Good morning or good afternoon already to everyone California bicycle coalition. How you doing? Good. All right. We're going to start this great panel. It's about the future of mobility. We have in this panel for private companies and one nonprofit. But the thing that you have to know is, for instance, Colin, I used to work with him at ITP. He's also a great bicycle advocate. And now he's working for Lyft. So also the case of Paul, he's an amazing bicycle and pedestrian advocate. We have been in events together and now he's working for Super Pedestrian. So it's great to have bike advocates working in the private sector, making sure that our voices are there. And we are going to deploy these technologies to benefit communities. We also have Jordan representing automotive because regulating the curb and parking spaces is critical for pedestrian infrastructure and bicycle infrastructure on our streets. And we also have Philip from Zooks, Autonomous Vehicles, right? And you have the right teacher. Is that the almighty bicycle coalition? Awesome. All right. So I'm here representing Orban Movement Labs. We are a non-profit in Los Angeles making sure that we are regulating all these new transportation technologies for the benefit of the communities. If you can just slide please. Because we are here trying to be in the middle of the private sector, the government and the communities. Because now we're leaving the through revolutions of transportation, electric, shared and autonomous. And as bicycle advocates, we have to make sure that these technologies will help us because we can be able to stop the nightmare in the streets. But these technologies can help us also to have the multimodal dream and the end of car ownership in our streets. So I'm going to stop here and start with a run of introductions. Who wants to start? Thank you. Thank you for anyone. Any of you in the room for the last panel really a terrific panel. Yeah, really amazing. One question that came from the audience was like, when are we going to get our act together and be the true all powerful bike lobby and be like the auto industry and have like the kind of political clouds really move things. And one question I'm asking myself as I'm now in the private sector and I'm trying to be a good capitalist at the same time also trying to be true to I think the values that many of us hold dear about cities. What is the new coalition of businesses that's going to match the car lobby right you know what's the combination of electric vehicles shared mobility, you know real estate, you know, public health technology that that can actually move, you know, major major policy that's just a question that might might come up as we're as we're discussing today but it's really a pleasure to be with you and I'll be super quick. I just have like three slides I think. So the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy itdp was was mentioned. You know, there's many fans in the room, and Jorge one of the questions you posed, but as you were organizing the panel is our electric cars enough, like a lot of people think that just electrifying cars is going to be the solution I know no one in this room believes that to be true but the question is like how can we fight that and itdp have this wonderful report that came out late last year, showing that just electrifying car fleets is not enough right we all know that we need a mode shift we need to compact. Compactify our cities, and if you're trying to convince someone that this is true this is a great report you can download from from their website next. And the findings, it's stuff that you already know. But again, I think one of the great things I'm learning here at Cal bike is how we can better organize better, you know, build more, you know, stronger projects to make all this a reality. So, I represent super pedestrian my colleague, Walter Rosencrantz is in the room. Hey Walter, Walter lives in San Diego. We work with Sharon Zang as well who has been terrific with our la fleet and building a terrific partnership with the Los Angeles County bike coalition which is maybe the most effective local group working in the United States today so great to represent LA CBC represented, but we're busy surveying our riders in all the 60 cities where we operate shared fleets of scooters and what's really exciting to me is like figuring out how all of the new scooter, electric scooter riders, many of whom have never really ridden a bike in the city before are having the same experience that we've all had about substandard infrastructure and car oriented streets and so, you know, how can we politicize these folks and help them understand there's actually something you can do about this problem. And so through like our partnership with LACBC and doing rider surveys and hopefully putting more resources so we can support this work more moving forward and that's our responsibility and the lift has been doing tremendous work in this vein, of course. Next. This is just a quick photo from a ride we did a bike scooter ride in Los Angeles as we were celebrating. It's kind of the kickoff of the fix sunset campaign, maybe, but still a lot to do on that campaign but really happy to be a part of it. Yes, yes. Yeah, so super pedestrian that we are going to be doing more here in Oakland with our fleet and hopefully in the Bay Area writ large in the weeks and months to come. But really, an honor to be part of the summit and just look for us out there on the street and again my name is Paul. And if you want to reach out. You know, we're fine with that. All right, thanks for the panel. Thanks so much, Paul. Next, Alejandra, do you want to, they have a great project about electric bicycles in Los Angeles so I have some slides here also. Hi, everyone. My name is Alejandra Alvarez. As mentioned, I'm the project manager with the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition. I'm fairly new to the bicycle advocacy world, but I have been a pedestrian and a cyclist for a very long time and a transit user. That was my primary mode of transportation prior to receiving my first e-bike, but I wanted to share about the e-bike encouragement program that we're having. We are partnering with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, as well as some amazing community based organizations in Los Angeles to provide small business and independently contracted delivery drivers with e-bikes so that they can do their local deliveries and not use their cars to do that. It's amazing. So, next slide please. So, this came about because the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power had their community emission reduction grant, which was looking to reduce the emissions in districts that were heavily polluted by cars, congestion, refineries, truck traffic, all of that. And the district that we are working with is in District 15, that's San Pedro, Wilmington and Harper City. And next slide please. We are providing them a month, a six month loan e-bike. We're using the Hemaway Step Through as you can see in this image. And what we're finding is that the small business is changing. A lot of folks are learning that e-bikes can be a huge benefit to their businesses and a lot of them are learning that they can even incorporate delivery services. And they, you know, can cut down that middleman, cut down on those contracts. And the reason we chose small businesses, because as a lot of you may know, they really struggled during the pandemic. A lot of them didn't have the resources to transition to delivery services. So, part of this encouragement program is to eliminate that financial barrier to making more sustainable, or using more sustainable methods of transportation, such as like e-bikes. And this is Andrea Ponte. She is at the summit today. So if you see her, say hi. I'm sure you see her on the app. She's been so active. But she provided our bike safety education training to the interested partners of the e-bike pilot, as well as the promotores, who are the community-based workers that we're working with to do outreach for the e-bike program. And they have just been fundamental in recruiting community members and small businesses who never thought this would be possible for themselves. So, super amazing. But yeah, as next slide. This is all of us. It was super awesome. We got about 10 people sign up from our first e-bike safety training in Wilmington. And so yeah, I'm super stoked. Next slide, please. Another project of mine with LACBC is working with seniors and teaching them that e-bikes can change their mobility. They can challenge their mobility. And it's super awesome because there's a lot of misconceptions about e-bikes that they're not safe. But I would disagree. As you can see, I'm a very short person. When I first got on an e-bike, it was really heavy. But once I'm riding on the streets, they're sturdy.  Yeah, so it's really an awesome opportunity to get to work with the folks in South LA and Long Beach, which is where we had our e-bike safety training for seniors and teach them that this new form of transportation can really improve their mobility today and in the future. And I just want to share a picture of me because, and Andrea, once again with the e-bikes, you know, that you see that large hill. That's something that I couldn't have done prior. And again, I use public transit as my main form of transportation for years. So when I got my first e-bike last summer, it really changed the way that I saw transportation and it made longer distance in LA possible for me. I can go up hills and yeah, it's super sick. So I wanted to show these pictures. Thanks so much, Alejandra. Thank you. Next, Phillip. So autonomous cars, are they going to be safer for pedestrians and cyclists or tell us about ZUKS? Sure. Thank you. Everybody, I'm Phillip here, some with ZUKS. We're an autonomous all electric vehicle company and more on that in a second. But before joining ZUKS, I used to work for the SFMTA in San Francisco. And so I got yelled at a lot by people on all sides, which usually meant we were doing maybe something right if we're getting yelled at by everybody equally. Maybe we were finding the middle ground. I don't know. It was a stressful job, though. So now we're working at ZUKS and I lead our city strategy. And so on the screen here, you see our purpose built vehicle. Our vehicle is designed to be fully autonomous, all electric. We're going to charge it with clean energy. And we aim to partner with transit agencies to make sure we're actually filling in that first last mile thing that everyone talks about and complimenting existing transit. So next slide. So to your question, safety is foundational to everything we do at ZUKS. One of our refrains is that it's foundational and then it's not our number one priority. Because as time goes on, priorities often change where we think that safety needs to be totally foundational because there's a huge opportunity here. AVs alone aren't going to solve the problems that we see on our streets, obviously, and I don't think we pretend that that is the case. But it is also true that 38,680 people died in 2020 on our roadways. It's over 100 people a day. And it's something that we shouldn't be standing for. And so there's a lot of ways that we can engage to make that not be the case. I also know that 94% of those crashes and of fatal and people get really injured are because the driver is distracted, drowsy or drunk. And so those human choices or errors are a big thing that AVs can help eliminate, along with things like safe systems approach and making our streets safer all around. So just a little more, not to make this too much of a ZUKS promo for a vehicle, but just a little more about how it works. You see that there's four seats that face each other inside. There's no steering wheel, no brake pedal. So it's not retrofitting an existing vehicle. It's a totally new thing. And it was designed so there's the optimal placement for sensors. You see those on the corners there. Radar, LiDAR cameras, all that works together to make sure that we have a redundant 306 degree view. So we can see all the way around, even if there's a failure of one of them, we can still see in all directions, which means we can see cyclists, other vehicles, pedestrians in way better way than most humans can. That's for sure.  