Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  September 22, 2018 10:00pm-11:01pm PDT

10:00 pm
you are subject and at high risk of assault and reiape and i tal to people every day that have to deal with those conditions and experience trauma from those conditions. if you take away people's vehicles, it will be even more traumatizing for them. the number of people that i know personally who have been housed in vehicles that have racked up hundreds and hundreds of dollars of fees to the point that they can no longer keep up with the payments and have their cars towed, who have ended up on the streets, i know at least 10 or 12 people who have had that experience. they come into our office because they're unable to pay the completely unreasonable fines that i, myself, would have a hard time playing. for a homeless person, paying $300 for a fine for eating in your car, doing things that i could do and never be targeted for because i'm not homeless. it's unforgivable
10:01 pm
>> chairman brinkman: thank you. thank you for your work. >> clerk: herbert weiner, last person to turn in a speaker card. >> i speak as a social worker. do people that want people that reside in trailers on their doorstep? you are displacing people. and i just got this association, the people living in vans remind me of the gypsies in europe. no one wants them. no one likes them. they despise them. they're marginalized. and they're kicked all over the place. there is is what's happening in san francisco. this is a western democracy. it's not the reactionary regimes of eastern europe. i don't like to see people being kicked around like this and something has to be done. you guys are delegated to resolve a problem.
10:02 pm
m.t.a. is an organization of professionals that has to solve the problem. the police have to solve the problem. the government has to solve the problem. and the government should not persecute vulnerable people. that's typical of fascism. and we don't want that. so individuals have to be protected and you have a responsibility to do this. and something has to be done. otherwise, people will be shuttled around like crazy. they will be forced against the wall. and they will be cornered. and this is very disgraceful for a city of san francisco which prides itself on its liberalism. so you are delegated to do something and not persecute the individuals. >> chairman brinkman: thank you, mr. weiner. i see we have ms. meyer -- do we
10:03 pm
have one more public comment? please, go ahead. >> hi. i'm nick. before you hear from the supervisors, i think it's important to hear public comment from the citizens of the city, that this is an issue. we had been working with h.s.h. to resolve the issue. we've been before the engineering board as well. the issue keeps coming up and there's not a solution that the city is working on. you cannot just put more signs up. it's illogical. it will not alleviate the problem. it will exacerbate problems. we need to work as a city to address this and h.s.h. needs to
10:04 pm
be on board and m.t.a. needs to be on board for innovative solutions, that will be sustainable, that will affect our neighbors, that will relieve curbside concerns. i think these complaints coming to the supervisors' office should not override the well-being and the right to park in the public streets. i think that's a right that you should share. that the streets are public. that designating certain streets for certain people, and it's because of their economic status. even though we heard that before, it's because of who they are and what they're doing and being homeless. so, again, we're asking you to not expand this. to allow us the time to work with the city and implore the directors to come up with solutions or listen to our
10:05 pm
previous solutions, which have been on the table for 5 years. >> chairman brinkman: thank you, nick. and thank you for your work in the area. any more public comment? >> hello. my name is cathy meyer. i'm a legislative aide to district 11 supervisor ahsha safai. thank you for welcoming me here today. i want to take a moment to thank everyone who has contacted our office on both sides of this issue. supervisor safai is preparing for the board of supervisors meeting, but i have a letter that i would like to read out loud. dear sfmta commissioners, over the past four years, the san francisco municipal transportation authority and various city departments have been meeting with housing and homeless advocates to adept to address specific needs and
10:06 pm
issues. i would like to encourage the conversation to continue and be part of any policy or creative solution. i have been contacted on a daily basis to complain about parking issues single-family hopes are the predominant form of homes. many have converted garages to living space and homes that used to have 4 to 5 people now have 10 to 12 residents, creating chronic parking shortages. we've been working with sfmta leadership to initiate a district-wide permit parking program. as a precursor to our residential parking permit
10:07 pm
program, today i ask that the fines are restricted behind the homes of my constituents living on de wolf street, who requested the city's help managing the use of the block by people living in recreational vehicles. the residents have complained about individuals living in the rvs using open flames, generators, and illegal dumping of trash. as a city, we're tasked to support all residents, including those who are vehicularly housed, but forcing people that live on a small side street to become an unofficial r.v. park is not the answer. i'm sensitive towards people that be trying to maintain housing any way they can, but we need to find a way to support people living in r.v.s that's not a detriment to the quality of life and safety for residents living in one of the last
10:08 pm
affordable neighborhoods in san francisco. sincerely, ahsha safai, district 11. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. >> do you have any questions for me? >> chairman brinkman: directors, any question? i do, but it's probably more appropriately directed at staff. you stated overnight parking, but it looks like on our agenda, it's prohibiting oversized vehicles. >> more than 7 feet tall or 22 feet long. >> one block? >> behind 13 houses. and the street is right behind the bart tracks and freeway. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. thank you, ms. meyer. directors, do you want to have staff up for some questions?
