We removed the stop. If that goes forward, then i would prefer that we not make it permanent. Revisit it and have a plan for revisiting. Because we will get feedback as the vicechair said on the time savings and how people are using it. I am confused by one of the slides. You have diagrams of what is proposed. It looks like there is a fold at 15th. You are suggesting this is not the case as follows. There is a Detailed Design process as the project is closer to construction. Something that we learned when the train makes a turn from teravol, as the train turns to 15th, it swings over into the what would be the passenger loading area and makes it difficult to have a bold stop at a 90 degree angle turn like that. We looked at having a stop further back before the intersection. But then you run into driveway conflicts at a location. Because of that and we can definitely provide more information on that. Basically, the train swing would essentially be where passengers are. So if you would explain why we call it a transit. Up until earlier, a week ago, that was the intention was to use it as a transit. The findings have ruled it out. Exactly. Around the corner. I want to talk about 19th avenue. I did not here about the improvements talked a lot about today. From what i understand crossing 19th avenue when it is said and done will be different from the experience we had today. We suffer through it today. Right, thank you. That is good, an important point. 19th avenue prior to about 2012 or 2013 was the higher injury locations. Because of that and aside from the stop issue, it is an important intersection to focus on. We added engineering treatments like no right turn on reds and no left turn. Daylighting. Leading pedestrian intervals. New arms for the signals. People are not running lights. And of course the transit only lanes and no left turns. As a result we have not had collisions that have injured pedestrians since 2013. It is a marked difference. This project will be added and as part of the rapid project, starting construction next year will be the crossing is shorter as well. The crossing distance will be shorter like the equivalent of a lane . Essentially. There are 6 lanes of traffic and what have you. Right now, the parking, you have to cross the parking lane and the travel lanes. This will mean that the parking lane now becomes a sidewalk extension. It is 6 lanes, though. It is still 6 lanes. It is a big intersection for sure. I was one of the more outspoken critics of this and i was encouraging us to revisit this. It is a safe way and it is a Grocery Store that i think has the potential to mean more than the other stops to affect more passengers in the long run. That said, even at 30 seconds times, that it takes. When you multiply that times the tens of thousands of passengers that are riding this line every day, 10,000, and more, when you multiply that, that turns into more than just the 30 seconds that we are saving. I think that we need to keep in mind that we have a responsibility to the entire city. It is not just the avenue. It is the entire city that is waiting on this line as it gets down into the rest of the rounds. What happens down here affects what is happening over there. If we really want to increase our reliability and the frequency and the speed we are delivering Transit Service, this is something that we need to strongly consider. However keeping the stop and effectively having two stops next to each other, the only sort of draw back from what i understand is that. Is having them so close together apart from the time we would lose that we can initially save. One of the key drawbacks is the stops are close to one another. The stop at 17th and 15th. That can be frustrating as a regular train rider, i dont regularly ride the l. I ride the n regularly. There is literally a stop that i think it is it is one block away like the way this would be. It is silly. It also happens a little bit further along at 9th and then at 7th, i think. You can literally get off the train and walk up and get on again at the back side of the train. If it is articulated and we can capture the value of that, despite the draw back, through more engagement of the riders and that is the tradeoff that the riders are really willing to endure, i appreciate that outreach and that dialogue. Again i want to remind the board and everyone else that this is bigger than just any one of us. It is actually about the entire city and the way the city has grown. Things are different than the way they were 100 years ago and 50 years or 40 or 20 or 10 years ago. And the way that it was in the past, cannot work the way it does today. It cant. We live in an incredible city. I say this every time we get into a conversation. The housing prices show that people want to be here and they are coming here and the Transit Service is deteriorating. It took me an hour half to get home from bart to where i live. It used to take me 45 minutes. I could plan on 45 minutes. The people that pay for that more than anyone else are low income riders that cant afford that kind of time fluctuation. And what ends up happening is they are pushed out of the city. The city is getting wealthier and with all due respect and whiter. And i think that we need when we talk about the changes, we need to be thinking about everyone and