>> meeting of thetransportation agency and the parking authority commission. secretary, can you please call the role ? >>. [rollcall]

>> directorheminger is not expected at today's meeting . you havea quorum . >> chair: if we can go on to our next item. >> clerk: announcement of devices during the meeting, no announcements inour virtual meeting . item numberfour, approval of minutes for the september 21 regular meeting . >> chair: directors, any additions or subtractions before we open it to public comment toget their input . ca nine, moderator are there any calls on the line? remind people of the number four calling in. >> clerk: the numberfour members: public comment on the minutes is 888-808-6929 . theaccess code is 9961164 . to address the board dial 1, then zero. >> chair: moderator, are there any calls on the line for approval of minutes from the september 21 regular meeting ?

>> you have one question remaining. >> chair: yes, mister philpell. >> caller: the only thing i saw on here is on page 9 in reference to my comment at the top which is recentboard of supervisor resolution , i believe it shouldbe board of supervisors . otherwise i thought the minutes were darned good and captured the colorand flavor of the comments made . my appreciation to miss silver for her work. >> chair: thank you very much mister philpell are thereadditional colors on the line? >> you have zero questions remaining . >> chair: with with that we willclose public comment . is there a motion .

secretary , can you please call the role. >> clerk: [roll call vote] the minutes areapproved . place interview onitem 5, communications . >> chair: sadly i must adjourn in honor of marilyn golding who passedaway on september21 . for those who may not know she was a fierce civil rights advocate for people with disabilities . even though she slept in the bay area impact wasfelt across the nation and the world . she was instrumental in the hard-fought effort to develop passageof the american disabilities act and served as an expert advisor on drafting he held ada transportation regulations . with lists, ramps, announcements and rail stations and paratransit for people with

disabilities can't take fixed routes to make federal requirements if this is the case. this was groundbreaking legislation . ms. goldin has been working at the state level in concert with sfmta staff to ensure services provided by uber and lyft include wheelchair accessibility and working towards autonomous vehicles. ouradvocacy and unsung work in the trenches to ensure transportation is available to all around the world we're so humbled to honor and advocate and be so fortunate she worked with us . we are happy to acknowledge the impact she had on so many lives and she will be greatly missed and it's alarge loss of the world is so much better for her work . we will adjournat the end of the meeting in her honor . now i give my perfunctory announcement of the covid-19 emergency.the meeting is

being held virtually with all staff and our published notice on our website, we asked the public to participate remotely by writing to the board or leaving a voicemail message. for all comments in advance , we thank you and we've received those. we very much appreciate your continuing to honor our quest and invite you to write us at mtaboard@sfmta.com.while this technology allows us to meet and it's not seamless and there may be gaps between the different technologies, sfgov tv that you see us on an article line or three different services and it takes a team behind the scenesto make sure these things run in concert . no we get disrupted and lose the line we will recessed the meeting until weare able to

make sure people are able to participate . thank you in advance for your patience and i want to thank our team who's been going through thisvery long process of our online meetings for quite some time now . >> clerk: this meeting is being televised by sfgov tv. for those of you watching the live stream the aware there is a time-lapse lapse between the meeting and what public members are seeing on sfgov tv. if you wish to comment call the number online. for thosewho wish to make public comment the phone number to use is 888-808-6929 the access code is 9961164 . to address the board dial 1 then zero. make sure you are in a quiet location and youmute your computer during the meeting . this will reduceany reverberations so the board can hear you . pursuant item number six introduction of newor unfinished business by board

members . >> chair: are thereany items? director lai . >> can you me now? okay, my computer is slow toda . i wanted to ask for perhaps work on our hiring status and i know that ms. ackerman had in her last presentation up front about a bunch of basically improvements, strategies and i just want to update and see how it's going. obviously the latest news that chair borden and director tumlin issued were that service reservation also mentioned our persistent vacancy but i think what the conversation around that would be what is actually the hurdles and what we can do as a board to perhaps help us fill the remaining quarter

vacancies that the agency has which is quite a task. >> thank you, any other, director. >> just quick, i imagine there in the board but the event, it seems likeit's been a little bit before . before i receive updates on both ofthese . and i know we're kind of closing in on the status to so we love to figure out what's going on with those two projects . in the coming weeks. >> thank you. any other items under new and unfinished business by board members. see non-we will open it up to public comment period for members who would like to comment on the questions that are board members should ask please note this is not a discussion period. we cannot answer your questions

because again this is not a question and answer session but we are able to have you get comments on the questions chosen by board members moderator, any , do you have a question. >> i'm sorry,i'm having a little technical difficulty . i'd love to raisean item . as we are with us today, that is just around the need to ensure that your delivering excellent service to our core service lines. we've had a lot of concern from the public about not bringing back lines and the full discussion around whether we bring back certain lines or whether we askedpeople to walk a little bit further to core service lines . having experienced this this past week quite a bit of traffic congestion is slowing down. i just want to raise the concept, the vision of our core service lines do not have traffic.

we asked people to walk a little bit further to that line. i want to make sure we're living delivering excellent service along those lines so just as we come into this conversation about the transit scenarios for the future i just want us to be thinking about are there other streets, other purposes where we know from data that the majority of our writers are traveling in the system where we want to make an extra effort to ensure that those vehicles are not sitting in traffic.thank you . >> and i'll just close out this item by saying i had the great fortune of being the transit riders transit first awards this past weekend. director lai was there as well and it was nice to see so many operators honored but also many advocates in the community, who work for the back as well as her own team was honored for their work throughout this and has been nonstop throughout.

so it's really exciting to see people from around the bay area involved in engaging transit and awards and commute some of the people that call into this meeting i haven't met before so i want to say that and we will move onto public comments so moderator are there any who would like to comment on unfinished business ? >> you have one question remaining . >> go ahead. >> can you hear me now. >> i can so to tag onto director eaken's request whenever that's addressed if staff could also address service reliability in transit with both or all three street supervision, control or tmc and use of radio and other technology. i think not just the feed of the trip or overall time for the trip starts to and

including walking but it's a question ofreliability . if most of the time it takes 20 minutes to get somewhere but half of the time it takes for the five minutes, then it's no really a reliable service . and that drives down ridership so i'd ask if you'd address reliability as well. >> chair: thank you mister philpell. are there any additional color on the line ? >> you have zero questions remaining. >> chair: secretary if youcould call the next item please . >> clerk: item number seven, directorsreport . >> we have a lot going on in today's directors report but it will end with a great staff commendation so let me start there. the first and big news is related to the potential

service impact as a result of the city's vaccination requirements. as you all know health and safety san francisco county workers and the public , the city's department of resources instituted a vaccination policy requiring all city employees show proof of being fully vaccinated by november 1 as a condition of employment. since the vaccines received emergency approval in 2020 we been educating staff about the safety and efficacy of the covid vaccine,encouraging them to get vaccinated and providing them with opportunities to get vaccinated over time . because of the pop up vaccination events we've held allstaff meetings, public health experts, we've been distributing questions and answer flyers , we've had posters that list vaccine myths and facts. we've done one on one outreach in every single person as either not reported their status or has reportedly developed as an vaccinated.

that said as ofseptember 30 last week , we have 640 employees including people on leave who are either unvaccinated or haven't yet recorded their vaccination status. which represent about 11 percent ofour workforce . we're working with employees who requested a medical or religiousexemption from the requirement so that represents fewer than 50 employees as of the end of last week . we absolutely do not want any of our employees to lose their jobs for income are going to keep working to support our workforce in every way we can. but because the vaccines have been politicized there's an incredible amount of disinformation about the vaccines circulating on social media andalso which has made our job implementing the city difficult . if 640 are of our employees are stillunvaccinated as of november 1 , and put on leave

are terminated will significantly impact transit operations and control throughout the city. up to four schools would be without crossing guards about eightschools would be a reduction of crossing guards serving them . continuity of operations currently underway using a variety of scenarios is now time to perform all of you as our board as well as the public of how this situation the impact the lives of san franciscans. the largest single job classification impacted by the city of san francisco policy i transit . as of last week, 15 percent of our operators remain either unvaccinated or out recorded their status and are presumed to be unvaccinated. these individuals will be terminated beginning november 1 unless they are fully vaccinated bythat time . our agency could lose over 300

operators, roughly the equivalent of the total number of operators training and hiring over the next 18 months. this adds 18 months to our timeline for restoring 100 percent humidity pre-pandemic services. it's basically an object to all of our may 2021 service. we're not just going to go back to where we were before the service plan but it's useful to point for understanding just how deep the impact of community service could be. the second largest classification is the affected by the policy is parking enforcement and traffic. 19 percent of our parking control officers have either not recorded their status or areunvaccinated . the loss of these workers have been would force the agency to fully or partly suspend. a enforcement including commuter shuttlebusenforcement , residential enforcement and some meterenforcement . it would also impact the single

parking placard enforcement and reduce our chief detail. we are using every available option to urge our employees to get vaccinated or exercise our options for medical or a religious exemption if that is appropriate. continuing to have one-on-one conversations with each employee to make sure that all of their questions are addressed. we've trained managers and provided them with scripts and additional resources to prepare them for these conversations. unvaccinated employees and those that haven't recorded their status will be receiving letters in the mail, emails and text messages educatingabout what they need to do in order to avoid being terminated . also doctor bennett director of the office of health equity at the san francisco department of health is returning to the sf mta for a secondtime to answer

questions of safety . we are a much hope that this situation will improve over the course of the next month. but as we hope and work for a better outcome, we're simultaneously planning for the worst. we're taking this very seriously and may need to update all of you on the pace of vaccinations. in happier news, we have a bunch of special events coming. fleet week began on sunday with activities that humility with theairshow . this friday and throughout the weekend there will be special service for fleet week saturday, sunday and friday saturday and sunday including extra service for the f line and as always we offer free rides to those carrying military id. we are trying to prepare forhalloween weekend . that weekend we got outside plans, a major events and

likely two games of the world series. but we are less sure about halloween weekend because november 1 for a vaccination deadline is monday halloween weekend so we are starting to warn city leadership that we may be struggling to deliver needed service over halloween weekend and will likely have trouble with service following on that day. also, a news update fromlast weekend . as most of you know we have pretty significant radio issues throughout the weekend. some of those issues related to the october 1 schedule reloading for all transit vehicles. this caused radio and outages friday. and we've experienced again and again every time a new schedule is adopted, data has to be uploaded to every individual of the train in order for the

sign, the announcement and operators assignment and predictions to work. this time the data uploaddidn't happen properly so the network was overloaded . this caused the radio to be placed into backup mode which continued the voice communication safety but using the code caused a data blackout or a whole prediction system. separately at the same time some great work was being done by our vehicle data system vendor that caused predictions on sunday. it didn't impact all lines but there were momentary problems that permeated throughout the system until the issue was resolved.each of these items is being addressed separately with short-termvictories . we're still working through the technical procedural recommendations which have long-term sustainable updates while we continue to work to replace our entire system. also , the friday evening the

key line was disrupted for multiple broken drafts of vehicles. overhead lines, we substituted motor coaches and found a particular issue with the alignments of the overhead wire at third and burke.so none of you are in large wires going down but we did have broken pendergrass, rail service was restored on mondayand we're still investigating to understand the root cause of that problem and make sure it never happens again back into the good news category, as was reported during the chronicle yesterday , we failed in a lawsuit brought against us by the federal credit union in regards to taxi medallions and i just want to beclear with all of you and the public . this case was never about

operators. it was always about back bailouts, plain and simple. none of the money would have ever gone to taximedallions holders . we are pleased that the they saw through the disinformation put out by the other side . the city and credit union after contract and the jury agreed the city had broken the contract. the taxpayer should not be forced to bail out the banks. for years the credit union process that medallion loans generate and didn't share the profits with taxpayers and now under newmanagement the credit union was seeking to have taxpayers foot the bill for it investment choice .in the credit union had succeeded not a penny of that money would have gone . now with this case over we are looking forward to putting the case behind us to focus and return to meaningful improvement and that marketplace. preparing the tax statements to successfully compete against

autonomous vehicles in part by taking advantage of the strength of taxi operators which is wisdom and customer service offered by real humans in realprofessional jobs . next up we've got a slope streetevaluation . i would ask that christine pull up the slides please. thank you. so this also follows in the new category over the last several months or actually the last 15 months we've been conducting a comprehensive evaluation of all of its programs looking at dat , text surveys, of residents and neighbors every single slow street that hasbeen out there . the results have been overwhelmingly positive. we've seen on average 37 percent decrease in traffic volume and 14 percent decrease in traffic on each street.

we seen 27 percent increase in a 65 percent increase in peopl walking on the slow streets . most importantly we've seen a 36 percent decrease in collisions. this is extraordinary. almost nothing we've done as an agency has resulted in such dramaticimprovement in safety . so quickly as our slowstreet program. moreover , about 71 percent of respondents living on the street and in parallel streets, 71 percent support slow streets. now, despite these overwhelmingly positive number , we don't have variance between individual slow street and these results are goingto help warn us which slow streets should remain and that . which should remain necessary to help everywhere that remains. our biggest challenge is really

in control tools to reduce the maintenance burden and effectively present through traffic while maintaining response time. the full report is available onlineand i heard you all to look at it ifyou search for slow streets evaluation . next up , there's a dashboard right there. next up, you can go off the slide presentation is budget related updates. so first up is that the sf cta is working on the new 30 year expenditure program and has been working with our staff on preventing its expenditure plan advisory committee, recommendations for the expenditure plan. we are advocating for maintaining sales tax levels for key capital programs as well as maintaining our 40 percent transportation sales tax contribution for the paratransit service and any reduction that would have long-term budget operating.