One thing I'm really excited about is you see how the doors kind of slide open. So I as someone that bikes in San Francisco all the time and has been biking for many years in cities. Dooring is obviously a huge problem. So we're excited that this vehicle would have doors that slide open instead of pop open. And we're also working on a lot of features where if the vehicle sees a bike coming, it can just hold the doors closer a little while. So someone doesn't get out right when the bike is coming, give alerts on the phone. And we also have speakers on the outside that can pinpoint there's 32 speakers that can give alerts, both as they're coming up on a cyclist or pedestrian to say like, Hey, I'm here, but not in a really intense way. Just like I'm here. You know, don't freak out when you kind of feel my presence come because you can't hear people bike around electric vehicles. But that's kind of a problem right all of a sudden they're right up on you. You don't even notice. So we're working with people to integrate feedback to make sure that works.  So we've got four wheel steering you see in the bottom. The nice thing about that is it means we can pull in really close to the curb. So it's better for access, but also getting out of the way out of not double parking and actually using existing loading zones, something that we think we should be advocating for all over the city. And not just for us, but for anybody to really prioritize the curb. And we also can go bi directionally so we can pull in and then pull out and the lights change on the front and the back to show which direction you know why in the front obviously break lights in the back. But that means we don't have to do as many U turns three point turns stuff like that which are really big conflict points in the city in terms of efficiency but also that's where a lot of collisions happen. So I think that's it. And thank you. We think six is cool. Good to be here. So much senior policy, senior public policy manager at six. Thanks so much. And now we have Jordan justice CEO of automobiles tell us how management is important for cyclists and pedestrians and please introduce yourself.  I'm Jordan justice with the company called Automotives. What we do is largely work with transportation agencies as well as fleets to help repurpose curbs for more multimodal use as somebody in the last form was talking about maybe you guys were here. There's big problem if you bike the where you run into UPS shock or door dash car blocking a bike lane and it's increasingly problematic. And what we do more or less is help cities better understand what's happening on the ground and then manage the public right of way. As you all know how people getting rounded in cities is not strictly cars but that's primarily what the public right of way is used for. And so giving cities the tools to really analyze what percentage of traffic is passenger vehicles versus delivery vans versus bikes versus scooters so on and so forth. And then applying economics to to deliver events actually charging them for parking so that cities feel more comfortable allocating loading zones where it's needed and taking away metered spaces. We found in cities like L.A. and Santa Monica that we work in now 37% of parking in cities today is just double parking. It's not pulling into a parking spot. It's just stopping in the street and it's increasingly challenging and it's not going to get any better unless cities can start to really rain in the public right of way and make it accessible for all of its users. So that's what we do. Glad to be here with a great group of people who are much more well informed and smarter in space than myself but excited to learn and share a little bit about what we're working on. Thank you so much Jordan. Last but not least calling huge senior policy manager of new mobility at least. Hey, hello everyone. So that's right I manage the transit bike and scooter policy for lift in California. Most of you probably know lift as a ride hail company. It's also actually the largest operate of bike share in the country. We operate a lot of white labeled systems so city bike in New York. Bay wheels here in Oakland and San Francisco, Divi in Chicago and a handful of other systems also some scooter systems especially in Southern California. And in terms of where the future of mobility is going we think it's going away from kind of the current dominant model of owning a vehicle of ownership and toward a model that is more multimodal that is more shared. And and also probably I would say a model that's going to involve more public private partnerships between government and between companies like like lift and the other companies here today. You know the dominant model that the that we have seen in the US where you know most households own one car I think actually the average is like 2.2 cars in the United States. And you know the car works because it's very reliable for a wide variety of trips from two miles to 200 miles. It might not always be the perfect fit but it works it'll get you there. And the model that we're trying to build and I think a lot of the companies here are as well is breaking down that model and right sizing the options. So instead of owning a car you know you have access to a service that or more multiple services that will allow you to right size the mode to the kind of trip you need to make. If you need to just go a block you can hop on a mile you can hop on a scooter and you can take that trip and you can park it you know appropriately in the furniture zone on the sidewalk and you know leave it and go about your day. If you need to go a little further you can have an e-bike if you need to you know if it's late at night transit isn't running and you need to get home and you know it's going to be a really long wait for the bus you can use a ride hail. But you wherever you need to go you have an option that works and it wasn't really until recently that we've had the types of services and the types of models that would allow you to do that. And so oftentimes transit and a bike might have worked for 90% of your trips. But if you can't get to your grandmother's house out in the suburbs on Sunday evening for dinner you know you're still going to get a car because that was an important trip for you and so it's you know we saw people owning cars because the current set options didn't quite fulfill all their needs. The problem is once you own a car you have a sunk cost the only way you extract value out of that is by using it once you own the car and you've already committed to that sunk cost is actually often cheaper than transit or any other mode to use it and so that perpetuates the cycle of people own it becomes it's practical right it becomes cost effective it fulfills people's needs they own a car. And so I think like what I'm excited about a lot of the businesses here and Lyft is is coming up with services where you know they're flexible enough that they work for any of that and Lyft app you can now rent a car for a day. You can rent you know there's car rental car share scooters bikes you know it's a really full suite of options and I think you know that's the direction Lyft is going we think that's going to be competitive with car ownership that is squarely what we're trying to compete with. And I think we're going to start to see more of those options come around. I also think there's going to be a lot more public private partnerships because we see a lot of technologies advancing. But you know to Paul's point about you know kind of how the automobile ensconced itself so deeply in our lives and our cities and the way kind of you know every part of our streetscape is designed was because there was a big industry behind that and they were able to kind of push government in that direction. I think we've realized some of the mistakes there and now we have industries that really want that are building themselves around the kinds of options and travel behavior that we know cities need to take to be more sustainable to be more equitable. So I think you know these kinds of partnerships are also going to be really important. It's not just going to be like you own a car or you use public transportation. You know we're seeing a lot more innovative approaches. Even you know some of the partnerships that LACBC is doing with you know e-bikes. We're seeing a lot we're seeing many more diverse actors engage in more interesting partnerships to try to offer these these types of services to people and I think that's going to start driving changes and travel behavior. So that's that's you know at a very high level at a very you know at a lower level more practical level like where do we see it going. Our bike share business we definitely see moving more and more towards e-bikes the e-bikes right now across the country are getting three to four times the usage of the classic pedal bikes. So we see more e-bikes. That said our operations I can tell you are still complicated and costly for charging these e-bikes and servicing them. We think that's going to be offset by seeing more electrification of stations and charging on the street. We're realizing now you know if we can electrify for charging just 10 to 15 percent of our stations are most popular stations. Almost every bike cycles