not just ourselves. I dont want to just think about myself. I want to think about everyone. I entertain exploring a pilot. Recognizing this is bigger than any one of us. What i hear is we would like to go ahead with the previously legislated removal and actually reconsider look at the removal as a pilot to see what happens. And mr. Rhodes, what do you think the time frame would be to look at that after the stop is removed and then gather data and reconsider it. Bring it back to us for discussion . I think that the final trip back to the board would need to happen some time in the midsummertime frame. We need to do it before the construction starts on the project. I guess if the stop were removed say a month, month and a half from now, that gives us three months. You need to bring a final recommendation for removing a stop or upgrading it. Thank you. And i do just want all us to remember what was said, it is a larger picture. It is not just about that one stop. It is about our transit efficiency and how we will get people based on what the directors said our survey results show us that people think we are too slow and that is why we are not keeping riders. We are losing them to ride share as pointed out in the audience. We need to tighten it up. 17th, that one we came to an agreement. 35th . Directors, do we have questions for mr. Rhodes on 35th avenue . Anybody have specific questions on that one. I am agreeing with staff on that one. About the stop removal at 35th and again i know that this is not easy for anybody on either side. Whether you are losing our stop or you would lose your parking if we left that stop. What i am focussing on are state and efficiency. If those stops were to stay, they need boarding. We cannot have riders stepping off the train into traffic. I saw the video of someone stepping off hit by a car. Regardless what commenters said, it is never the fault of the transit passenger. It is always the fault of the driver. They are supposed to stop when this train stops. And to have somebodyen imply that the passenger should wait for the door to open and stick your hand out or head out. That is ridiculous. We cannot run a Transit Agency like that. The passengers have no know they are safe when they step off the train. I am supporting both of the staff recommendations at 35th and 44th. It is safety for me. It is efficiency of the overall system. If we do the stop we will speed it up and attract for riders and maybe claw back the ride share riders on this and will move forward. Directors, do i have other questions or comments on the 35th and 44th . I have some. Go ahead. Go ahead. So lets focus on the stop at 44th. And i want to understand the time saving benefit here. Because as you may have gathered from the earlier comments, the inbound stop removal at 17th will affect a lot of customers. The rush hour scenario going downtown with say 8 to 9 30, the l is probably pretty full when it gets there, the 30 seconds will be multiplied by multiple riders. I am a little bit more dubious of the effects at 44th. We have a relatively empty train coming inbound and stopping. And we presumably have a relatively empty train out bound. And to me, it would seem that the savings is probably tied up somewhere in the hold over by the zoo. If you can educate me on that. Does it free up the train to come back more quickly if it gets there quickly . Is that hold over dictated by the drivers rest break or hold over dictated by scheduling . In a scenario where the train is running late because of issues in the tunnel or just because of high ridership or whatever it is, the driver has a minimum layover period they will take. There is some buffer scheduled into it. What happens is the driver the operator gets to the end of the line. If they are late, they have the minimum layover. By saving a 30 second 25, 30 seconds in each direction, it adds up to 45 seconds to a minute of recovery time. It allows the train when it is going inbound. An out bound train gets to the terminal. When you are standing at safeway and you are you could be standing at 19th avenue and waiting for a train and it may get there in 45 seconds because it got to the terminal earlier and was able to travel back toward you sooner than that. It does contribute to the recovery of schedule and to keeping trains for eventually paced. That is helpful. Only in that scenario. To be comparative about it, is it fair to say that the time saved from the 44th stop removal in the aggregate will not be the same as the time saved from the 17th street stop . 17th avenue stop removal. Do you think each will have a similar effect on speeding up . The 17th avenue because in are more folks on the train. More people experience it. The folks may not realize that the stop was skipped, make it a minute earlier. I think you are right. Let me since i am running the meeting. I might as well keep talking. We had director removal. To go with stop removal. The chair will be back. We will see what we can do here. That is my concern about 44th. I am completely aligned with what the director said. One of the reasons we obtained the increase in riders and the increase in Customer Satisfaction is that we have looked at this wholly. This is the general mindset. I am willing to remove a stop. It will have some affect on customers. 