however the prop k sales-tax is one of the most critical local sources for repair and advancement of our transportation systems . we're happy to ask the staff to come in and present on this proposed program towards the end of the year. also in the good news category, the federal transit administration has released a 2.2 alien dollar to be competitive grant opportunity for transit systems andis trading additional pandemic related enhancements . the proposals will be based on level of national means including projections of future financial need to maintain service as a percentage of the 20 18th operating cost . as a result of all this, the mtc metropolitan transportation will be quickly moving to allocate last allotment from the american recovery plan and we are working with other operators on a formula by which those will be distributed. i think you all also probably

already know that a week ago the board of supervisors approved two very important pieces oflegislation for us . including parking metercontract . as well as our rv for current. i think you've been briefedon all those details so i'll go along to our next item . as you also know, we have been partnered closely with the parks department on the jfk access and safety program. the public process launched on september 22 asking the public to provide us advice on six different proposalsand for potential roadway alignments . that work of course is available in five languages. it received over 4000 program responses. going to continue collecting data until november 26.

we're also doing a whole array of special outreach events for online forums, special outreach events for his ability and senior communities. we're coordinating special outreach events and equity priority communities doing in part walking hiking tours and hosting hearings at various advisory bodies in october and november. the overall recommendations are expected to go before the board and park commission before going to the board of supervisors this winter for a final vote. and christine if you could bring up the slide again or other project updates which is our lombard street high occupancyvehicle lanes . last week, the sf nta implemented the first of their

kind high occupancy vehicle lane on lombard street in the marina district. these streets are part of us highway 101 which is managed by caltrans of the project partnership of the district 4. other than a tiny little stretch in the hov lane leading to the bay bridge in the market, these lanes on city streets in california, this is a pilot project. it is authorized under our temporary emergency translator project so the evaluation is going to be conducted to gather with caltrans along with the hov lanes that must be struck soon on park city boulevard and the bypass which are also a part of state one in the richmond district and park. arche valuation criteria is to be asking the question do these lanes help the state highways

move more people than the previous configuration? if they're stressful successful in moving more people on our state highway system that don't create unexpected unintended negative consequences, we will then move forward with a recommendation to make them permanent or if we find problems we maymake discussions along the way so the lanes are in effect from 5 am to 8 pm so all day long monday through friday . and they are very important parts of our line 28 as well as mostof the golden gate transit hub . and then the title prospect update we can go off the slide again. there's somebody you need to go on mute. there we go. so final project update is our

color program which has generated some controversy las week . as most of you know, we currently have just over 300 shared space pickup and drop-off. they're mainly designed as part of a program to allow restaurants to have a quick drop off zone in front of their store. it's also used by retailers. the shared spaces pickup zone expired at the end of september as they transition to the new codified general loading zone established from board of supervisors and shared space legislation. thesf nta is trying to make a pickup and drop-off process more acceptable and durable for all customers . transitioning fromthe paper temporary sign to permanent signs and painted curves . the general loading zone

supplies up to five minutes and they work best in areas with dense commercial activity that is used for pickup and delivery and commute and conserve shared loading needs among various businesses. the criteria for the program are different from the temporary pickup program. authors who reapply may be directed to more appropriate types of green curves so we've heard from small business partners that they're confused about the temporary program versus the current program and that they need some release on application fees for the general loading zones but as a result we the application fee for general loading zones in half from $775 to $87 to anyone who applies beforedecember 1 . the applications fee is still reduced and still nonrefundable and businesses can reach out to ccp which stands for color program at sf nta.com to assess

whether or not they are eligible and now i'd like to turn things over to tom mcguire followed by joellen kirschbaum to provide some special recognition to some of our key teams. are you ready? >> can you hear me okay? okay. good afternoon director.great to be here and i'm joining you from our division shops on bankrupt. it's a few of our close friends and i'm here to recognize the team that brought you shared spaces so as many of you know shared spaces is a lifeline to the city's business community who been struggling with challenges over the last year and a half and in response to the epidemic, we committed over 1200 pickup and drop-off zones and over 100 locations to allow

other businessactivity. these are all the people who made it happen . they shared spaces effort from the mta was a joint effort for planning, parking, engineering, all of our shots including every sign shop you see represented behind me and even this building.we thought it would be important to not just recognize those people who been so important to business recovery to carry out core policies but to do it on their own turf. these are people who go to work for you and they served the city every day. they keep it in a good state of repair. so i'm going to very quickly read the list behind me when i say their name. i'm going to take my place and she's going to do another presentation today.all right, nick cannon.

ari hunter. one day he week. monica you much. francesca napolitano, gretchen rood derek marshall . coloma. >> josi costa january. dean coppola, jesse grady. dan and her. brian blew. rihanna cooper. amy john. monica easy. albert lamb. in ron and ken dooley. davidson down. andre wright.

>> please join me in recognizing everyone watching here. [applause]. >> we cannot thank you enough for all your hard work. i don't know where we would be as a city without your tireless efforts and the sacrifice i know that you have family and maybe children at home and other things to deal with but it has made and francisco are far more livable city and for that everyone is forever indebted and grateful to you. know that your work matters . people around the world are talking about the changes we made and that's all because of your hard work so please know that you are so appreciated by all of us. thank you. do you want to say anything or does someone from the team want tospeak ? ? >> can you hear me?>> we can

hear you. >> my name is monica, and deputy program manager and i'm on behalf of this team want to thank you very muchfor this very special recognition . this group of people developed this new program to allow our small businesses to continue to operate during the height of the pandemic. this recognition others not just the impressive scale of businesses that had a positive impact on comments in the thousands but the environment in which you are able to accomplish that. these represent the largest agency that is part of the shared spaces family team reflective of their group of people here today . we celebrate the impressive contributions from across the agency as regards planning, preservation and transit. and these contributions have

been far from easy. we're working to find creative solutionsand a topless work at the time that is it is impossible to do our best work under immense pressure timelines work across the city to balance competing priorities . i'm inspired by the flexibility and to make an effort above and beyond themselves so thankyou for the recognition on behalf of the agency . >> congrats. >> good afternoon board. i want to thank you for recognizing us today and we were proud to serve the city and county of san francisco and provide services to the businesses and citizens of san francisco and last but not least i want to thank mister lai forpowering through the

pandemic and making it happen . thank you. [inaudible] >> next up isjulie kirschbaum, director of transit .

after being terminated, how easy it would befor that person to be reinstated ? >> that is an excellent question. the guidance on that question has been changing regularly so we may refer to our director of people, kimberly ackerman. are you here? >> i was wondering if she was. >> she may not be available. i'll get an answer which is we

do not want to permanently terminate anyone if they are willing to be vaccinated we will comply with the city of department of human resources guidelines about what happened . we will certainly be complying with city vaccination requirements for approved medical religious exemption requirement for employment starting november 1. >> were going to be having hr barriers that were imposed by the city but we will follow up online and connect with directorackerman about that . then we usually cover vision zero and i don't think i heard anything in this report so i was just curious.

>> we did have a fatality i believeyesterday . we're still awaiting details on that soi'm reporting on that next week . >> thank you. >> thank you, director eaken. >> thank you madam chair. i have two questions for director tumlin related to vaccinations. you said they will be fully vaccinated, i just want to see what that means. it's thrown out quite a bit. i recall waiting three weeks for that second shot and it was two weeks after the second shot. is that possible? >> we are running out of time on pfizer but the johnson and johnson vaccine which is the one shot will still be available for a while longer but yes, one of the reasons why

we are doing detailed contingency planning is because employees are in fact running out of time to be fully vaccinated by november 1 which isa requirement . >> so two weeks afterjohnson and johnson . that would be the most. >> thank you for that and obviously director hinze's help around retention. a second question i had was regarding the slow streets and thanks for the all interest and success they had. one area of concern i recall earlier in the process i recall one of the slow streets was removed from board consideration possibly due to concerns around fire department access. you mentioned response time but i'm curious if you have any data at this point to address

that concern that had been posed about response time and if there's any concerns, are they similar, are they better and what can weexpect with the construction phase ? >> the data we have is on traffic. i've been struggling to get data from the fire mounted on all emergency response equipment. we've been trying to use that actual data to determine whether any of our investments during the yekutiel period have had any impact on response time but unfortunately the data is still in poor condition so we are working together with the fire department to try to make sense of the data. meanwhile these are livable streets, or streets director tom mcguire, they are available to the limited findings with regard to the potential for

spillover traffic. janie or tom are you on? if i recall correctly, tom mcguire, streets director. >> ,mcguire, streets director. we done some limited analysis on the changes we made last year. you may recall we reduced, we put in a parking protected lane on the south side along the panhandle and worked with the fire department. it was a pretty rudimentary set of data. the fire department was a good partner and we were able to satisfy both agencies that there was no spillover traffic on parallel streets north of the panhandle or any congestion that affected their response times that was a pretty self-contained corridor from which we collected data. it's not just a parallel street but of course we want to make

sure we are taking account of the ways in which the streets have changed but also the fire department is a complex operation and other operational parameters have changed so we wantto make sure we're checking all factors . >> thank you madam chair. >> chair: director yekutiel. >> three areas, first one is o vaccination . so director hinze asked about temporary termination, thatwas going to be a question i had . i think that would be important to iron out for your thinking about it. the question i have is about understanding why so many of the operators aren't vaccinated. do we know how much of it is

information or disinformation and how much of it is exemptions. what do we understand about wh . >> we have spoken to all the individuals and the reasons very. my impression is that it is mainly fear and disinformation that is causingvaccine hesitancy at the sf mta . more i can't really disclose. due to the privacy considerations. we've also realized there are basically race, age and cultural issues at play one of the many tools we tried is to train people in all demographics with the health science to make sure that people can hear the vaccination stories from people they trust and who have cultural literacy

in their demographic category. the details of exactly how terminations are rolled out and exactly what point in time are still being finalized . there obviously are as director eaken pointed out some overlapping dates around what happens if you've begun the process of getting vaccinated but arefully vaccinated . are you going to be terminated or put on administrativeleave ? those are all details that are being worked out. >> one quick follow-up, are we asking folks to get vaccinated or do we have. the city's vaccination team at our facilities? are they coming when the operators come in or their boarding schedule ?>> we have had mobile vaccination clinics

at our facilities. unfortunately those have not netted very many new shots in arms. what we're finding quite clearly is it is not lack of access to the vaccine that's the problem.it is actually vaccine hesitancy and much of that seems to be rooted in prevailing misinformation that we have seen everywhere in the media. >> i believe this will be my eighth outside lens also understanding that it's gone for a year and now thatit's halloween weekend it will be extremely busy . i'm worried about potential layoffs there but even if that doesn't happen let's assume we don't have to worry about cuts in services. i wonder how the agency might be thinking about using the

opportunity to win back customers and getting people excited about our system again because a lot of folks hate city buses that don't take them any othertime of the year just because of the nature of the event and what happens . how are we thinking about that and trying to use it to win back customers? >> as you might imagine given everything we've got going on our cruise are moretapped out than they have been in the last 18 months . for other city departments there in full recovery mode now and for us all work has gotten a lot harder. there is likely not much of anything we can do in order to show off our awesomeness during that weekend. everyone will be completely overwhelmed coming through our current array of emergency. from likely in fact our service will be significantly worse during thatcritical weekend and normally .

>> we don't double or triple of ourservice around the weekends ? >> we had no available service in order to be able to double up ortriple . struggling to get our existing overtime slots fill. on a normal week. >> moving on to the lead zone. sorry, in small business. for the loading zone stuff i want to commend tom mcguire. i know you've been seeking with the tgr a on this and i appreciate the follow-up question . i know that those who want to convert their emergency loading zones into a general zone can apply for it in december.

