Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  November 1, 2018 2:00am-3:01am PDT

2:00 am
coordinate those signals. our hope is we can coordinate in a way that doesn't cause back up. that's the benefit of having the intersections signalized, instead of poorly marked where people might start to cross the street. and p.c.o.'s that's the ultimate backstop. we have a team of p.c.o.'s who do nothing but enforce to keep things moving. >> commissioner g. borden: luckily, the other end of market street, some are off the bus. the other final question, really construction, i think people brought up salient points around the sidewalks as we expand them. still having them available. people having access to store fronts, businesses. we hear this a lot in other corridors of the city and this area particularly struggles. so what are our mitigation
2:01 am
plans around ensuring those businesses are able to access their deliveries, that customers can access them, that the sidewalks are usable? maybe you can talk a little about that? >> maybe i will ask shada, she heard from businesses and organizations about how important that was. i will turn it back over to her. >> thank you. so far i've been meeting with the public information officers with public works and i found out that they have a construction mitigation program and we also have our own and we are going to be partnering up with o.e.w.d. and public works to make sure that our suite of options really responds to the needs of the businesses. and that includes considering segment by segment construction or some sort of support in terms of signage, or maybe even negotiating leases. that's actually something
2:02 am
2:03 am
>> mr. mcguire, you made the comparison to battery and bush. that is for one main difference. it's traffic going down first to get on an already-clogged bridge. this traffic is going to what will open up to a two-lane 6th street and relatively free-flowing, at least compared to the bridge, onramp to 280. so my question is this, are there plans in the works to extend this project? to have further lane closures southbound on 6th street? because if there aren't, you are creating a 2-block choke point that has a release valve, unlike what battery and bush have down by the bay bridge. but if the plan eventually is to continue this lane closure all the way down to 280, you have a different animal and i
2:04 am
think we need to explain to our business community that's coming. i'm certainly gathering from the comments that none of them have any understanding that's coming and i think it would be informative to us and useful to the business community if you clarify what the agency's further plans are for sixth street after this project. is the project or is this a demonstration for further southbound lane closures? >> this is a major capital investment at 6th street and taylor street. we rebuild a street like this, we aren't going to touch it again for quite a while. the idea is to focus on the portion of 6th where the most collisions are taking place and using our engineering tools to keep pedestrians safe in that section. we don't have a plan to roll this treatment all the way down to 280. another aspect we haven't talked about in terms of traffic management is that significant amount of traffic joins 6th street south of
2:05 am
howard street. carries traffic that comes out of downtown. >> i understand. you mentioned with the reopening of 4th there's a natural turn to howard which could take you to 6th, it's a purely westbound lane which makes the left turn earlier. i get the alternates, i just want to make sure we are creating a limited choke point more akin to 280 and more akin to the very inapt analogy to battery and bush because the bridge is another choke point. >> i understand. the plan is to reduce. >> there's no plans to extend this. this is a one time capital project. >> i don't want to say at some point in the distant future we wouldn't see a rash of crashes or safety issues, -- >> i'm not asking you to say we won't respond to safety issues
2:06 am
as they come up. what i am asking you to say, which is what i understand to be the case, had is a single project not a demonstration for further closures down 6th street. second question may be appropriately directed to director reiskin, i will let you figure out how to do this. when we widen a sidewalk as director torres noted and some speakers including mr. jordan, a 32-year resident, thank you, sir for coming down and offering us your perspective, it's helpful. different issues arise on the sidewalk. in the process of widening will we coordinate with d.p.w. and other agencies to make sure they are treating this sidewalk the way you treat a 15-foot sidewalk as opposed to the previous sidewalk? >> i think the project has already engaged with numerous other agencies. there's been a large multiagency effort to deal with some of the street issues in
2:07 am
this area for probably more than a year now. it's something that is coordinated out of 1011 turk, the city's emergency operation center. already the social services, the public health, police, public works resources that are focused on the area. and we will be working with public works and i would say more importantly, the community in terms of what you heard, i think speakers referenced in terms of design. and i think there's an opportunity to get to some of the earlier questions through design elements and positive activation of the streets, i think demonstrated during some of the taylor street community process to make sure that we're not exacerbating a situation. i think you heard staff mention we are doing this for a generation and we don't want to design around what will be temporal issues but there are things through design and activation that will only make it better.