35th, i am inclined to go that way because there are stops relatively nearby. I agree with the director given what we have seen on accidents, we cannot have stops on this line that are not protected anymore. It is too long. Your initial report that was fantastic suggested there were so many accidents being reported. I think we know that is a drop in the bucket to what happened. Every little fender bender and every thing does not get reported. There is clearly a real safety issue out there. I am focussed on 44th. Because i am not sure that removing that stop, instead going to a protected stop there would have the same effect on the overall system. I am sort of struck maybe intangably by the fact that the real effect other than the layover effect you talk about would be on the people who live there. The people who board at the zoo stop would tend to gain a little extra time on the way in without the stop there and the people who are coming home out there would gain a little extra. But no one from that area is here supporting this. We see a lot of people who say how important the stop is to them. That given the geography of the stop at the beginning and the end of the line, it strikes me as different. I want to raise that. I appreciate your raising it. Thinking this stop is different. The follow up question is if we preserve the stop, how is it a protective stop . I agree with the chair that is what we have to do. Those are my thoughts and comments for staff. I will city what the other directors think. 35th, the issue is we can not put a boarding island there. If i understand that correctly. A full boarding island. Thats right. Because of the track cross over, it would not able to be the full length. It is less than 500 feet from sunset boulevard. If we can do this without a boarding island, it does not take additional parking, it is a possibility. And i agree with the comments of the importance of having boarding. That is a good point. What is reported is not always indicative of what happens out there. I have seen a lot of close calls myself. I do find persuasive that 44th is different because it affects a small number of people that are further out on the line in terms that is my view. The follow up question there was, if we decided to preserve the stop, have we studied or know the answer to whether we could make that a protective stop. Yes. So the 44th avenue stop has clear zones installed. And that is those stops at 44th would be upgraded with boarding islands if retained. I support that. I think that makes a lot of sense given the logic you talked about. I do think ultimately we are not a freeway either. We are not just trying to get people fast across the city. People are going to places along the way. Lets just keep mindful. Sometimes when we emphasize speed, we sound like everybody only wants to go downtown. That is not necessarily the case. I want to hear from the director. It sounds like we are leaning to the 44th stop and removal of the. I want to be clear that i fully appreciate the idea of a local service. I am not talking about running an annex. The only reason i feel passionately about this is because we are protecting the other stops on either side. And no one is expected to walk further than a couple of blocks at most. If you are right in the middle of a couple of blocks of the stop. I understand and i fully support the idea of making sure that the service is still serving the local need and not just being an expressway downtown. I am not advocating that. That being said, wherever we compete the stations or the stops, they do need to have the platforms. Undoubtedly. I was coming off the train the other day and because i am alert to this, i looked at the car coming at the back of a train. Not planning on stopping at all. And i just kind of put my backpack out the door so the person would know that it was coming. Sure enough, the backpack hit the mirror. If it was me, it would have been an accident, or collision. I would support that idea. If we feel it is worth the time savings. The loss in the time savings. If the board feels it is something that we are ready to sacrifice for the better of the whole. I would be okay with it. If i may on that go ahead. I think we when we got to 17th avenue, we sort of came to the conclusion we would follow your guidance. You have been fantastic in the presentation. Articulate and helpful and i think respectful to the people who disagree with you. I am impressed by your effort and thank you for keeping a professional tone to an obviously charged issue. When we came to the issue of 17th avenue inbound, i was prepared to support us Going Forward with the removal. My friend and a neighbour, we live out there said lets look back and, you know, you suggested an amount of time to see if it is having a negative effect on the riders and get information on the time savings. Now on 44th, i am sort of at least in the head space that i dont want to follow the recommendation. I want to move forward with keeping the 44th avenue stop. I sort of have the same reaction which is i would challenge you all to deal with the zoo and the roll over and see if there is a way to really sort of mitigate the loss of time savings by keeping the stops and double that up. If we keep the stop, is there something we can do with the turnover there that addresses the issue you raised. And