Both the m. T. A. Board and board of supervise sources has set very ambitious mode share targets for bicycling in the city. And we as an agency with the board of supervisors have been work on a number of different fronts to make bicycling a better option. From everything from infrastructure that were putting in the ground to Safety Education that we support. There is a number of things were doing to try to meet those mode shift goals that both you and the m. T. A. Bore have established and that are part of our overall Climate Change strategy as well. We see bike share as an important part of the overall move to increase bicycling in San Francisco. Something weve been engaged with for up to five years now. Like every other aspect of transportation in San Francisco and generally, bike share is a very dynamic industry at the moment. And like pretty much everything that has to do with nrption San Francisco, there is a lot of different opinions about how to do this the right way. And there is controversy over decisions about how much of this, how little of this, how broad, how narrow. Weve been working to try to strike the right balance so that we can optimize the emergence of this relatively new way for people to access bicycles. But do it in a way that is responsible that is going to ultimately advance our overall city transportation goals. So, we will try our best to answer the questions in the presentation. Of course, well be here for any followup questions and Public Comments and we have others here as well as mr. Parks to try to walk you through this. If i could, ill turn it over to jamie parks, the manager in our liberal Streets Division who will give you an overview and answer the questions that were posed by supervisor cohen. Thank you. Although i havent posed all my questions. But i put enough out there to get us started. Mr. Parks . [please stand by] [please stand by] and part of the legislation and saying its an exciting time for bike sharing and the mta is excite with the interest in bike sharing. Um ultimately we see it as a good thing and helps make our Transportation System safer and more equitable and accessible which are the goals underlying all of our decisions and we support it and theres questions regarding the bike share in San Francisco and so we want to proceed with caution as well as optimism. That issued a per mitd permit bringing the ebikes to san franciscans and providing the time and data ill proi p p context. It began in 2013 with the bay area Bike Share Program. It was a small system with approximately 350 bikes around it began as a pilot program. The good news with the pilot system is it worked. People liked it and used it. The bad news was cost. Expanding the system to meet demand would cost tens of millions of dollars. Money that was not available through public sources at the time. As a result we the mt cr and other several bay area cities developed a Public Private partnership by waiving fees and allowing private sponsorship wed be able to get the bike share system we need at a cost we could afford. Under that model a contract was approved in 2015 to provide a privately funded Bike Share Program and the system officially launched in june 2017 and replaced the original area bike share and currently 120 stations and 420 ford go bikes increased over 300 station and over 4,000 bikes by the end of the year. At the same time the ford go bike was being planned and launched the new model was emerging. The stationless model expanded in 2016 and in the United States and china and stationless bike share refers to bike that dont require dedicated docking stations like the ford go bikes. Some stationless bikes are Free Standing and the bikes themselves have integrated gps units and internal lockal mechanism and accessed by smartphone apps. Theres half a dozen or more in circulation alone. This creates significant issues for maintaining safe and orderly bicycle lines as you see in the sidewalk but has shown to be a promising tool and goal of the mta. The first stationless operator in San Francisco was blue go go in early 2017 rather than watch what happens and respond later which is often the case with technologies we developed San Francisco specific regulations for stationless bike share to ensure it would serve the Public Interest and worked with the board of supervisors and with the board of directors to pass the division 1 and division 2 transportation code legislation. It passed in 2017 and established the stationless bike share in San Francisco and accompanying violations and fines. It has gone bankrupt since taking millions of user deposits with itsome issues we observed as the right of way obstruction in maintenance and other cities with stationless bike share we wanted stationless bike share to promote Public Health and safety. Theres a lot of details but a key things for your attention. First is equity. The member shot blocker membership must be affordable for people of low income and allow stationless bike share bicycles to create a nuisance or make the sidewalk inaccessible. And in responding to a comment we do require data sharing to ensure the operators are meeting their responsibilities and the data that comes from the Bike Share Program is available to the public. Other key component include approved maintenance and outreach plans and insurance plans. And theyre issued by the department of transportation and allow for impact to the bike Share Network as a whole in making the decision whether to grant a permit. Following implementation of the program they met with six ride share