director heinick. >> i have a few -- i mean, this isn't an action item today, right? this is just a report item. i have a few questions, which are probably best directed to [inaudible]. first of all, congratulations to you, chris. this is sort of a challenge that we had in front of us and required you to get some cooperation and corralling. i think the companies who were involved and assisted you all, be it maybe with a sword over their head on the equipment deserve some praise too so we saved money, didn't have to put a new device in the car and are getting the regulatory information. the question is what's next is what some people alluded to and the e hailing apps. you said most of the fleet is now on fly wheel. how many of the 1500 or so cabs are on fly wheel? to we know for certainty? >> and then use some of this money that we've just saved to advertise to the community to let them know that fly wheel exists and they can get a taxi and bigger fleet than uber has. i guess my question comes back to is there something we can do from a regulatory standpoint that will

i think i like director heinick and rubke's direction of allowing for taxicabs or some kind of regulated driver to be able to navigate the system for those who can be the walk or -- i was going to ask about bicycles. if it would be still be available to bicycles. you know, i'll be honest. that's the most fun i've had going down that street is on a bicycle. >> which direction were you going? >> down, obviously. but i still think that we can do it. we share streets all the time when we open them up for pedestrians and restrict them to cars. any sunday streets event we have, healthy saturdays in the park, there are still some cars that are allowed through that mix it up with pedestrian bs and bicyclists in a very safe way. i want to remind folks this would be a pilot. i would be interested in seeing what comes out of it, particularly with respect to the labor costs on managing this and enforcing access. it looks like we -- i saw from your pictures, no less than parking control officers out there at one time, which seems very expensive to me. and of course obviously, i want to apologize for

heinicke. >> thank you for the presentation, it was helpful. who owns the rail yard? >> i can tell you that. >> you guys do? >> i was chairman of it when we bought it from the southern pacific, and caltrain has rights to the land in perpetuity. >> but if the land was developed into real estate purposes that would get into other questions, who sees that money? >> you want me to? you can. >> to build off of what chairman nolan said, caltrain does have the rights and perpetuity to operate a railroad on the site. the underlying land for the rail yard is called (inaudible) but the successor, mission bay developer. >> developer. >> yeah, owns the land. but we are in a condition where caltrain uses the entirety of the property and has the right to do so to perpetuity. and anything of the property caltrain is to approve. >> caltrain has leverage, interesting. this is all contingent i take it on caltrain making it downtown. are we studying a revision of the rail yard even if caltrain stops at the rail yard. or is this assuming to be done that caltrain makes it downtown? >> und