my question is whatabout the folks who missed the memo . how is the sfmta making sure all businesses know about it and can apply for it. >> i can letstreets director tom mcguire answer that question . >> how are we letting them kno ? we will do a follow-up communication for folks who didn't get the most communication and one thing that i stressed with gdr a and other stakeholders is anybody who told us they want to continue to convert their zone before the end of the year we will work with them. we want to maintain operations and don't want to have a situation where we deemphasize or take away the loading zone while in theprocess of being considered or converted to a general loading zone . we're going to get a smooth

continuity for those businesse and we will make sure to reach everybody . we haven't heard. >> thank you director and i'm concerned confirming for the small business owners that were reachingout to them again in the same language . >> we will use all language resourceswe have . >> the last pieces on the price, i know director tumlin you talk about reducing to standard something and the two things i would say is it feels unfortunate to me if you apply for it and get rejected that is nonrefundable. i know where giving people an email to make sure they apply if they'regoing to get it but what about those who missed the memoand still apply, get rejected ? do we need to make that be nonrefundable ? >> we will make sure anybody

who tries to phone calls or apply on the website that we have a warm and off to try to get in touch with the person does thatconsultation to that case you're talking about doesn't happen . we don't want an application fee for something that doesn't get approved. we don't want toconfuse them with application fees that are not refundable . >> that is so great to hear. did i hear you're going to continue to survive the amount in perpetuity? >> that's through the end of the year director. >> any thoughts on that level? >> we want to see where we are at the end of the year. hopefully we goteverybody on the path to the right regulations for the business at that point . the staff that is being used here i'm sorry to say is not

free. a lot of people who spent a lot of time making sure these tools get done right at this for as made clear they want to make sure we're not just talking to the individual businesscustomer but the neighborhood to make sure the rate is right for the neighborhood at one point we need to go back so that we can do that kind of robust outreach . >> i know the conversation about expansion is in the future but small businesses throughout the city with every which way, if there's an opportunity for usto send them some money while not unduly burdening our agency on all for it . i appreciate you letting me ask thequestion . >> chair: thank you director, directortumlin . >> keep this brief. just a follow-up question on thecontingency planning . director tumlin, i guess a

little more color on what is the contingency plan towards the end of the month because already mentioned we obviously have had a hard time filling regular overtime slots which i know there's some confusion out there on this topic but what is our backup plan if we did lose operators due to the vaccine and we have those events at the end of the month. do we have kind of like substitutes, teachers? what is our plan the? >> the plans assume drastic transit service reductions. we do not have surplus operators available. so all options are about drastically reducing the service and the question is how. the challenge of course will be a lot of uncertainty as is

last-minute about which operators will needto be terminated . so we will not know who is missing on which lines but what the expectation is that the initial week after november 1 will be rather chaotic service reductions.we're working with other city agencies to find out all the things we might do in order to minimize harm that has maximized unpredictability but the impacts will be severe and rather unpredictable. transit director may be available toprovide more detail if you'd like . and we can certainly update you in 2 weeks as we know more about potential resources and rule changes that might be available to us to minimize th negative impact . >> thank you for that response. an update in two weeks next

sense because at this point it's too far out for us to understand how many staff members would be precluded from the vaccine option at this point. but i would definitely encourage the team to think very carefully about how we can disseminate service change information because i know that staff and the community organizations have been setting up during the pandemic to help share service changes it hasn't been super great especially for staff so we could be very clear at the next hearing what the plan to share information is so that if anyone who's paying attention can perhaps help us spread that information that would be helpful. thank you. >> chair: director hinze. >> a quick follow-up to director yekutiel's line of questioning around the color

curve and the currentsituation . i would wait for director mcguire. this may not be our agency that does this but are you aware of any kind of, you mentioned $300 fines, were you aware of any kind of relief for that financial assistance program for small businesses? >> director tom mcguire. tom may not be available. i director hinze and not available but we can talk to our partners at the mayor's office of economic and workforce development. >> they do a program i know they set aside $500,000 my

understanding is but depending on some of the new things that have come out they meet need as much as $5 million so will go into that i do know that there is a response. >> are there any additional questions before i open it up to public comments ? seeing not, moderator or their colors on the line? an opportunity for anyone listening in the may like to comment on the directors report, item number seven . all the questions and comments we made, if you are on the line and would like to this item press 1, zero. if you do bless one, zero. moderator on acolors in the line ? >> you have seven questions remaining. >> clerk: first speaker please. >> caller: this is joe, can

everyone hear me? >> clerk: yes we can. >> caller: i appreciate director tumlin standing strong on this vaccine mandate. ihave a pal who is a transit director in washington state and because i don't know this board knows yet , i can't specify too much but i know how hard it is to get the vaccine mandate i emphasized with director tumlin . i'm getting to the bay area the 14th and 15th and will have that scheduling but really i'm pulling for director tumlin on this vaccine mandate thing because we need to have safe rides have a safe ride if the number one person you have to walk past is a transit operator is not vaccinated from covid-19 so for true public safety, for true return to ridership please stand strong on this mandate.

it's great for employees waking upand vaccinatingplease . that's my message . we should all getvaccinated please and defeat covid-19 before next year . >> clerk: next speaker please. >> you have any questions remaining. >> clerk: next speaker. >> caller: i, my name is mark bloomberg and i'm a san francisco taxi driver and a member of the san francisco taxiworkers alliance . as director tumlin reported a jury decided yesterday the mta is not responsible to the san francisco federal credit union for the disaster that is the medallion sales program. this may have been good news

for the agency but it's not for the real life comes of this fiasco, the 700 something taxi drivers who bought medallions, almost 300 of them have alread defaulted on their loans . many of the rest are facing financial ruin. while the jury decided the mta has no legal obligation to the credit union i submit there is a moral obligation to these drivers. most of them spent many years on the waiting listfor a medallion . you snatched it away before they reached the finish line for a mere $250,000. place the rest on the driver and gain tens of millions of dollars in the parking then when uber and lyft camein you abandon them to their fate . even if you refuse your moral obligation there are practical reasons why they need to act. this is a broken system. you need to fix it in a way

that brings justice to medallion purchasers and respects the health of the industry and livelihood of all its drivers . if you can't or won't do that you should and taxi services, pay off the medallion holders and become the first major city in the world to hand the whole thing over to uber and lyft . >> clerk:thank you mister gruber, next speaker . >> you have seven questions remaining. >> caller: my name is herbert weiner. now the residents on slow speeds may love slow streets but what about the rest ofthe city ? what about the drivers who then losing convenience and spill over to driving oncongested streets ?have you looked at california's streets, it's very congested and this gets in the way of bus drivers .

so slow streets may be great for those who reside on slow streets but you must have the restof the city in consideration . so slow streets does not benefit everybody. now in respect to the taxi battalions, those receipts from taxi drivers by the previous executive director. basically they deserve to have their medallions ifthey did before the seizure . this is a very unfair thing fo the taxi drivers . so in that sense slow streets is unfair to the city and the program is unfair to the taxi drivers . this is why mta, one of the reasons why mta isa failed agency thank you . >> next speaker please. >> you have six questions remaining.

>> thank you chair, my pronouns are she and her. i stressed to you that covid-19 is real it is not a hoax, israel . i am vaccinated by you being vaccinated i can ride on subway trains andgo on elevators and do all kinds of other things and i also wear a mask . i ask that you support this vaccine mandate because i want to be safe and i am living vaccine work when i qualify for the booster shot i'm going to get it. i'll be first in line for it becauseit works . i asked that the true safety that really comes from an ocular waiting against covid-19

so we have to make sure we adhere to thatvaccine mandate . i did hear some commentary earlier about various autonomous vehicles. i support autonomous vehicles for many reasons and one reason why i like the idea of autonomous vehicles is they don't discriminate . they don't care if i'm wearing a skirt. they don't care about my social definition or lack of definition. they will pick me up so there's equity in autonomous vehicles because they don't discriminate. so actively support active forms of discrimination because i should never be left behind becauseof who i am . >> we couldn't agree with you more.

next speaker please. >> you have five questions remaining. >> clerk: next speaker. >> caller: good afternoon, this is very toronto. first and foremost i like to ask you to adjourn the meeting today in memory of the fallen who lost their lives. every one of her, john penman and very younger yellow cab. and joe tracy. may their memory be a blessing so i hope you will adjourn in theirmemory . >> john, yes. the next is the issue of the

closed streets. traffic patterns have changed so the closed streets and the shared spaces do create some challenges that need to be addressed because you're talking about moving transit and if you're not going to do proper enforcement or assess the way they impact service and transit then you are just closing your eyes to the real problem so i'd appreciate that you look for this situation. regarding outside lands, i know you create stands on fulton street which is great but if you're going to use them just as additional parking for muni vehicles all you're doing is creating problems. also pco's also don't recognize the signage as well. last but not least i: what mark

bloomberg said and i'll have othercomments during public comment . i want to make sure you know the jury decision didn't do anything to solve the problem created by lack of enforcement of the dnc when it first came on and turning a blind eye to the impact it had on the cattl industry . i'd appreciate that you work with us instead of just continuing to turn your back on the industry and doingjust banned eight issues . thank you very much. >> i'm gladyou're well mister toronto . next color please. >> you have 4 questions remaining. >> caller: in response to the director's report and what the directors said and not about the consent calendar . >> clerk: i'msorry. yes .

>> caller: it's not the consen calendar . >> clerk: consent calendar is next after general comment. then the consent calendar. are you calling in about an item onthe consent calendar ? >> caller: both but i wanted to knowhow to proceed . my name is stacy and i live in district 10 . i'm highly concerned that we don't know about it. where, how, what happens. i thought we had a rapid response team. it's tough to believe that vision zero is a concern of ours if this isn't made a priority. and one of the directors had mentioned about how poor we

celebrate these workers for shared space and i could not agree more. it's one of the most delightful things. i'm glad they're being made permanent but i'm considering if wehad been without cars , we need safer centers for people and we don't have enough of it. i'd like to tell them this. we are a city of 47 square miles and there are 44 fire stations and i'm unclear possible to have full response times even if we closehave to streets . so just closing two of our emergent corridors so our businesses can thrive and people have places they can go and not have to worry about cars. i think it's important and i would push for thedirectors to think along these lines .and also, there was mention of the rapid transit. i don't understand why there isn't red all over this town.

we should have cities that are as much red and greenas black . that's what's really going to move people quickly throughthis city and safely . so thank you, i wish we would hear more about that. >> clerk: next speaker please. >> you have three questions remaining. >> clerk: next speaker. >> caller: my question is for the employees, those that get denied for their religious beliefs, what happens forthose employees ? >> this is not a question and answer session but generally the religious exemption does notaccept them, they would be sent notices . that's how it works as i understand it. >> so you are you all giving me

the opportunity to remodel their get the vaccination? >> unfortunatelythis is not question and answer and i am not the best person to answer this question . perhaps we can have after this comment director tumlin clarify by answering your question since it was discussed in the report. unfortunately this time i cannot answer it but after we get throughpublic comment i will have director tumlin address your question . >> clerk: you can listen in, just go off the speaking part but listen in and i'll make sure after we get through the other colors rector tumlin addresses your questionsabout the religious exemption . >> caller: thank youso much . >>clerk: next speaker please . >> you have to questions remaining. >> clerk: next speaker.

>> caller: my name is christopherpeterson . i am dismayed to hear about how vaccine has a density is likely to result in significant service cuts in november. i certainly support the vaccine mandate but i hope that sfmta will talk with the mayor's office and department of public health and concerns of having some flexibility in terms of gaps. for example if there are operators who havebegun the vaccination process but not yet completed it by november 1 , allowing them to continue to work with testing. it would be tragic for people throughout the city if this deadline results in significant cutbacks in service that might

be avoidable if there is a little flexibility but i do certainly support this hearing ultimately to the vaccine mandate. >> next speaker please. >> you have 2 questions remaining. >> clerk: next speaker. >> caller: my name is luke hammer and i am one of the leading organizers of clean sf. we and our thousands of supporters aredelighted to see the findings . [inaudible] we support the increase in peoplewalking and biking and higher level of street safety . also of note is the suggestion of parallel streets, a common but untrue argumentused by opponents .it has also been

overwhelmingly popular and these cut through reckless driving on streets in order to make spaces safer for kids and families as well as other vulnerable systems. fortunately low-cost improvements that can be made in the design of those streets to further increase usage , improve safety and close street experiences. notably median diaper and block and plazas would make the streets safer and more accessible. these can be implemented quickly using low-costmaterials . as you may already know fire response times faster on those streets and before the streets were slow streets. so street users need to encourage median divers and other measures to eliminate through traffic and ensure that they stop obstructing slow

streets for the transportation advisory safety committee. on a separate note for the golden gate park program team and their work on the survey there's over 4300responses . see jfk also known as the car auction is desired by 75+ respondents with the option lobbied for by advisors llc is proposed by more than 75 percent of respondents. the public made it clear which option they support and we need to reject wealthy lobbyist efforts trying to go against the will . thank you and enjoy the rest of your day. >> clerk: next speaker. >> you have 2 questions remaining next speaker please.

please mute your television or yourcomputer if you're about to talk . hello. moderator, can youmove to the next one please ? >> you have one question remaining. >> clerk: next speaker. >> caller: i want to express my extreme dissatisfaction with jeff tumlin's stated opposition to the private program for free muni proposed by supervisor dean preston that passed through the board of supervisors. unfortunately because of the sfmta is the city governments cash cow and there's a fear that not having money put into the box will really cut into the sfmta's budget, the mayor

also got inon it and vetoed it . this was so wrongheaded because now that sfmta is facing a financial crisis, the writers have to bear the burden of it. instead of eliminating the administrative staff that it takes to police and enforce the paying affairs that this could be eliminated. you would be creating a kind of transit equity that enjoyed by people in over 100 cities worldwide. i would like in the subsequent time remaining of this meeting

to have my concerns addressed. q. >> clerk: thank you. moderators, any additional speakers on the line related to the director's comments and the subsequent board of directors comments in the board of directors report. >> you have one question remaining. >> clerk: next speaker please. >> caller: hello board of directors,i live in richmond district and i have two young kids . we do not own a car. i want to thank you for the work and shannon hinchey for their work on district 1 because we're amazing with the barricades behind the new treatment and we continue to look forward to a new design that's moved forward. slow 23rd meets plc stats and also slowly is a work in progress and that's for the

supervisor to take seriously because any protected bikelanes in district 1 have been shelved .a lot of hot air being blown about in district 1. so it's been hinted that all the work will be on slow streets. we have tall signage, we need appropriate traffic and again thanks so much for your work and have a great week. >> clerk: thank you. moderator,additional colors on the line ? >> you have zero questions remaining. >> clerk: with that we will close out the directors report. director tumlin, can you clarify for those members who filed for religious exemption maybe you can explain what tha process is . >> what i like to do is refer to the city attorney cleveland knolls who can describethe accommodation process .

>> thank you chair for, susan clayborn. can you hear me? >> we can. >> i would first encourage any employee that is listening to directly reach out to the human resources department to make sure they have full information on how to apply for religious exemption or a medical exemption and then in direct response to the colors question there is not a direct appeal process to denial for such a request for an employee can file an eeo complaint if they are denied and feel that complaint is supported. >> clerk: thank you. with that we will close our directors report and move on to our next item. >> that places you item 8, citizens advisory council report . there's no reports expected so item 9, general public comment.