2:08 am
obviously we want to make sure they are safe and not used for illegal or inappropriate activities. but i think there's -- because we have such strong support from the community benefit districts, from the other city agencies and from the community supporting agencies that are for those neighborhoods, i think very much through design and programming could make these successful streets. >> thank you very much for that. obviously we aren't the agency charged with managing sidewalks
2:09 am
or all aspects so i would appreciate your answer and encourage, we would recognize it will be important to collaborate with our city partners to make sure it's successful. the final thing i will say is this, and i want to align myself with director borden's really insightful comments about the effect on market street. my personal view the best thing we could do for pedestrians in the city is to get people out of their cars, the best way is to provide safe, reliable, efficient transit. close market to private vehicles and make that an above ground subway serving the entire downtown corridor. that will get people out of their cars. that will make market street, the highest of the collision corridors safe and out lying areas safe because fewer people are driving. if this creates a choke point it shoots everything in the foot. and the benefits of this project, i will tell you, while
2:10 am
they will be great, i'm hopeful, will be nowhere near the benefits of a congestion-free market street our transit vehicles can take. i strongly urge, as we implement this we move our resources, we move our p.c.o.'s, we do what we can to ensure even if that choke point gets to what we talked about and the traffic is north of market street that market street stays open particularly there. because director borden made a really important point. a choke point at 1st is bad. a choke point at 6th is deadly because there's still so many commuters in those vehicles. okay, thank you. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you, vice chair heinicke. directors do i have any other questions or comments? rubke? >> commissioner c. rubke: could staff address the time line. people asked about near term. i understand the construction schedule. but wondering if we have near-term plans to make the
2:11 am
street safer quicker? within the next 6-8 months we will look at curb management specifically and other types of quick and effective safety improvements on 6th and taylor street. what the exact scope of the near term improvements will be and how we might try to pilot some longer term improvements earlier on is still to be determined and we are planning to go back to the community to make sure we are piloting about the long-term design. >> it would be great to hear in a couple months or something where we are with the near-term
2:12 am
ideas. i think it's really important. it seems the community -- i'm excited to support this item. it seems the community is very behind it for the most part. i would just be excited to see something in the ground sooner rather than later, i would love to see a report on that plan as we move forward. >> i think one of the biggest things we aren't introducing any type of operational issues, it's a lot of homework we have to do internally but we will be happy to do that. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you, director rubke. do i have questions or comments or a motion? >> i just want to make final comments, for me safety improvements are number one, it's a high injury corridor, the challenge it happens to be the through-way to 280 which is a major artery in the bay area is tough, right. my other hat says this is crazy.
2:13 am
are we creating a choke hold and creating a worse problem on our streets? i have to come down on the side of safety but we really have to get this right, we have to manage the traffic to be successful, because if not we just move the problem somewhere else. that's not what we want for this corridor. we want it safe and we want to work with the police substation on 6th street to make sure they maintain and keep the sidewalks passable in the way they should be. i'm hopeful that the intersection at the alleys are effective. people just kind of walk in the street any time because the blocks are kind of long. i hope that and signalization goes in works well. i also would very much encourage considering the population, audible signals,
2:14 am
it's shocking that's not part of the plan. if we could get those in the plan, i definitely think those are important. with the construction mitigations to make sure we don't make things worse in the process of trying to make it better. making sure we have a lot of notice ahead of time for construction and improvements that will happen to the businesses and also the people driving on that corridor so they know when to start looking at different alignments to get away from that. i also want to see regular updates as this goes along with where we are, both whether we do some short-term improvements, long term, and see metrics how we are dealing with that. i would like at another time a presentation on the larger issues around that choke hold we are talking about on the north of market side. and making sure we are doing everything we possibly can to direct people away from this kind of choke hold, also making our streets safe. so, you know, i will support it.
2:15 am
but i will say it was very difficult for me because i understand a lot of the concerns addressed here. and ultimately, we need to make sure the city, as a whole, can function together, obviously lives matter most. >> chair c. brinkman: it sounds as if i had a motion. i will need two motions, one for 6th and one for taylor. >> first i just want to thank the public for this very robust discussion. you raised a lot of fascinating issues and i wish i could personally respond to each and everyone of you. we don't have time for that but i want to reflect on some items i have heard and offer some thoughts. one, thank you to all of the vision zero safety pedestrian bicycle advocates coming out in support. i myself, am in strong support of the safety improvements.