10:09 pm
>> i guess asking why this was brought to us, because we asked that these issues not to brought to us until there was a resolution and it might be helpful to understand -- it sounds like there's resolutions on the table, but it's very unclear to me why -- the why. why we can't get anywhere with them. >> if i may, there was a conversation at this board a couple years ago where you can asked us not to bring this forward until there was a solution. there was another conversation of this board, because of board members and us and staff having heard about a blanket moratorium on using this legislative tool that was created by the board of supervisors was problematic for the neighborhoods. the discussion on the board was to relax, as we understood it,
10:10 pm
the moratorium and follow the spirit of it and work with the department of homeless and public housing to use this tool judicially. but in cases such as this, where there's a strong desire for neighbors and from a supervisor to bring it forward for consideration. and we have continued to work with department of homelessness and supportive housing. there's a number of paths that we've gone down. we've explored, again, the safe parking program. we explored a possible permit program. they've been working to more system systematticly address not just sending folks with citation books, but bringing social
10:11 pm
service providers to try to engage with folks to move them off. at the same time, they've been opening a new navigation center and work on establishing support of housing. our role is about curb management. we felt it was responsive to the community concerns and that's why we brought it to you. >> from my perspective, while i'm sympathetic to the people on the streets, we deal with transportation, not the homelessness challenges of the city, but i -- my only power in this is to force a solution. so i can't support this because i want to see a solution tl. . there's not even a pilot under way. you are telling me 1,100 people on waitlist for shelter bed and the only places that people are still partially housed are in
10:12 pm
cars, vehicles, you know, as much as i feel bad for the people on de wolf street and we need to figure out how we can help, the only power i have to move the ball forward on solving the issue is not supporting this. that's the reason i can't want it brought to us. again, i know our jurisdiction. in my role as a commissioner, it's greater than just this one agency. it's about the city and issues that impact it. and the challenge of homelessness is large on our streets and our public transit system. and if i thought there was a greater public transportation or a value being served by supporting this ban, i would 100% do it, but i don't see that. i understand it's not fair to the street that's disproportionately impacted and i would love to figure out a way. but to me, until we get real about a solution -- a pilot -- i
10:13 pm
told the supervisor yesterday, why don't you have churches in your neighborhood or even safeway to use their parking spaces. and maybe when we launch our emergency shelter system, we could fund some churches to stay open to allow bathroom usage or staffing. so those are my suggestions. again, i'm not -- i guess the department of human services a as commission that can deal with this. that's my suggestion. i cannot support this today because of the reasons i stated. i feel like i cannot support the answer that we haven't gotten a solution, even though we've talked about it forever. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. >> director torres: i guess i'm lucky. i'm new to this, but i'm not.
