mr. tumlin, this was your comment. i'm looking at van ness avenue as an example, it's being reduced from three lanes in each direction to two lanes of car traffic or truck traffic in each direction. it does happen to be highway 101. whether we like it or not. i've lived here my whole life, and that was before i was born, and that was a number of years ago. and i know that there -- a position has been taken that, well, the third lane will turn into a high occupancy lane or a muni lane. that's how i'll refer to it, and a fire engine or fire truck that needs to get down that -- get down van ness avenue, for whatever reason, can use the red lane to do that. what if there is a bus that is in the red lane, and if it's an electric bus, and, you know, can't get off of its, you know charging -- you know, the wires up above, and you've got traffic jammed up like crazy on van ness? that truck is going to sit there with its siren blaring behind a bus that is somewhat paralyzed because it can't move. >> commissioner, all of our bus

mr. tumlin. >> good afternoon, everyone. as usual, we have a lot to cover this week, because we are doing a lot as an agency. first, as always, is our vision zero update. on april 24th, we had a fatal hit-and-run involving a pedestrian and a motorist on park perseido. that crash, as far as what we heard so far, was late at night, involving very high speed. as always, rapid response team went out to see what we could do. the intersection had recently been repaved and reworked by caltran. to all of the favorite. marxings were in good condition -- markings were in good condition. the signal timing doesn't meet our current goals. so we'll be accelerating work to retime the signals for a longer pedestrian crossing time. and we'll also continue doing outreach in the entire corridor as part of the transit and pedestrian safety improvement program, that you've heard about before. also on may 1st, we had a fatal collision. again what we've heard so far likely an intoxicated driver driving extremely high rate of speed on san jose aven

mr. tumlin. >> good afternoon, everyone. as usual, we have a lot to cover this week, because we are doing a lot as an agency. first, as always, is our vision zero update. on april 24th, we had a fatal hit-and-run involving a pedestrian and a motorist on park perseido. that crash, as far as what we heard so far, was late at night, involving very high speed. as always, rapid response team went out to see what we could do. the intersection had recently been repaved and reworked by caltran. to all of the favorite. marxings were in good condition -- markings were in good condition. the signal timing doesn't meet our current goals. so we'll be accelerating work to retime the signals for a longer pedestrian crossing time. and we'll also continue doing outreach in the entire corridor as part of the transit and pedestrian safety improvement program, that you've heard about before. also on may 1st, we had a fatal collision. again what we've heard so far likely an intoxicated driver driving extremely high rate of speed on san jose aven

mr. tumlin, in last item, acknowledged some of those things. i, frankly, all -- writ large i'm proud of the city. i'm proud of oewd. we did pivot. but president walton spoke to the notions of permanence. there's some things that are going to disappear relative to the government practices after the pandemic is over and we go to whatever the new normal looks like. and there are some things that will be made permanent. and there are things that will be adopted and in whole and in part. but one of the things that -- and this goes back to the notion of oversight -- and transparency. is having a process by which everybody understands what's going on -- and while i'm delighted that in the current round as of right now you have 809 applications and you can take care of 1,430. the experience has been up until now that we're doing less than a third. and i get it -- i'm not saying that we have enough money to take care of 100%. but that -- when you don't have enough money to take care of 100% -- and i say this as somebody who is on the bay restoration aut

mr. tumlin, in last item, acknowledged some of those things. i, frankly, all -- writ large i'm proud of the city. i'm proud of oewd. we did pivot. but president walton spoke to the notions of permanence. there's some things that are going to disappear relative to the government practices after the pandemic is over and we go to whatever the new normal looks like. and there are some things that will be made permanent. and there are things that will be adopted and in whole and in part. but one of the things that -- and this goes back to the notion of oversight -- and transparency. is having a process by which everybody understands what's going on -- and while i'm delighted that in the current round as of right now you have 809 applications and you can take care of 1,430. the experience has been up until now that we're doing less than a third. and i get it -- i'm not saying that we have enough money to take care of 100%. but that -- when you don't have enough money to take care of 100% -- and i say this as somebody who is on the bay restoration aut

mr. tumlin, that we had done things at break neck speak we have not done before in the last year. there is pent-up frustration. mitigation fund. >> i can tell you this as a fact. some of those chinatown businesses only received their checks from that program getting to three years ago. this last month of april 2021. i am not making that up. i am sure colleagues that many of you have similar stories of folks who have taken time to apply and navigate these not only at the level this is the state and federal level and were denied relief often without explanation or further guidance as to a different approach. i am hoping that toed we can identify some of those problems so we can make them better going forward, and also i want to ask that at the end of this hearing, and i can't make the motion, that we continue at the call of chair to allow incoming new director of oewd to have an opportunity to actually present on her vision. note only for recovery but more equitable recovery for the city. i am sorry she is not able to engage in these budget discussions since the mayor announced appo

mr. tumlin loves uber and lyft. he mentioned them more than he mentioned taxis last week. i'm very disturbed by that. you regulate taxi cabs. you control what we charge. hello? >> chair borden: you were frozen for a bit mr. toronto. >> caller: i'm using regular phone. anyway, the thing is, i would like to have you download the fly wheel app, try taxi and understand now, the other services are charging a lot more than us. a fare from the airport to san francisco has been quoted as high as $100. we legally not allowed to charge that much unless we're completely stuck in traffic. which is very rare. the thing is, it will be great to understand the role of taxis in the city. the fact that the city took millions of dollars for a failed sales program that ended up becoming a flop. now, people's lives have been ruined and have pick up the pieces but they have to be foreclosed on because they couldn't generate enough income to pay the medallion loans to the credit union. take a look at what you're saying and doing, considering that you regulate taxi cabs. you cannot regulate the o

