vimarsana.com
Home
Live Updates
Transcripts For SFGTV 20130802 : vimarsana.com
Transcripts For SFGTV 20130802 : vimarsana.com
SFGTV August 2, 2013
On you and you will pay the consequences. Thank you very much. Anyone else care to speak . There is another slip over there. Is that the same one, same item . Oh okay. Thank you. We have heard from the public. Members of the board. Good presentation. Yeah good presentation. Thank you very much. I did have one question. I know we do the a letter from the bcdc asking that question about seniors and i understand in your presentation you said this is actually not the appropriate tool to address the question of seniors and people with disabilities and im sorry did you say which one is the correct tool and i missed it . Or is that something we approach on a granduear level. Exactly. Through our
Service Standards
so for stops for example and one of the things the standards speaks to is go to a shorter stop spacing with grades or considering the adjacent land uses. Its part of the information that staff will prepare for you as you make decisions about
Service Changes
and its also built into the outreach process, so for example we are looking to do a pilot of
Service Improvements
on fulton as part of the transit effectiveness project and one of the things were doing is working closely with the
Senior Center
thats on fulton and 38th to make sure that our stop proposals work for their needs so we try to address a number of levels, both through your lens as you make policy decisions, but also through outreach and technical length as well. Thank you. Thats the only question i had. Can i ask given the concerns that has been raised i see this as an exercise in
Community Engagement
and awareness building. You know one of the other things that was articulated in the letter from the bcdc they see stop consolidation as a way to speed up service or i cant remember reduce run times and i dont know thats necessarily the intent of the stop consolidation. From what i understand the intent is really make the system more efficient and to conserve resources so we can protect service that is threatened because of the current cost of operations, and im concerned that theres a lot of hype thats out there on the part of people that are understandably concerned about bus stops being removed but theyre exploiting the idea with the intent of stopping it, but not being all together fully informed of what the purpose of things like this are for and or other reasons, so i am concerned that a lot of folks dont understand title six. Youre right. Its very complicated, but im also very concerned about an organization like the bcdc which is a
Pretty Amazing
organization with respect to their capacity to organize seniors, people particularly minority populations. I wish other communities had such an organization like the bcdc advocating for them, so the letter this morning that we got this morning raised a few concerns for me that i am wondering if we have the time to address if nothing else to do the
Due Diligence
of a conversation to help them understand what is at stake so theyre not making statements like they said in that letter. Like i said earlier i have a lot of respect for that organization because nobody organizing that demographic better but if they have concerns what about the other communities we havent reached out to and a level they can reach and a little misinformed or uninformed, so can i ask specifically what is the price or the problem with bringing this back after youve had more
Due Diligence
of a conversation with the c cdc to make sure this conversation has been resolved . I dont see any immediate concern with continuing the item. The vulnerability is that we are not going to be able to make major
Service Changes
or fare changes until you as a board adopt these policies because the previous circular requirements are no longer applicable after last april so were in kind of a transition period where we dont have these policies on the books, but i also dont anticipate in the next several weeks any fare
Service Changes
coming up, so there would be a concern with sort of a longer term continuance of the item, but there is nothing in the short term that requires immediate action. Yeah, and the reason i am particularly concerned about this with the tep and the what were going to need to do to increase efficiency and really make our system work to keep theservice where it needs to be it has to be a very sensitive conversation and this title six work is the place for that, or at least initiating that conversation and i think its important that people understand fully what were trying to do when we do
Service Changes
and i would error on the side of being more conservative with a situation like this. The title six work particularly with my understanding is expressly work out with communities under represented and typically dont have a voice and while seniors are vulnerable most seniors are more active than the majority of us and they have more time and can get engaged but there are non
English Speaking
communities and people arent inclined to participate in processes like this that you know theyre harder to reach, and so it might take a little more time, so if we have the time i would ask that we continue it unless there is some reason to expressly move this thing forward in a way that cant take into consideration the things that have been raised. Members, thoughts . Honestly so i disagree respectfully. I think those points are obviously we want to be careful and sensitive when we make
