three long-term studies that will support this work going forward. the first is a comprehensive communication plan which is really a marketing effort to understand how we can communicate this idea at a rapid network to our customers. we would like to back this plan is intended to address topics that are raised during this project, but we really went outside of the timeline, and that is of a system would evolve to support the growth that we know is coming in key areas, including parkmerced, bayview hunters point, and then there is attraction power. that is how we provide power to our trolley networks, and as we think about the growth that is coming, and we want to make sure that we are designing upgrades

that can support future service. this is an implementation schedule, part of the environmental review process. we are also going to be working hard to move other key elements of forward. for example, we would be working on public outreach and design related to the travel time projects. we're also going to explore innovative pilots that allow us to test acts, -- aspects and informed the environmental process. the service changes would be available in two places, 2014 and 2016, and they would also be constructive beginning in 2014, if we move forward on this schedule.

$167 million. this is spread over about nine fiscal years. we have already identified about 10%, which we will use as seed money to leverage the additional money that we need for this work, and it is going to come from two places, and one will be from redirecting some of our priorities to match this, and the second would be attracting new funding. there is a tremendous appetite, both federally and within the region, for capital projects that improve our efficiency, and we think the tep will compete quite effectively. we will be doing both ceqa analysis and the national environmental review. where we plan to use federal funding. we expect this to take up to 24

months, and we are also working very hard to identify ways to reduce that time period, so, for example, there are some things that have mandatory periods, like having to be out on the street for a fixed amount of time, but there are things through staff support that we can reduce the timeline. the immediate next step includes the scope of the work, including what we plan to start this month, and then, concurrently, developing the project, getting the public feedback that we need to make those projects move forward, and then a key milestone will happen after the ceqa certification, where we bring this back to this body as well as for legislation. the tep team will be led with

the board of directors as a policy guide. they will be shepherding the worker, and that is being led by implementation task force that really touches on every division within the agency. because this work is so complex, it is everything from capital to hr to service planning and engineering, and we really saw this when we implemented the changes. the required almost every division in the agency to come together and make this a success. that was then, i think even further extended by our ambassador program, where because every executive really has a role in shaping these, they also provided staff to help played the proposals to the public. the key next step will be beginning the environmental review. we will also be conducting community outreach in addition

to this debate and the tep policy group who met today will also be bringing this as well as to the board of supervisors committee on neighborhood services next week. we will also be going out and getting stakeholder input on the proposals. the changes have been vetted at a very detailed level, and they have not had that opportunity for outreach, and that is really what we are focusing on, sharing those proposals and getting input on those proposals. which will also be assigning staff to our task force, completing the conceptual engineering on the projects and providing quarterly reports to this body on our progress, because we really expect to move forward on a very expedited timeline. chairman nolan: thank you.

an excellent report. board members? any members of the public? secretary boomer: no members of the public have indicated in interest in riding. chairman nolan: ok, good afternoon. >> this is all very exciting. i took part in the original tep, and it was really fun, and i hope we helped. i hope there is going to be money around, and maybe what we need is that we do those things even if it is not a big improvement that costs less. and i want to take another moment to talk about this. the bus does not have to pull into the stop, and they think

that if they do, it is their duty to stop that from moving. the cars will be behind the bus, and they will learn to get out of the way or weight. we already do that. on presidio drive, no problem. and we talk aboutit. i am sorry about being too direct. optimization might be the right word. people are going to complain. you have to look at the whole system, and the people know, this is one or two minutes. when this starts to happen, you have to be ready, to say this is for everybody. and i am old enough that i do not have the problems that most people have, but i may get them some day before this is implemented. were you would have had to walk

that stop, and then there would be -- you have to allow time. some of the of the things that were not mentioned, turn back, where you about this on five- minute schedules, maybe they do not need five-minute schedules. maybe they need 10-minute schedules, and you have more service in the middle. i think this is all stuff you should be doing, and i will forward to it. chairman nolan: director heinicke? director heinicke: first of all, just to reiterate what was said, what i had written down, when we put in the first changes, we have a lot of people come to say that the sky would fall if we did some things, and the sky is still there, and while i think people are not going to say this, i think people are accommodating these changes well. i would urge our fellow board members that this is an entire

package. et with that, i will go to a few questions we have. you have mentioned replacing stop signs with signals. i assume this is because they will have some sort of priority mechanism? >> thank you for that clarification. we are implementing this into the radio replacement project, which has funding to do so, and the radio actually becomes the communication device, so around the time we are looking at wrapping up the environmental work, which will also have that technology in place to take advantage of -- we also have that. director heinicke: in terms of the immediate travel times, i appreciate your explaining that geary was not on that. another that gets a lot is j-