conversely when we come back in the summer as you talked about, if it seems to you that still keeping that stop there is really slowing down the l, that is something i would want to know. I think that is something that the neighbourhood would want to know. And so my view is we sort of do both of those on a revisit basis. If you come back and tell us that the removal of the stop at 17th is having some unforeseen effect on the neighbourhood, so be it. My preference is to go ahead with the stop removal because speeding up the system is very important. Similarly, my preference today is to not remove the 44th avenue stop for the reasons we have discussed. But if you come back to us in months and say, look, we cant really address the issues at the turn around, and we now think after looking at it, that keeping that stop is having an unexpected slow down on the system, please tell us that. That would be my preference for a way to address this. I thank you for this. I will close by saying this. We had and fortunately for you all, you dont have to sit through all of these. We sit through all of these. And this happens every single time we want to take out a stop or move anything around. People say, my greatgrandfather has been riding the bus forever. The people said i bought my house because of the stop. People said it will inconvenience me. We are not unsympathetic to that. We get it. As the chair said eloquently, our goal is to look at the whole system. I want you to know what is motivating me here today is not a desire to inconvenience people. My goal is to get people riding. The best way to do that is have the system move faster. Thank you. Well said. We have the way we are trending 17th remove and review. 35th, remove. 44th keep. Add the island and review. I need to ask our councillor about the item, the parking time limit. It was questioned whether that was properly noted. If we did the proper notification. Thank you, chair. Deputy city attorney, member of the public. Chapter 31. The requirement that the agenda state that certain items are approval actions for purposes of. I looked at that. Most of the item is covered by the tdp, the ir and is not an approval action. The outer Street Parking time limit establishments had a separate categorical exemption. And that was not noted as in approval action. We would recommend you may not want to act on the items today and bring them back prograerhap. That will work well. We will ask staff to update us on the decisions we made about 17th, 35th and 44th avenue. Then we can take up the parking time limit at that time. Does everyone agree . Sound good . May i ask a question my preference with 44 to go ahead with the boarding island. I dont want to be in a situation where we put in the boarding island and you come back and tell us we have a bottleneck in the train now or something unforeseen. How much does it cost to remove a boarding island . I am trying it avoid pardon the pun, my decision set in stone. The question is if we put it in, is that is that something that really makes this irreversible or not so much. It is a good time. It has a clear zone. I think generally speaking i consider the boarding island to be along the spectrum. Closer to the irreversible. You are changing the grade of the street. A significant change in the construction of the street. We want to have confidence. When is the construction of the boarding island. We are doing construction work. That is correct. The First Construction will primarily focus on the track lane and the second year starting in 2019, focussed on things like the boarding island. Even on the current plan, the boarding island will be constructed after you came back to it. Thats right. We will it sounds like we are at a point to have a vote. We will vote on item 11a and b. For 17th avenue, it is my understanding the board wishes to continue with the stop removal as previously legislated. But study a shortterm report back. 35th avenue, the idea is to remove the stop. And to build the boarding island. And 45th avenue to keep the stop. And to not act on items c, d and e regarding the parking time limit. That is the actions. Correct. Absolutely. Clarify, you are accepting part of the rejecting the there is question for the staff. If you dont know, we will continue that as well. That is the parking time limit changes. We will take a short break. 5 minutes. As quickly as people can get as quickly as people can get we are back into session. Find your seats and we can get moving. Thank you, madam chairman. Item 12 is discussion of the fiscal year 20 17year end financial audit. Good evening board members. From one exciting number to another. This will be about an hour and a half. This is our year end audit before you every year. The overall is the picture of the financial status and reviewed by most of the financial communities so it is a very important document. We have no findings of the letter, that is good news. 10 years of no findings. These seven bullets the picture. Expenditures grew faster than revenues. We had no reporting roles. Significant increase in assets because of projects. More timely billing is good news. We had a concentrated interest on special events and we had increased charge this is the Capital Budget and less funds set aside for claims losses because we resolved several big cases. So on the operating revenue side be show a 4 billion increase due to the fees and fines. We saw a huge increase in Development Fees due to tsf. The total revenue is increasing 104 million. As you can see on the bottom the expenditures increased three times that much. The main issue here was the Personnel Services increasing 300 million. 