10:14 pm
i've heard this from mayors across the states, including eric garcetti in l.a. i cannot believe that we can't find a parking lot at treasure island, but at the end of the day, i will support this. if these trailers were in pacific heights, i bet we would get real fast in solving the problem, but they're not. if it was in the mission, if it was against the great highway -- katy tang has spoken to me, supervisor safai has spoken to me, fewer. and i sympathize with the issues because those people are hurting. it's kids seeing needles and defecation on their streets, their sidewalks. so we need to do something immediate and then work on a long-term solution. i'm aware that if you put stop
10:15 pm
signs, it will move to another street. and then another supervisor will come in. at least provide some relief for those poor people that live in the neighborhoods. and because of where they live, their economic status is at risk. it's not right. >> director rubke: so i don't know which is my -- i have to agree with director borden on this one. this is tough. i feel so badly for the community. i agree it's not fair to this street. i want to push people to create a solution. so i hope that -- it seems like we've been working on the same issue for five years and, you
10:16 pm
know, so i'm not comfortable supporting this until we have some more options for the folks that are affected by this. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. >> vice-chairman heinicke: how many houses are on this block? >> 13. >> vice-chairman heinicke: this is a very difficult issue. i will agree with directors borden and rubke on one thing but disagree in result. i agree it's unfair. what i hear people advocating is that 13 people, 13 homes, should not get the same protection that others have received until the city solves the homelessness problem or comes up with a meaningful solution to it. the city has been trying to address this problem for decades. really, really smart people have
10:17 pm
dedicated to it. to say to the 13 homes, we'll cut it off right now because we want you to scream and yell and be so upset that the city solve the homelessness problem is not fair. so either we go back and undo all the restrictions and say, people can park their oversized vehicles everywhere, anywhere they want, so that the whole city bears the burden of this and you get the pressure you want, something i don't favor, or we grant this, which is a fairly limits, and i would suggest judicious request from the supervisor, who i suspect gets more requests than just this block, and we put pressure on the agencies that deal with homelessness to come up with the pilot projects that are supported. to hold 13 homes as the test to get a much larger solution that
10:18 pm
everybody wants, but it's a question of how to get it, it's not fair to those people. or consistent with policy we've taken in the past. i will own up to that it was me among others, i, among others, who said to director reiskin, we cannot hold off on neighborhood requests for a global solution because we'll be holding off too long and we need to deal with our elected supervisors and our neighborhood. and we need to be equitable in these solutions. it would be unfair to say to district 11, you cannot get what district 4 got. i will vote for this.
10:19 pm
i'm happy it's one block. i'm happy that the supervisor understands the pressure that's coming back to try to do some things in his district as well as others. i agree with directors borden and rubke that it's unfair, but i will vote for this. director hsu? >> director hsu: i think director torres and heinicke said it all. if i understand, it's appealable, is that right? so i will support with the understanding that it's not the end of it, but that the board of supervisors will have the opportunity to take this up. >> chairman brinkman: a couple of things that stuck out to me in this conversation as a city,
10:20 pm
we have not come up with a solution. i will agree that i was with the director when we had the discussion about applying oversized vehicles bans in certain areas, but i do feel like i've come up with an equitable solution in other neighborhoods was it showplace scare around by the gift center? we had a similar situation down there. and what was the approach? what was the results? >> yes, showplace square has been a couple of years now and blocker before that that there were complaints of long-term parking by vehicles, commuters, and others. as we did before and have done since with other situations presented to us, we've said --
10:21 pm
we've been asked by our board to not propose the overnight restriction. instead, how about a blanket overnight parking ban? how about simple time limits? how about parking meters? after an extensive conversation, we came to the proposal there was unanimously approved by this board two years ago to post 4-hour time limits and 4-hour parking meters. as i noted to all sides, this 4-hour time limit will be just as disruptive to someone living in a winnebago as if we restricted the parking overnight. the effect will be the same, but it's more equitable. it's something that someone parking her mercedes will have to move in 4 hours and someone parking their winnebago will have to move in 4 hours. at least the burden is shared. everyone has to take a turn, not
10:22 pm
just the large vehicles. we also had a sticky case in distri district where the lowe's on bayshore is, just east of there. an industrial park. same issue. lots of overnight camping and other vehicles parked. we have been told and resisting proposing the oversized, overnight restriction. how about? and after quite a few iterations, we came up with a blanket overnight parking restriction and time limits on others. and the time limits mean that the parkers -- workers and visitors have to move. again, equitable. and it's been a success in come plushing moving everybody along. so it's two cases, where we
10:23 pm
said, we'll push and push. we've been talking with the supervisors' office, how about a blanket overnight ban? how about time limit snz none were satisfactory and those where they end. we have cases of neighbors waiting for us to come back with an answer. so we do not have a great answer, but the equity issue is worth pondering. >> chairman brinkman: thank you very much. so it looks like we'll be in a stalemate. i'm in a position to be unable to support this as well. my recommendation is that we continue this item. we ask staff two things, to keep working with the neighbors and supervisors office to see if we can come up with a situation more equitable. since we had the conversation about when we would approve putting in an oversized vehicle restriction, that we come up with some guidelines around
10:24 pm
that. so that it can be a little more clear wrehen it comes to the board. i suspect that there will be situations that we all will agree on that or at least enough of us will agree. so i think that that's probably the best situation today going forward. i'm not going to put it to a voice vote and have us come up a stalemate. but i do want to continue this and continue to work towards a solution on this. and i think we can find something more equitable. >> director borden: if we can have at least one pilot. one parking lot, something. it feels like we're not making an effort. i'm not saying that we have so solve the whole problem, but progress. we do pilots all the time. if we can announce something like that, that would be huge.
