Complements the muni service and so the and thats under the a. D. A. Requirements and guidelines and so Paratransit Service goes generally threequarters of a mile around where muni goes, and the muni lines and the muni service and if a person that has a trip that is outside of that they can take their paratransit to wherever the end of the end of that border is, that service area, and then i would suggest they could continue on, but then theyd be responsible for paying for that portion of the trip. Yeah, i think that is an interesting point because it also eats up a lot of time and paratransit has a specific schedule theyre bound to by routes and those things dont always match up so thinking about consumers with disabilities and maybe physical disabilities as well and vision issues and fatigue and any other things that might come up, i think that theyre doing their best to kind of figure out the solution to get to where they need to go but i know that its not a perfect system, just when we think about real life situations and then these boundaries that make impacts individuals situations and maybe something to think about and maybe not to be addressed now but to consider in the future. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Council Members for your questions and ill open it up to staff at this point. Thank you very much, kate, and to kristin for being here. Actually i have a question for cristip, ikristin, is she still . Hello. And when speaking in preparation for the anticipated Comment Period to the cpuc, we had had mentioned a few weeks back that we wanted to try to coordinate some different efforts and get maybe some sample language out for folks that would help with providing comments, assuming that the council is wanting to move forward with assisting with comments. Can you talk for a minute about where we are with that or the best way to move forward with providing comments when were ready . Yes. So weve been talking internally because we were at this odd in this odd position where the cpuc hasnt set a deadline for that particular track of their rulemaking yet so i think were still a little bit nervous that if people start submitting comments now that they might not be considered, so we will though as soon as they set a date, sort of mobilize those activities that we talked about and wed love to have the m. D. C. Participate in getting the word out about commenting, if possible. So thats when we would start distributing any language and sample letters or postcards that people could submit for people to submit their experiences with accessibility issue with the t. N. C. S. Thank you, is there a general time frame for a Comment Period . It varies and theres 34 sets of comments and reply comments as part of this rulemaking so its going on for quite some time and it varies in terms of getting notice when the comments are due. But id anticipate that wed have a good amount of time to, you know, before the cpuc gives the deadline and because in this current rulemaking there are multiple tracks and the accessibility track is number five and theyre still working on the earlier tracks. Thank you very much. Thank you for notifying me. And well open up to comments. Theres someone on the bridge line and my apologies, we had technical difficulties. Sorry bridge line holder, thank you. Go ahead. Go ahead. Can you hear me . I cant. We cannot hear you at this time due to technical difficulties. We have some speakers here for Public Comment. First one . Well, we have mr. Lanholt, but can this gentleman go first . Im howard shapner. And two quick comments about this. Number one, chariot is owned by ford and i have written to ford several times about chariots lack of access and didnt really get a response, and i understand that very recently that chariot settled a complaint by the u. S. Justice department, and its disappointing that m. T. A. Would have partnered with ford on the go bikes, they should have done their Due Diligence and recognized that ford owned chariot and that chariot was not providing Wheelchair Accessible service and the analogy is that i think that it was back in the 1990s that s. F. O. Required airlines and other partners that were using s. F. O. To provide partner benefits which is the right thing to do and they basically said that were not going to do business with you people and let you land unless you do that. Even though that was beyond what the law really required. So i really hope that, you know, m. T. A. Or any other city agency would not partner with someone that is that owns a company that is basically discriminating against people with disabilities. Thats number one. And the second comment has to do with the hop on hop off buses and other privately operated tourist type buses. I have written to several of those, and probably half of them are not accessible. And, you know, i have written to m. P. A. And so forth and basically been told and i think to m. O. D. A while ago that, you know, s. F. Has no jurisdiction and thats california p. U. C. , well, again, as the San Francisco allows those buses to park, in fact, gives them designated Parking Spaces and theres other forms of leverage they have. And so even though there may be gaps and there are gaps i believe in the a. D. A. , in terms of the coverage of those type of buses, i think that, again, that San Francisco has some practical effective leverage