Service Changes
. I think you have done a tremendous job with the policy and well thought out. I am the first person to have persons with disability it is represented with the
Service Change
but i think youre right. This isnt the tool for it. This sigh specific tool to comply with this. Federal law and specific to what population its encompasses and i am comfortable with it the way it is and we continue to work on the other mechanisms to make sure the other populations are included at the table with policy changes but i dont see this as part of this tool but i am comfortable moving forward. I have a lot of respect for director ramos and he has a lot of experience doing outreach in the communities and i take your concerns very seriously. Do you feel that we can address those concerns . Are you confident . I mean you have done a lot of work on this. Are you confident
Going Forward
we can address the concerns of the community and we can make this clear and we can really get the input and the message out that we need to . We had initially reached out to c cdc. I speak to cindy wu personally about four weeks ago to engage them in the process so i am really glad they provided feedback. Its unfortunate we werent able to sit down with them in advance. I do think that some of their questions about wanting to make sure there is clear language around the disparate impact disproportionate burden policies we could easily address it and its prescriptive in the circular. There are other things theyre recommending like for example, expanding the analysis that i think we could try to do our
Due Diligence
to explain but i dont think that the calendar item that we are bring being back to you would be substantially different. For example, one of the things that they request is that rather than having 25 definition for a route change that we reduce it down to 10 that. Is on the order of going from a nine minute headway to eight minute headway which i again would strongly argue is incremental schedule change to address crowding on a route or address where we dont see crowding on a route, so i reviewed these comments carefully this morning and i think there are important issues that we need to proactively engage with c cdc and others like stop consolidation but i dont think that the staff recommendation would be substantially different coming back to you. Okay. Well, given this afternoon we only have four members here and takes four votes to do something. The question to you director ramos and can you go along with this and outreach continue after this or you want it back and not the support for it we have to do that. Well, i think there could be changes to the resolution that have been thought about or to the language that could be added to address some of the concerns that i raised if staff would feel its appropriate, and im sorry i dont have copies, but its a couple of whereas phrases they would add to the language that not whereas phrases, but phrases that would be added to the disparate impact policy clause, package of major changes along routes and cumulatively and
Service Changes
collectively and negative evaluated collectively as well, so there are things to tighten up that i could submit for review or to be adopted as well. I dont know what the specific process would be if i have to make copies of it right now and get everybody looking at it, or do i have to articulate it . I think when we do any kind of amendments we do need to have language prepared for; right . I think there needs to be clarity exactly what would be different. Okay. So if folks can bear with me i am happy to read that off what i think is good for the policy to be included, and it would be on the lets see on the first im sorry, on page two under the first set of bullets and sfmta staff recommends that the disparate impact policy be adopted by the sfmta board of directors where are you . Page two. The second whereas on the page. Thank you. Disparate impact policy specifically. Im sorry . Page two of the staff report . No. Of the resolution. Of the resolution . Okay. Disparate impact policy a fare change or package of changes or
Major Service
change or package of changes deemed to have disparate impact on minority populations if the percentage of the difference between the population impacted by the changes and the percentage of the minority population system wide is 8 points or more and so the specific language for the board to consider adding packages of
Service Changes
across multiple route its. Could you speak slower . Of course. I apologize. Package of major
Service Changes
across multiple route will be evaluated cumulatively hold on. Will be evaluate cumulatively with poz
Service Changes
evaluated collectively and negative
Service Changes
hold on. Sorry. Positive
Service Changes
evaluateed collectively. Yeah. And negative
Service Changes