mr. boland. or director tumlin. >> as a practical matter we need time to do the evaluation.it will take us, frankly, because partly because we want public input on what we're measuring, right. and so, you know, we're not going to fly out of the gate with the evaluation and it will take a bit of time to come up. so we'll also be doing parallel outreach throughout this process, just to make that clear. and, you know, more extensive process as part of the preparation for -- to make it permanent moving in that direction. i don't know if that answers your question necessarily. >> director heminger: well, it just suggests that the emergency may run out before our pilot of the h.o.v.2 concept. and when the emergency runs out, we don't have the authority to do this anymore, do we? >> well, we have 120 days after the end of the -- under the legislation that is approved. so there's talk of june 15th, you know, as one possible date. we'll see. >> director heminger: yeah, we have been wrong about that date all the way through. >> yeah, yeah. but if that were to occur, i mean, we'd be lo

tumlin did the median answer and you're absolutely right ms. munowich different parts of the city present different rates. but, mr. eagan, i am not only chagrin by the fact you dumped this on the committee at the last minute, but your analysis is deficient inso faras, you don't tell us and the answer is about $4,800 a meter citywide and they are higher in other parts of the city and lower in other parts of the city, but your analysis respectfully through the chair is deficient, sir, and late. >> i would accept, supervisor, that it's not something we considered in our report. we did not unlike other reports attempt to fully quantify all the economic impact. for example, shared spaces might very well affect property value one way or the other. we didn't do that analysis either. we didn't say what's the total citywide job impact of having shared spaces or not. we didn't even try to project how many shared spaces are going to persist or how many new will be done each year. it's an extremely complicated topic. we've produced the report we did because we were confident in the findings that i already shared with you and

mr. chair. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor safai. i have a few things to say. my colleagues can go first. president walton. >> thank you so much, chair haney. thank you for being here director tumlin. for now for clarifying i want to understand you correctly. you are saying our low income riders wouldn't benefit from free? i am trying to understand that rationale. >> no, our low income riders would certainly benefit from free muni. because muni's ridership includes broad demographics. as the ridership returns, the bulk of the financial benefit of free muni would go towards more affluent riders. if we want to direct available funding to benefit lowest income riders, we would instead expand the eligibility rules and expand the discount available for lifeline pass. so that all of that money could be directed at the people who need it the most. >> i am trying to figure out the overcrowding issue. that is something your leadership and your team needs to address and fix. i am trying to figure out why that wassent discussed. >> the demand is well documented in systems across the world and the factor in the travel demand model. so if we eliminate fares, the effect is on ridership. while t

tumlin did the median answer and you're absolutely right ms. munowich different parts of the city present different rates. but, mr. eagan, i am not only chagrin by the fact you dumped this on the committee at the last minute, but your analysis is deficient inso faras, you don't tell us and the answer is about $4,800 a meter citywide and they are higher in other parts of the city and lower in other parts of the city, but your analysis respectfully through the chair is deficient, sir, and late. >> i would accept, supervisor, that it's not something we considered in our report. we did not unlike other reports attempt to fully quantify all the economic impact. for example, shared spaces might very well affect property value one way or the other. we didn't do that analysis either. we didn't say what's the total citywide job impact of having shared spaces or not. we didn't even try to project how many shared spaces are going to persist or how many new will be done each year. it's an extremely complicated topic. we've produced the report we did because we were confident in the findings that i already shared with you and

mr. chair. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor safai. i have a few things to say. my colleagues can go first. president walton. >> thank you so much, chair haney. thank you for being here director tumlin. for now for clarifying i want to understand you correctly. you are saying our low income riders wouldn't benefit from free? i am trying to understand that rationale. >> no, our low income riders would certainly benefit from free muni. because muni's ridership includes broad demographics. as the ridership returns, the bulk of the financial benefit of free muni would go towards more affluent riders. if we want to direct available funding to benefit lowest income riders, we would instead expand the eligibility rules and expand the discount available for lifeline pass. so that all of that money could be directed at the people who need it the most. >> i am trying to figure out the overcrowding issue. that is something your leadership and your team needs to address and fix. i am trying to figure out why that wassent discussed. >> the demand is well documented in systems across the world and the factor in the travel demand model. so if we eliminate fares, the effect is on ridership. while t

mr. chair. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor safai. i have a few things to say. my colleagues can go first. president walton. >> thank you so much, chair haney. thank you for being here director tumlin. for now for clarifying i want to understand you correctly. you are saying our low income riders wouldn't benefit from free? i am trying to understand that rationale. >> no, our low income riders would certainly benefit from free muni. because muni's ridership includes broad demographics. as the ridership returns, the bulk of the financial benefit of free muni would go towards more affluent riders. if we want to direct available funding to benefit lowest income riders, we would instead expand the eligibility rules and expand the discount available for lifeline pass. so that all of that money could be directed at the people who need it the most. >> i am trying to figure out the overcrowding issue. that is something your leadership and your team needs to address and fix. i am trying to figure out why that wassent discussed. >> the demand is well documented in systems across the world and the factor in the travel demand model. so if we eliminate fares, the effect is on ridership. while t