2:16 am
many of us have had our lives affected by those that have been involved in injuries and fatalities involving vehicle, pedestrians, cyclists, it's devastating to people's quality of life. and nobody should have to, that should be a basic standard for our city. no one should have to fear for their safety or life as they are trying to make their way around our city so i'm very moved by those comments. i do want to reflect and acknowledge the concerns around traffic congestion that i'm hearing from some of the businesses in the room. and i think when it comes to traffic congestion, we need to look at this as a holistic issue. some of the comments, some of the sources of that traffic congestion, changing this particular street, 6th street, one lane, two lanes, taylor, three lanes, these will be changes around the margins. if we truly want to talk about
2:17 am
traffic congestion management and i want to invite staff to bring that conversation to us, we need to look at all of the tools in the toolbox to manage traffic. of course one way is setting a goal 80% should be by transit. i think there are other best practices out there i want to look at, i don't want to dismiss the congestion concerns, i think they are real and i want to have that conversation, but i do want to lend my support to these improvements. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you very much director eakin. any other questions or comments? if not i need two motions, one for 6th and one for taylor. >> motion for both. >> second. >> chair c. brinkman: all in favor of 6th street as amended. aye. opposed? we don't do abstain on this board.
2:18 am
i either need an aye or a no. i don't think we can abstain. >> commissioner a. torres: i can't remain silent as you forced me to do the entire hearing? >> chair c. brinkman: i don't believe you can, i will ask the attorney representative. >> under the charter board members can be recused but cannot abstain. >> commissioner a. torres: what are the grounds for recusal. >> conflict of interest. what would you like to do director torres? >> commissioner a. torres: [off mic]. >> chair c. brinkman: the aye's have it. 6th street passes. now for taylor, all in favor aye? any opposed? taylor passes as well with one no on each one. we are just about on 3:30 for the taxi item so we will take a
2:19 am
short break and be back >> chair c. brinkman: we are back in session now. before we get started for taxi, we are here for the lower great highway which isn't going to be for quite a while. if you are here to comment on lower grade highway, could you raise your hand? okay, and are you in support? keep your hand raised. opposition? just in case you end up leaving before we get to you, i want this board to see, duly noted you were here. i would ask the same thing for howard street but looks like most howard street commentors have left. in support of howard street? duly noted and in case you don't stick around through our taxi item. hope you do, but in case you don't. >> clerk: madam chair you are
2:20 am
past the hour of 3:30 where there's a special order so we will get to that at this point. amending transportation code division ii article 300 section 320 to eliminate the fee for continued operation of a medallion upon death, suspension of or revocation of medallion holder and article 1100 sections 1101-1105, 1109, 1116, 1118 and 1120 to reform the taxicab medallion system by eliminating the driver requirement for transferable medallion holders.
2:21 am
>> chair c. brinkman: thank you. >> i have a presentation today i'm going to provide some context within which we are discussing this taxi medallion reform. i want to acknowledge this is not an easy topic. that might be an under statement. there are no easy answers. there's a lot of pain, anger and frustration and i want to acknowledge that. we have done our best to develop a reform package to provide the most relief to purchased medallion holders who have invested the most and yet earned the lease. we don't make these recommendations lightly. we have carefully considered each recommendation that's before you today. i'm going to start off with the important role of the taxi industry. taxis are a valuable part of our transportation system in san francisco. it's the only on-demand service that allows straight hail pick ups, we have a high level of
2:22 am
safety requirements with taxis, there's a fingerprint background check, drug and alcohol test, complaint investigation and due process. we investigate every 3-1-1 complaint that comes in. taxis are considered professional drivers. 95% of taxis operate in clean air vehicles. we also consider it part of our equity service, safety net service. taxis are required by regulation to serve all neighborhoods. taxis don't require smartphones or credit cards. the fares are regulated. taxis are an important part of our paratransit program and again, it's important to have a regulated service. the quick industry snapshot shows we have 24 taxi companies in operation, 8 dispatch services. 80 medallions and about 4800 active taxi drivers.