10:25 pm
>> vice-chairman heinicke: so i can do the math and do 3-3 and see what director borden is saying and maybe the message is, through staff to the supervisors' office, the supervisors' office needs to respond to the 13 homes. anti-homelessness advocates are here. to these 13 people, i want to have some certain return date. i know we'll have another board member soon, but to set it to a certain date. so the homeowners know when it can come back. and more votes will be had for trade, for lack of a better word, between this, the
10:26 pm
supervisors office knows when to get that done. if seems to me that two or three months was appropriate. i will defer to the able staff here. whatever is chosen, i want that concreteness to go back to the supervisor, to the neighborhoods, and to the folks here that have shown how much motivation they have to make a pilot project work. >> chairman brinkman: i agree. if we do continue this, we should have a timeline. something that comes to us, set of guidelines about where we would approve oversized vehicle restrictions, an idea of something that's perhaps more equitable. and for this situation, i hope you looked at it on google maps. i do feel for the homeowners in
10:27 pm
this situation. do we know what the type of activity is. do we have drug dealing? do we have dangerous situations? >> san francisco police department has sent out officers, talked to the folks that live there. and the vehicular housing. and also the department of traffic enforcement or department of traffic that's been out there as well to speak with folks. i think one of the issues was, they were trying to advocate for people to at least move during the 72-hour time frame. and what people kept doing is moving about 5 feet.
10:28 pm
people would move for a time period, move for a time period and then come back again. and so i think that will be something to work out with the folks that are living in the r.v.s. it doesn't mean that there's a permanence about that, but i think we would be willing to look at pilot program situations as supervisor safai said in his letter. we need to find a long-term solution to this. i've been helping a family who has been in a vehicle for two years find placement for their child in public school. this weekend, i met with sf state students and the freshmen class this year has a serious issue with housing and the students are coming here from out of state and living in their
10:29 pm
cars. we have a large situation to deal with now and we need to address this part of the housing issue. as we know, throughout the city, it's the number one problem in our city right now. >> director torres: i admire the leadership that the board has shown in trying to come up with a compromise and a solution. i'm concerned, however, is it realistic in your mind as to the timetable you want to put on this so people know we're moving towards a solution? >> chairman brinkman: staff, what timetable is appropriate here? ms. meyer, thank you. i don't want you to think that the supervisor's office is being heartless in this. we understand the problem, but it's just that some of us find our envelopes in the position where we want to find a better solution that's what's in front
10:30 pm
of us, so thank you so much and please take that message back to the supervisor. >> in answer to your question, it depend on what you want us to come back with. putting together policy crite a criteria, that can be quick. to bring back a pilot or demonstrati demonstration, we've been looking at that. you worked very closely with the interfaith council and many of the stake holders in the room and we've not been able to find a location in the city. fast forward to the department of homelessness, board of housing's recent efforts. they've set up a vehicular encampment response team. and representing m.t.a. in
10:31 pm
there. it's a multiagency effort to get service and support and not just treat it as a parking problem. so that's another thing that we could bring back fairly shortly. a pilot, would i not promise you we could get that together in two to three months. >> chairman brinkman: so i consider them separate things. if we come up with guidelines, if we have a report on what is being done by the city for vehicularly housed residents and we work to find a more equitable solution for this block of de wolf, i think that would have to be separate from a pilot project. as we've discussed, we've been talking with a pilot project to find somewhere for people to live in these vehicles for a long time. directors, any other comments on
10:32 pm
that? >> i meant to articulate this before, but apparently, it wasn't -- maybe i wasn't clear. the vehicle encampment response team was the result of these discussions to try to find a solution. it's a multiagency approach to engage folks to find solutions for them to not be living in their vehicles. there was a lot of work looking at permit programs. there was a lot of work looking at safe parking. we've been unable and apparently a number of other cities have had negative experiences with that, though i believe there was at least one that had a positive experience. so we're a little taking the lead from our sister agencies here, but it was the approach, so it's not nothing. so there's been a new navigation center open.