through you know if you look at a sudden if you look at the most popular stations in every city there's a couple things that are interesting. Almost all of them are at transit stations and that's certainly true in Oakland and in San Francisco. They're at the bar stations at the Caltrain stations also almost every bike in the system cycles through those top 20 stations every couple of days because they're so heavily used. So if we can electrify those and charge the bikes there we no longer need vans running around to swap batteries and we can have higher uptime availability of the fleets. Lowers the cost improves the experience for the customer and fewer VMT miles. So you know and that's going to require a lot more public-private partnership as well to get you know the trenches dug into have you know these types of electrified stations on streets with government. But we think there's a real dual benefit there where that's going to be better for our business. It's also going to be better for the city and that's the kind of mutual benefit that these public-private partnerships will build around and hopefully expand. So I'll stop there. I think I think that's where we see it going now. Thanks so much. So the first question to the panel is about is the end of car ownership because for instance I come from Mexico City and in Mexico City. If you can have a car only if you are like middle upper class or you're rich only 30% of the population move with cars but here in California especially in Los Angeles 90% of the population move with a car. So even if you are low income you need a car. Here a car is a necessity because we don't have a great public transit system. But these technologies can help us to start the end of car ownership and share cars and share micro mobility share autonomous vehicles right. So especially now that gas prices are raising and the wages are like the same. So how can we start these like to not have this burden of buying a car and maintaining a car. Thanks to these technologies. Who wants to start? That's a thousand dollar question. Thank you Jorge. I want to just answer in part by building off of something that Colin mentioned about you know multi-modality intermodality. Super pedestrian operates fleets of shared e-scooters and a lot of cities were in San Diego and that slide I showed where we asked people what their safety concerns are. We also asked a question about how often people use shared e-scooters to link to public transit. And our findings are very similar to NAPS's recent report North American Bikes for Association where approximately half of our riders are using shared e-scooters and bikes to access public transit. And in terms of specific trips something like 18 percent of specific trips are primarily to link to transit as that first and last mile thing. The interesting thing about the stat when you look at the cross tabs on the survey is that if you're a low income individual you're twice as likely to use shared micromobility to access transit. And I think there's probably a lot of reasons for that but one is it like if you're low income you probably live farther away from your job than if you're higher income right. If you're wealthy you have the luxury of choosing where you live and live in a walkable community likely or you know close to your place of work or you work at home. So you know thinking about equity and thinking about how intermodality and linking to transit is so much more important for low income individuals. And so that's incumbent upon us to figure out how to structure our services so that we're making it cheaper and easier for people to have an integrated trip. And so we have an upcoming report that we did with cities today where Robin Chase who's a known you know policymaker on shared mobility is exploring creative ways that we can work with public transit agencies SFMTA and others. And one of her really interesting ideas is to you know sort of a direct subsidy which I think we all love to have is as companies and maybe that's coming down the pike. But for now could we work with with transit agencies to offer shared rides or discounted rides in exchange for like advertising on the system because that's an asset that the transit agencies have. So that's just like one of many ideas in this this upcoming report that we're looking at to see how we can you know chip away at car ownership particularly among people who are captive to transit. Yeah. Just to add on to that. I mean I think we're seeing it and as you touched on there's so many more options than there used to be. You know for Zooks in particular our model is not a car that you can buy it's just a fleet of shared vehicles so you know once it picks you up and drops you off it picks up somebody else and takes them on their way in the all electric journey. And I think not only is the you know when I think about car ownership and how many people are dying on a roadways and greenhouse gas and all the negative things that come along with it. There's those like the easy things that you can picture which are like in San Francisco one third of public space is dedicated to parking. It's like what and in the city where land is so valuable where there's so many other better things we could be doing with it. We could building bike lanes. We could be building you know places for scooters we could build your charging docks. It sounds great. I like that idea. We can have parks. I mean in covid obviously we saw the pop up of like oh we should use parking spaces for sidewalk cafes. What a better way to use that space to activate businesses to let people enjoy themselves outside. So I think we're seeing it. I think it's going to take a while and I think it takes a lot of different options because there's so many different kinds of trips and so many things and finding ways to integrate. So I think that's what you said you know working with transit agencies and other places to make it so it's easy to find out what's the best way to make your trip and just have great exciting awesome options and revitalize our cities at the same time I think. Thank you. And yeah I totally think that e-bikes are the future. I think they're going to end car ownership because they're more accessible. They're increasingly more affordable and now there are more programs bringing into low income communities such as South LA where I'm from we're getting our first e-bike library and just like programs like that when we invest into communities who already use bikes as their primary form of transportation we're going to increase more bikes on the road. And especially with businesses who are often those are that are on the road they're conducting deliveries on a daily basis and by introducing incentive programs such as the LADWP e-bike pilot that we're working on district 15. We're hoping to see that more businesses are going to be inclined to using cargo e-bikes to do the deliveries not only because it's more affordable for their business but it's also more sustainable it's more efficient and it solves for a lot of the issues that cars have presented in our communities especially in densely populated areas and as mentioned there's so many types of e-bikes that are now being developed that it's a lot easier to travel on transit with e-bikes. I know that Hemaways aren't particularly great with that because they're huge and they're heavy and the wheels don't even fit on the racks but as we see more models starting to become available I think we'll see that folks will use it who are multimodal including myself. Sorry after you Colin. You know one thing came to mind as we were talking about this we've got a lot of new exciting options 20 years ago when there wasn't e-bikes when you couldn't just order a ride on your car you know if it was late at night and you know the bus wasn't running. When you didn't have these options it was really hard to transition away from cars right because there wasn't there wasn't always for many people a really good alternative. Now we're you know a lot of technology companies are building some really interesting high potential solutions but I do think that we're not going to see high adoption until we have also policies that start to restrict car use and start to kind of push people out of their comfort zone and into those. So we're going to you know we can I think every you know all the companies can come up with really great ideas but we are still going to need policy to back it up. And you know I think that is actually where you know most of the people in this room I imagine are advocates and I think that is where your work becomes really essential because you know you are getting you are developing the political capital that makes that kind of change possible. Right now a lot of Americans you know they don't want to change it's difficult and we can try to entice them with new services and we'll do that and we'll make some headway but it isn't until we have some policy change and I think that only happens through the outreach. You know all the outreach like you know you're getting more people to learn about these options they're supporting that like that kind of community ground game is the only way that we really ultimately get the change that we want it's like we're going to have to create other options there's going to be technology involved but there's going to be a lot of just political capital development community organizing and policy change that that's going to make it possible as well so really just see that partnership everybody in the room. Thank you and I just wanted to add on to something. It's really important to have these resources and communities who are in high need of multimodal transportation but like we also have to implement programs holistically and make sure that we're providing more than just e-bikes to communities. Are we providing e-bike safety training are we providing career opportunities and job employment and that's something that is happening in South LA that I'm really excited to share. Through this late z universal mobility pilot where we're bringing the e-bike library among other resources is that we're also bringing resources to the community to learn how to use the e-bikes that interact with the e-bikes and to move forward from that because we can't just go into communities and say here's a resource like that's not going to work and I think you mentioned community outreach that's key because a lot of the times the folks who are really trying to impact with these resources they're not in the room they're not being reached through our network. So I can't stress enough how important it is to work with your community if you're trying to improve mobility for folks who are in most need. Yeah I would just echo that I was in I was at a cities today conference with Salita Reynolds from Los Angeles