>> clerk: this is the opportunity for members of the public who want to comment on item not on the agenda . please dial one, zero at that time when we call those item numbers but now is the chance to talk about anything we cover that hasalready been covered or will the cover . that is anything under the subject matter jurisdiction of the sfmta. when you press 10 that means you may speak on this item and if you're listening in but don't want to speak he went to press 1, zero. if you have your computer on in the background, computer or tv in the background there is a delay and a lag in an if you could that while you speak it will make things much more seamless. with that moderator are there any colors on the line for public comment ? >> you have 4 questions remaining. >>.

>> caller: my name is herbert weiner and i'm speaking to items that are noton the agenda . in respect to the survey that has been proposed to the public about improved transportation, we're offered three choices. either restore the lines as they were before the pandemic, consolidate the lines to those who are most heavily usedor have a hybrid . basically the public is placed in a passenger dilemma. mta has framed the choices instead of the public advocating for choices. now, in response to that i'd like to propose amanagement solution . that is restore the lines to

the saturday schedule that would guarantee accessibility and reliability to muni passengers and to if management can't do this they don't belong working at mta so that's a dilemma i want topresent to management . you have really framed the choices and in a not responsible to thepublic . this is truly the liberal democracy of mta. >> next speaker please. >> you have four questions remaining. >> clerk: next speaker. next speaker. moderator, perhaps you could go toanother line . >> you have three questions remaining. >> clerk: next speaker.

>> thank you. my name is john gates and i was assaulted at a muni bus stop in north beach on wednesdaynumber eight . and the short story is in trying to escape my pursuer, i tried to board the back of the bus that was at the stop adjacent to the park. and myassailant grabbed my backpack and threw me to the ground and i started yelling for help . two men gathered around and a bus driver got up off the bus and came up and i guess there were too manywitnesses at that point and the assailant ran off into the park . the bus driver or operator said hey you two, knock it off. and the assailant ran off and i said that i just assaulted me the bus operator said i don't

know what's going on with you to . but knock it off and i said well, he assaulted me, that's what's going on. the bus driver then we boarded the bus and asked him can i please sit on the bus and he said number i have to start my run, get off the bus. so after the bus left the assault continued and iwon't go into those details . and all i asked is that the bus operator be disciplined and retrained so i filed an official complaint, 443089 and got no response. i tried to email the board and they don't have individual emails. you only have that group email and i got no response from the group email . i did email director tumlin and to his credit i did respond he did respond. he found that he got the tape to the police so they could better issue an arrest warrant

so all i'm asking for now is that i get a response from the mta that this bus operator is disciplined and retrained. i understand it's a personnel matter. and there's privacy concerns, i'm not asking for his name. i'm just asking that action be taken so he doesn't ignore another victim of the crime . thank you for your time. >> clerk: next speaker please. >> you have 4 questions remaining. >> caller: hello. >> clerk: we can hear you. >> clerk: we can hear you. your phone in the back for your tv or whatever thebackground noises .they're going tobe very confused if you're

listening to that . >> caller: maybeit's my ear thing or something . >> clerk: hello. very briefly, i would like to request that there is whenever there is an update that the two questions are answered. what have you done to avoid climate emergency. encouraging transit first and what has been remedied in terms of vision zero because i don't see the things changing that we need to address all these problems. i only see things escalatingand transportation is one of the most impactful things . in fact it is the most in california.and i'm just concerned that as an organization, sfmta is not

addressing these things and i think that would be something that could be put on theagenda . thank you. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker please. >> you have 4 questions remaining. >> clerk: next speaker. >> caller: thank you chair and members. as i speak in general matters, first of all it's important to continue our work with quicker starts. there is equity in that. and all i have to do is my card but i don't have to face a person who openly discriminates against money. there's a lot ofequity and friendliness in these systems . i just came back from chicago

and they have a system called ventress and i have three different ways my driver says i can use my reduced fare venture card. i want to buy certain kinds of emotional passes i can put them on my phone. i can also pay with my contract contactless bankcard. there's one word that i used to describe the chicago l system is polished. it's very polished. and i want to see more of that in san francisco. they have a very user-friendly polished transportation system and yet we're still, i don't see us as being ready to adopt these methods that we make would make my ability to pay my fair safer and more reliable because yes, i think clippers are absolutely great .

these dogeared paper things that people lose and they take the money back if they lose them and we should go to a system that operates entirely on paper which includes neil's meals and payments.i want to a safer system and it comes at my expense when we're carrying bags of money around which mixing unsafe. i ask that you not do things that my expense because i want a safesystem for everyone . >> clerk: thank you, next speaker. >> you have threequestions remaining . >> this is barrytoronto, hopefully can hear me. i am on mute, sorry about that . i went to address the comment just to say a prior commentor kind of made a blanket statement referring to taxicabs. i will take anybody aslong as they pay me for my services . considering gas prices have gone up and a barrel of oil is at $79. so i want to say that i am now

less likely to go into the tenderloin because 50 percent of the time i'm not aboutto get paid . but in commendation not just that, in commendation with the fact that it takes too long to get to the tenderloin due to all the no right turn on red's and their lack of traffic light timing and the fact that there are red turned arrows and at least a third of theblocks. so i want to let you know the tenderloin has been a lot tougher place to serve . i'd rather serve bayview that the tenderloin considering that it's become more dangerous and a wild west place to serve. sorry but i shout out to my favorite place to pick up in the tenderloin. >> regarding the baseball

basketball games. we're having problemsgetting them to keep their stands clear. what do we need to do ? you guys just won this jury trial verdict and yet you can' even keep the caps clear. so i'm begging you , urge your pc owes to keep an eye this because it's just like worse than pulling teeth to get them to keep the stands clear at these major sports venues . it's going to be very busy startingwednesday so i'm begging you to help us out in this area . and one last thing about the enforcement . get the pc owes to enforce the double parking and illegal parking along missionstreet . help the buses moved faster and they do not have to go into th opposite lane of traffic. thank you very much . >> next speaker please. >> you have 2questions remaining . >> caller: this is joe

consular. i don't know if you're going to take public commentafter the affair integration presentation . >> clerk: we will. >> caller: i'll do my best because i got the vaccine appointment at six and i had to reschedule it to 6:15. i do want to keep this moving along but i want to thank the muni staff for directing someone down to the newest operator. i'm very very excited to ride muni again and i'm even more excited for that than i am today's presentation. i do want to keep this meeting moving along so i will stop at suggesting that maybe muni should plant some roads along their arts garden district. there should be a different garden extension just like you see.

thank you. >> clerk: thank you for that moderator, are there additional colors on the line ? >> you have one question remaining. >> clerk: next speaker please. >> caller: can you hear me now? david felt up. please be aware there really is a 45 second delay until the public sees the video of the meeting so we are live on the phone but the videois delayed 45 seconds . and the sfgov tv audio and video includes the announcement of how many speakers are in the queue which is helpful for the members of the public when they are up next perhaps but that's not available on the phone so i have no ideawhen i'm sitting on the phone if i'm not watching the video how many other people there are .

that's important. next, the reference in staff reports to documents being available for review, i tried to make this point last time about thesettlement agreements . there was also a reference to you on the board of directors. i'm assuming you're getting all that material by email. it is not fair and problematic to expect members of the public to go down to one south end and review actual documents and files. i'm assuming they're in the file. i'm not concerned about that right now. in my view all communications and documents that are sent to the board whether they are letters or emails from members of the public, staff reports and memos,environmental review documents , settlement agreements but not confidential memos. all that material should be

posted on the web. it is not okay to expect members of the public to go to one south to review this material. that is highly problematic and i would strongly encourage you to find a way to bridge that problem. and finally these meetings put a good face on the mta but i want to assure you that there is much unhappiness with staff and the agency and the public and we all have a job to do to build or rebuild trust with thisagency . i will leave it at that right now. i will have more comments on the consent calendarfor a moment . >>clerk: moderator, are there additional comments on the line ? >> you have zero questions remaining. >> clerk: with that we will close public comment. can you talk aboutour public records policy and where documents can be found for the

public ? >> all materials for the meeting that are not confidential posted on our website at sfmta.com. we can look into a settlement agreement member phil bell commented on andthose are available . our attorneys can get guidance on that and update you and post accordingly. >> clerk: i guess this is in terms of thecorrespondence we get for our meetings which we get via email . we're exactly is that posted? >> at this time that is not beingposted . so there are different ways that commission and board secretaries do that for other agencies . i do know you get high-volume of email so to post that would require that we go through every email and a reduction of private information. that processing would have to

take place. >> clerk: we will discuss it. we can provide the four members of the public who request it. >> absolutely, yes. if we receive a public records request we would collect the responsive records, do the right actions necessary and share those materials. >> clerk: thank you for clarifying.with that we can move on to the consent calenda . >> these items are considered to be seen and will be voted on unless a member pursues an item separately. if you wish to address the board on it and so that you can be added to the queue and when speaking please identify which item numberyou are speaking to . item 10.1 questions funds available or would be available

in the following claims against the sfmta. district court 19803998, efr filed on september 29 for $20,000. item 10.2 opposing parking and traffic classification. item 10.3 and 10.4 acting as the sfmta board of directors and parking authority commission approved amendments by one year the term of each of four large management contracts. sfmta 2011 29 with parking for a total term of 11 years contract amount of $1,536,324, sfmta 2011/ 12 10 with

parking for a total term of 11 years of the contract amount of $1,243,152, sfmta 2011 12 11 with last parking california with a term of 11 years contract amount of one million 630,000 $208. fifth and mission garage management for a total term of 11 years and the contract amount of 740,000 $217 and request the board of supervisors toapprove this amendment . item1045 , contract number 1308 are improvement project sunset boulevard. and mct construction to construct capital improvement along the portal from sunset boulevard. in the amount of $57,264,139 and 903 days of substantial completion and making

environmental review findings . 10.6 warning sfmta contract number 1138 four rehabilitation projects to the heirloom system and to award the existing water reclamation system in the amount of 4,866,200 seven dollars and a term of 270 days to completion. item 10.7 appointing gwyneth borden as an alternate directo . effective october 6, 2021. item 10.8, emergency legislation to allow remote meetings during the covid emergency, continuing remote meetings for the next 30 days and directing the board secretary to authorize a similar resolution at theboard meetingwithin 30 days. that includes the consent calendar . >> clerk: any items anyone

would like to pull ? >> i would like to pull item 5 of the calendar. >> clerk: with that we will have a separate discussion of 10.5 so with anyone on the line to specific questions about 10.5, we will have a small presentation from staff on the item so your questions should be held for when we call that item separately but this time we will take public commenton all the other consent items , 10.1 through eight -10.5. moderator, are there colors on theline ? >> you have 4 questions remaining. >> this is very again. just to point out on 10.2 items f, g and h. as you want to do a

tollway lane on that portion, however you probably need to figure out how to have a passenger's own during off hours because you're just ignoring the fact that they love to doublepark where to park at the curb anyway . cutting people off at that residential building. it's a very busy residential building and a lot of people take alternative transportation unfortunately mycompetition a lot so you've got to do something about that by allowing that zone during certain hours . and by rescinding the telling zones are you going to make it more difficult for the 38 to travel down there? that's just a question and i think you ought to keep an eye on that if you're going to eliminate the tollway zones during the peak hours. i don't know why you want to

make bus transit worse. i know they have their own transit wayne but people use the transit lane to make right and left turns and everything and i think it's a mistake to eliminate any tollway zones along the 38. >> next speaker please. >> you have 3 questions remaining. >> caller: thank you chair. thank you for allowing me to testify as though i've never testified on consent. i want totalk about 10.8 . i emphasized the importance of continuing these meetings in a virtual format. >>. [please stand by]

>> and needs to be passed because these virtual meetings need to be more included. thank you. >> thank you.

next speaker, please. >> i'm calling about 10.3 and 10.4 and they were no longer than nine years and i know there's a pandemic and so things happen, whatever. it will now be 11 years we've had these parking contracts and what i want to know is why. every single parking space is an invitation to drive. we need less driving. we need fewer cars in our tiny 7 x 7 city. sfmta needs another source of revenue and while we're still dependent on this and figure that out, we need to wean ourselves away from this and you can do this by increasing the

rates at garages. constraining the supply of parking by removing street parking spaces and repurposing it for bike lanes and people, shared spaces, flow of streets, etcetera. when i look at the objectives met in the old transit plan, system performance. to get customers where they want to go when they want to be there. we are a transit-first city. there's nothing about owning and operating parking garages or having a bunch of parking spaces for free on the whole west side of the town and have a transit first policy. i implore you start walking away from this. why are we continuing this and

why do we keep having parking and investigation people continue to drive when we want to ride and get away from being in the parking business. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: i do not have comments on 10.1 and 10.2. i have comments on all the other items. you've already pulled 10.5 so what is your preference? do you want to hear my comments on the other matters besides 10.5? >> yes, please. >> caller: i'll try to take no more than a couple minutes on each and try to keep it very brief. on 10.3 and 10.4, i appreciate

the passion that stacy brought and that was nice. i don't know if staff wants to respond to the recent channel 7, i-team report on garage security. that was an interesting report and staff may have something to say on that. in my opinion, these extensions are okay but i would ask that staff analyze bringing garage management in-house with mta staff continuing to contract with the private sector. that might provide additional control over other aspects of the parking garages and maybe something to look at particularly if there's going to be a period of months between now and when an rfp is put together and certainly with an rfp the board still retains the discretion to reject all bids and not award and bring the work

in house. those are my comments on 10.3 and 10.4. do you want me to hold on 10.5 and should i move to 10.6? >> yes. >> on 10.6 the woods contract. the financial plan that the last page attached to the overall plan and what is helpful to me and the public is highlight the construction part of the project. in a case like this i'd like to see a highlighted line item that shows this particular action. the contract award is for 4.8, blah, blah, blah it should be a line 4.8 of the total construction phase which $11.7 million and the rest is contingency staff support for i don't know what but i'm looking

for a specific line in these financial plans that highlights the instant action. i have no objection to the contract itself. shall i move on to 10.7? >> yes, you may. >> caller: on 10.7 i have no objection to appointing chair borden and the alternate on the tgta but prefer they get appointed as the director and alternate on the tgpa board of directors and i read director tomlin is currently the director but my sense is that he's kind of busy so maybe taking that one assignment from director tomlin and giving it to one of you on the board with another of you on the board serving as the alternate would free up more of his time to run the agency.