10:33 pm
there is more housing built. so it's not nothing that was built in the last two years. in terms of finding a place for vehicles to park, that's where there's not been progress, but there are other approaches happening to get at the same issue. so i want to clarify for you that tess nots -- it's not that nothing is happening. the city is working to tackle this as comprehensive a way as we can, in that there are no easy answers there. to the point of who has been engaged -- engaging out here, it's been more from enforcement perspective. one thing we can do is see working through the operations center to see if we can get that multiagency engagement out to the folks on de wolf as they're currently doing in other parts
10:34 pm
they've recently started doing it in other parts of the city to facilitate a move to healthyer place for them to live. >> chairman brinkman: any more questions? if not, i think we will continue this item and expect to have some response back within a month or so, a month or two. all right. good. thank you very much. to all the advocates and those that are vehicularly housed, thank you for coming out and sharing your stories. so the supervisors office, thank you. i hope we can work together and find a solution to the situation. thank you. >> clerk: moving on to regular agenda, item 11, authorizing director to execute contract 2018-37, vendor management services with alstom transportation to provide rail parts, supplies and engineering and technical support, not to exceed $62,456,000.
10:35 pm
no member of the public has indicated an interest in addressing us. >> chairman brinkman: do we have a staff presentation? >> we do. director of transit, john haley, will present this item. >> chairman brinkman: mr. haley? >> good afternoon. today it's my ask for you to approve a three-year contract with alstom, who is in a number of businesses to continue what has been a successful story in managing our rail inventory on a day-to-dave basis.
10:36 pm
we had as many as nine rail cars on hold in 2012. we didn't have enough parts. so i'm pleased to say finance came forward with a vendor-managed inventory, which allowed us to do a number of things to improve the service. and i'm talking about the aquisition of rail cars and to a lesser degree for the f line and historic cars. so what -- i would point out to
10:37 pm
the board, as i mentioned, prior to 2012 and before this program, we had cars on hold. and i won't read the power point, but one of the things that was troubling to the operation was without parts, you are forced to try to make th themself or take them off other cars, in other words, cannibalize the equipment. it's lose-lose. so that was one of the things that we wanted to do to better plan and manage our inventory, which would lead to better service. one point here, better forecasting. one of the things that we did -- we had wild inventory swings. we had no key components that we used for many high consumption items, we had parts that we
10:38 pm
didn't use. having someone come in and management the inventory or a day-to-day basis, especially a system as complex as ours, allowed us to forecast and then have the right inventory, do our inspections on time, do our repairs faster, and do our campaigns. and that began right away to see a lift in the performance of our fleet and the reliability of our rail vehicles. just a couple of key metrics. car availability came back, so we could make the service requirements. one of the most dramatic ones, is the third. we increased parts consumption over a five-year period by 50%. that means you are doing your maintenance and doing it correctly. you are not having to wash pots off, remake pots, but to replace them, where appropriate. one other thing that's appropriate with our fleet is
10:39 pm
that we have to re-engineer a number of parts. many of them are over 20 years old. manufacturers, suppliers are out of business. so we have it look for ways to get parts on a very complex piece of machinery and this contract has been critical in doing that. there's a number of other advantages from a cost and inventory perspective that this contract brings. it's also an opportunity to streamline some of the procurement process, which has made it difficult. one of the things in a system like us, with a premium on space, it's very difficult to store a lot of parts. we've reduced inventory size and using the vendor, which the picture on the left is, it's a
10:40 pm
store room that we have quick access to all of the parts. this has been a real success story. it's an administrative and management process that's helped drive tangible improvements in the performance of the rail fleet.