who's like the Jeff Tumlin of LADOT last week and she was talking about the universal basic mobility pilot that they're doing which is providing mobility for 3,500 people I believe in South LA basically just a digital wallet where you can use an intermodal transportation whether it's a scooter or a bike even I think you can use Uber, Lyft but just providing transportation access to people who might not otherwise have it is really important because we have all of these other inherent subsidies for passenger vehicles for private car ownership whether it is free parking or even cheap parking or just all of the public right away that we've all invested in whether or not we fully agreed to it or knew the consequences. So now just starting to really think about from the policy lens how we reinvest in more multimodal intermodal transportation that's for the benefit of everybody but it really does start with policy and changing the built environment from what we've seen. Thank you so much. So the next question is about the design of our streets, because 100 years ago we invented the car, but then we destroyed our cities we destroyed communities and cars are great invention you know like we will use cars and but but yeah but we didn't know how to regulate cars and share the streets with cars. But now we have these new technologies. How these new technologies can help us to reclaim the streets maybe to have protected bikeways for micro mobility e-bikes shared streets without as low autonomous vehicles. I don't know how I think that's the ultimate goal of everything the street to really sign the street to be safe, equitable, sustainable. How these technologies can help us to do that. I just want to start off by saying that I think e-bikes kind of offset the issues that cars have presented in cities especially densely populated cities like one of the huge benefits to using e-bikes for existence or small businesses is that you're not stuck in traffic for hours you're not looking for parking parking is such an issue in LA as I'm sure it is in San Francisco and Oakland but I think e-bikes can offset that because they're just more efficient they're more effective at getting you around the city. And my dream of course would be to have open streets and more space for e-mobility. I think that would drive folks to use their e-bikes and to use their e-bikes more safely because as it is the current infrastructure is just not designed for folks especially folks of color to ride their bike safely. I mean totally agree. I was at the SFMTA when Oakland in San Francisco and a lot of other places were experimenting with the slow streets movement which is now all over the place and it's great right? It's like okay let's change the focus of how the street is used. Sure cars, bikes, people were all co-existing but let's focus on bikes, pedestrians and people activating the street instead of it being car centric. You know that's not right for every single street maybe but I think that's the kind of thing where if people have options if we rethink it don't consider what's the best way to get the most throughput for single occupancy automobiles as our main focus for street design then there's so many other options. There's so many other ways that we can live and you know I think everybody here knows that and everybody here is an advocate for better bike lanes and things like that. I mean as you mentioned parking being terrible and hard in LA you know well maybe that's great you know I think from a policy perspective parking should be expensive. It should be especially in a downtown core or someplace where it's really expensive and costly in terms of how much geometry is taken up by one person driving a car parking it leaving it there all day and then leaving it again. That should be really expensive and you should be then pushed into other options as long as there are good ones that a lot of folks can take advantage of. So yeah I think that's one of the key policy areas and then also if you start to think about what does congestion pricing look like?  How many people are in the vehicle? Different prices you know what's your income? Like there are ways that technology can foster that kind of relationship where again you're nudging people in another direction and you're also making revenue for the city to make investments in things that continue to exacerbate those other changes. So I think that's a huge opportunity too. I mean this is the tough question how do we get the change in the streets? I think I have two thoughts you know one and I've kind of mentioned both already like number one I think that we have to build political capital to do that. Like there has to be outreach and people have to feel like they've been heard they've been reached and they're okay with these changes or they're just not going to support. You know we see it all the time like San Francisco a very progressive place loves bikes but it's very hard for us to get a station cited there. You know Bay Wheels has for five years been trying to complete its station plan get all the bike share stations. We still run in we still run into every single day the question of what you can take that parking spot right. You know even in a place where we you know we have modeling we can show like we take this one parking spot maybe two we're going to serve 150 bike trips a day. You know instead of four car trips or 10 car trips we still can't get that spot so like a lot of the solutions are now known but the political capital is still not always there to support it. And you know I think I think a lot of that work is being done by a lot of the advocates here in the room and that's super important. The other piece though I think it comes back to as well is this idea of car ownership. And because once you own a car you are invested financially it's probably for most households the most or the second most expensive thing that they own. And they're invested in protecting that they have to have a place to park it they want to make sure you know but when they go to the store and when they go home. And so that is I do think that if we can erode the model of car ownership. Maybe you know people are still using cars for car share ride hail occasionally but they don't have that some cost so when they don't need a ride share. I think then they're going to you know in transit works or any bike works it's faster it's cheaper they're actually going to use it. And you know I do think we have to erode that model. I started my career actually at itp as Jorge mentioned working in China on emissions modeling. I do these big math models the only modeling I've ever done. Mathematically that is I used to say I did a lot of modeling. The most massive models the most sensitive variable in the model was all at the time we thought you know there's this idea of avoid shift improve avoid car trips. Avoid trips when you can't avoid the trip shift it to a less intensive mode. If you can't shift it to a less intensive mode from a car you improve the emission technology and that's how we're going to like fix carbon. But our models continually showed us that that wasn't actually the case. If people owned cars they would drive them and once they owned the car there was very little we could do we could put a BRT lane in from their house we could put a bike share station there. But if they owned a car they were still going to drive it almost just as much. And so you know I do think there is like we have to break the investment that's so much of the country has in that parking spot and in that car otherwise we just have you know too steep of an uphill battle. So the question is like how can we get more infrastructure built you know it's such a grind right like we all work on this it's so hard just getting one parking space. Repurposed or getting one obviously like amazing bike lane built and I know LA is particularly hard because you may have all these local council members who can pretty much veto stuff. But you know in New York where I worked for many years on these problems. Often the breakthrough moment came when we activated a new constituency right like a new coalition partner who wasn't there before. Maybe like a conservative business association who saw that more people were going to like you know frequent local local shops and businesses. So thinking about how technology can help help the breakthrough I mean. I mean I know we all have mixed feelings about Amazon for example but the fact that they're now moving towards more micro electric delivery and using bike lanes and using the curb and hopefully more efficient ways. Like you know that's an experience perhaps an exciting new constituency that can like lead to major breakthroughs. I heard one depressing thing recently Jeanette Sadekhan was at NACTO many of you know Jeanette's work. She was we were talking about the new infrastructure bill right there's all this money now available for the kinds of facilities that we all want to see. And so the question that Jeanette was getting like what's the obstacle like what's the limiting factor and it turns out that right now all that money that's available from Washington for these kinds of facilities isn't flowing because there aren't enough people to actually write the applications and get them in on to actually like tap the money. So it's like you know we have all these grand dreams for how to reshape our cities but undoing 100 years of car centric planning is really ultimately seems like a real grind. But we all do the work and we're all looking for that next breakthrough and it's just so inspiring to see how it's happening at the ground level. And when when Los Angeles changes when Sunset Boulevard changes the world notices right. So I think those are going to be amazing breakthroughs. I guess I would just add to just echoing what Paul said that community engagement from what we've seen is just the most important piece because somebody is trying to do something with your public right of way. You know maybe it's you maybe it's not in Detroit they're dedicating an entire lane of traffic strictly to autonomous vehicles, which has gotten some pushback but probably not as much as it should. I mean, whether or not you guys know what other companies whether it's Ford or not to have new other companies trying to take your public right of way. So we need to ensure that people from the community who are going to be affected by are involved in those conversations and not, you know, consequently impacted by them two years later. Thanks so much. Another question and then we open the questions to the audience. So, some of these technologies could be expensive for low income families or marginalized communities. Maybe booking a shared autonomous car could be costly renting even a scooter could be a cost. So the question is how we