200 million of that is due to new pension rules. We have to report the pension obligations. 100 million due to the number of new staff and labor contracts. We are a Labor Division the majority of the costs are labor. I wont bore you with the other line items. I am happy to answer questions. On our balance sheet, we saw an increase in current assets because of the bond proceedings and our total assets increased 600 million. Our total liabilities increased about the same. Our net position increased 274 million. Let me turn it over to our do i have another page . Our auditor is going to give you her presentation. Thank you. I left you a lot of time here. I will move right along here. Give us your name. Yes lisa abbott the managing director with kpm good. I am here to present the required communications that we have at the end of every the journal entries they have control over the data. There are procedures listed on the right we performed as a result. We noted no exceptions or findings over this risk. Unnotifieanunmodified opinion. It is good to read what management wrote. So that concludes our brief presentation. Any questions for me . Thank you, good presentation. That is a good reminder to read the first 20 pages of the supporting document. It gives you a good overview. It is good for us to keep up the familiarity with it. Directors, any questions or comments . Great job. Thank you very much. It is good to see that come back with the clean audit like that. It is very helpful. Congratulations. For the record there is no member of the public to address you on this matter. Thi this is a question. Thank you for explaining the new rules on reporting the pension obligations. I guess my question is sort of a forward looking one. Is that going to have any effect when we come to budget time or is that more of an accounting issue . Two issues. Accounting and pension increases to affect the budget. Two separate processes for future pension obligations. We see the outlays increasing. Impact on the budget the Capital Markets were aware of the pension obligation. No affect. We are not the only one. Not affecting the bond rating or anything like that . Not that item. Thank you. No public comment. This is not an action. I just want to make something clear here. Make sure i understand this correctly. On page 8 of the report, you are stating the total operating expenses from the year ended june 30, 2017 were increase of 28 to the prior year. Increase in operating costs, right . Am i reading that right . Thats correct, page 8. Increase 28 in operations costs. Looking at the financial audit, yes, operating costs increasing higher than revenue due to labor costs would i be right to assume a lot of that has to do with the fact that slower Transit Service is more expensive to operate . Yes, that is part of it, but we are also hiring to do more work that you are asking us to do. It has an impact on the operating costs when that transit becomes more expensive to operate and it starts to result in the need for cuts, those cuts go to less frequent transit routes, right, routes that serve less wealthy neighborhoods . I will let the director answer that question. It is beyond my subject matter expertise. We have not been in the position to make cuts since before i got here. The last time was around 2009. Cuts some of which were then ris send the. There are a lot of factors when making cuts. Should it come to that we did you shore authorized an increase of 10 the two years previous to that. That is a huge driver. Most significant driver of the cost. There is a lot more we are doing on the parking and traffic side as well. We are putting more paint on the streets. That is more that we need to maintain. We have a more robust planning function than in the past there. Are a number of things that we are doing pursuant to board policy that have operating costs. You are seeing that reflected in a number of Different Things manifesting themselves in that number. 10 service increase is one of the single biggest the more efficient we can be system wide. There are fare hikes. Everything is more expensive to provide service for. We balance the budget each year. As you will see when we present in january, it is often that the expenses grow faster than the revenue. That is certainly what you will see on the citys budget as well. Thank you for pointing that out. Thank you. Much appreciated. That was not an action item. We will move on. Item 13. Amending transportation Code Division ii to downtown with a parking meter rates and motorcycle parking meter rates, description of maps to the area and parking meter zone, criteria for adjusting the parking meter rates, modifying special event parking meter rates and the zone numbers 1 through 4. Thank you, mr. Mcguire, my favorite topic parking we are here to talk about an opportunity to make parking easier to find, reduce congestion and help small businesses. The demand pricing at 25 of the 28,000 parking meters and the garages we are recommending