10:41 pm
>> this has been a key element in approving the rail performance that we are looking to expand to other parts of the fleet we will be bringing those coming forward with more contract and the other fleets cut the rubber tire side, as well as the saving side and the parts and warranty take in as well. i ask your approval for this, and i am certainly available to answer any questions. >> thank you very much. any questions? >> do you want to go first? >> go ahead. >> i just wanted to clarify, with the respect to the bus
10:42 pm
fleets and the new lrp, we would need to enter into separate contracts for inventory management? >> this one does not cover the new l r.v. this one will be coming shortly. we are working with them to figure out the best arrangement. we have -- it is something we want to do fairly soon. we obviously have received over 40 l are the dutch larvae and 29 that are ready for service right now. we have done our first major milestone inspections that have built enough miles up. that is the l.r.v. for long-term jerk those that are under warranty, we are working with our material folks to determine the best arrangement for that. >> thank you. >> i was wondering if it starts off in pole position with the new l.r.v.s.
10:43 pm
does it start with an advantage with the new l.r.v.s or is that really not going to factor in? >> my apologies to be five the question, i don't know if the procurement folks want to speak to this, is whether siemens would have an advantage. presumably, they would. but in the times that we have procured the bmi contracts, we have not gotten the results that we have expected. it is very difficult to say. you would think they would have an advantage, but there are plenty of examples such as here where we have one supplier supplying parts for another supplier's vehicles. >> i should point out that what this does, and a couple of different areas, as it fills gaps in the system. this is a portion of the parts. good deal at the siemens carts, a good deal of the major systems are covered under warranties and will be for the next several
10:44 pm
years. this covers, right now, 20-25% of the parts that we consume overall. one of the things that we want to do a is bring in more of the historic his because this will be a critical area and possibly even cable car and some of the maintenance of parts which are also antiquated and difficult to get. we are having somebody with josh on top of the inventory in a day-to-day basis which is the second gap that this arrangement fills. prior to this, the storekeepers had a function to go and keep the shelves stocked. but they didn't have the ability , nor the training or the responsibility to reach out and make sure that if the part wasn't there, they could make wait to get it. that is where, on a day-to-day basis it has been critical in
10:45 pm
both getting the vehicles on the street but also in planning for campaigns. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. >> vice-chairman heinicke: this is making inherent sense to me that we are better after much better off having a contract to have replacement parts of keep the vehicle up and running and keep them delivering service. what is a comparative analysis towards buying new vehicles? i assume that $50 million is a lot of money but that doesn't buy you very many new vehicles. i guess, have we done an analysis to see how much trained life is $60 million will save us and how much we would have to pay for that much trained life if we bought everything new? >> in order to keep the trains running track we need parts to be able to maintain them. we found this to be more cost-effective way to deliver those parts. the trains that we have now, which were barred in part with federal funds have a 25 year useful life and we are required
10:46 pm
to get that 25 years of useful life out of them. the first ones don't start hitting their 25 years until three or four years. we have those -- have started to do the analysis you're talking about just talking about. at what point do we get to a position where it is costing us more to keep these cars in service then makes sense? we have started to do that analysis. you may have noted it, and included it in our plan, started looking at what it would take to retire these earlier and accelerate the replacement cars coming and. is a complicated process that would require federal and regional and local approvals, both for early retirement and the acceleration. it is absolutely something we are looking at. we think ultimately the short answer is running these out
10:47 pm
until each one hits the 25th anniversary. it will not be cost-effective for the agency. in the meantime, we have a fleet of 150 cars that we need to maintain we think this is a much more cost-effective way to do so then a traditional inventory model that we had used prior. >> vice-chairman heinicke: understood. i had not appreciated the funding restrictions. obviously there is a cost beyond parts and replacement if a vehicle is not ready in the morning, there is a significant cost to the system. ok. i am glad you are doing this analysis. i will certainly support this contract. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. any more questions? yes. >> director torres: is it possible to get an update on the offer? >> we will, on that. i think that is something that we will probably get an update on. do i have any public comment on this item? public comment is closed. do i have motion to approve?