can accelerate that these technologies can help marginalized communities because new mobility devices are coming. For instance, even the flying cars are coming like we're running mobility is coming like the new generation of helicopters. And we want to make sure that all these private companies are investing in marginalized communities and that these technologies are helping marginalized communities. So now we have the opportunity with these new technologies to help share with us your work or your thoughts about how these technologies can help the everyday transportation needs of marginalized communities. I'm happy to kick it off going off something that I heard somebody much smarter than me you say a couple weeks ago. But how we typically have measured the costs of transit is pretty broken. When you look at transportation, especially from like an MTA or a local agency perspective they look at it from a cost per rider how much does it cost them to provide a ride from Oakland to San Francisco. And then they measure you know the revenue based off of that but they're not looking at the total economic output of providing access for disadvantaged communities to higher paying jobs and other communities. They're not looking like soup to nuts. What are we getting out of this what are we providing to the community beyond just a cost of $6 and 25 cents to run this bus, but really looking at, you know how much value can we provide and measuring the total output for the community from a socio economic perspective not just a revenue and cost perspective and I think there are agencies and cities that are looking at doing that now but that's what we've seen as a shift in the industry that I think will make a difference. I'll go just real quick building on that I mean I think you know one way is to have really good public private partnerships so you think about since that works for the MTA think about some of the routes in San Francisco that you need to have a route you want to have a route you want people to have access, but the bus comes every 30 minutes doesn't come on time, and one person is riding on this 40 foot bus, most of the time to go, you know, 10 blocks that's a really inefficient use of funds but also you don't want to remove transit access or someone like that. A model like zoos or another shared fleet can be a really good partner there I mean I know I know lifts on some work on this too but focusing on those transit deserts and helping decrease the money that the agency has to spend and still providing that access so then you're going to, you know, the BART station you're going to the light rail station you're going to another bus station, and then you're taking that cost off of what the transit agency would have to pay so I think that's one angle another angle is thinking about what kind of programs, what kind of pricing models you can have how do you bring your prices down, generally to make there be more access, but also finding ways to do some kind of means testing or have specific types of programs that work. And last but not least, as you said outreach, you know, I think with some of these technologies, they look weird, and they are weird or they are different or they are seemingly complicated how do you work with people to help them get comfortable with it, but also take feedback in and understand what is it that you want I mean it's so often that, you know, you know, go into communities or a planner goes into a community and says like oh here's a great option for you, why isn't anyone doing this great thing that I came up with. And if they would have flipped it around and said, what do you need, what do you want, where do you want to go, how's this going to work, and then you find solutions afterwards. You can actually make something work as opposed to just planning through what you think is the right thing for for community maybe don't even know about. See, you know, I think it's the responsibility of operators to make sure that you know what the product we have. We've we've we've decreased and address barriers that marginalized communities will face to use, you know, it's our responsibility to make sure that we have our app available in, you know, multiple languages that you can use cash to access it, that we have, you know, methods. If you don't have a smartphone, like those are the those that's like table stakes. And then, you know, the operators need to be doing everything they can to make sure the system is equitable when we're talking about micro mobility. But I think we also have to be have to be honest that if the expectation is that it serves everyone in a community, like a public utility, equally that a private company is probably not going to be able to to finance that in all of the places where. It doesn't where it's not profitable and micro mobility services are not going to be profitable in every single part of every city. And so I do think there's going to be there's got to be a public fund conversation at that point to, you know, to subsidize it. If we really want to have the service every you know there's one thing to have a product that could be used by everybody but there's another thing actually deliver it everywhere. And, you know, I think that's a tough reality but, you know, when we also look at micro mobility, it is in every city I think the least subsidized mode of travel, or in many cities it's the only mode of travel that is not subsidized in any way. And, you know, I think it's easy for us to look at that and there's probably like some we should address the awkwardness about somebody from Lyft saying, you know, hey, we would need some public funds to do this. I think like that is not that's not something that's commonly done in the US. Actually, a lot of the best transit systems in the world are privately run with public dollars to very strict contracts a lot of Japan, a lot of European systems that those are, you know, these are those public private partnerships that I was talking about, but to really deliver the service everywhere. That's what it would take it, you know, micro mobility and bring some of the probably the most benefits to a community for every dollar spent. It's odd then that it would be the only mode, you know, in the Bay Area, it's we don't get any public subsidy to operate the system.  You know, that's if our goal is really to serve everybody, it's, you know, with micro mobility, micro mobility should probably be getting some of the same levels of subsidy, you know, to serve everybody, but also just so it's that period and can compete with the other modes that do have the luxury.  I think it's super important. I think it's absolutely justified. Are there ways to make it more efficient? Absolutely. We've got some good ideas on the panel for that. But, you know, obviously, driving is also heavily subsidized. No one's paying the true cost of driving of parking of gasoline. So, you know, for micro mobility to compete to compete against other modes and to serve like public utility, it's going to need, I think, public funding to get there. And with public funding, we also need like public representation, like I, you know, especially y'all who are in like corporate positions is you need to pay attention to community members and their needs and where we should even have these micro mobility resources, because if we're going to bring ports, if we're going to bring back libraries, if we're going to bring, you know, all other resources with my micro mobility, we need to ensure that they're actually going to reason to communities that are in need of these and know how to interact with them and that they're even aware that they're there, because oftentimes they're not. So that looks like holding space for community members to learn about these resources and also provide their input. And when they provide that input, take it into account when you're implementing programs because too often what happens is we have all these great ideas that are a huge benefit to low income folks but then we bring them to communities and they're not utilized because half the people don't aren't aware of it and then half the time it's just poorly implemented. So, I know that we have some really, really great things coming in south that way, but as a member of the resident advisory committee and the universal basic mobility pilot it is my responsibility empowered community members to be community leaders and speak up about what they want in their community and that is often what's going to drive to adding more bike infrastructure to their communities because they don't know that they have equal voice in this policymaking and decision making so I can only say that I encourage that folks in the private sector to always work with the community in mind otherwise your programs are not going to be affected and they're not going to reach the target audience and I hope that we continue to do that. I hope that this cow bike summit is bringing some great ideas to the table and that folks leave with a better idea of what it means to truly implement community-based programming. Thanks so much. We're going to open to the audience questions. George should raise your hand. Can you use the microphone so that people at Zoom can? I don't need one. Okay, sure, yeah. So I'm going to push a little bit on the micro mobility folks because mostly they're transit extensions, right? As somebody cited a statistic, there's some amount of just point to point use of micro mobility, but a lot of it is extension. Okay, right now there's a bill in the California Legislature SB 917 sponsored by Josh Becker from the peninsula that would require all the transit agencies in the Bay Area to co-operate on fare integration, wayfinding, scheduling, etc. In order to make a better user experience and to really get, ring the most value out of our transit system. And I would say to lift and to other people who want to provide micro mobility, you need to be on that system, right? If I'm going to, if I'm going to, if I'm going to have an integrated transit experience, that's going to have to include first and last mile, right? So how are you thinking about it in terms of saying, yes, there needs to be public support for micro mobility. And yes, we need to come under the democratic management, right, of our agencies, right, that have elected boards that say, no, do it this way and don't do it that way. Is everybody up for that? Yeah. So much there to unpack and talk about, but I think maybe most, most importantly, if micro mobility has a future, a good future, a strong future, an expansive future, we have to prove that we're equitable. And we also have to prove that we're complimenting, not cannibalizing transit, right? We have to be perceived as a public good on order of like good buses that are frequent and reliable and the rest. You