expending the demand prices to all parking meters in San Francisco to match the investment this board up and down agency made in the smart meters and the security infrastructure in the garages and to match that with Smart Parking policy throughout the policy. I will hand it to my colleague mr. Wilson. Good evening. I am the parking policy manager sheer. I am happy to present this Exciting Program for your consideration. As mr. Mcguire mentioned this builds off a Successful Pilot project called sf park. I was here a couple months ago to bring you an informational item about the same topic. You may recognize the slides. The goals of the project really are about trying to get people into parking places as quickly as possible. That reduces the amount of time they spend looking for space, reduces the traffic they create and makes their experience shopping and visiting the neighborhood districts more pleasant so they want to keep coming to spend money which is what we want. We want a transparent data driven process to bring it to the data realm. A few reminders what sf park was. Fender rally if federally funded spring 2011 to spring 2013. We undertook extensive evaluation in summer of to 14. 2014. It covered 25 of the parking meters in the city. 14sfa managed garages and lots. Two cromareas where we control areas. We didnt make other changes to evaluate whether the changes over the course were happening because of changes in the city or changes to the pricing. As i mentioned. There were parking sensors in the pilot and control areas so we could tell when parking was available and use that to make the changes. It is worth noting in 2014 this board voted to make permanent the pricing in all the areas. For those 25 of the meters and 14 garages we are doing demand responsive pricing since 2011 for six andahalf years now. What is demand responsive pricing . We use the average occupancy four blocks for different times of day to judge what the price should be. You can see the occupancy buckets when parking is too full and that means people cant find a space when they arrive and they circle and create traffic and get frustrated. We raise the price 25 septembers per hour. 25 cents per hour. When it doesnt create more traffic we leave it where it is. Perhaps the price is too high we lower prices. We vary prices by block, time of day, weekday, weekend. The 1600 block may have eight different price at 10 00 a. M. Than 1 00 p. M. Different that the 1700 block does. The 1600 block on tuesday may have a different price than on saturday at 10 00 a. M. That provided a lot of Interesting Data that is a little washed out here. Most interesting and surprising was we lowered rates at meters and in garages by 11 cents an hour in meters and 42cent an hour in garages. This was a surprise where they thought it was a fancy word for mta raising rates and that is not what happened. Between 2011 and 2013 the beginning of the economic boom that San Francisco is undergoing. In a time of increasing population, increasing business, more people working and visiting the prices went down. That reported a drop in half the time it took to find parking which is what we are looking for in this program. We get there by reducing the percentage of time the blocks are 90 occupied. In pilot areas that percentage of time went down. Blocks are not so full that people are circling. In control areas we saw blocks too Seth Mcfarlane more of the time. Another way to look at that was how often were we hitting that spot where the blocks were well utilized not so full they were creating congestion and traffic. There was a significant increase when we hit that target occupancy. This is the result of six andahalf years of demand responsive pricing in japan. This is post street between webster and laghana and the other streets around. What we have seen is there are certain blocks and times of day that are popular and the prices have gone up. At the exact same day the price is cheaper one block away or around the corner. It may cost 5 an hour on post. Go around the corner and it is 1. 25 that is a dollar less. This was repeated over and over. Where the prices went up on certain blocks you could find a good deal nearby. That is an indication to try that block first it is more likely to have available parking than the higher priced block. For our neighborhood commercial businesses we saw sales tax revenues go up significantly. This was an economic boom time. Sales tax revenues werent up twice as went up twice as fast in pilot areas than the rest of the areas. We are also reducing Greenhouse Gases and less pollution. That benefits anybody who spends time in San Francisco. This is a map showing the dark blue the sf park areas where we have been doing it for the 6 andahalf years. This is where we are expanding to. There is no propose alto add meters this is updating places we charge for meters. We are expanding to 28,000meters, 40 garages that the sfta man ages in the city. This is along the embarcadero so every meter has this treatment. As part of this one of things the federal government wanted from San Francisco and the reason they gave us money for this pilot was not every city is going to be able to put parking sensors in every place. When we had the censor data we did a analysis which is the adjustment rate where we compare the parking