2:23 am
here is where things get a little complicated. we have a taxi time line and we start pre-1978 taxi medallions were freely transferable. once prop k was established in 1978 medallions were no longer freely transferable and you had to be a driver and you had a driving requirement. you could
2:24 am
medallion reform was conukt dided at that time and the pilot program was established in 2010. on our time line it shows that's the same year uber black launched. we get to 2012, the medallion sale program was codified. it became the full program and the timing again, unfortunate, that's the same year, uber, lyft started operation in san francisco. we currently have this confusing medallion types listed below. i won't go through them. happy to answer questions but we note how many of each type is in operation currently. we often get this question, who benefited from taxi medallion sales and it's important to point out that most of the money that was generated by the medallion sales went back into
2:25 am
the taxi industry. so about 5600 drivers and medallion holders made about $110 million from the medallion sale program. mta did make $63 million and that preserved transit service coming out of the 2009-2010 recession. so leveling the playing field and looking at the regulations and looking to reform the regulations have been a key focus for us since 2015. there have been many efforts to level the playing field. a few efforts include what you see on the slide here. we have streamlined the new on board driving process, updated vehicle age and mileage requirements. eliminated shift change in the san francisco business location requirements. and 2015 we had a thorough process to look at our medallion sale program. out of that we decided in 2016 to conduct a very extensive
2:26 am
reform in 2016, we vetted that for nine months. at that time, conducted a study, after thinking, reviewing, vetting with the taxi industry. in addition, and i'll get more to the study in a minute. in addition some other reform efforts have included reducing eliminated fee. we have supported the ramp taxi program. participated in the public utilities commission rule making process procedures for transportation network companies, otherwise known as uber and lyft. we have submitted over 30 briefs in that rule-making process. of course we understand the
2:27 am
external factors impacting the taxi industry. this past year we supported sb 1376, which i'm happy to say was signed into law by govenor brown this september. and that requires tnc's to provide accessible transportation service. and provides for a 5 cent per trip fee to support those accessible services for tnc's. out of a 9-month process for medallion reform in 2016, we decided the time wasn't right. we wanted to study the industry a bit more. we engaged with an industry expert. and pfm consulting was retained to maintain the health of the industry and recommend changes.
2:28 am
the report was released in may after considerable engagement with stakeholders, including drivers, medallion holders, company managers, sfo staff, approved lenders and the report made three major recommendations. i'm not going to spend a whole lot of time on recommendation one because there was no clear support from the industry and we are not recommending that today. but i do want to note they recommended color scheme. the number of trips and medallion holder's income recommend balancing the fleet size to better support the medallions. that is something we are moving forward and i'll get more into the details as we go forward. the third recommendation from
2:29 am
the p.f.m.schaller report. it's an important part of our program. we have an existing incentive program and we have added to our wheelchair ramp taxi incentive program. as we vetted the pfm schaller report we heard strong industry feedback. we heard mta should open the buyer market for medallions, provide more direct support for purchased medallion holders, lower the medallion price. i want to note there's an asterisk there. that requires a consent of the approved lender. when we established our package of reforms, mta staff looked at what the pfm/schaller report recommended. considered all that feedback and considered some of our key
2:30 am
policy objectives. we focused our reform package on the purchased medallion holders because they have invested the most at $250,000 for the most part and yet, they make the least. the pfm/schaller report they provided a pro forma analysis, they make on average estimated $38,000 a year, post-k different medallion type makes $54,000 and driver not holding one at all makes about $52,000. for us that's clearly a problem. we also have had 158 foreclosures and there are 236 purchased medallions on the list that would like to sell and there have been no medallion sales since april 2016. that's the context with which
2:31 am
we are bringing this proposal before you. we have four main recommendations for you to consider today. one, opening up the buyer market for medallions. two, limiting types of medallions authorized to pick up at sfo. waive the 5% retransfer fee for three years for balanced fleet size and trip volumes. again this is a pfm/schaller recommendation. non renewal of corporate and pre-k medallions and we have 260 of those types. so opening up the buyers market. what that would mean is eliminate the requirement only san francisco taxi drivers can purchase, eliminating the driving requirement for purchased medallion holders, allow those to be held as business entities or joint tenants. allow holders to hold up to 50 medallions maximum. and allow purchased medallion
2:32 am
holders or designee to enter into agreement with the color scheme to operate a medallion at death, revocation, suspension. there's a 750 use fee for those operations that the code says comes to the mta and contributed to the fund. so we are requesting that be eliminated. also important to note that under the scheme, if a medallion is not operated full-time, or is not available for full-time operation that would be good cause for revocation. we want to make sure these medallions are in operation. increase the taxi supply in san francisco. we have three policy goals here with this recommendation. we do want to bring supply to san francisco. we want to support our purchase medallion holders and there's a congestion management aspect to this. currently the lot at sfo holds
2:33 am
to about 500 taxis so there's parking lot space and then there's curb space and we have taxis that wait 2-3, 4 hours sometimes for a single trip. that's an efficient use of resources and we think they should be in san francisco serving the public and san francisco. so what's before you today would be authorize the director of transportation to limit medallion types that pick up at sfo so to allow purchased medallions to pick up all medallion types would be able to drop off. we would also want ramp taxis -- >> chair c. brinkman: one moment, yes, director torres? >> commissioner a. torres: thank you. i received a letter from five supervisors suggesting they are opposed to this proposal but support the other proposals but oppose the sfo and wait six months.