10:48 pm
>> a second. >> i mark. >> chairman brinkman: i am pleased to see how successful this under managed inventory project has been presentation and discussion with the stationary action pilot program. >> chairman brinkman: mr park. welcome. >> thank you. thank you for having me here to. i'm with a livable streets depression. i wanted to provide an informational update to the board on our station less bike share pilot program as it reaches the midpoint. it is an 18 month pilot and we are approaching the nine months point. i wanted to pry it does provide
10:49 pm
information on how to pilot is going with the jump and not to bury the lead, also will be talking about the recommendation to expand the up on jumped bikes to 500 bicycles for the duration of the pilots. before i get the recommendation, i want to provide context on the piloted self. -- on the pilot itself. and then a few metrics on how it is working. i think it is hard to believe there are no docs for anything. as of two years ago, in january 2017, blue go go, us people remember the ill-fated attempt for blue gogo to launch in san francisco, launched our days of dealing with ductless bike share. following that initial attempt at launch in january 2017, we adopted legislation for the transportation code to create a pilot program in the spring of
10:50 pm
2017 here? accepted applications and review this applications through the summer and fall of 2017. in january 2018, issued a permit to jump for the station less bike share program. with p. kind -- criteria being able to understand how he ductless system in san francisco could work to preserve the public safety of the sidewalks, in particular and execs a bit -- the sidewalks and how it would serve the public interest. in terms of the overview of the pilot, it has -- as an 18 month pilot. , starting in january 2018 and running through june of 2019. for the first nine months, the up for the number of bicycles was set to 250. sfmta, at our discretion continues to expand that to 500 bicycles after the first nine months, which we will hit that point on october 9th of this year.
10:51 pm
and in terms of our decisions on whether to expand it and the overall evaluation of the pilot, we have several metrics that we are evaluating. i will cover a few of them today , but in general, we are looking at three different areas of metrics. one is our grammage terms and conditions have a lot of requirements as an operator pork one of the things we are evaluating is a compliance with all of the terms and conditions. in particular how the bicycles are parked, distributed park maintained at the customer service interface. second we are very interested in how the whether and whether this bike share provides transportation value and mobility value. looking at the use of the system , whether it is total ridership, and how it complements our existing go bike system which is still the predominant bike system in san francisco and has over hundred 30 stations.
10:52 pm
6,000 rides a day. how does -- how does the station less bike share complement that her work in tandem with the book go bike systemically finally we are interested in the public system and the feedback that we share. any issues that they are encountering, that is something that is very core to our evaluation. before discussing the evaluation itself, a couple of basic facts on the jump system as it exists clock there are a cap of 250 bikes right now. we typically see between 220240 bikes and service. the bikes cannot be left anywhere. he must be locked to something complex specifically to a bike rack. that was a distinguishing factor compared to the other stationer his bike share companies that we saw. with the hypothesis being that requiring them to lock to a rock , we prevent sidewalk blocking that we stop with
10:53 pm
station less systems in san francisco and other cities. the presidio trust authorized additional jumped bikes in september and it is continuous with the service area. and we want to highlight that the jump program, based on the transportation code requirement has a low income program that, akin to what the other bank program provides, they call it their postprogram. is a five-dollar annual membership that allows for up to 60 minutes of free writing per day. we do have a target distribution of the bicycles to maintain the density of bicycles and also that the bicycles are distributed throughout the service area leading communities of concern. said there is equal access to the system as well. in the first seven months of operations, seven months of data that we have analysed for this
10:54 pm
presentation. we did see a lot of demand for the system. over 300,000 total trips. that is about -- we are averaging between 202,500 trips per day on any given weekday. is around 8-10 trips per bike. a lot of unique users. it is not the same people using it every day. we have had almost 40,000 unique users. one think that is interesting is the average trip line. it is a little over two and a half miles. as a little bit more than twice as long as the average trip line -- it is a suggestion that you bikes are serving a different market and a different trip purpose in and the treasure -- traditional pedal bike. we are collecting a maintenance log from jump. we don't know what the exact right number of maintenance events are but we are making sure that they are maintaining bicycles and they are around to this -- 2,000 separate maintenance events per month. in conjunction with the fact that the number of bicycles on
10:55 pm
the street is pretty constant and we do not share significant complaints about process -- broken bicycles and the system is being well maintained and providing a safe mode of transportation for the people who choose to do it. going back to the use of the system, i mentioned 8-10 trips per bike per day. we can see that is significantly higher than what we have seen on the classic or the pedal bike. it is really an indication that the demand for each share bikes is quite high on the electric assist is a different doctor. we have limited data on the use of the e. bike being sick -- being in service for a couple of months. by the data we do have suggest that the daily use is akin to the jumped bikes. eight-10 trips per bike per day. it appears to be the electric assist and not the branch that is making the difference in the use.