it's useful to have policy board members serving as point -- appointees on alternates. shall i move to 10.8? >> you may. >> caller: the findings it's just too technical edits on the resolution page 2. it should read such meetings of insert the mta board of members and committees and go to approve by teleconferencing etcetera and that got emitted and the board

of directs and committees and blah, blah, blah and on the final resolve at the top of the third page the words got jump palled in the city attorney's draft and should say if they don't meet within 30 days the secretary can place it on the agenda on the next board of directors meeting. i will hold my comments on 10.5 until you hold that item. thank you for listening. >> thank you. next speaker, please on the items on consent with the exception of 10.5. with that with a little close public comment. the matters before you is there a motion on 10.5?

secretary silva, please call the roll. >> on the motion to consent agenda vote with the exception of 10.5. [roll call] . the consent calendar is approved. now back on item 10.5. >> commissioner: staff can give a brief overview of what 10.5 is. >> my project manager will give a brief presentation. take it away. >> chair, directors.

i'm the project manager for the project and i'm with ntk and seeking your approval to award the con tract for to ntk for their amount of 57,264 and it connects the south side and downtown san francisco and it carries 33,000 daily riders every day. the purpose of the project is to reduce reliabuce reliabilityfra daily riders every day. the purpose of the project is

touce reliabilityand it carries riders every day. the purpose of the project is touce reliability this is a joint venture and we work collaboratively and the project is bringing together sfmta and public works to upgrade the vital system to other communities. i would like to speak about the scope of this project. the project scope includes installation of new transit islands and upgrade the existing track, overhead wires and sewer and water infrastructure. with that i will take any questions that you may have. >> great. we'll lead off with director lai and follow-up with director yekutiel and anybody else who wants to discuss get in the queue. >> thank you for the overview. i have two buckets of questions. one is i just wanted some further clarification around the cost.

thank you for reiterating that the contract is $57 million would go over any additional soft costs for segment b of the project and if you could go over our sources of funding for the segment b part of the project that'd be great. >> sure. the cost is basically the cost to construct the project. that's what we call it. soft cost is we have identified 11 soft cost items part is project management and will oversee the design and construction. if there's any issues related to construction, we help further the project. engineering support may be related to the design it could

be water, sewer, muni related work. we help answer the question through whatever the question the contract we have and construction project oversight. we have a team of construction management team including our resident engineer along with the construction field inspector and office engineer that support the construction. making sure the job is done on time and on budget. that's our goal. that's our ultimate goal. our team who helps us put the project together also they help us out during the change order related to extra work that could be unforeseen work and help us review the language whenever we have a cost that may not be a part of the project scope.

quality issuance and quality control. we have a team we have a sewer water work and we also make sure the contractor constructs the project in accordance with our plan and design. in one of the construction assurances to make sure sewer and water waste were completed and make sure they compact the trench so we have 95% compaction with the material and meets our safety standards and materials are what we specify. our team makes sure the contractor is using to the product we specify also we have transit support and substitution costs during the trade and look

at the costs and this is a busy corridor so we have allocated funding for the parking or even in case sometimes it goes out for many reasons. and one of the items is public outreach. we have a very dynamic team. we have a team of professionals who are helping us with public outreach and we reach out to businesses and make sure that we are helping the businesses and also the director report being mentioned in the program and we have the outdoor dining and

we're trying to help them out with the business folks along the corridor. and then service connections. so this project we have new street lighting and we also have upgrades or installing a new traffic signal and along with the public safety and we have putting in a lot of street lights along the corridor. part is we completed the last piece we get the power from pg&e. and part of that involves payment to pg&e so we have to pay for that as part of the soft costs. also, we are installing the curb

ramp and when we finish paving we have traffic signal increase the safety and there are stripping on the crosswalk and the last item is the agency support service. other agency. and some done by the programs and they help us with the environmental construction and puc requires how do we minimize the noise and minimize the

control and how to mitigate all the environmental safety and traffic congestion and what not. that's pretty much the soft costs that we identify and the project helps pay for all the costs. >> for the description. i'm going to try to ask the question a little differently. my question is actually on what is the estimated total of soft costs because the item in front of us is just purely contracting for the $57 million of the hard costs with the g.c. which covers operational costs and landscaping and all that but it sounds like there's still additional soft costs to pay out. it's a two-part question. first, how much are we

estimating or budgeting for additional soft costs for segment b of the project. secondly, how are we funding both the hard and soft costs. what are the sources of the funding for the remainder of the project? >> first we'll talk about the soft fundings and how we'll pay for that. we have prop aa. and we have revenue and prop k sales tax and we have developed fees and we have general fund. the total is $56 million we have and that's nor construction phase.

and any additional soft costs, right? >> any other ancillary cost. anything outside the current contract we are hearing. >> some costs we may not know so if there's a project between puc and the sfmta public works hopefully we try our best to minimize the risk and from lessons learned we try to build the design to build the project envision.

and we can the project designed for so many days and if we encounter a project to allow increase the soft costs because the engineer will have to work longer to reach 930 days. >> i completely understand there are unforeseen situations the project cost would escalate but there would be a project cost and review before we grant or redesign the project but what is the current staff estimate of the soft cost related to the project? what i'm trying to understand i think i heard you say we have $66 million budgeted and $57 million goes towards the g.c. and we have $9 million is that

the soft cost? >> if $57 million is for sfmta construction cost and $7 million combined with puc costs. so the and so to pay for hard cost and soft cost. >> $56 million is to pay for mta's portion of the hard and soft cost? >> our cost is about $33 million. and money is to pay the bill. >> you mean we're anticipating 50% of the project costs going

towards non-hard cost items? >> that's the funding we got approved. >> and thanks for listing out the funding sources. are those sources of funds already secured and in our account the full $56 million including the developer fees? >> we already booked $29 million and in the quarter of the fiscal year we are supposed to receive an additional $10 million and after that moving on based on the coordination. >> so we have $29 million of the

$56 million and we're expecting $10 million so there's $37 million left that is t.b.d. allocation? >> correct. we have approved budget for $66 million so $29 million we have allocated right now and are supposed to receive $10 billion more around match. >> we're expecting the remaining $29 million and how do we know we'll have that money? >> that's already been approved. so then we have to and -- >> the construction cost is only $33 million and we would have enough money to pay for the hard costs. the soft costs would also come with the cash flow.

once the project moves forward we get the rest of the money. >> thank you. my second question is to make sure we have learned from past experiences in particular comparing with our project management and the b.r.t. and some coordination challenges we experience with other agencies. looking for feedback from staff what have we done in this project structure to ensure we are first of all i think there's too many things for me. one is how are we streamlining design changes and confirming design scope and confirming the base of the design before we open up the project site so that we don't fall into a pattern

that we fell into which is like designing a project while it's open which is costly and the changes requested from our partner agencies out of our control and did cascade into financial costs for the agency and trying to understand how we're trying to mitigate some of that for the project. >> thank you very much. >> one thing is we had 10 blocks of the previous project. this is segment b is two or three times larger than segment a. we have lessons learned from

segment a. we have on top of that because we've been proactive and working with pg&e constantly. we don't want to repeat the same mistake. we've been proactively holding even today as we speak we have pg&e crews out there right now trying to relocate the potential conflict, the stuff that may be in the way they're moving out of the away ahead of time as we speak. the second thing was allowing at at&t and pg&e to get ahead of the game.

and we identify these ahead of time. and we have a franchise agreement with pg&e and we have an agreement and one thing we change on segment b is we create items so we don't have the issue going back and forth with utility and that's a big plus nor project as well as for the city, i guess, as a whole and trying to minimize the change order because the difference is by not having the item you would

have to have argument going back and forth with the utility company. in this case, we already identified the utility. say we are putting it into our water. they already make the water or sewer line so they have to bid knowing they have to work with a utility facility. that's a big plus and whatever we find doing in the space ahead of us and move out of the way. that's what we've been doing and --

>> hold on. taking one step back to present context everything he's saying is consistent with the idea we've worked in segment a and we'll take that learning and apply it to segment b as a big reduction. and the other difference of the pothole investigation is more than we anticipate and the utilities are vastly less complex. it's a state highway and we found and it's a very important neighborhood street but doesn't have the intensity and utility. the learning from segment a there's a less context and

that's best practice investigation to minimize risk. all that hopefully, director lai, addresses the concerns of finding something underground and have to change orders mid construction. >> commissioner: i do recall when design requests unrelated to underground utilities came about from other agencies later on. that did change our signal location and our island design. i'm just trying to look for assurance that we're not going to get into that situation and say another agency decides to redesign part of the project for us late in the game that we're held financially accountable for their late decision making.

>> are you talk at the corner of the street? one thing is we have an underground service alert. when we identify it from line to line from the front of the building including the whole street and to property line. anything that we find we identified. for segment a when we were planting the trees, the area that we wanted to plant a tree we found some gas line. we have be creative and worked with the architect and i know what you're talking about. it could be there could be times and we have a busy corridor.

and you don't get too aligned on the sidewalk but in segment a we found a sewer line in a sidewalk which is unusual. we have a lesson learned and the directors that we are taking that lesson learned and moving on to segment b and trying to make it better. i'm not saying we won't find issues or problems. i've worked on a project that has no issue at all and is impossible. we're trying to minimize that. and in addition to that -- >> again at a more planning level the work on taraval we'll make pedestrian safety improvements but those your referring to had to do with agencies coming to grips with

the pouring of concrete and new ideas how a.d.a. should be treated and none of that is present in taraval. it's a less complicated context and that risk gets minimized. >> commissioner: that's good to know because i saw in the scope we're rebuilding islands and things like that and on a.d.a. we're hopefully front loading the issues and not having the surprises later. and the last question is are we for this project as the lead agency on it and it's clear we're the executing agency. it is a three agency project including p.u.c. and d.p.w., and

risk where other agencies effectively tell us we can't use certain subcontractors and have to go out and rebid and that significantly increased costs and delayed the project. i hope we're writing in clear understanding between the city family agencies to have a more streamline management. >> the way we tried to manage

van ness we're the contracting authority. and it's up to us who work on the project. >> i know they had a clarifying question but maybe they weren't. director yekutiel. >> thank you director lai for your questions. i know we're on phase 1 but are you worried they must be cutting corners to get to an estimate.

>> a similar pattern with segment a. the same vendor bid on the first segment. they were in that case 30% under estimate and in this case 36% under estimate. >> commissioner: how are they coming in 30% below our estimate. what are they seeing we don't? >> they're familiar with the job. they learned the traffic.

it helped with the bid. >> it's not about the bid price but the engineer's estimate because it seems we overestimated the cost of the project. >> i've said this before, i think our bidding process needs revision. we shouldn't be going with the lowest bidder but the one we have the most confidence in and concerned we had a bid so far below it makes me worried. do we have an issue with our estimations or are they artificially bidding super low in order to get the bid? it does concern me they're so

far below what we estimated. >> we project the escalation cost and the commodity and materials are skyrocketing so we figure 6% over one year because we project and we have contingencies fill in. so because of covid we had to do more safety cautious work, ie,

they have to make sure to wear the masks and the cleaning materials so if you do compare it's not that much. >> how much time saving cost is this supposed to have for the 33,000 people once it's all said and done? >> this project is going in and doing the permanent capital work to improve the safety

investments and travel time investments we already made on taraval so many of the things that help with travel time have already been implemented. i think it's another reason why we also have confidence there's not going to be a high number of change orders. with point we've already put in the boarding locations, the right staff spacing and the dedicated lane. what we haven't gone in is do the infrastructure upgrade and the more permanent accessibility upgrade and stop investment. we're happy to follow-up with the project team to see if the permanent capital changes will give us an incremental travel time savings above and beyond what we've already gotten but much of what the board has legislated to improve travel times were implemented as a

quick build project and then what we're doing now is going in and investing in the urpan space and the customer experience and the accessibility and the pedestrian safety on the corridor. >> i have to ask this question then and i've always been pretty transparent in question, given everything your side of the agency has to deal with and the question for all three of you, why don't we pause the project a couple years and use that towards something else? is there a higher priority ticket item you'd want to use that money for? >> i would strongly discourage us from putting the project on hold. not only is our infrastructure past the state of good repair which creates maintenance costs

and risk to the corridor, but the partner agency utilities are beyond their useful life. i think this is a project that has been in the works for over a decade and i personally don't believe as a city we can afford to put it on hold nor do i believe it will be cost effective given what we talked about in terms of having a strong contractor and a competitive bid before you today. >> commissioner: thank you. my last question is it's already been asked but do we feel d.p.. and p.u.c. are paying they're share and it will also benefit their agencies do you feel they're paying what they should be paying to get this project completed?