2:34 am
where do you stand on those issues? >> yeah. well i understand those concerns. and i understand the difficulty in making these hard decisions. these are hard recommendations to bring before you, i acknowledge that. but i support the package. i think maintaining the status quo does a disservice to our purchased medallion holders. again, these are individuals that have paid $250,000 -- >> commissioner a. torres: i'm asking about the six-month period the supervisors are requesting. >> i would say that would be maintaining the status quo for even six month, i would be concerned. about the number who have purchased medallions that are being foreclosed. >> commissioner a. torres: thank you. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you, please continue with your presentation. >> we also looked at this recommendation and ran it back through the pfm/schaller pro forma analysis and based on the
2:35 am
assumptions and analysis if -- could i put that [off mic] >> chair c. brinkman: we can see that. thank you. >> so changing the assumptions with the sfo. if those purchased medallions are shifted out and we change that analysis in the pro forma from two shifts per week to eight, and we think because operating at the airport is prime and that's what the drivers want to be able to do, that they will want to drive those purchased medallions. so plugging in the new numbers in the pro forma analysis shows the estimated income for purchased medallion holders just based on lease income would increase from $38,000 to $64,000. i think that's an important thing. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you.
2:36 am
>> chair c. brinkman: audience, this is going to be a very long item, we have a lot of people who want to comment. the more you interrupt, the longer this will take. i don't want to have to clear the room but i will. if you are in support give consensus hands, if you don't give me a thumbs down but please keep your comments to absolute zero minimum. that will keep you occupied. thank you. go on. >> thank you. recommendation number 3 to waive the 5% retransfer fee. this is a popular one. so hopefully we will see some consensus hands. proposal to eliminate the 5% retransfer fee $12,500 currently for three years. and right now the 5% fee would go all to the taxi driver fund. if there's a sale, that entire fee would go to the taxi driver fund. we are pleased to report we have dispersed the taxi driver fund.
2:37 am
over the last year after the board approved the disbursement process, we have dispersed about $4.7 million over 4400 drivers. check amounts range from $500-$1,200. i just want to note that. so we have dispersed the driver fund. recommendation 4, balancing the fleet size. this is a recommendation from the pfm/schaller report. the idea is to better match fleet size and trip demand. the report, one of the key findings in the report was only 17% of medallion holders earn a financially sustainable income and that's $65,000. and that the fleet is out of balance with the demand and the actual fleet size. so the recommendation before you today is the non-renewal of non corporate and pre-k medallions at the end of the
2:38 am
fiscal year. a reminder, some of the characteristics of those medallion types is one, they have been in the system since before 1978. there's no driving requirement. and the estimated average income earned over the lifetime has been over $1.5 million dollars. and again, that's been passive income. we have recently vetted these recommendations with the taxi industry. we have spent a lot of time listening to the industry hearing their concerns, their support. and i do want to note that we get more support for the recommendations than opposition. so we had taxi town halls and we had -- >> chair c. brinkman: [ gavel ] quiet. quiet. hands are fine. voices not allowed.
2:39 am
>> we collated all the feedback. we asked for written feedback, it could be hard when the topic is contentious, sometimes it's hard to speak in opposition to what others are saying, so we had posters and we collected sticky notes on all of the posters. and i want to mention overall for the sfo recommendation we had 76 supporters and 44 non-supporters. opening up -- balancing the fleet size and trip volumes, 17 supporters, 20 non-supporters. opening buyers, 56 in support, 12 not in support. eliminating the 5% retransfer fee, 52 in support, 2 not supporting. expanding the ramp taxi incentive, 24 in support, 7 not supporting. supporting taxi operations, and we will get to that slide in a minute. 50 supporters.