10:56 pm
>> director torres: you're looking at the difference of the brand and the wet? >> -- you are looking at the difference of the brand and the wet? >> they are also bags that have an electric assist. the fort go bike with the electric assist a very similar use per day as the jump bike. what does that suggest it is not a matter of people preferred jump over forward because of the brand or the colour or the marketing, it is really the electric assist component of the bike that is making the difference. >> director torres: when you say bike racks, do you mean that jump will have an advantage and it will not be taking away parking spaces clean. >> i will talk about the. >> chairman brinkman: i'm sure we will have a nice robust discussion. what constitutes a parking spot? >> director torres: exactly.
10:57 pm
>> a couple of other features to highlight with the evaluation is the use of the electric bike is quite high. because of the station less nature of the bikes they are serving a lot of different areas of the city and in places where they are not yet, so the map, the dark blue line and the more jump bike trips are. it shows that trips are travelling throughout the city of san francisco and are providing access to additional places that are not served by the competition. i want to highlight the use of the low income plan as well. they are pluses and minuses here so the plus side is that for people who have signed up for the low income plan for the five-dollar annual membership, they are using the jumped bikes quite a bit. using it as tweets -- twice as much is a typical jump member. that is twice as positive. there are only 225 users signed
10:58 pm
up for the loan -- low income plan and that is an opportunity for growth. an opportunity to promote the plan and provide opportunities to make sure people are aware that the low income plan exists. similar to the ford go bike, the low income plan provides access to people who do not have credit cards so you are able to manually unlock a bike if you have an account and we see a lot of users doing that. in terms of public feedback, we see a number of comments from the public. we see a lot of the board and people asking for more jump bikes or service to more areas. we also hear a couple of concerns. the concerns we hear is that in certain locations the jumped bikes may be an monopolizing existing bike racks. people ab say they are taking up to a treat much of the bike
10:59 pm
parking that is otherwise available for the public. and the other primary -- primary complaint that we hear is the bikes are not always distributed throughout the service area, and in particular, even though the bayview is in the service area and there are jumped bikes there , in the middle of the day, it is hard to find a jump bike in the bayview. that is something that we are interested to see how if we expand the number of bicycles, it allows jumps to maintain service throughout the service area. a couple of conclusions and i'm happy to take as many questions as you have. the first conclusion is pretty straightforward but the demand for charity bikes is very high. we have seen that go through the ford go bike and also with the jump bike. the electric assist is really differentiating makes it a unique transportation option. second, because of the electric assist nature and the station less nature of the jump bike,
11:00 pm
the system is complementing for go bike. it has different origins and different destinations. we will we feel it is a good complement to the purely dot based system that we currently have. we have also found that the lot to design were the parking rack has not eliminated every single complaint about sidewalk parking we still have a couple. your ways you can leave a bike and it has eliminated almost all of those complaints -- compliance from the users. at the same time, the concerns around monopolizing bike parking suggests that if and when station less bike share increases in san francisco, the demand for bike racks will increase as well. figuring out how we tailor our bike parking program to any increase will be a really important porridge of continuing to evaluate the pilot something we can look at as we increase the. finally,