>> we're paying for the track way and the transportation infrastructure >> it's a pretty straightforward division of costs. >> director hinze has a question. >> the contract before us is $57 million and told us he hard

costs are $57 million so are there soft costs in the contractor what's the difference between the $33 million and $57 million? what's the balance going to be used for? >> i think the question has to do with the bigger picture, so any savings on this gets reprogrammed into other urgent state of repair needs and we'll be bringing you a capital budget and you'll see the fixed guideway program is over sub ed not by tens of millions of dollars but by hundreds of millions of dollars so it's

truly a gift it came in lower than expected. it is an anomaly, not the norm. it will immediately go to other urgent needs we have in the subway and throughout our rail system to bring the capital infrastructure to a state of good repair which is critical not only for maintenance efficiency but for safety. >> we're hoping that's the difference between? that makes sense. thank you. >> thank you. >> i'll make a motion to move item 10.5. >> second. >> great. now it's time for public comment. i'm going to open 10.5 up for members of the public. if you are on the line and

wondering what item we're on, we're on consent calendar 10.5 and it was removed from the others and they were voted on and this is not time to address those but if you have a question or comment specific to 10.5 the taraval project you can president 1-0 so add your name to the queue. are there callers on the line? >> >> caller: thank you, alina due prefor the record she and her. i used to use the taraval line quite a lot of and i feel something forgotten has been

forgotten in the renovation is building more a.d.a. compatible transit stops. i see the line is about 102 years old and impressed because it's a gut renovation we should have more a.d.a. transit stops and i am concerned given my basic reading of this resolution and contract there's not a provision for more transit stops but i maintain the line is on an incline that has quite a substantial elevation gain from 46 avenue up to the apec at the top of taraval. i hope i'm concerned about leaving people with disabilities

out because, as far as i can tell, adding more transit stops and it concerns me the question is not even asked. i ask you not forget about people who need transit stops. i'm fortunate i can walk but many can't. within way we can get more people riding the taraval line is by adding more a.d.a. accessible transit stops. thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: this is stacy brandecker. i just want to say i'm thankful for direct lai who has deep construction knowledge and is able to poke around at the

difference between the hard and soft costs and so gently asked about lessons learned and what i would ask before approval of this is there would be a chart produced that is here are the projects that were embarked. here is when we initially said they'd be done and here is how much money we said we would spend and what is the track record spend over the past 10 to 15 to 20 years of this agency in terms of delivering projects on time and on budget because i am very concerned about our inability to do this and i heard the gentleman say about lessons learned and things that were unexpected but this is all construction and it just seems this agency continues to take it on the chin from i don't know what is driving it but we don't have this money.

the planet is burning and yes we want our things to be in good repair but with $57 million, you could buy a top-notch e-bike for every sdsf student k-12. we have these big dollar amounts that get passed around and everything just rubber stamps them and we keep going our own way and it seems like caltrans version of building more highways and stuff. we should be calling into question what are we spending our money on? are we doing it wisely? can it be delivered in the time that is needed and how many people will benefit from this? i want better transit but i'm just aghast as the price tags. choose wisely and accountability and what our track record has

been. >> caller: david philpan again. someone may want to make notes. there's been staff on the project over the years i count at least five project managers and two or three communication staff. this project seems to lack stability perhaps importance within the agency. i would going ask what lessons were learned from the van ness avenue situation that have been applied to this project and contract specifically. staff addressed much of that earlier. this board should insist it operate through service in the subway following construction it would be more than -- it would be a crime of some sort if we

force the riders to transfer at west portal in the future. that would be unconscionable. i can't come up with a good word. during the construction it should continue from the zoo to downtown like in phase 1 with no forced transfer at west portal, absolutely. the stakeholder engagement section of the staff report does not even the include the project web page. not all the ceqa documents are available on the planning department website specifically 2017016132. please mail copies of all the relevant ceqa documents to me. it is impossible to find specific transit specific ceqa documents on the planning department website and there's more than 100 and buried.

it's impossible to navigate and find them and staff knows that and should have those as attachments to the staff report to calendar items like this. again, the financial plan is overall and should highlight the construction phase of the project not clear despite the discussion where the cost savings from being under the engineer's estimate might get redirected. i'm most concerned about coordination with other projects in this vare. p.u.c. has a separate water and power project just starting and will be in construction almost the same time as taraval will will result in a lot of traffic on yeloa and want to know what is done to coordination traffic

with other projects in the area including caltrans work and anything rec/park may be doing at 19th and vincente. i encourage you to follow-up with questions. >> are there additional callers? >> next speaker, please. i'm going step away. >> this is barry toronto. i didn't want to look a gift horse in the mouth because it includes taxi use of the transit only lane. and thank you for the important questions about the projects. and i want to point out that

they're not doing any work at night. i hope you're getting a savings of them not working at night on the project. what are doing to monitor the work of the contractor and make sure they're not sloughing off or extending beyond 930 days. that's a long time almost three years. i don't know if you need three years for a project like this. you need to ask important questions now rather than later when you become the subject of a grand jury report. thank you very much. >> great, next speaker, please. that concludes public comment

and you can go ahead and call the roll. >> on the motion to approve item 10.5, vice chair eaken. >> aye. >> director hinze. >> clerk: aye. director lai. looks like you may have some technical difficulties. to dr. yekutiel. >> i'll wait until dr. lai votes, if that's okay. >> we'll see if she can unmute. >> i vote aye. >> director yekutiel. >> aye. >> chair borden. >> aye. >> the item is approved. thank you.

>> that puts us on item 11. 11. presentation and discussion of the regional fare coordination/integration study. >> the study was conducted by the operators and transportation commission to identify areas of the policies as a way to grow ridership and the study was with a team of staff and the majority of agencies with deliverables and a task force consisting of general managers and directors of bay area transit agencies and executive level leadership. i'd like to introduce mike

eisman from bart and the co-managers to provide an update on the recommendations and the next steps. >> my name is bill with the staff of the metropolitan transportation commission and one of the project managers and i'm joined by my fellow project manager from bart mike eisman. i'll share the screen to share the slides for the presentation. and the board is not being asked to take action. it's seeking the board's

feedback and policy direction we'll discuss with you as well as take your questions. as we mentioned we're going to present the key finding recommendations and possible near term actions based on the work it date of the fair coordination study. i'll provide brief background and important framing before we get into the more detailed discussion of the recommendations. the presentation will delve into the metrics by which our study conducted analysis and i want to call your attention to an extensive appendix available for download via the link at the bottom of the slide and creates details on a more technical level than we can share in the presentation. over the next two slides we'll walk through key questions and

approach we used to frame our analysis and recommendations over the course of the project. the project is owned and overseen by a fair integration task forces consisting of general managers and directors of the agencies whose logo is on the right and managed by bart and ntc and supported by a work group of planning, finance and public affairs staff from transit operators around the region. an agency staff working on managing the project are support a consultive team and i'll note over the course of the last year and a half there's been various forums for stakeholder engagement. we did earlier this spring hosted a webinar focussed on transit agency board members and board members from around region were invited to participate in

the webinar and we had an ongoing public stakeholder meeting which is housed under the advisory council. the sub-commitee on fair coordination and integration. that body meets every other month and consists of stakeholders from equity, disability and public transit rider and advocates and stake holders and representative of the business community around the bay area and representatives of city departments of transportation that are not transit agencies like sfmta and other representatives from a variety of constituents and they've helped the project team shape our work. and i'll note the task force of which operators and ntc have been engaged with are interested in the scope of work of the project and received updates on the project.

you can see the scale of adult cash fare single fares a customer would pay using a clipper car on the bus and light rail operators. there's eight different price with the lowest generally found in the north bay and higher prices in san francisco and santa clara county. on the lower portion in addition to more than a dozen operators who generally charge a flat fare, eight use their own base

or distanced based fare system and while some offer some type of a day willyy -- daily or weekly or monthly pass there's some that don't offer any type of those products for users. thinking about the project. last year they had a variety of factors limiting to ridership leading up to the pandemic. and one factor of many was the policy. because the policies are principally by government models that incentivized fares there's a study identifying key issues. the first being customer value

or how they can lead to a disconnect. the second issue we this payment experience or how current their products may not be as legible or how the current fare policies may introduce barriers that limit the full potential of our planned capital and operational investments and finally equity underlying all the work and focuses on how current policies may not fully meet the needs of equity priority communities. as the board considers policy recommendations we'd like the board to think about them through the lens of the four integration tiers which are foundational to how the study

analysis is structured. the first tier on the left, number 1, focuses on overlays to the existing fare structure that do not require changes to how individual transit agencies price or manager their fare policy. instead policies that fit under tier 1 include offerings like passes or accumulators that are overlaid on top of the fare structures but change how users experience travel in the bay area. the second tier, number 2 changes policy at the point where riders connect to different transit agencies. this tier doesn't require changes to how transit agencies have travel within their own agency. and instead focuses on eliminating or reducing the cost to users of the transfer between local bus and light rail services and offer a meaningful discount between local transit and regional services like

ferry, express services and rail services like bart in the north bay. the first tier, number 3 has more regional transit services. rail and, ferry and express bus but not local. and bring it into a common distance and tier 3 unlike the first two tiers would require how it's managed for the regional and tier 3 would not affect the structure or management or fares for local bus and fourth, build upon the changes in tier 3 and bring all the transit services into a

common zone-based structure for local and regional services. tier 4 would require the most significant change to how fare policy is managed and priced and experienced by agencies. they're not recommendations but how to athink of approaching integration and we'll talk about our recommendations a little bit later. in the interest of time i'm going to skip through this slide. we'll talk more about the business case later. how did we conduct our analysis? on the right side you can see the four dimensions and strategic dimension, benefit cost and delivery and operation

dimension and financial dimension. and between the four tiers of integration we discussed these on an earlier slide. there's two key levers we test. the first were structural changes and they focussed on what fare structure would look like and whether local and regional structures would be modified and things would be applied in a given scenario and how it impacts user experience. and adjust the revenue impact or subsidy required for each scenario that we modelled.

and because fare structure change can increase or decrease revenue generated, we wanted to develop a common set of investment levels that would allow us to compare policy changes and forecasted impacts to each other. mike will talk more about this in his portion of the presentation but i wanted to highlight the two key levers in our modelling analysis we changed to better understand potential impacts to things like vehicle miles traveled, transit ridership and revenue impact and emissions, etcetera, given fare policy change might be able to produce. i think you have asked us through the project are there

fare integration option offer a cost-effective equitable way to promote transit? based on the analysis of the project team we believe the answer is yes especially coordinated with broader strategies that make transit work better for all users. i'll try to go this quickly in the interest of time. first, and there's the to increase ridership based on pre-pandemic levels despite what tier we're to advance in the bay area. second, the possible ridership gains and fare policy changes are cost effective relative to other transit system investments. with the investment cost for each new trip generated through fare coordination and integration policy in the ballpark of $2 to $3 relative to

most the major capital transit projects in the area. third, our analysis suggests fare integration can help their meaningful reductions in vehicles miles travel with travel time and air pollution and safety on local streets and roads. the recommendations we're putting forward in this presentation are also compatible with the equity goals and values and our analysis shows the recommendations would provide significant and proportionate to equity communities. i want to note there is an inherent level of uncertainty in our work as the ongoing impacts of the pandemic on individuals and the bay area economy make it impossible to fully foresee the impact of policy change and how it would manifest in the future where the covid pandemic is better managed and its impacted

reduced. before i turn it over to mike who will walk us through the detailed recommendations i wanted to address one other key question over the course of the project is create standard regional transit fare policy that applies to every agency in line with simplicity and eligibility would it do a lot with ridership and despite an investment in user research and working with transit riders and listening to their needs and experiences, our findings are somewhat inconclusive whether a simple system would do much to increase ridership. we can talk about this in the presentation when we talk about tier 4 while standardizing fare

policy across operators might improve eligibility for some users to the bay area, it might also create a lot of costs for existing users in terms of their ability to understand how their fares might change and it showed user skeptical of changes involving local services. we'll talk about that more and how our recommendation turned out. i'll turn it over to mike for the remainder of the presentation.