2:40 am
no non-supporters, zero. so i think it's helpful to understand there are a range of, you know, approaches and feedback and that we have done our best to vet and take all of the concerns into consideration. i mentioned there are some additional medallion reforms. this was recommended in the pfm/schaller report. there's no board action today on this, but it's important to note that the mta has supported and continues to support our wheelchair accessible ramp taxi program. this is a program we have had in place since 1994 and it requires a lot of care and feeding and nurturing. and so we have had a $10 per trip incentive in place for a number of years. also a short line pass at sfo for conducting so many pick ups in out lying neighborhoods and
2:41 am
what we have recently done is added a $600 subsidy per month for the purchase and ongoing maintenance and operation of wheelchair accessible taxis. so that's a very important program for us. we receive grant funds to support that. in addition, we support taxi operations. so really looking to improve and support what taxis do best and really think through the curb space with our taxi stands, access to bus-only lanes, some left-hand turn exemptions and explore a marketing campaign. there's no board action before you on any of those items but i did want to note them. [please stand by...]
2:42 am
-- the t.n.c. activity has been increasing at the airport and it's a driver of increased congestion at our terminals, however, there are congestion issues directly related to taxis as well. we see two related to taxis. overall customer demand for taxis is down significantly. from 2015 to 2018, taxi trips have dropped from 33% to 10% of total commercial pickups at the airport. at the same time the overall number of taxis coming to the airport hasn't changed that
2:43 am
much. so as a result we have more taxicabs at s.f.o. than the customers are demanding. that results in the taxis waiting in the holding lot, two, sometimes three hours, before they get a fare. and we're having to dedicate more space in the lots as a result of that. even with all of the space that we have in our holding lots, on average we're sending 250 cabs away from our gates every day because there's not room in the lots. they're full at certain times of the day. over the years we have proposed a variety of solutions for this, by alternating what days you can come based on whether you're an even or odd license number or something like that. and an app that tells when you we need cabs and we don't. but the main point here today is that we're looking for a solution and we hope that we're able to find one. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you, mr. morgan, and i appreciate you coming to talk to
2:44 am
us. directors, clarifying questions for before we go to public comment? yes? i'm sorry, are you done with your presentation? >> yes. >> chair c. brinkman: you are, okay. director rubke. >> commissioner rubke: i wonder if you could clarify the extent to we as an agency are allowed to regulate the t.n.c.s. >> well, that's a great question and we certainly have weighed on that multiple times with the california public utilities commission rulemaking proceedings. so the m.t.a. has limited jurisdiction and right now because the cpuc has jurisdiction, it is not something that's within the m.t.a. jurisdiction. >> if i could just clarify, so we have general jurisdiction over parking and traffic, the general parking and traffic rules in the city. so to the extent that a t.n.c. or any other vehicle is in violation of those, we have an
2:45 am
enforcement authority, no different than we have over any vehicles. so it's not that we have limited jurisdiction with respect to the t.n.c.s. we have no special jurisdiction with respect to the t.n.c.s. we have been fully been preempted by the state of california through the california public utilities commission in terms of our ability to regulate them. so the c.p.c. has regulatory authority. there has been a rulemaking process that's been going on for at least since 2012 that we have participated in through those 30 plus filings. i can't say that we've had -- we've had almost zero success in terms of the positions that we have made, usually jointly with the airport in terms of leaning for regulations and the regulations that are on the book for the t.n.c.s are unenforced as there's not the staff or the other resources to enforce them. so all we're left with, the m.t.a. and the police
2:46 am
department, are the enforcement of parking and traffic. the general parking and traffic rules that apply to all vehicles and our joint capacity between the police department and the sfmta and i think this morning's report released from the transportation authority was instructive or limited to the fact into the extent to which we can enforce even the existing parks and traffic laws. >> chair c. brinkman: any more clarifying questions before i move on? >> yes, a question. >> chair c. brinkman: mr. morgan, can you come up, please. thank you. >> one of the issues at hand here is the congestion at s.f.o. and the percentage of the taxi trips have declined over the last several years due to the decrease and the transport business at the airports. could you speak to the percentage of the congestion that is because of the taxis
2:47 am