meter data, percentage of meters paid to the percentage of spaces occupied. We did that in all of the areas and developed what we can say when this percentage of meters are paid these spaces are occupied. Since 2014, that is the method we have been using to make demand responsive Rate Adjustments in the areas and that is the system we would plan to use to take this city wide. So i have been talking to a lot of people about this topic over the past 6 andahalf years especially past 18 months. A lot of media reports. I will talk about answer some of the main questions that come up. There is by law in the transportation code part of this legislation is there is a minimum and max rate. Min is 50 cent and maximum is 8 per hour. They hear 8 an hour and say that is really expensive to park in my neighborhood. As you can see that is not what is going to happen. Even where we had demand responsive pricing we dont have blocks at 8 per hour. If a block at a particular time of day were incredibly busy all of the time no matter the rate it would take six years at this slow rate to get to 8 an hour. Again, you know, it cant be emphasized enough under the pilot the rates went down. We have done tests what a city wide Rate Adjustment would lookk like. Average rates will stay almost exactly flat. A lot of people say is this surge pricing . A lot of media calls it surge pricing. No. That only goes up. Demand responsive pricing goes down as often as it goes up. I think it is important to note this is a gradual process deliberately based on a lot of data. It is transparent where we tell everybody what the rates are going to be. Then there is a map available on smta. Com and a lot of apps and private App Developers picked this up. Someone can look to know what the price is going to be. They can know if i want to block on that park on that block it is 1 00 in the morning and 2 in the afternoon and perhaps 2. 50 in the afternoon. No prices when you get there. One of the criticisms this sounds like parking for people with more money. The answer is rates went down. We dont expect average rates to go up under city wide responsive pricing. That doesnt mean no rates going up. On average you will see rates staying about flat accrues the city. Again we expect to see the same thing we saw at park where places where there are higher rates you will find a much cheaper rate around the corner. Similar question. A way for mta to make more money. Not raising rates. This is revenue neutral. This is going to be a revenue neutral program. It is using data, not using parking prices to make more money. The new smta. Com has an interactive web map and you can find the rate at any time. You can open it on your smartphone to see where the rates are. Again, this is something we are providing free to any developer, technologist who wants to use it. Some are taken us up on that. There are apps to find the price at any given time on any block in San Francisco. Outreach is very important. I wont read off the bullets. I think the point is we have been reaching out to as many merchant and business and advocacy groups anybody that has wanted a presentation i went to make the presentation to them. Overwhelmingly the reaction is thanks so much. When is this going to start . I think you have gotten emails and letters from interested parties, professor donald from ucla whose ideas this is based on has written in support. The chamber of summers representative will be here and someone will be here to talk. We have heard from the merchants association, have all supported this which is gratifying. I think where this has been rolled out, perhaps the best thing to say is it is a nonissue. Nobody notices, but except hopefully people are finding spaces faster and having a more satisfying visit to the neighborhood commercial districts. Should this board approve, we are ready to make the first Rate Adjustment mid january. Next year. The garages are rolling out with the demand responsive pricing as they get the systems installed. Again, this is something that we think will have minimal impact. There is no parking space closures required, no major changes. When you come in the next day perhaps there is a different rate on the meter in the morning than when you came by the day before. That is only changing 25cent per hour. It is notable based on the tests 80 of rates wont change. For the most part people wont see a change at all. In a lot of places we are hitting that arget occupancy. I want to thank a lot of folks involved in this. I cant name anybody. There are hundreds of people involved in the pilot to getting us to this point. The team during the pilot goals the traffic engineering, Capital Finance and accounting, the folks in the finance group who run the parking meter contracts. They along with the meter shop and it division have been working with me for 18 months to get the it Infrastructure Ready for Something Like this to get us ready to make these kind of demand responsive pricing changes to make us the first major city to do this at every meter in the city. We think it is a worthy project and something that is directed towards a lot of the goals. Thank you for your time and i hope you like what you hear. Thank you very much, mr. Wilson. It is fascinating to watch this evolve from the park pilot where we learned so much and seeing