in making those companies go beyond what the law may require and, certainly, if its a gray area, interpreting the gray area to provide more access, rather than less. Thank you. Thank you. Im bob planholt and i want to point out two areas where the Public Utilities commission is oblivious or neglects to respond to disability access, even when prodded by advocates and first when years ago we pointed out that these t. N. C. S didnt have vehicles that accommodated anybody and everybody, cpuc said, so the t. N. C. S now have to keep track of all of those people who call in saying, i need an accessible vehicle. And right away you say, if you know that they dont have accessible vehicles, why are you going to call in . The cpuc set up a survey counting system guaranteed to have low numbers and not measure the demand. That was just so grade school obvious. But, secondly, and this goes beyond the cpuc, these t. N. C. S are public accommodations and yet they failed to provide what is required of a public accommodation. Public accommodations are supposed to be available to all. If you dont have a smartphone you cant use your home phone to dial or touchtone phone you cant contact them to make a reservation and even a simple regular cellphone, its not smart enabled, you cant get their service. You cant write a cheque, you cant pay with cash, and theres a variety of barriers that t. N. C. S have that say theyre not fulfilling this and cpuc ignores this. But im going to say so does our City Attorney. City Attorney Says they cant sue cpuc for failure to enforce, but theyre ignoring they can sue the t. N. C. S for violating the public accommodation requirements. So even within the city we have people shying away from and sticking their head in the sand, avoiding, responding to disability access. And im going to be very direct because the cit City Attorney hs sued agencies on behalf of other disenfranchised and discriminated communities but theres a real low number, almost a silence, regarding continued advocacy through legal complaints and suits on behalf of people with disabilities that is not arising from our City Attorney. Another issue that maybe the council can take up. bell ringing . Thank you. Were going to go ahead and close Public Comments and go on to information item number 10. Vision zero. San francisco and people with disabilities and id like to thank our presenter for waiting and welcome megan l. Weir, d. P. A. Director and program on Health Equity and sustainability, cochair of San FranciscoVision Zero Task force. Thank you for being here today. Good afternoon, council, and thank you so much for the opportunity to be here to share more about vision zero and thank you to nicole for the invitation and i hope that this is the first of a longer discussion with respect to how vision zero can increase our engagement and address issues of concern with respect to Traffic Safety for people with disabilities. Again, im megan weir and im the cochair and i also work for the Public Health department. So traffic injury has and is a real problem in San Francisco with respect to Public Health. Recently weve had approximately 30 People Killed each year on our streets and another approximately 500 people hospitalized with severe injuries at our public hospital, zuckerburg San FranciscoGeneral Hospital. We estimated that approximately 35 million in medical costs alone per year and our city surgeons respond to a serious traffic injury approximately every 17 hours. We are working closely with the hospital as a part of vision zero and rebecca plevin, a doctor at the hospital, i invited her to come today to just, again, this is an important issue and to better understand the concerns specifically of the Disability Community. Half of the patients at our Trauma Center are people injured in traffic collisions and in doing this work and thinking of being here today, from vision zero is fundamentally focused on eliminating traffic deaths and prevention but we also know that many people sustain lifelong disabilities in traffic injuries so, again, this is a really important area for discussion. Nationally we know sure okay, okay, im sorry. Nationally we know that traffic fatalities are actually increasing, so while in San Francisco we havent seen the same increases and nationally weve had 14 increase in traffic deaths in recent years and this is primarily driven by increases in deaths of people walking or rolling, biking and on motorcycles. Vision zero was launched in 2014, and its led by our mayor, with the leadership from our board of supervisors and also with Strong Partnership by the city family as well as our Community Stakeholders and we released our second tier Action Strategy earlier this year and vision zero really focuses on creating safe streets, safe people, and safe vehicles and im going to share a little bit more about that. Sorry, im like i apologize for my lack of sincei coordinath my slides and talking. They focus on prevention and preventing severe and fatal injuries and saving lives and on addressing ecowa equity and focg on reducing fatalities and it leads with designs and creating safe people and safe vehicles and so education and enforcement and education and policy are all important pieces of creating the safer streets. And vision zero is fundamentally focusing on slowing speeds down on our streets because speed is a predictor of whether