>> mike eisman financial planner for bart and co-project manager. i'll give an every view of our project team's recommendations. i want to cover basics on how we think the recommendations relate to the sfmta board's authority and accountability. first our recommendations do not contemplate transfer of locally sourced funds between agencies. second, in making the recommendations we assume funds will be sought to offset revenue impacts and finally there's no changes to the board and the

recommendations are steps of implementation. we recommend piloting an all-agency institutional and employer transit path. the next phase would begin in fall of 2023 with clipper 2 recommending free or redived costs interaction transfers and for the second phase we recommend continuing to explore option for path products or a clipper cap and what we think is most promising but we think they should look to the findings of institutional pilot before committing to a specific path and in green is our regional services and we should continue to develop the option as part of

the broader assessment of post-pandemic ridership and strategy for the services and muni's rail and rapid bus are considered local services in our study and would not be affected by the recommendation. we have free and reduced cost interagency transfers and they pay one fare. the cost of the most expensive segment of their tour. customers making regional to regional connection such as bart caltrain would receive a fixed income equal to the price of a local bus fare or minimum rail fare to allow regional services to work better as functions of

change and there's about 25,000 daily trips and reduce revenue by an estimated $2 million and the it's the best cost efficient of our alternatives we test. we found the benefits of the discounts balanced across income levels and found this option readily deliverable in the clipper 2 system. next i'll back up in the time line and discuss the proposed institutional and employer past pilot which could begin in calendar year 2022. like existing signal agency institutional products such as caltrans go pass and this would be an all you can ride pass sold to institutions in bulk for

consists but cover travel on any agency. we're modelling on the puget sound model and we expect the pricing would be based on the employer's location so the cost would be compense -- commensurate with the region and engage the institutions and the community with the recovery. from a san francisco standpoint we hope such partnerships could help drive recovery for downtown san francisco and pricing that achieve parity with the sub system and would need to backstop potential revenue impact during the pilot. we're recommending the region continue to look at cap product

for deployment in clipper it. outside institutional passes, broad applications of either passes off fare capping did not rate among the most cost-effective strategy and here is a design for a path we think scores better than most caps and passes on efficiency but not as strong as our core transfer discount proposal. the user could select a monthly pass multiplied by a factor like if the rider's typical fare is $3 for the month all dollars up to $3 would be covered and this is a puget sound model and this

is a reduction of $4.25 per trip and costs would require a structure and we believe this is the individual offering that looks most promising at this time but we recommend additional consideration and design based on findings of the institutional pilot. we think the learnability and ledgeability would benefit from a structure for regional services and combined with broader user focussed strategies strategies and we support a shared structure but to continue

to evaluate it as part of a broader assessment of ridership patterns and funding strategy for the regional services. in our models the high investment would drive a 4.7% ridership increase and reduce revenue of $70 million per year but has the strongest benefit of anything tested and our regional agencies would need new multi party agreements and network models to implement a fare share structure and finally, we do not have a recommendation for tier 4 rand the options en our analysis had higher investment required and lower cost efficiency then the more targeted strategies.

and they have higher deliverability requirements as well as well as a greater change in management requirement for customers. we have two tables of data that summarize for your reference the business case findings we wouldn't cover those today but happy to answer questions about the broader analysis. here we'll finish up with our recommendationed near term action to implement the strategies. so we have been working closely with our staff working group, clipper team and staff from a number of agencies getting input from outside stakeholders and business groups and trying to put in place the mechanics for a potential pilot of an institutional path should we

decide to go in that direction. the objective of the pilot to evaluate a barrier-free all agency pass and assess impact on travel behavior and collect data that can be used as a basis for a revenue model for permanent program and to complete title 6 analysis. we propose a pilot with two phases. one would focus on colleges and universities and leverage existing institutional pass relationships and proi pose a small scale demonstration project with affordable housing a second phase is to include employers and residents and we would hope to partner with business organizations and property managers to expand beyond past institutional customers. we want to acknowledge significant challenges for

delivering a pilot including administrative investment that would be required. while the goal is to establish price structure with no added subsidy for a permanent program we believe funding will be required for the pilot for administrative expenses as well as to backstop potential agency revenue impacts and could be a good use of regional recovery fund set aside for the brtf action plan. for that back to bill for our final slide. >> thank you, mike. finally, we'd like to briefly discuss a few next steps the project is going through now. over the coming weeks they have board meetings in response to requests from transit agency staff. at the next meeting of the task force the governing body made of the general managers on october 18 the task force may consider acting on a resolution

establishing a policy direction for which to continue with the work of the project. a formal final project report won't be considered for adoption by the task force and i want to note at the end of the month october 27 and 28 the commission will be meeting an workshop format and will hear a presentation about the study along with other updates of our retired focussed transit investments coming out of the pandemic. those were all included as part of the blue ribbon recovery task force action plan. the mtc commission will use the project updates to help inform the use of a portion of the rescue plan funds that were used to set aside of the action plan items. that would include perhaps providing financial force and preparing for implementation of

the recommendations for the project. and i'd like to thank staff who have been in the integral from the scope of our work and select consultant team through today so thank you to all the executive leadership and all engaged with the project in the last year and a half. thank you for inviting us to participate this afternoon. >> the one question i have, when you calculated the reduction in fare revenue how did you do that based on overall ridership and where they're concentrated and the fares? how did you come up with that number? for the larger agencies you pointed out the discrepancy in the pricing and not to mention

some have the distant based fares and wondering how you did the analysis? >> our primary analysis tool for most the alternatives was the regional travel model 1.5. the same model used for the bay area. all the fare structures are coded in. it attempts to assign trip making and choice based on a combination of travel time and cost and other factors. certainly models are imperfect but for a regional scale it was the best tool to us and ground our findings in actual data including clipper and survey data and we feel reasonably confident to the degree models

are valuable tools that need to be taken with a grain of salt. >> you mentioned the funding for the pilot. i was confused. you said you'd use some of the cares act fund? was there funding dedicated to that we got? >> the m.t.c. when i began to distribute american rescue funds set aside a portion of the funds to deliver blew blue ribbon recovery task force for key priority initiatives. one was fare policy changes so what the commission will be considering is using some funds to help support a pilot or other actions that were discussed today. no decisions have been made and

no actions taken this month by the mtc commission but it will be on the agenda at the end of the month for the commission to start talking about how they might want to use that american rescue plan set aside for the investments. >> didn't you say something like 2% to 5% increase in ridership for those project versus i imagine you would have a larger increase in ridership with potentially other things we could do so it would seem to me if we're talking about american rescue funds i'd see a metric larger in terms of increasing ridership to 2% to 5% is my feedback but i'll get to directors' questions. director hinze. >> this is a clarifying

question. [indiscernible] the

recommendation is based on the location. >> and more people would have transit passes in their pocket and we might be able to generate extra ridership that way. that's in our region and elsewhere have been able to achieve that with a program like this. >> in theory we would not necessarily [indiscernible] >> a version is the successful go pass. they worked their way towards parity before the pandemic. it works by trial and error.

that's why we think some revenue backstop would be needed during the pilot fades. -- phase. >> that concludes my question. >> director eaken, do you have a question? no? okay. >> thank you. i would love to start with a question around slide 24 where you talk about the significant administrative cost and staffing requirements as well as the challenges with the start-up so it's either the two body of cost. one is potentially the loss in revenue which again very grateful to see your early commitment to backstop that

revenue. but could you talk about that significant cost and administrative start-up? what is the ballpark of costs of staffing you're thinking about there. >> thank you, director eaken, there's two different elements of what we mean by staffing cost. costs associated wedge a pilot would be contained and focussed on trying to stand up a pilot and likely done with existing staff resources across agenies this would be a multiple pilot crass the region and to add context and there's existing plans like this and smart and there's a lot of institutional

product and staff who support those products right now. there's no commitment until you can do the pilot but if we were to get to that stage there'd have to be discussion amongst the transit operators on what the right approach would be for staffing for the pilot in materials of resources from the staffing end point and whatever financial support we had whether that be from american rescue plan funds or somewhere else. second bigger issue is we want a pilot to be successful and translate into a permanent program we can offer to institutions, employers and again it's important to highlight employers of all kinds and sizes. usually they targeted large employers or employers more office based. it's important in the way we think about the program is that it would be available to employers who are maybe less office focussed.

retailers and people who work on the restaurant or hospitality industry and a broad range of employees and employers to benefit but to build the infrastructure for a successful program you need a staff of people building the partnerships and creating those opportunities. so in the longer term, if we were to have a permanent program it's likely a cross-transit operator is housed in some place in the bay area we'd want to have a team of people focussed on the institutional partnerships and helping to sell and craft a product that work for employers and riders. these models this concept is after what the puget sound region and they have less than a staff of 10 to manage the program and the program before the pandemic generated more than

half of their fare bucks revenue just from this program. that allowed the whole system to expand significantly in the years leading up to the pandemic. seattle had been one of the most successful cities in the united states in terms of growing bus ridership and that's where the more significant costs factor in in a permanent structure down the line. >> you must know, if you've been to any transit agency hearing around the bay area what a difficult situation it is and if you've attended recently you heard the public asking to restore service to pre-pandemic levels and the challenging thought process whether we do that and take a risk we run out

of funding or take a more conservative approach. you must know it's an incredibly difficult time to be speaking to transit agencies about any potential revenue loss of any kind given what we're trying so hard to bring back and even get back to where we were. so i'm curious as we think about this as one potential investment whatever revenue stream you'll be using to backstop that $22 million or so revenue loss, have you looked at other ways to chair borden's point, have you looked at other ways the $20 million could be deployed towards your goal of transit service. earlier in the meeting we were talking about a network of transit only lanes to speed up service with our rapid lines and we do see ridership increase on those lines. i appreciate your goal and the

thoughtful analysis and to compare this business case for spending it that way opposed to any other regional transit investment that might achieve your goals and comes out on top of terms of the most prudent use of the rescue dollars to this point. >> i'll say yes, absolutely, we know how hard and my day job as a financial planner is every day. in terms of the competition for very scarce resources, we did not perform our full business case analysis we did a basic cost per new rider calculation compared to a group of proposals in the area as well as comparison with subsidy levels in capital and the existing

transit system, the whole thing. we found those relatively favorable return on investment calculation. they compare favorably with the most cost sufficient strategy in the bay area. so it's a model and as bill acknowledged a lot of uncertainty and certainty in the projections. i don't thing we want to make a statement on the most prudent use on funds for the region but it's a strategy we think should be considered alongside other important priorities. in terms of looking to the future, thinking from the bart perspective, we're not $22.5

million short of a sustainable operating plan. we're hundreds of millions short as a region from where we need to be and when we look at a subsidy we will need a bridge. >> and i want to ask a last question and glad to hear you acknowledge the challenging situation we all face. given all that, just curious, why now. why is now the right time to talk about this as agencies are all facing so many challenges. why not let us get through this challenging time and have the conversation? >> i think it's important to acknowledge the project began

before the pandemic started and all transit operators are still in a state of crisis and trying to survive the pandemic and trying to mitigate the impacts and the goal and problem statement was trying to grow trans ridership and that challenge has become more acute during the pandemic in terms of trying to serve riders who need to use service today and ensuring the system is sustainable in the future to all bay residents have them at their disposal. i think as mike was trying to allude to a little bit, before the pandemic, transit ridership in the bay area was stagnant or declining with many operators.

one of the goals general managers put before us when we began the work was to focus on how can fare policy change be a cost-effective way of growing ridership. now that it's decreased our revenues have decreased it's all the more important we find ways to bring people back to the system and our target has been outside of the business as usual approach to what the area has done for the last half century. so all of our actions require investment and everything we're trying to do collectively as transit operators in the region is risky right now. and this is is one piece of the puzzle is a step towards trying to encourage people to use the system and showing the agencies are nimble and thinking differently.

>> i think sfmta would find similar inclusions and the pass pilot is good for the moment we're in. the markets are in big trouble right now so we do think it's a way of partnering with business and institutions and we hope is a revenue neutral strategy long term. >> thank you. director yekutiel.

>> i'd like to hear what the manager thinks about this and the whole plan and process and with the different scenarios and options here i want it hear your thoughts, if you don't mind. >> having spent much of my career working and visiting many places in asia and europe, i appreciate the intention of the effort. our fair structure here in the san francisco is one of the most complex in the world. and straightening it out and making it easier for people to figure out and reducing the penalty faced by longer distance travellers all have good value. that said, my thinking i think is in alignment with much of director eaken's thinking which

is what so the business case for doing this particular investment now? i've become concerned when the region is taking away funds set aside for transit system recovery and instead investing in subsidizing passengership and less concerned if the looked at all the investment and how cost effective they are in meeting the region goals and if we can take funds from highway expansion and take it to fare integration and transit recovery, i'll all in favor so long as you're threatening the recovery of local transit service in order to integrate fares, i am concerned about this and also concerned the region

has not yet shown the leadership we hoped it would in responding directly to covid in creative ways. can we actually advance ideas like transit-only lanes from the day bridge and on the east bay approaches to the bay bridge? can we work more quickly on projects like san pablo avenue and funding locally though the projects are on regional and state facilities like presidio and lombard street like we discussed. in general, i'm all in favor of the integration but i want to make sure we are funding it in the right way and considering the business case. >> i feel the same way. i think we have way too many agencies and systems and

overlapping and duplicative and they all require their own set of staffing and personnel and h.r. department and scanners and photo copiers and the like and all that adds 30% to all these costs. i'm glad year -- we're doing it hit but the devil's in the details and i don't know if this is unique to the bay area but we have overlaying agencies which also have staff. i know they're working on long-range planning and distributing funds that come in but i wonder if as we think about not just fare integration but all the agencies if we're also looking at the long-term utility organizations like

c.t.a. and m.t.c. if everything's integrated do we need overlaying organizations to figure out how to spend the money? i know that's not a question you're trying to answer now but someone's got to ask it. every time we get money in the bay area a chunk gets taken from other organizations to think about how to spend the money and want us to think holistically about this stuff and thanks for doing it and i think we should be bold but it's a tough time right now. >> director lai. >> that was a lot. first wanted to appreciate

director eaken's questions those were on point from my perspective. there's been over the years questions about this but more of a regional approach and appreciating the background of this and the technical question about the presentation is i'm trying to understand the numbers presented to us including the ridership numbers and per trip numbers are average for the various agencies. so my maybe wrongly so assumption in that we probably subsidized higher than other

agencies just trying to get a reference point -- no? help me understand, one is relative to the numbers presented in the regional average where do we stand per trip of subsidy and the anticipated ridership increase, what are we anticipating if this happens for our local ridership increase because there's a higher rate for transfer. >> the director will know the facts so please step in if you're available but the average subsidy per trip is usually significantly less than other jurisdictions particularly for the larger rail systems. julie, do you have statistics

off the top of your head on cost subsidy per trip? >> i wish i did but i'd have to follow-up to speak accurately on the topic. >> and i recall a last figure is that we're subsidiing $6 a trip so i'd appreciate maybe subsequently what the subsidy is and going to the transfer rate and the subsidy if this happens and do we have a concept of what that means for our local system in this area.