evaluated collectively hold on. I cant type that fast. Packages of fare increases will be packages of fare increases. Across multiple fare instruments. Yes. Will be evaluated cumulative ly with fare increases evaluated collectively and fare evaluated collectively and fare decreases evaluated collectively. I think this is getting a little too involved doing it like this. If we have a motion to approve this as the staff recommendation and a second then we can go forward and come back to it, or we can postpone it for a couple of weeks or something. Whats the pleasure of the board . I second . A yes. Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve as is, right . I am supportive of director ramos comments this is really understood. We have a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor say aye. Opposed . No. The motion fails. Next item. Mr. Chairman at this point you may wish to revoke the point and continuing the entire matter to the next meeting so issues can be addressed and returned to the board. Another public hearing about it. Is that the idea . Is that what youre saying . Yes. Flrd to bring it back you need to bring back because you technically vote today down and more appropriately to rescind the vote and continue the matter to the next meeting. Okay. Is there a motion to rescind motion to rescind. All in favor say aye . Okay. We will take a 10 minute break and be back in two weeks to continue this item. Item were taking a break. Okay. 13. [inaudible] adopting the car sharing policy and
Car Sharing Program
and amend the definition of car sharing policy and for the permit program, establish that the applicable fee is based on a location, the parking space within one of the car share permit fee zones to define the boundary of the fee zones require that vehicles must be available for rental at least 75 of the time in the month and car share vehicles and amend the section for vehicle permits. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon chair nolan and directors, mr. Reiskin. Ive lot a very brief presentation for you this afternoon. There are copies for the public if you would like to see them. I will move quickly but please interject if you have questions and i am available for questions afterwards. What is before you this afternoon is this, the adoption of a car sharing policy and consolidate and clarify the policy that we have in a lot of place frs car share. To expand the two year pilot of on streetcar sharing and amend the transportation code to support the expanded on street pilot program. You probably know pretty well the proven benefits to traditional car sharing. Academic research has repeatedly shown the benefits on this slide and reducing ownership rates by some estimate a car share vehicle takes as many as 15 cars off the road and reducing
Greenhouse Gas
emissions and people driving less, reducing transportation budgets and its expensive to have a car and its good for household economies and its been shown over and over again folks who are care share members walk and bike and take transit more so these are all pretty good things for this agency and the city. We these days have more than one sort of car share. There is the traditional car share and we know about zip share and operating in the city and we have peer to peer and an individual has a car, doesnt use it much and has facilitated using that car share and rely road is one of the companies in that category. We have a
Share Program
and they drop it off wherever and you dont have to drop it off where you picked it up and we have two organizes in that category. The sfmta has established off streetcar
Share Program
. The agency has offered spaces at lots and garages for 10 years now. About 80 spaces in 19 of the agencies lots. Pretty good relationship. Were actively meeting with car
Share Organization
s and theyre actively pursuing expansion of other services in the off street program. On street offers some benefits that off street doesnt have. The off street spaces are not in the best location. Depending where you live you maybe blocks away from the car or pod is. Off street locations are disappearing as
Development Takes
place in the city. This is mostly a good thing. As surface lots become housing and retail and commercial those car share sites go away. There are approximately 281,000 on street spaces in
San Francisco
so there is a big supply of on
Street Parking
if you go by that measure in any event and by utilizing these spaces we can expand car sharing and increase visibility and distribution and increase the total number of spaces and ensuring the number of available
Parking Spaces
in the longterm. The mta did an initial pilot. Members of the board will remember that and beginning in fall 2011 working with this board and the board of supervisors. Changes to the transportation code were made to facilitate that pilot and the city administrators office, city car share and supervisor offices were all engaged with that and select the spaces. Here is what one of the pods looks like. Its valencia at 17th and its still there and you can share out of it and reserve it. Pods are locate audio these are out there in 12 locations in the city. In the initial pilot these came forward in three waves but ended up with 12 locations. The lessons that we learn friday the first pilot first. On street pods are feasible and utilized if theyre in high demand areas. Enforcement is an issue. As you imagine once we take a space and dedicate it to car share it doesnt mean someone else wont park there and like the pod i showed you on valencia street and attractive parking there and it was a bit of a challenge so enforcement is critical. Marking the spaces is important. Making them very evident as car share. Official areas are very visible, successful but again the enforcement challenge. A broad base of
Political Support
is necessary for spaces to be approved. Were talking about on
Street Parking