or not people are injured and killed. And its a shift in Traffic Safety. San francisco was a the second city to adapt vision zero in our country but now theres more than 20 cities in the United States who have adopted vision zero and as opposed to previous Traffic Safety paradigms which have really focused on individual responsibility, vision zero as i think that janice articulated earlier, focuses on creating a safer system. So we need to anticipate human error and accidents and our accidents are not accidents, theyre preventable, and we need to anticipate that people will make mistakes and that we need a system where the consequence of a mistake isnt a death. Equity is a core vision of vision zero and so its not just a social or moral issue but a Traffic Safety issue and understanding that we really need to consider equity as we design safer streets and that means prioritizing our most vulnerable populations, including the Disability Community. And our core group took the time to define equity so its, you know, its increasingly common term used with respect to policy and planning and Program Decisions but we need to all be on the same page about what were talking about. So with respect to vision zero we defined inequities and severe injuries as avoidable disparities and injuries that are from unfair differences and social and economic and environmental and political conditions. With respect to the communities that were focusing on that experience or are at risk for inequities and they include seniors, people with disability, youth, lowincome people of color, and immigrants, nonenglish speaking people or marginally housed residents and people walking and biking and as well as people motorcycling. Our fourth year on vision zero were focusing on deepening our work on equity so that means increasing engagement with vulnerable communities and thats an important reason that im here today and also maintaining and expanding our data systems that can inform the targeted investments and monitoring impacts and im excited to share the developments with respect to understanding disability and traffic injuries in San Francisco and implementing targeted initiatives informed by this data. And im now focused on some of our current efforts on vision zero, i cochaired the Citywide Task force and we meet quarterly here in the city hall and its comprised of both city agencies and Community Stakeholders and i cochair with the municipal transportation agency, mta and we have partnership with our Police Department and the public works and the Transportation Authority and a number of other city agencies as well as rock San Francisco and the Bicycle Coalition and senior and disability action, bob planholt is a frequent participant and many people in the room are there on a regular basis and i invite you all to attend if youre ever interested and we also have a mailing list that id be happy to add people to if interested. And the mayors opposite of disability is an active member of the task force and their work on this, of course, even predates the adoption of vision zero and prior we had a Pedestrian Safety task force which the Mayors Office on disability was a key member. And San Francisco department of Public Health, sorry, im just want my brain is not thinking apologies. And the San Francisco department of Public Health launched last year this safe streets for Seniors Initiative and i wanted to share that today because we know that a number of seniors also have disabilities and the focus is on educating seniors and Service Providers about vision zero as well as getting input to bring back to the city departments. So this includes multilingual presentations to seniors and senior Service Providers and our program has reached over 730 seniors and staff at 25 locations. And also the program and administers many grants to engage locally more around these issues and address the specific concerns. Last year seven organizations were funded and funding was Just Announced for eight communitybased organizations this year. And in addition to cochairing, i lead work on evaluation and this map depicts the high Energy Network and the network comprises of 13 of the streets in San Francisco where 75 of the severe and fatal injuries are concentrated and its important because it really helps us to understand where targeted investments could fundamentally save lives and d. P. H. Conducts the analysis and compares it with other departments. And the yellow part of this map is what the regional metropolitan Transportation Commission defines as communities of concern and these are communities where lowincome residents and people of color and seniors and people with disabilities and other populations who are reliant on walking and Public Transportation are concentrated. And what we can see on this map is that while those communities comprise about a third of our streets in our city, half of the High Injury Network is in these communities. So in using the High Injury Network we prioritize improvements and taking steps to address the historic disparities in the Traffic Safety conditions on our streets. When the Pedestrian Safety works that i began partnering with the Mayors Office began in 2011, one of the main concerns that was raised was a lack of data on people with disabilities and injury. We know that theres not a category in the Police Reporting forum to collect data