know, we just completed an integration with Bart and we're working on like the next sort of steps of that. Our company, you know, the company I work for, Super Pedestrian, we came out of the MIT Urban Planning School. So we're sort of transit nerds to the core. We'd like to think we are and trying to stay stay close to those values. And we see our future as integrated in three different ways with transit. One via fair integration and planning, right? It's got to be, you know, steamless as possible. And that's the, you know, the monster revolution that still hasn't quite come yet. But like, I think we're up to like six or eight integrations with local transit systems now in the 60s cities that we operate and much more come. Second, there's like a physical infrastructure integration, right? Where like, you know, nesting bikes and scooters at stations. You know, we have a partnership with the wonderful company in New York City called UNI, which I think is a Japanese word for like a protective pod. But citing those, you know, bike and scooter parking facilities right at transit stations, you know, getting that prime real estate at the curb or right next to the transit station. And then third and Dana from ITDP speaks a lot about this. There's like a cultural integration, right? And that gets to like the public-private partnership, you know, trying to figure out how we can all have the right seat at the table to make sure that as these new technologies come onto the scene, we're not reinforcing old inequitable investments in ways of moving around. And so I think, you know, the sort of digital, physical and cultural integration is what's required. Yeah, also, we really want to be more integrated with transit. You know, Lyft right now has real-time transit in the app. If you have it on your phone right now, you can see when the next bus is going to pull out real time. And also, if you use Bikeshare while you're here, if you have a, I think you have to be a member.  But the Clipper card is actually the fob we use in the Bay Area to unlock the bike.  These are pretty, I mean, that's great, but you're talking about a deeper integration. You're talking about potentially fare integration. And we have worked to explore that here in the Bay Area and in other, many other markets. And it's very tough. You know, I'm forgetting the name of the company that like basically runs all fares for all major transit systems. Thank you. Cubic, thank you. Cubic, you know, does not want other companies to have access to how the fares are paid, the accounting becomes difficult. So we have, we have barriers there, it's certainly not simply that operator like a mobile operators want to do that. And I think the way we look at this is if we want to see transit succeed, we don't feel competitive with transit because we know that we have this larger view that when we have a mobility ecosystem, as a lot of people call it, where that's really good, where there's lots of low-cost trips for commuters on transit, and there's bikes and scooters for the awkward trips in between, and there's ride-hailing for late at night, then people aren't going to need to own a car. We need all of it to get somebody to get rid of a car. It can't just be expensive ride-hailing trips, and it can't just be bike and scooter trips. It's got to be the whole picture, and transit's obviously got to be a part of that. And so we want to see transit succeed and we want to be as integrated with it as possible. I think as Paul was saying, that's really the only way for it to be as expansive as its potential would allow. Yes, hi. Everything that Yelp talked about so far is being applied to a dense urban setting, at least from the examples given. And I'm curious about either direct experience or perspectives on applying this to either developing and growing regions that haven't met these kind of levels yet, or areas that are not going to reach that level, and how the conversations around transit and micro-mobility applies there. Yes, so Sparks are communities, suburbs, small towns, newly developing communities. That's growing regions. Yeah, some of the most exciting work on this, one of my old friends, and I'm old, so I have old friends, who graduated from the Rutgers Planning School, who now works for the EU and Brussels. He's a Eurocrack. But it's interesting to see what's happening in Europe with suburban, new developing communities in the hinterland, and communities that aren't really served by transit, or if they are, it's very infrequent transit. And e-bikes are making a huge difference there. We have so much to learn. And if you look at the average e-bike trips, the trip lengths, and it's amazing. I don't know what your E-bikes are doing longer journeys than your pedal bikes, I presume. E-bikes are like three plus miles, and the average trip lengths are like one point ten. Yeah. And even with scooters, you know, since the pandemic, we're seeing average trip lengths go from like 1.1 to like 1.7, you know, two miles. And in smaller, or Sparks are communities, like Manhattan, Kansas, you know, or Asbury Park, New Jersey, we're seeing a lot of usage for those longer trips and people figuring it out. The last thing I'll say is we did a study recently for Stockholm, the city of Stockholm, where, you know, and I think this is another place where we might have a thing or two to learn from the Europeans, but a lot of climate money is coming into transportation, right? Like how can we achieve mode shift? How can we reduce carbon with transportation? So, you know, municipalities like Stockholm are asking the question, what would it take from a subsidy point of view to make sure that every single person in suburban Stockholm has access to an e-bike or a scooter? And like, let's figure that out. And yeah, it's going to cost us a billion dollars, but guess what?  And so, I think a big task for our movement is to like make sure we're at the table when all that climate money really starts flowing because it's about to happen. And the question is, how do you prevent the car trips from happening in the future in these newly developing communities? And that's the answer. I would just add too, we work with a number of cities that are smaller relative to, you know, Oakland and San Francisco cities like Omaha, Columbus, and they don't have a lot of baggage that cities like, you know, San Francisco or Oakland or Los Angeles do from cars. And so in a lot of cases, they have more of a blank slate and they're able to take advantage of that and use that to their advantage from what we've seen for micro mobility and the likes. Thanks. So first one question for anyone who wants to answer it. What do you think is the most important policy change to discourage private vehicle ownership and encourage back use? And a question for the guy from Lyft. Why is it so much cheaper for my wife and I to have a chauffeur like up here at our place and drive us to where we want to go than to rent two e-bikes in San Francisco? You think you got me, but I got you. First question, I think it's congestion pricing to keep, to get people to not drive. But I'll go in a little more depth. So the pricing for our bikes is built on the idea that we have two types of customers for the bikes. There is the person who lives in the town and could use this to commute every day. And that's the person we're trying to sell a membership to. And so we want you, and that's actually kind of, that's what the city wants to. They want, we want to sell you membership because we know once you buy a membership, you use our bike five times more. And the city love and like we have share goes with the city. So that's great for us because then we know we have a customer locked in for the year. That's super supportive to our system makes it more sustainable. And then it accomplishes the city's goal of getting you to bike more and like use it as a community habit. The other customer that we serve is a tourist. And it's oftentimes, especially in a city like San Francisco, an actual tourist who flew here from somewhere else, or it's someone who wants to just ride a bike to maybe a local, but wants to ride through Presidio for the day because it's beautiful out. Those are the folks that have the tourists essentially subsidize the system for the commuters.  But from what we've seen, those tourists are willing to pay that if it's your one day in San Francisco and it's sunny out and you want to ride through the Presidio and do a tour, you're willing to pay $15 for a bike trip. If you're commuting to work $15 for a bike trip sounds totally insane. And that's why we have that other mode where we're trying to sell you a membership. And originally when bike share launched, this was very clear. Most bike shares didn't even had, they had a one day pass or they had sometimes a week pass and then a membership as bike share has evolved. Now we are selling single trip fares and they're really high. But it's because the single trip fair was never meant to be like a commute or for someone who lived and had access to the system on a daily basis. We are always trying to make the best deal possible that membership because that's where you ride more. And so if you're only riding once, I know it's annoying. It seems like a really high price. Think of it as this though, what we're trying to do is dissuade you from riding once with that high price and persuade you to ride every day with a really cheap membership. Your first question is like so fun to think about, right? And can you just restate it again? Yeah. So like, you know, ultimately important policies. Yeah. Two. So I get two. Okay. So two.  I mean, and when we think about what's really going to work, you think about the platonic ideal and then you think, okay, what's really politically achievable. And we're in a special moment right now with gas prices, of course. And I'm not quite old enough to remember the early 70s. I was born in 1970. I don't quite remember the 1973 oil crisis that we had. But that was when we had this enormous flowering of environmental consciousness. The organization I worked for for many years, Transportation Alternatives was founded in 1973. When was SFBC founded? Maybe the same sort of era, I think. And so we're in this really like, I think, pregnant sort of place right now, hopefully. And, you know, one interesting policy would be to simply like, say, look, we're going to keep gas prices high. And, you know, essentially they're going to come down after like the various crises of a beta bit, but they're still not going to like, go back to $2 or $1 down. But there's going to be an increment there. And let's take that increment and invest, you know, for, for like national security reasons, you know, for public health reasons, for safety reasons, for everything else, and let's give people a rebate or some kind of earned income tax credit, you know, so if you're low income, you get a bigger, and that's the transportation subsidy that people get. And so it would be sort of a national program to essentially reorient all of our transportation subsidies more around shared mobility, green mobility. So that's an interesting one. And then some combination of like a carbon tax and congestion pricing would be awesome. Then if I get a third, it's like parking reform, right?  