and arizona i haveuous. And support this is were having conversations so that support is essential and outreach is key. So were coming to you today with a proposal for an enlarged expanded on street pilot which will involve and youve seen in your packets refining the permit requirements and fees that are memorized in the transportation code. This is proposed to be a two year pilot starting, if this board is so pleased, more or less immediately we will begin to move in on this and go on the next couple of years with the pilot. Were going to go in a rules based fashion. This isnt a competitive rfp type of thing but by defining what a car
Share Organization
is and the terms of participation we are inviting any car
Share Organization
present their credentials, make their case. If they qualify they are permitted to participate but they also have to commit to some other conditions. We will come to those in a moment. I have to correct the slide. It says up to 150 spaces per year. What were proposing is up to 900 spaces and 450 the first year and 450 the next year and depending how many car
Share Organization
s join us we will take that and a lot that up. If we have five organizations doing it there are less spaces but there are more spaces overall. We will look at the outreach efforts and wont wait until two years to make adjustments to the outreach that were asking the car
Share Organization
s to conduct. Here are the car
Service Standards<\/a> so for stops for example and one of the things the standards speaks to is go to a shorter stop spacing with grades or considering the adjacent land uses. Its part of the information that staff will prepare for you as you make decisions about
Service Changes<\/a> and its also built into the outreach process, so for example we are looking to do a pilot of
Service Improvements<\/a> on fulton as part of the transit effectiveness project and one of the things were doing is working closely with the
Senior Center<\/a> thats on fulton and 38th to make sure that our stop proposals work for their needs so we try to address a number of levels, both through your lens as you make policy decisions, but also through outreach and technical length as well. Thank you. Thats the only question i had. Can i ask given the concerns that has been raised i see this as an exercise in
Community Engagement<\/a> and awareness building. You know one of the other things that was articulated in the letter from the bcdc they see stop consolidation as a way to speed up service or i cant remember reduce run times and i dont know thats necessarily the intent of the stop consolidation. From what i understand the intent is really make the system more efficient and to conserve resources so we can protect service that is threatened because of the current cost of operations, and im concerned that theres a lot of hype thats out there on the part of people that are understandably concerned about bus stops being removed but theyre exploiting the idea with the intent of stopping it, but not being all together fully informed of what the purpose of things like this are for and or other reasons, so i am concerned that a lot of folks dont understand title six. Youre right. Its very complicated, but im also very concerned about an organization like the bcdc which is a
Pretty Amazing<\/a> organization with respect to their capacity to organize seniors, people particularly minority populations. I wish other communities had such an organization like the bcdc advocating for them, so the letter this morning that we got this morning raised a few concerns for me that i am wondering if we have the time to address if nothing else to do the
Due Diligence<\/a> of a conversation to help them understand what is at stake so theyre not making statements like they said in that letter. Like i said earlier i have a lot of respect for that organization because nobody organizing that demographic better but if they have concerns what about the other communities we havent reached out to and a level they can reach and a little misinformed or uninformed, so can i ask specifically what is the price or the problem with bringing this back after youve had more
Due Diligence<\/a> of a conversation with the c cdc to make sure this conversation has been resolved . I dont see any immediate concern with continuing the item. The vulnerability is that we are not going to be able to make major
Service Changes<\/a> or fare changes until you as a board adopt these policies because the previous circular requirements are no longer applicable after last april so were in kind of a transition period where we dont have these policies on the books, but i also dont anticipate in the next several weeks any fare
Service Changes<\/a> coming up, so there would be a concern with sort of a longer term continuance of the item, but there is nothing in the short term that requires immediate action. Yeah, and the reason i am particularly concerned about this with the tep and the what were going to need to do to increase efficiency and really make our system work to keep theservice where it needs to be it has to be a very sensitive conversation and this title six work is the place for that, or at least initiating that conversation and i think its important that people understand fully what were trying to do when we do
Service Changes<\/a> and i would error on the side of being more conservative with a situation like this. The title six work particularly with my understanding is expressly work out with communities under represented and typically dont have a voice and while seniors are vulnerable most seniors are more active than the majority of us and they have more time and can get engaged but there are non