operators. They reviewed each manication independently in accordance with the legislation that created the program. During this time they entered into a Settlement Agreement regarding stationless bike stations. It ensures stationless bike share complies and furthering innovation in the bike share field that wasnt anticipated when the original contract was find and finalized november 28 and has key terms the permit would be for pedal bikes. The Settlement Agreement entered into as of november 27, 2017 was the settlement of what . The settlement over how the motivate contract with the mta and city of San Francisco applied the stationless bike share bikes and how it applied to stationless bike share right. Was it a settlement of a claim or provision or an original agreement. What exactly were you settling . There was no litigation. Just a clause to prevent litigation perfect happening before they got to that point. And the solicitation with six potential potential stationless Bike Companies proceeded that november 27th date . Much of it preceded that and the discussion with the operators continued during the discussions during october and november. And in the Settlement Agreement with the onetime exception in its exclusivity in that ebikes were not part of the motivate contract, what does the Settlement Agreement, which appears to be silent, contemplate after 18 months. Do you go and invoke the dispute resolution because the Settlement Agreement seems to be silent on that . What happens after 18 months is dependent on the result of the pilot evaluation and happy it talk more and have more discussion in the presentation about what well be evaluating but in terms of what will happen after 18 months, we really dont know until we see how the program performs here in San Francisco and stationless programs perform in peer cities around the city. And the Settlement Agreement advances our policy goals around stationless bike share as well and were particularly excite ford the potential of ebikes. And theres different operators. Jump was the first operator that was eligible for a permit under our program. Jump submitted its initial application in july of 201 prior to any other company. It developed as the first and only company to fulfill all the permit requirements with the november 2017 submittals. One requirement was the data sharing requirement. Thats something we heard a lot of reluctance from from other companies and jump was the first to operate ebike. Was there a set of criteria about what the sfmta was looking for . Did it say in october when these got ahead of Transportation Technologies did you say to the potential world of stationless bike sharing companies, we are looking for e bikes. That is a criteria. Were looking for data sharing as a criteria. If you do not have these youll be considered incomplete. Yes. We developed permit application materials based on the legislation that were very detailed in what we were requiring from the operators including detailed data sharing provisions and making sure they had a plan for us that made sense to us about how theyd maintain the public right of way. One of the things were happy that jump provided is the bicycles have integrated e locks which are shown on the slide there. They lock right to the bike rack so they dont take up the sidewalk. It looked like the agreement i have a question, supervisor cohen theres communication to all the companies and were they notified, all the other applicants . Was there only one Ebike Company . We didnt promise anything about number of permits it could be zero or any number. We never made any promises. Did this go to all the companies or Just One Company or no companies . We provided the same information at the same time to all the different operators. Do you have more to your presentation . I have one more slide i think. The main thing i wanted to end with is the pilot evaluation. Theres an important piece of this. We are really hopeful to use the 18 month period to learn how stationless bike shares fits into the San Francisco context and how it can play an Important Role in our Transportation System and make amendments to the program as required. The pilot evaluation really falls on two different axis. First is what kind of Transportation Service is really be provided. Is the demand high and whos in the system and where are they going. Fundamentally its stationless bike share is it filling a gap in successful travel options and the second is whether theres secondary impact including blocked sidewalks, broken bikes, proliferation of graffiti and additional costs for city crews and if theres any other impacts compared to transportation benefits. Ill stop so we can get into details i wasnt able to cover but my summary is were eager to promote bike sharing information and were confident our approach is starting with a similar pilot with bike sharing and commuter shut als to ensure were putting the Public Interest of people of San Francisco first in the process. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation, mr. Parks. Thank you. I have about three and a half questions and has to do with my original question. Im under the impression and heard no one was advised of the terms of the settlement and the other companies were not advised it would be a onepermit ebike only and quite frankly applicants only became aware in january when mta issued a memo. It came out saying the permit was awarded to jump only. How do you explain the discrepancy. How do you substantiate the claim . The terms of the Settlement Agreement were not shared until january 8, 2018. That process was a confidential process was not discussed with any other companies while underway. Okay. My next question. The bike share universe is very different than the ones assigned between mta and mtc and the ford go bikes. At the time there was quite frankly fewer bike share operators interested in the space and now there are a number of companies and i understand mta recently signed an agreement that wed consider all ebike applicants. Following the execution of that Settlement Agreement why didnt you advise the industry youd only consider ebikes or put out a Public Statement at a minimum of this new position . Again, my issues are with the process. We shared the results of the Settlement Agreement as soon as we could and it take weeks to finalize the process and brief the Mayors Office and with the sudden death of the mayor there were a couple weeks delay in there in terms of getting the unsportsmanlike getting the information out there and at the Settlement Agreement we felt comfortable moving forward with the jump company and they were the only company that offered the settlement and fulfilled the term of our requirements after six months of discussions. And so we were eager to get start with the pilot and put something out in the street and get something going forward. In an email dated january 8 from director you state the vection for jump was quote, based on the thorough review of the permit application documenting it meets or seeds all San Francisco stationless bike share permit requirements, end quote. If you could describe for me this thorough review, i would appreciate it. Was this a comparative review that included other companies or just a review on the individual application itself . It was not a comparative view just based on our legislation and thats how we reviewed all the applications and reviewed independently from each other. The specifics of the application itself theres a lot of detail in there. Several of the key things that were looking for that were i think challenging for some of the operators to come up were detailed lab testing documenting the safety of the vehicles used and insurance requirements and data sharing requirements shared and not let some data be withheld. Affordable membership for lowincome members. The jump system offers a 5 annual pass that offered one hour of reuse for the day. That met our affordable membership requirement. And to a broad geographic area. Those were some of the key things we looked for and happy to provide more detail on that or the application submittal itself if thats of interest. How did you know jump was the best company for San Francisco . They were the First Company to meet our requirements and we wanted to proceed cautiously with the program and not issue a large number of permits. You didnt do a comparative analysis with the other companies so how can you discern one is better than the other when you dont take into consideration the others . The other Companies Application materials were also reviewed. But they didnt know the criteria. The requirements meeting all 47 permit requirements or whatever was in there those were shared with all companies and they were all aware of those requirements. I think my point is they didnt know youd only approve ebikes. Its a little bit flawed and unfair. I just want to get on the record or clarify, were other companies notified, yes or no there was a requirement to have ebikes . At the same time . They were all given the same requirement at the same time and would not dispute the ebike permit we were grant. I oversee jamies work in the Bicycle Safety and since this is such a key point nor for the committee i want to clarify. There was policy discussion at we reviewed the applications from what other peer cities were experiencing. Sorry, whats your name . Luis montoya. And your role is . I oversee jamies work and hes our Bicycle Program major and i oversee his work as well. Based on what we were seeing in the industry we were prepared to make a recommendation that as jamie described this was the best fit for San Francisco. However the decision hasnt been made to issue jump a permit until january. As jamie mentioned there were intentional discussions about that and motivate indicated they may have a problem with issuing permits for a stationless bicycle. Thats why they initiated the settlement negotiations per the contract. So we had to clarify with them what San Franciscos intentions might be and then we had to confirm what San Francisco intentions were and it wasnt until january the policy call was made to give jump the permit. We were steadying it up to that point and once the decision was made the permit was issued, we offered the same information to all the applicants at that time. If i can hop in and i have the same memorandum i received twice, as far as i can tell just paging through it, it speaks to everything youre talking about. The is dated december 11. And the second is dated january 8. The december 11th one seems to come to the conclusion you came to not in january but in december that there was only one company that you recommended which is jump. Are you referring to the email from jamie to ed. From ed through tom mcgwire, luis montoya to jamie parks and the staff and interested parties. As far as i can tell the exact same memo. It seems to me you call came to the come conclusion. We had done the natianalysish the recommendation but hasnt issued the permit. Im trying to get to the point of the permit issued and we shared the information more broadly. If i can from a highlev