And, you know, long term, that's, that's a great, you know, policy as well. So adding an electric motor to a bicycle being already really effective mode of transportation like creates an even more capable machine that can carry more and go farther. But the thing that I've been thinking about a lot is how can sophistication of the shared devices in particular be improved to improve public safety for like the riders and also pedestrians? I'll be quick. So we have we have a new technology called pedestrian defense, which is trying to get at that contextual safety for, you know, we've all seen like the scooter revolution and then a lot of pushback because scooters are cluttering up the right of way. And, you know, I think we all agree that like, yeah, exactly, like, like micro mobility doesn't have a future for not investing and integrating with transit. We also don't have a future if you know, people are complaining about tripping over scooters on the sidewalk or riders on the sidewalk. And so it's a new technology that essentially prevents scooters from it's a very sophisticated sort of granular level geofencing integrated with the motor. So if the scooter crosses that boundary under the sidewalk, it cuts off and slows down stops. And same if you're going the wrong way. And so this is like a great new thing. And the biggest question we get at super pedestrian is like, when are you going to put that on cars? So we might have something to say about that this summer with some licensing deals with some automotive companies, but getting back to the Amazons of the world, you know, they're coming up against the same problem where they have these fleets of electric cargo bikes and people are saying, Hey, get those things off the sidewalk, or why are you blocking the bike lane? And so I think, you know, technology can be a force for good. And then hopefully this is where micro mobility, I think is maybe helping to set the bar for like the level of safety standards that we want to see all vehicles operating in cities in here too. Just real quick. So I know this is kind of the opposite of the question, but from the AV perspective, one thing that we're looking at and that Zucs is doing is, you know, a lot of people don't enter the mixing zone correctly when they're driving. I see that all the time. That's where you get the right hook problem, right? You sneak up on someone and then you get smashed. My friend actually just broke his collarbone doing that a couple of weeks ago. Really not great, but programming these vehicles to do the right thing when they're supposed to, they know what the speed limits are. They know when you're not supposed to go right on red, they know how you're supposed to enter a mixing zone and they're able to communicate with the bike. You know, some of those things are, I think, really important and AVs and also just more automation of personal vehicles, even though we sort of hope they go away. There are some great technologies that are coming out there that can help with that too. Yeah, you know, super pedestrians, you know, taking a lot of leadership and developing some of these technologies, you know, Lyft, we are also doing a sidewalk sensing technologies to make sure like, you know, scooters aren't written on the sidewalks and being hazards to pedestrians. And that is all really important. It's really great to see the technology advance and being used for these things. At the same time, I think, you know, I also always want to say, we also, we should be developing those tools and implementing them. And then of course, at the same time, we always need to just make sure that sometimes I think it's like, where is the onus, the responsibility is it on bikes and bikes to have all these gadgets to avoid cars that would hit them? Or do we have to wear all these pads? Right? It's like, I'm all for the safety technologies, but like, let's just all like never let it take away from most of the need for the safety infrastructure. Because, you know, there's, there's the stat, the countries where people actually wear the least amount of bike helmets like Denmark. And those are the places where they're the safest. And obviously, causation correlation are not the same thing. The causation there is the infrastructure. And like, I think we're all, you know, in a lot of the pedestrian scooter collisions, it is the result of scooter users. They're not, they're not on the sidewalk to be jerks. They're on a sidewalk because they don't feel safe in the road. And so like, if we can give them the place on the street, you know, proper safe lane, you know, I think we can also minimize some of those conflicts. Things are moving in the right direction technologically, but we also need to build the infrastructure. It's cool that like lifts and super pedestrian, I imagine most cities today require micro mobility companies to report data through a system called MDS mobility data specification that LADOT came up with. And they use a lot of the data that companies like super pedestrian lift to report around, where are we stopping vehicles because they're going up on a sidewalk, and then informing that to create more bike lanes. And so a lot of these things, the policy and technology conversations are really, you know, trying to roll in the same direction at least. Unfortunately, or fortunately is launch time. I'm sorry for all the questions that we didn't take, but the panelists will be here at the summit. Thank you so much for being here. This means a lot to be all the bicycle community here. Thank you to all the panelists calling Philip, Alejandra, Paul, Jordan. Thank you so much. Enjoy your lunch.


over the academic proficiency of the students that they're going to be testing. So I know, for example, the junior year, every high school has to test for their science. And that's not something that currently the Tech Center offers. So it becomes problematic. So some of the models I'm kind of looking for us to think about are, there's a few ways it could go. One is, we could continue to do what we do, but increase our staffing and make sure that we really are able to amp up the academics, but it's going to mean a pretty significant tuition increase. The other route we could take is we could move to a half day model where there's a level one and a level two. So maybe the seniors go in the morning, juniors go in the afternoon. They'd have half a day at their partner's school to do all of their other classes. The challenge with that model in this area is population. I'm concerned that if we divide those into two levels, we actually might be hurting our program. So I want to look at that really closely. I think the model in my mind that I want us to really think about is the model where we have the kids for four hours. And it's similar to what CBCC does. The idea would be that either in the morning or the afternoon, whichever way we wanted to plan that with the partner's schools, they would have their classes at their partner's schools and then they'd be with us for a chunk of four hours to be in their technical program. So I think the option for either half day or the four day without academics would allow us more than likely to lower our tuition because as our enrollments grow, we're actually going to be getting more money from the state. So it's a double win. So it's just something to think about as partner school folks on the board to kind of start having that conversation. And don't be afraid to email me and let me know what your thoughts are. That's all I wanted to talk about in that section. So before we move on, Jessica and do you have any questions or Meg for Felicia on what she presented? Felicia, I'm curious, is this something that you would want to roll out for the start of like fall 2022? Well, I don't think that's possible because everybody's in the process of getting their budgets approved. And my guess is this change would require potentially some additional staffing at the partner's schools. I'm not positive of that, but if it could happen for the fall of 2022 and everybody was on board, it would be amazing. But right now we've got a plan to continue to have academics through this year, this next year. Yeah, the one interesting thing, let me let this person in. The one interesting thing about it we were thinking is that the board has already kind of announced tuitions for next year. With these changes, potentially the tuition would be less. And so I don't think it's necessarily a hindrance, but we have to just check with the legal eagles and say, hey, you know, if we're past the announced tuition state, is there a way to go out and change the tuition at that point in time? Yeah, the other possibility is that we have to give back any excess money above 3% at the end of the end of the fiscal year anyway. So if we kind of overcharge them because we changed the program, you know, we could guarantee them that, you know, they would be getting and that money would be going back to me. Yeah, at the end of the year. So that it is it is possible for next year. There are just some things we'd have to check out. Jessica. Hi, everyone. Jessica Van Derren from Pain Mountain. So I guess I am curious with a proposal such as this, when would this be presented to the sending schools? Would we receive an outline so that we can bring it back to our boards and discuss or how would that work? Yeah. Right now, the tech center is in the middle of a comprehensive local needs assessment. So we're going to be sending out a full load of surveys to all of our stakeholders, which would include you all. It'll include building administration and guidance counselors. It'll include students who are not currently in technical education and those that are. So there's a variety of folks that will be surveyed through this process. And I think one of the questions I've already kind of put in that survey is which schedule is most appealing to you with the idea that, you know, every stakeholder has a different lens that they're looking through, you know, as a partner school, you're looking at how am I going to staff and you're going to be looking at how am I going to have my students proficient and, you know, busting and transportation. There's a variety of factors there, but also tuition costs is right now the way technical education is funded. It's it's challenging because it, you