>> certainly there would have to be a lot of detailed work to establish the revenue and i will say of the transfers that do occur in the region they are a lot of them are on like the bart uni and it represents half of all regional transfers. and of those transfers, maybe half of them are people with homes in the west bank and those the bulk of the transferring so i think you would expect much of the revenue impact and ridership benefits to occur between for

people making both types of trips. >> great, thank you. that is positive. maybe the ridership increase for muni will be higher than the 2% to 55% mentioned in the presentation and i think at the local level we do have to assess what the real impact may be for us before we can consider where we land on the policy level. i personal think it's for policy decisions without having financial information like concrete financial information so especially during the period of time where we're struggling so much and we're about to hit into the fiscal cliff for mta and then maybe on that point i

think in the presentation you mentioned that your expecting there will be some sort of regional funding for this to backstop the program. what are they currently thinking? is there a regional measure or timing you're anticipating for this if you're rolling this out by 2024 or are you targeting a 2022 ballot measure? >> there's a long list of issues

that would need to be tackled and that's consistent with what the study is trying to do is what is the policy direction the bay area may want to go to over time we can achieve that policy vision when funding becomes available. so if there's a significant new funding measure that is considered in the future, that there's a policy that could be associated with that when it

comes to the fare policy. >> let's say the policy moves forward but the funding isn't there, the mtc would not roll it out and leave us to our own devices to come up with the money? >> mtc doesn't set policy so we don't are control on what fare policies are. the answer to the question no, mtc can't require agencies to have a fare be what it is. >> i'm sorry, i understand you don't control our fare policies but are you implying if there was a regional measure you'd expect us locally to make up for the funding by increasing our

fares because i think that would be not what our current direction is? >> let's talk with the interagency transfer proposal. that's one if the agency boar a a -- agrees to make it happen it could happen by fall 2023. we have not identified a funding source for that particular strategy or for a great part of the transit system that needs to be operated after 20 24 but there's policy decisions raised around that already but there's a number of strategies potential

uses of that funding and so that funding could be used to offset agency revenue impact for some amount of time but not permanently. >> great, thank you for that answer. >> i have one last question about the increase in ridership and the demographic you're expecting to serve. who do you think in the community in the bay area community, who are the new riders of the system once we do the fare integration and i'm looking for the equity portion and are we subsidizing and integrating fare to people who basically can afford it already? i'm hoping not. i'm hoping we're reaching new people part of the community

[technical difficulties] >> thank you, chair. >> i believe director hinze has a question. >> i have a question. >> i can't hear. >> we can hear you chair borden.

>> i'll go to director hinze now. ite -- i'll put it in the chat. >> i associate myself with a lot of director eaken and director tomlin's thoughts on this but i think you have gotten us fairly universal thoughts from the board. i did have a couple areas of concern. i have a concern about the lack of user appeal for phase 4 of fare integration but we don't necessarily need to get into that today but it does lead me back to this task idea and how you how you tested and determine

the popularity of such a pass would be. so if you would go into a little bit more detail how you tested and modelled for that, that would be interesting to know. >> sure. so we did some ridership and financial analysis on a number of different type of pass and products both sort of general fare capping on the trip basis and on a fare basis as well as up front pass offerings where a person purchase as a pass from the beginning and the financial analysis and ridership analysis was outside of the travel model. we built a model dedicated for this purpose using clipper data.

and we did ask riders about the research about the appeal of various products and generally people like discount fares of any kind when you ask them. i will say on the pilot program, our really our understanding of whether the customer friendliness of that has to do with the success in the real world. we don't have ahold -- a model how that would work except in our region. >> and folks with disabilities or older adults, if they the loge locality would be buying the pass in would be by location if the locality offers a discounted

fare i'm assuming it would be a discount to purchase the pass? >> to the nature of the pass would be purchased by employers or universities. you would only have access to that particular product through those institutions. we have thrown out an idea for individual offering but we think that needs findings from the pilot before we finalize the proposal. >> right.

>> we would need all agencies to jump for the product. for our proposal for interaction transfers, that is still to be implemented in the clipper 2 system and we have all options on the table. if all agencies participated they could participate and they could sign on to a single memorandum of understanding governing transfers and proceed together but it's not something that would necessarily have to be unanimous. >> thank you, for that and vice chair. >> anything else from the queue to speak next? we're all good? great. we'll open it to public comment for members of the public

listening to our hearing and would like to comment on item 11 which is the presentation of the regional fare coordination integration study. now's the time to press 1-0. are there any calls on the line? >> you have 10 questions remaining. >> first speaker. >> caller: this is joe c-o-n-s-i-l-e-r-i. this is why they should keep pushing for integration forward. as someone who supplies in the bay area i find taking transit difficult with 27 different transit agencieses when planning trips on an excel spread sheet and those who land and can choose to rent a car normally do. at least easier transfers are

coming with your support and i thank you. i support the recommendations but please consider adding tourists -- excuse me, somebody needs to mute. i'm hearing car noise. that's better. please consider having tourist and business travellers steer towards an all agency or most agency institutional day pass 2023 and disembarking amtrak for reducing the penalty for long distance travellers not subsidy. riders get subsidy for equity and reduced vehicle miles traveled and for congestion and reducing traffic on the roads

and this rewards those who use transit. i ask the board and staff to engage in the process constructively. we need to understand negativity means less public support and trust which correlates into a heavier lift and increasing opportunity and at the ballot box and meaning we accept we want better transit. thank you for accepting these ground truths with grace as you steer towards a ballot and any future transit measures. i yield the floor. thank you again for all your hard work. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you. this is very important i ask you

indulge me i think i'm qualified to speak on this and ask you not have them compete with me. i appreciate the work of bill and mike and i have been to a number of these meetings and they have taken an issue that is becoming clearer. i have used some of these examples such as washington metro and puget sound and portland, oregon and chicago of fare integrations and i ask you not look at this in a vacuum because there are changes. more people will choose public transit because personal automobiles are very expensive especially with the volatile price of oil. as more people get payment

cards, these are things we can do where you don't have to have -- you can have a payment card and it will use the payment card numbers and identifier and everybody can have a very predictable sense of how much transit will cost whether it be a day pass or weekend or monthly pass with accumulators. i have more transit apps than i can count and have seven or eight different transit cards around the country and use a number of these systems. i'm not speaking just academically, i actually do this. therefore i think i'm qualified to speak on this matter. i ask you embrace the idea of fare integration because i believe it will bring more people to transit and more money to transit and eliminate a lot of efficiencies and help to make a safer more welcoming system. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> hi, thank you. my name is cliff barger. i live in potero hill and normally a caltrain computer and i'm lucky my employer provides a pass so i want to speak to the importance of the proposal here for the regional equivalent of a go pass. i'm excited to see it's being studied and i want to thank the presenters for their work and thank the board for their great questions but in my own experience i work in a medical device company where we have a range of employees from engineers like myself to assembly technicians and the people who are not able to take advantage of the go pass are the people doing the hourly work who through the last year have had to show up five days a week to build medical devices so

patients can keep getting surgery and many of those can't afford to live where caltrain is. so for my own colleagues, it would be hugely beneficial to have a similar pass that my impression is my employer would want to opt-in to to allow a broader range of my colleagues to benefit from taking public transportation and not having to drive to work and then there's also the benefits that people like myself would be able to more easily take other forms of transit. i know i have plenty of colleagues that don't live as close to cal trans as i do and many would drive and being able to have the connections to muni and other transit would encourage more ridership of other agencies beyond just caltrain using my colleagues as an example and thank you for considering this and hope to see this moving forward. thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi i'm with san francisco transit riders. the regional working group has been engaging at funding discussions including calling on mtc to ensure funds go to the commission. we were disappointed. fare integration needs to be considered carefully in the context of funding and governance to ensure it doesn't come at affordability or needed improvements to require more equity for all and ensuring muni riders are well represented or

on regional fare integration. that said, today's proposal recommendations for transfer discounts and a pilot pass clearly improve the retired experience for existing riders and cost effective when it comes to increasing ridership. as a result we support proceedings with the integration for the study. director tomlin's guidance provides one such potentially great pathway forward. in short, easy transfer allows riders to use all services available and today's recommendations are the first step towards advancing such a system. thank you. [please stand by] .

>> -- and a multiple agency transit pass would give people opportunities for mobility beyond what people would have

today in a way that would help with equity and economic mobility and social, as well, so i do encourage you to support the near term recommendations for this while working on pursuing funding for the future step home study. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> operator: you have six questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> hi. my name is armando [indiscernible]. i'm currently in the pacific heights neighborhood. i want to thank sfmta for taking this important study to indicate that fair increases in service lead to increased ridership. i've spent all my time when i was a kid trying to address

this issue [indiscernible] to the south bay for college, using v.t.a., and having fair integration would have helped in my life up to now. i really appreciate the [indiscernible] i think that is so important to, like, help people easily and affordably navigate the bay area increasing ridership. while i understand that resources are scarce, this is also one of those cost effective strategies to increase ridership. they were discussing earlier that they didn't think that this would increase that that much, but i think this is an

affordable way to increase ridership. i strongly urge you to support the recommendations of the study and i want to thank you all for your incredible hard work and how it's been a really difficult year, and you're doing really important work, and i hope you continue to move us forward. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> operator: you have five questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> hello. hi, board members, thank you for taking on this important issue. my name is kyle [indiscernible] and i'm calling in support of the fair integration's recommendations. i grew up in seattle and used the transit agency there where they have a multiagency pass and no fees. it makes it incredibly

comfortable for people who can't afford to live closer to the city. it is frankly not a very good based -- if our goal is to increase transit ridership throughout the region over the next 20 years to meet our climate goals, we can not do that without the base of common agency goals because at the end of the day, we are not a [indiscernible] county region, we are one county, and we need to act like it. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> operator: thank you.

you have four questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> good evening. my name is alex [indiscernible] and i live in san francisco. i've been taking muni since middle school, but i have always ran into challenges trying to transfer to another county, it has almost felt like it has meant to be boxed in. ensuring a regional transit system that works together is essential to living in the bay area. as you all know, the cost of multiple transfers and time in between them can lead riders to using lyft or uber. it's more convenient, it's more affordable, and frankly, it gets me in less trouble, so i would strongly support the initial recommendation for fare study, such as pilot for go anywhere. but i also wanted to recognize that seamless and i both

support funding needed for these major changes. so seamless supports funding for the sfmta and the regional bond measure, and seamless has organized phone banks and other measures to prioritize passing rr. i want to thank sfmta for prioritizing routes to the hospital during the pandemic. thanks to that, my colleagues and i were able to get to work during that time, so thanks very much and take care. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> hello. my name is raul maldonado. currently live in san francisco district 7 in between district 11. i am calling in support for the -- this go anywhere study with the multiagency consideration of a seamless

affordable opportunity for people to travel. i feel that myself have personally been hindered by, like, trying to become more transit friendly, that i've been hindered with oh, like, how am i going to get to a certain location outside of san francisco? does my card work and things like that, and does this automatically make my stop using transit and start using my car again? that's specifically what happened when i took it in for servicing and i wanted to go where else in the meantime. well, i could have been using somewhere else and using transit, i was, like, wait, does my clipper® card work in the natoma area? it drives me to not rely on transit in many ways. i feel like this would be in

tandem of other considerations, as well, like, director eaken's consideration of oh, we have to consider other forms of transportation, as well. so i think this will lead to other considerations, as well. yeah, you're doing good work, and have a good day. bye. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> hello. my name is christopher peterson, and i am calling in support of the city recommendations regarding institutional passes and free or reduced cost transfers. i lived in berkeley and oakland for about ten years before i moved to san francisco, and for almost 20 years, i worked in an

office in downtown san francisco where most of my fellow employees would stay. in my experience, many people who live in the east way are reluctant to venture onto muni. there are a variety of reasons for that, but certainly, one of the reasons is the additional cost. it's already expensive to across the bay area transit and incur any additional expense on top of that, so whether it's from an equity perspective, climate change perspective, you know, revitalizing the san francisco economy perspective, i think that providing for free and reduced cost transfers have significant benefits. i do have to say that i do agree with director tumlin's concerns about the direct

source of the funding for this, so i do support finding different sources of funding besides cannibalizing significant sources of funding. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> hi. my name is [indiscernible]. san jose state currently offers a pass for students, but it's someone that would [indiscernible] as of right now, i always end up driving a car to campus, instead. an all agency pass would be a game changer for me and my classmates. i strongly believe that better

regional integration is a good idea for long-term transit ridership growth. it also suggests that institutional passes are an effective way to boost ridership, especially for students like me who have a high consideration of pricing demand. [indiscernible] thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> next speaker. >> yes. this is barry toronto. now that we have the m.t.c. person in this meeting, how about you take the reins and

ask them about the multiple transit programs and ask how they can integrate into using the clipper® card to pay for taxi fares. thank you very much. >> thank you. moderator, are there any additional callers on the line? >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> so we will close public comment. are there any final comments on this item or are we able to close it out and move on? seeing none, we will close it out and move onto the next. >> clerk: director, that places you on item 12, discussion and vote pursuant to administrative code section 67.10-d as to whether to invoke the attorney-client privilege and conduct a closed session conference with legal counsel. >> great, and i'll just open it up to see if there's any public

comment on this issue. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> close public comment. do i have a motion? >> motion to move into closed session. >> second. >> can i have a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: sure. [roll call] >> clerk: the motion passes. the board will now go into closed session. board members, if you could please click and director lai. [roll call] the motion passes. >> president: with that. we are in adjournment and in the future, we will adjourn in the name of the taxi drivers.

we are adjourning in the memory of mary goldman. >> thank you, chair gordon. >> thank you. >> i am president sophie

maxwell. madam clerk, roll call, please. [roll call] >> clerk: and you have a quorum. >> thank you. due -- >> clerk: due to the covid-19 emergency and the governor's emergency order lifting the restrictions on teleconference, this meeting is being held via teleconference and being streamed on sfgtv. on behalf of the commission, i would like to extend our thanks to sfgtv staff and