versus because of the t.n.c.s? >> i don't have figures on that, i'm sorry. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you, thank you, mr. morgan. >> and can i ask a question following up? one of the four areas that you highlighted was suggesting that we could balance the supply and the demand or sort of right size the supply of taxis to meet a reduced demand. and i'm wondering if you could just speak to our ability to balance supply and demand when there are actors in the larger market, of course, the transportation network companies, that have their own supply controls that the city of san francisco that they do not have the ability to regulate at the time? >> right. we're operating and having the conversation would b within a vy challenging context. yes, there are many external factors that we don't control
2:48 am
and certain similar services, again, that m.t.a. doesn't regulate in terms of the numbers. so for the supply, we're trying to balance a couple things with the recommendations. and we're trying to support our purchase medallion holders and with the s.f.o. piece to maintain the supply in san francisco. so they work together on whole. it's like a puzzle piece. so we're really looking to support those purchase medal job holders and get them in and out faster at s.f.o. and the drivers in and out faster and purchasing those medallions and bringing the drivers that are 250 turned away daily and the other supply, you know, people who are medallion holders and drivers that are waiting, to bring those vehicles into the city and the corporate and pre-k medallions, we see those as a drag on the value for the purchased
2:49 am
mmedallions. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you. anymore questions? we have mr. lee hepner, i would like him to come up. >> thank you, chair brinkman, and directors. my name is lee hepner. and earlier today i sent over a letter signed by five supervisors, including supervisors peskin and fewer and mandelman and lee and ronen, addressing this agenda item. and before i get into it, just the elephant in the room which is kind of being discussed obliquely here but was at the forefront of the conversation at the transportation authority this morning, is that this regulation and this reform of the tax medallion industry is on the same day as the t.a.'s report saying between 2010 and 2016, t.n.c.s contributed to at least 50% of the congestion
2:50 am
increase in san francisco. and i think that context is really critical. and i'll probably return to that at the end of this -- my comments. the other thing that i'd like to say is just a thank you to director and the m.t.a. staff who have been keeping our office fully briefed for at least a year on this. and i don't think that anybody loses the burden of trying to navigate the complicated issues in this problem and i have a lot of respect. i think that every supervisor would concur with the good-faith effort and our outreach to our office. that said, there are a number of reforms before you, i think that these are independent reforms, meaning that this board can act on one or two of them and against one or two of them, and not fear any -- any fear that the two that are supported are going to impacted by the two that were not supported. i think that there's a lot to gain here. the letter that i delivered does
2:51 am
announce support for what it sounds like was broad community support for at least two of the proposals in the staff report. and that was option one, which was to open up the buyers market by removing barriers to entry for medallion applicants and option three, which was to authorize the director to waive that 5% medallion transfer fee for up to three years. in light of the serious concerns that all of the supervisors have received from impacted stakeholders about the lack of analysis to inform the likely effects of the other options, of the other reforms before you, this letter does oppose first the expanding supply in the city which i think is the flipside of that is limiting the access to different medallions to pick up at s.f.o.
2:52 am
i think that the concern there was that by fundamentally devaluing the medallions that would not be able to pick up at s.f.o., which i don't think that there's a disagreement of the value of those medallions, that the risk of devaluing those to the point of not making them feasible to operation and obliterating those medallion is too much to risk. maybe there's a measured approach to take and maybe it's not just purchased medallions and there's enforcforceable wayo say which pick up on this day and that day, but that warrants further conversation. it's my understanding and the board member asked the city's ability to regulate t.n.c.s. yes, we have no jurisdiction to regulate t.n.c.s, and someone will correct me if i'm wrong, that s.f.o. has the capacity to regulate the number of t.n.c.s that pick up at the airport. and it's a decision that is made
2:53 am
to allow t.n.c.s to pick up at the airport and that that is actually another issue that the city through s.f.o. and its commission has authority to act on this part of the proposal. second, the supervisors opposed the -- the reform to balance the fleet size, including the nonrenewal of corporate and pre-k medallions, so-called right-sizing the market. there's been a lot of the broad community process here, and i believe that is true. it was in the staff presentation from m.t.a. that there was minimal support for this part of the proposal. i think that if we're going to stand up and tout the community process we should also learn from that process. and to the extent that there was concern that this was going to -- that limiting the supply is not going to help companies to be more competitive with t.n.c.s, that we should probably put that one on hold as well.