English Speaking<\/a> communities and people arent inclined to participate in processes like this that you know theyre harder to reach, and so it might take a little more time, so if we have the time i would ask that we continue it unless there is some reason to expressly move this thing forward in a way that cant take into consideration the things that have been raised. Members, thoughts . Honestly so i disagree respectfully. I think those points are obviously we want to be careful and sensitive when we make
Service Changes<\/a>. I think you have done a tremendous job with the policy and well thought out. I am the first person to have persons with disability it is represented with the
Service Change<\/a> but i think youre right. This isnt the tool for it. This sigh specific tool to comply with this. Federal law and specific to what population its encompasses and i am comfortable with it the way it is and we continue to work on the other mechanisms to make sure the other populations are included at the table with policy changes but i dont see this as part of this tool but i am comfortable moving forward. I have a lot of respect for director ramos and he has a lot of experience doing outreach in the communities and i take your concerns very seriously. Do you feel that we can address those concerns . Are you confident . I mean you have done a lot of work on this. Are you confident
Going Forward<\/a> we can address the concerns of the community and we can make this clear and we can really get the input and the message out that we need to . We had initially reached out to c cdc. I speak to cindy wu personally about four weeks ago to engage them in the process so i am really glad they provided feedback. Its unfortunate we werent able to sit down with them in advance. I do think that some of their questions about wanting to make sure there is clear language around the disparate impact disproportionate burden policies we could easily address it and its prescriptive in the circular. There are other things theyre recommending like for example, expanding the analysis that i think we could try to do our
Due Diligence<\/a> to explain but i dont think that the calendar item that we are bring being back to you would be substantially different. For example, one of the things that they request is that rather than having 25 definition for a route change that we reduce it down to 10 that. Is on the order of going from a nine minute headway to eight minute headway which i again would strongly argue is incremental schedule change to address crowding on a route or address where we dont see crowding on a route, so i reviewed these comments carefully this morning and i think there are important issues that we need to proactively engage with c cdc and others like stop consolidation but i dont think that the staff recommendation would be substantially different coming back to you. Okay. Well, given this afternoon we only have four members here and takes four votes to do something. The question to you director ramos and can you go along with this and outreach continue after this or you want it back and not the support for it we have to do that. Well, i think there could be changes to the resolution that have been thought about or to the language that could be added to address some of the concerns that i raised if staff would feel its appropriate, and im sorry i dont have copies, but its a couple of whereas phrases they would add to the language that not whereas phrases, but phrases that would be added to the disparate impact policy clause, package of major changes along routes and cumulatively and
Service Changes<\/a> collectively and negative evaluated collectively as well, so there are things to tighten up that i could submit for review or to be adopted as well. I dont know what the specific process would be if i have to make copies of it right now and get everybody looking at it, or do i have to articulate it . I think when we do any kind of amendments we do need to have language prepared for; right . I think there needs to be clarity exactly what would be different. Okay. So if folks can bear with me i am happy to read that off what i think is good for the policy to be included, and it would be on the lets see on the first im sorry, on page two under the first set of bullets and sfmta staff recommends that the disparate impact policy be adopted by the sfmta board of directors where are you . Page two. The second whereas on the page. Thank you. Disparate impact policy specifically. Im sorry . Page two of the staff report . No. Of the resolution. Of the resolution . Okay. Disparate impact policy a fare change or package of changes or
Major Service<\/a> change or package of changes deemed to have disparate impact on minority populations if the percentage of the difference between the population impacted by the changes and the percentage of the minority population system wide is 8 points or more and so the specific language for the board to consider adding packages of
Service Changes<\/a> across multiple route its. Could you speak slower . Of course. I apologize. Package of major
Service Changes<\/a> across multiple route will be evaluated cumulatively hold on. Will be evaluate cumulatively with poz
Service Changes<\/a> evaluated collectively and negative
Service Changes<\/a> hold on. Sorry. Positive
Service Changes<\/a> evaluateed collectively. Yeah. And negative
