scooters, and a lot of public infrastructure projects, like the central subway and van neessb.r.t. this is a system that looks at day-to-day operations as well as looking at the future and how we make sure that the challenges that existed now don't continue to exist in the future. this requires a strong vision and strong leadership. so today i'm proud to announce that the s.f. board will be recommending -- the s.f. m.t.a. board will be recommending

jeffry tumlin as the next director of s.f. m.t.a. this is jeffry. you can clap. [ laughter ]. >> mayor breed: jeff is an international transportation expert who brings over 25 years of experience of improving transportation in cities. he was recently the interim director at the oakland department of transportation, where he laid the foundation for the agency's future success with a lens on environmental benefits and equality. i believe jeffry will do the same at s.f. m.t.a. throughout his career, he has been known for bringing a visionary perspective on transportation in cities and helping to implement innovative ideas that are desperately needed. he will be joining the city as a long-time resident of noey valley and will be the first lgbtq director in s.f.'s

history. i look forward to working with jeffry to help us deliver a great transportation system in san francisco, and i want to thank the board, including the president of the board who is here today, malcolm heinikie and gweneth borden, thank you for your leadership and coordinating the interview process and everything that you did, to make sure that we found the best person possible to do the job to make our public transportation and infrastructure and all that we need to do to improve mobility in san francisco in a safe, efficient, and environmentally friendly way to choosing that person who could do just that. ladies and gentlemen, jeffry tumlin. >> good morning. my name is jeff tumlin, and i

have been in the transportation industry for a long time, for 25 years, advising cities and transit agencies how to clarify their values and then use transportation investments to make those values manifest. i like asking questions about what is most important, what does success look like, and more importantly how would we measure whether we were actually successful or not. that's where my technical work comes into play, trying to use tools to be able to measure social equity and environmental outcomes and to align our transportation spending in order to best achieve the public good. i ended up in this industry against my better judgment. i discovered very early in my career and sort of by accident that we in transport have a bigger impact on public health outcomes than the medical

industry does. we have a bigger impact on economic development, than economic development programs do. and more importantly, we are arguably the biggest driver of opportunity. we decide how many jobs people can get to in a reasonable commute time. we determine whether children can get safely to school, which impacts their academic performance. we are fundamental drivers of economic opportunity or destroyers of economic opportunity. we have resources. if we use those resources wisely, we can correct the ways in which my industry has historically destroyed opportunity and wealth for people of color. early in my industry's history,

if you wanted to build a highway project, you got extra points for removing light. light of course being defined as african-american and latino ownership. the city and county of san francisco did not escape that dark period in our industry, and we have a key responsibility to correct for the past and to equalize opportunity for everyone. we can also do what some mobility tech companies want us to do, which is to provide more exquisite convenience for the privilege. i'm committed to doing the former, and using transportation as a tool to make san francisco achieve its potential. that includes addressing problems like the fact that 25 people have died in our streets this year and were on track to injure nearly 3,000.

we lose in injuries and fatalities about 647 people in san francisco. i want to change that. you can see from my social media presence that i've long been an outspoken proponent of changing core practices in my industry and using the power that we have in transportation to reduce climate change, improve quality of life, foster small business success, and advance equity. i've reached the point in my cle career, however, where it's time to stop advising and start doing. i've worked all over the world, and san francisco remains the only city that i felt was my home. san francisco has assembled all of the pieces that we need in order to create dramatic and

progressive change. we've got a visionary m.t.a. board that i cannot wait to work for. we have the most talented agency staff in the industry. we have a tenacious and hard-driving mayor who i know will make a great partner. we also have a progressive board of supervisors ready to ask the tough questions. i am ready to serve all of them. i don't have a 30 or 100-day plan. my first task is to listen carefully to staff. we do have the most incredible assembly of talent of any city in the country. i trust their professional expertise. it is my job first to listen and then secondly, and more importantly, to remove obstacles so that they can do their good and productive work. i do not know all of the answers yet. it's going to take me a while to

learn from staff what the best answers are. i want to close by saying that we have talent, resources and some clarity about what our resources are in san francisco, but there remains a gap between san francisco's potential and its current reality. i am deeply excited to do the hard work to close that gap. we have the tools and all of the resources that we need, unlike really any city in the world. i can't wait to get started, particularly with the help of all of you in this room, the press. with that, i'm happy to take questions. malcolm, did you have words to say? >> absolutely. i know i stand between you and the questions for our new director of transportation. i am the chair of the new m.t.a. board. if i seem excited, it's