2:54 am
the letter ultimately does not recommend a six-month delay, rather, a discretion for this body to adopt a more incremental approach. meaning that adopting the two reforms around which there are pretty much unanimous support, around which we have heard really no concerns, we can do that today. >> (indiscernible). >> indeed, it was a former version as this was evolving quickly this morning. and as for the other reforms, you know, i think that they warrant a little bit more -- a further discussion, further analysis and further input from stakeholders and we have heard just anecdotally ideas being brought to the table, even as recent as yesterday. ideas brought to the table to try to have halfway approaches for a lot of it. and, you know, back to my original point which is that none of this occurs in a vacuum as everybody here knows. and there are other moving pieces here. we have heard proposals from private taxi industry
2:55 am
stakeholders about efforts they are making to make their platforms more competitive with t.n.c.s. on the regulatory side assemly member thing got the city of san francisco to pass a per ride hail fee as soon as next year. that's a huge development. there's movement at the state on pricing and another huge development that will dramatically change this landscape. if taxi stakeholders are asking for a bit more time to evolve with a very, very complex competitive environment while we continue to evolve our regulatory approach to all of this, i think that we should give it to them, at least as to the two proposals. that's the substance of the letter. there are copies up here for folks. and with that i'm going to have to return to the board of supervisors meeting unless there's any questions for me regarding any of that. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you. directors, you have any questions? seeing none, thank you so much for coming. much appreciated. [applause] all right. audience, you were doing really
2:56 am
well there for a while. i liked the consensus hands and the thumbs down. let me just run through the ground rules again of speaking. i'm going to give you each two minutes. we have approximately 80 speaker cards. you can do the math in your head right now. this will work best if we move efficiently and respectfully. we will respectfully listen to you, so i do ask that you don't spend extra time with applause, with boos and with any kind of verbal communications. we want to hear from all of you. 80 speaker cards and two minutes each and that will take a long time. when you come up to the podium there's two minutes and when you're down to 30 seconds remaining you will hear a soft tone. when you hear a louder tone your time is up and i will firmly but politely cut you off. state your name for the record and let us know support or oppose or which parts of the proposal that you support or oppose. and i ask her to call five or
2:57 am
six names. i will ask her to call five or six names and people can come up from the overflow room or come and line up on your righthand side and our lefthand side of the room, that will let us to move along efficiently. having said, that go ahead and call five or six names to get people lined up and we can move through quickly. >> and for people in the overflow room we have informed the sheriff that if you tell them that you have been called, your name has been called, they will let you into the room. so let them know that you have been asked to state. starting with nate dwery, john lazar, jonathan oliver, robert chizana, carl mcmurta are the first five. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you. >> thank you, members of the board. my name is nathan dwery and i drove a taxi in san francisco
2:58 am
from 1965 to 1977. and sometimes thereafter. i have an issue with some of the terminology that has been used in this report. one is that the people who had medallions in those years paid a nominal fee. i saved my money in the years that i drove, the down payment was $5,000, it was a $1,500 transfer fee to the police commission at the time. many individuals that i know in those years did the same. they saved their money and they borrowed from friends and relatives. some even got loans through the small business administration. the average price paid was about $20,000. we are told that this was a nominal fee. really? in 1978, $20,000 was not nominal. i think that if you bring it up to current value it's more like
2:59 am
$200,000. but that's neither here nor there. it is asserted that those people made billions of dollars. i personally know of many individual drivers who lived out their lives in hotels and many others who worked their buns off literally to put their kid through college. so a gamut of people involved. they may have earned over a million dollars, but so what. that's 40 years. i ask your regulator who went forth here about the individual support for medallions before 1978, if they're still driving, are you going to revoke their medallions and he said, yes. i said what other options? they can drive for somebody else, isn't that sweet. trying to buy a house and they can pay rent. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you, next speaker, please. >> john lazar and jonathan
3:00 am
oliver and carl mcmurdo. >> that was a great article, i enjoyed it. my name is john lazar. i have been in the cab business since i was 8 years old. the earnings is made up out of the air. many pre-k holders upgrade their permits for years and years after 1970, in fact, still have some doing that now. these were not persons clipping coupons in cabo, okay? they are blue-collar veteran taxi drivers who drove for more than four decades only to have the small amount of retirement income cut off by the sfmta. the other groups of pre-k holders are typically widows or daughters of deceased drivers who took over the permits in 1978 or latter years. these women cannot operate the