Service Changes<\/a> evaluated collectively hold on. I cant type that fast. Packages of fare increases will be packages of fare increases. Across multiple fare instruments. Yes. Will be evaluated cumulative ly with fare increases evaluated collectively and fare evaluated collectively and fare decreases evaluated collectively. I think this is getting a little too involved doing it like this. If we have a motion to approve this as the staff recommendation and a second then we can go forward and come back to it, or we can postpone it for a couple of weeks or something. Whats the pleasure of the board . I second . A yes. Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve as is, right . I am supportive of director ramos comments this is really understood. We have a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor say aye. Opposed . No. The motion fails. Next item. Mr. Chairman at this point you may wish to revoke the point and continuing the entire matter to the next meeting so issues can be addressed and returned to the board. Another public hearing about it. Is that the idea . Is that what youre saying . Yes. Flrd to bring it back you need to bring back because you technically vote today down and more appropriately to rescind the vote and continue the matter to the next meeting. Okay. Is there a motion to rescind motion to rescind. All in favor say aye . Okay. We will take a 10 minute break and be back in two weeks to continue this item. Item were taking a break. Okay. 13. [inaudible] adopting the car sharing policy and
Car Sharing Program<\/a> and amend the definition of car sharing policy and for the permit program, establish that the applicable fee is based on a location, the parking space within one of the car share permit fee zones to define the boundary of the fee zones require that vehicles must be available for rental at least 75 of the time in the month and car share vehicles and amend the section for vehicle permits. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon chair nolan and directors, mr. Reiskin. Ive lot a very brief presentation for you this afternoon. There are copies for the public if you would like to see them. I will move quickly but please interject if you have questions and i am available for questions afterwards. What is before you this afternoon is this, the adoption of a car sharing policy and consolidate and clarify the policy that we have in a lot of place frs car share. To expand the two year pilot of on streetcar sharing and amend the transportation code to support the expanded on street pilot program. You probably know pretty well the proven benefits to traditional car sharing. Academic research has repeatedly shown the benefits on this slide and reducing ownership rates by some estimate a car share vehicle takes as many as 15 cars off the road and reducing
Greenhouse Gas<\/a> emissions and people driving less, reducing transportation budgets and its expensive to have a car and its good for household economies and its been shown over and over again folks who are care share members walk and bike and take transit more so these are all pretty good things for this agency and the city. We these days have more than one sort of car share. There is the traditional car share and we know about zip share and operating in the city and we have peer to peer and an individual has a car, doesnt use it much and has facilitated using that car share and rely road is one of the companies in that category. We have a
Share Program<\/a> and they drop it off wherever and you dont have to drop it off where you picked it up and we have two organizes in that category. The sfmta has established off streetcar
Share Program<\/a>. The agency has offered spaces at lots and garages for 10 years now. About 80 spaces in 19 of the agencies lots. Pretty good relationship. Were actively meeting with car
Share Organization<\/a>s and theyre actively pursuing expansion of other services in the off street program. On street offers some benefits that off street doesnt have. The off street spaces are not in the best location. Depending where you live you maybe blocks away from the car or pod is. Off street locations are disappearing as
Development Takes<\/a> place in the city. This is mostly a good thing. As surface lots become housing and retail and commercial those car share sites go away. There are approximately 281,000 on street spaces in
San Francisco<\/a> so there is a big supply of on
Street Parking<\/a> if you go by that measure in any event and by utilizing these spaces we can expand car sharing and increase visibility and distribution and increase the total number of spaces and ensuring the number of available
Parking Spaces<\/a> in the longterm. The mta did an initial pilot. Members of the board will remember that and beginning in fall 2011 working with this board and the board of supervisors. Changes to the transportation code were made to facilitate that pilot and the city administrators office, city car share and supervisor offices were all engaged with that and select the spaces. Here is what one of the pods looks like. Its valencia at 17th and its still there and you can share out of it and reserve it. Pods are locate audio these are out there in 12 locations in the city. In the initial pilot these came forward in three waves but ended up with 12 locations. The lessons that we learn friday the first pilot first. On street pods are feasible and utilized if theyre in high demand areas. Enforcement is an issue. As you imagine once we take a space and dedicate it to car share it doesnt mean someone else wont park there and like the pod i showed you on valencia street and attractive parking there and it was a bit of a challenge so enforcement is critical. Marking the spaces is important. Making them very evident as car share. Official areas are very visible, successful but again the enforcement challenge. A broad base of