know, those dollars follow the child. So I do think that's going to change eventually, but right now that's the system we're in. And so, you know, those are the things, the conversations that I think every school needs to have is what's our goal here. And I think for us as a technical center, we want to be able to keep the heart of what we're there for. I think right now, to be really honest, we're pulled in so many directions that I don't think we're doing any one thing terribly well. And the one thing I really want to do well is I want kids to have those technical skills that they're supposed to walk away with and be truly proficient in them. So that's my lens and my my thoughts on it. Did I answer your question, Jessica? Yes, thank you. And Felicia, I'm sorry, I have one more question. Have you been able to successfully find that long term sub for English history and math? Okay, so funny question. So we hired someone and it didn't work out. And then we've kind of been tag teaming that class in terms of integrating academics into the programs in terms of English. Jen Joles and Jason Finley have been in there working with the kids. They did a lot of work on portfolios and writing their resumes and their about me statements. And then Jen also worked with them on an essay, a pretty large essay that they just completed in the last bit of the quarter. So I feel content that we've completed last semester with Ernest. In terms of this semester, we were still faced with the fact that we had no applicants. And so with that, we turned to BTBLC. We decided we would have the kids that needed those credits be enrolled in the, from out learning, you all know what BTBLC is, I just want to, okay. So they've enrolled in that. If they did not need additional credits, like for the English, some of them, it was able to be embedded in their program. So those changes were made. We have about eight students that need that additional English credits. So they're doing that. And we have about 38 maybe kids that need US history. So those two classes, they're doing that way. The way we started it just barely started this week. It's been a team effort between myself, Jason Finley, Jen, Dana Decker, and we've all kind of taken turns being in there with kids and working with them in the English and history classroom, you know, to be that person that's helping them to kind of stay on task and get that work done because our kids don't learn this way. This is going to be challenging. With that said, long way to get to your answer is Tuesday, I think it was, I got an application from a very qualified candidate. And we just interviewed him today. And I will be offering him the position once you get stuff in. He was great. He's local. He is interested in potentially doing like getting his licensure and doing this beyond this year. So that's pretty exciting. We also this week got a candidate to do the math long-term subbing position, who is also pretty awesome. So we're feeling a lot better today than we did a week ago. Perfect. Thank you so much, Felicia. I think you can continue with the floor as we talk about recruitment, enrollment, and retention. Absolutely. So we have 220 applications in the system, 30 of which are incomplete, meaning they started them and they did not finish them for some reason or another, or they might be a duplicate. We just this last week went through applications. We have accepted 131 kids. We have waitlisted 50 who have some growth to do this year. So we've kind of outlined in our letters the things that they need to work on this year at their partner school in order to be considered again in the spring to come to us. So I think the idea here is this benefits the partner schools as well, because these kids have a carrot dangling in front of them that they know if we say to them, your attendance is awful, you need to fix this before we talk again. My hope is that they really want to be there. They're going to work on that stuff. So hopefully it's mutually beneficial. They will also receive the appeal process with their letters so that they know what they need to do to ask for entry in the spring. We have nine applications in there that just haven't been processed. They must have come in later or we're waiting on information from a guidance counselor, etc. So we're at a total of, you know, we definitely have 131 kids, but we have the potential to be over what we can actually have at capacity. So but we're trying to make good decisions. We're trying to make sure that the kids are in the right program for the right reason. Are there any questions for Felicia on that? All right. Felicia, don't stop. Now let's talk about professional development. So we spent some time on our last in-service day working on a new mission statement, and it was a real team effort. We're pretty excited about it. I think it's more better captures kind of what we're about. And it just kind of more accurately expresses our purpose. I think that's one thing that was hard when I got this position was there was a lot of competing ideas about what our purpose was at the Technical Center. And I think even amongst our community that that's hard to know. So I feel like we've kind of gotten to a good place with that. Also, we have a climate and culture committee that has been working hard on trying to build our our culture and our climate in a positive direction. These two years have been challenging, as I know they have been in every school. So we're trying to make sure that we are taking care of our staff, making sure we're hearing them, making sure our kids are feeling secure and safe. So one of the things you'll see is we've developed some new awards. You're going to hear them on the radio after next Wednesday for quarter two. And they're also the climate and culture committee has taken over the responsibilities of planning the assemblies, which is awesome for me. And they are actually going to have the student ambassadors have a lead on that. And they're also going to have a fun day after the assembly. So it's really going to be a school-wide celebration, which I think we're pretty excited about. I've got for you on that. All right. Any questions for Felicia on any of that? Thanks, Felicia. I think that that focus on culture for the students and the staff is really important right now. And I certainly do appreciate those efforts that you're making. So thank you so much. So both Felicia and Lane, do you have anything to report out in addition to what we've heard? I think, you know, I think there's a lot of commendation that should go to Felicia and her team over the budget planning process this year. I mean, one of the reasons they're looking at potentially changing up what the day at RTCC looks like is because of concerns about, you know, climbing tuition rates. And one of the things that she's facing, she's actually in a really good spot because the enrollments are going up through the roof. The problem is it's a three-year lag time before the money from the state catches up to what our enrollments are. So, you know, next year, for example, she'll be getting funding to help her out with 128 students, but she'll probably have 150 students in programs or in excess of that. And so she's done a really good job of managing the financial aspects to keep the tuition in a reasonable rate. So just to commend her for that, the financials for RTCC look good. You know, we're looking at the December financial report that we have, so you would expect them, you know, given the way that our fiscal year and school's work, you would expect them to have spent about 50 percent of their budget, which is exactly where they're at. So they're in really good shape. So just a lot of positive. Thank you, Lane. Felicia, do you have anything additionally to bring to the group? I have kind of, it's more of a question, I guess, Ashley. I think this may be your last meeting as our board chair. And as you step down from the OSSB board and representation, I'm curious if you would consider staying on the board as one of our community members, because we do need to have three members from the community. And I think having that relationship with Gifford would be really positive. So it's more of a question for you. I would be happy to do that, Felicia. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So with that, we do have our consent agenda that has two pieces that we need to approve. One would be the minutes from November 4th. And then the other would be the approval of new members. But Felicia, who would that be? This is the group we had last time, I think, when I look at the list. Today, we're hoping to get the business and community partners in here. So I don't know if it's kind of an awkward thing, if we need to vote you back in as a member again. I'm not sure exactly how that works. Usually there's, after the typical town votes for like OSSB board members and things, the March meetings are what they call reorganizations. So typically that's when people are moving positions and what not. All right. So I think we just need to approve the minutes. Hopefully you all had a chance to review them. Are there any questions on the minutes? If not, I would love a motion to approve. I'll make sure to press. Thank you. Is there a second? Oh, I can second. Back down the board. All right. And no comments, no questions. And we'll move that forward for approval, all in favor of accepting the November 4th minutes as presented. Say, could raise your hand. Hi. Perfect. Are any opposed? All right. Robin accepted as written. Thank you very much. All right. Are there any other items to bring forward? I don't think they're in tonight. All right. Well, Jessica and Anda, thank you so much for joining us. And Felicia, keep up the great work. Robin, you as well. You guys are a great team and we appreciate everything you're doing. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Bye.


Rapid damage assessment following natural disasters is essential to support rescue, humanitarian, and reconstruction efforts. Satellite remote sensing provides a quick and cost-effective way to map the affected areas, identify the extent of damage, and determine the severity of the event. Interferometric coherence and intensity correlation are two commonly used methods for damage assessment. These methods use multiple images taken from different angles or times to measure changes in the surface topography and identify areas with significant damage. Combinations of these methods can further improve accuracy by combining the advantages of each technique. Additionally, data from other sources, such as GIS and optical imagery, can be used to supplement the results of the SAR analysis. Finally, the Sentinel-1 SAR mission will provide improved capabilities for global damage assessment. This article was authored by Simon Plank.