Political Support<\/a> is necessary for spaces to be approved. Were talking about on
Street Parking<\/a> and arizona i haveuous. And support this is were having conversations so that support is essential and outreach is key. So were coming to you today with a proposal for an enlarged expanded on street pilot which will involve and youve seen in your packets refining the permit requirements and fees that are memorized in the transportation code. This is proposed to be a two year pilot starting, if this board is so pleased, more or less immediately we will begin to move in on this and go on the next couple of years with the pilot. Were going to go in a rules based fashion. This isnt a competitive rfp type of thing but by defining what a car
Share Organization<\/a> is and the terms of participation we are inviting any car
Share Organization<\/a> present their credentials, make their case. If they qualify they are permitted to participate but they also have to commit to some other conditions. We will come to those in a moment. I have to correct the slide. It says up to 150 spaces per year. What were proposing is up to 900 spaces and 450 the first year and 450 the next year and depending how many car
Share Organization<\/a>s join us we will take that and a lot that up. If we have five organizations doing it there are less spaces but there are more spaces overall. We will look at the outreach efforts and wont wait until two years to make adjustments to the outreach that were asking the car
Share Organization<\/a>s to conduct. Here are the car
Share Organization<\/a> requirements in summary. Participating car
Share Organization<\/a>s will have to make their vehicles available at hourly or less increments only. This is not car rental. We dont want folks representing out cars for a week or a month from the on street pods. These have to be an hour or less increment. Can you take it for three hours. But not the weekend. Vehicles must be available at least 75 of the time. This is in response to the fact that we are facilitating or inviting peer to peer operators to operate and there is an understandable apprehension that again let me explain the peer to peer notion. I own a car. I drive it a little bit. Why not let people drive it when i am not using it . Its a great idea. Maybe 10, 12, 20 families can use my car. Many might get rid of their car but were sensiti tin and important asset for the city and this agency is a custodian of that trust and we dont want someone to rent their private space and share their car a little bit. We want to make sure if theyre participating as a car share vehicle their car is truly shared so we put that floor remains to be seen and why were doing the pilot whether 75 is the right number. We will watch that very closely. All participating car
Share Organization<\/a>s have to have an outreach plan to reach new members. Theyre going to have to report back to the agency regularly on activity and that outreach work. We will watch closely and after nine months we will advise on adjusting that outreach. Car
Share Organization<\/a>s are going to have to provide a lot of data to agency and the length of the trips and time of day and really want to know how this works and were surveying members to find out do they intend to buy another car . Do they intend to sell a car . Do they walk more or less . That kinds of stuff. Geographic equity is a big concern. In the first pilot initially sort of in the
Northeast Quadrant<\/a> of the city our districts wanted access to this service so more pods were established. This time around were trying to establish to this need to distribute
Car Share Service<\/a> across the city in two ways. First we divided the city into three pieces and on the map there is northeast and downtown and middle tier and outer belt and sunset and richmond and southern and eastern neighborhoods and bay view and hunters point. Car
Share Organization<\/a>s that want to participate will ask us for spaces. Actually they will prepare a list of spaces they would like. I dont bore you with the process but car
Share Organization<\/a>s are going to be present in all three of the zones and we set floors for the outer zones to make sure there is a presence in the middle and outer partings of the neighborhoods in the city. We we have inventivizing with the permits and the permit fee in zone one is 225 and the monthly permit in the middle zone is 150 and in the outer zone its 50 so can you get many more permits out in the sunset per month than you can on russian hill and were hoping between the presence and the incentivize price we draw car share to all neighborhoods in
San Francisco<\/a>. Designating on streetcar spaces needs not to read through every step. This is like anytime we red curb and we will bring it to your board for approval. That is a challenging process. With 900 spaces over two years our intent is to come forward with a small batch, initially perhaps 100. I say small but its still quite a few and not do 450 spaces all at once and nevertheless we will be del gent and thorough and bring the spaces forward as quickly as we can. Evaluation of the pilot. At the conclusion we will of course look over what we","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia600302.us.archive.org\/17\/items\/SFGTV_20130802_000000\/SFGTV_20130802_000000.thumbs\/SFGTV_20130802_000000_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240619T12:35:10+00:00"}