church, perhaps signaling or some sort of effort to prioritize j-church is something i know a lot of people would favor, and the reason we high -- have the m and the n is that they have higher ridership. service improvements. i will ask a sort of blunt political question here. you have it done so it is going to cost us money. you have been planned so it will cost money, and i think we all know the situation we are in with an uncertain funding efforts to rebuild our reserves, that sort of thing, and you said, i think i heard you say, that it could be re-done, that we could take it from under serving lines. a question to you, if we design

both a cause plan or a plan that costs money in a more revenue neutral plan, which that jeopardize our ability to get funding and if we had a plan that would not cost us that much money, do we run a risk? >> it could be flexible, but i do not think there is as much opportunity to redistribute as you had indicated, primarily because we have a significant reduction >> if we were to look

at the process, it was mirrored as an effort to look at all of these in the region and the continuing strain on a regional level to fund transit operations across the board, so i think on one hand, our efforts for the tep -- in terms of funding, we could possibly get this for capital projects as part of rehabilitation, and we receive regular moneys for those. it is really up to this agency and programming where they go, and we have programming towards tep.

director heinicke: my question is now this. should we be building a plant that is more revenue neutral? the low hanging fruit, to use the metaphor, is gone. a i still, from my admittedly remove position, believe that there may be the ability for us to ship to this from over serb lines to under shipped mindset. that is certainly something we talked about in great length at our board retreat. you can use whatever catch phrase you want. but let me be very blunt about this. i agree this is an exciting project. i agreed this is exactly what we should be doing, but i do not want to recognize big stack of paper for all of these proposals that never been implemented because we have no money. what i am saying, are we

developing plans where we could be able to realign our service so that we are serving more people, so that we can effectively add service? >> i think that is a very good question, and i think the question has always been to maintain, and we were looking at maintaining a system that was extremely robust, and anyone who wants to use public transit can easily be accommodated. if we were in a situation where we were not able to deal with what we already projected as growth in these corridors, we know that this is coming from the development in the city, then that difficult choice, that difficult choice will be the reallocation of services. i think what julia said in the 2009 service change, we did a great deal of that, and then we

followed along. we're prepared back was on the oslo productive routes, and when we came back, we added back on the heavily utilized , so i do not think there is much room in terms of enhancements that will be cost neutral -- director heinicke: right, without affecting the it connectivity. that may be the answer. i for one urge as a part of a look as we can, because hopefully the money will be there, but we cannot guarantee it. that is something we talked about at the board. i am not sure you were there. but i think i have said my piece of that, so we hope for the money, and then the final thing is just one of community outreach. i know there is a lot of what you call "owe" or overhead wire

expansion. i know there are some neighborhoods that will not like that one bit for the knot in my backyard issues, so when we are putting in new wires, i want to make sure we are doing a lot of outreach before we go ahead and start putting in those wires. i think we will see a lot of pushback. chairman nolan: other members of the board? director beach -- director brinkman? director brinkman: i was just looking at the budget -- bust collision data. to me, this ties in with the data. i would assume the a lot of those probably happen at intersections, and if we are working to sort out those intersections, then i know we

had member consent if he meetings to go about looking at best practices for non signalized intersections, and i believe that this is quite expensive. it is going to be interesting. if we can find a way to organize those and get rid of them, would you agree that a lot of those are probably happening? >> we are still analyzing this, but we are looking at the bus stops, the near side and the far side, and the light turns green. across the intersection, you have people going around the bus, so we are looking at things

like that. director brinkman: this is so the bus is not having to pull in and out of traffic. this does not mean that nothing -- nothing else goes forward until the environmental review process goes forward. we are still working on private projects, funding plans, so we are going to keep moving forward, because i was worried that when they saw the first in varna to review, everybody would panic a little bit. thank you. a very good presentation. chairman nolan: 54 the presentation. rebooked forward to this -- thank you for the presentation.

madam clerk -- director lee is appointed to another term on this board. moving on. secretary boomer: the service standard. chairman nolan: it is a 45- minute presentation. >> good afternoon, chairman nolan, members of the board. in the interest of brevity, i am sure that everyone on the leadership team will be happy to answer any questions that you have. i and the deputy director. today, we will be presenting the highlights of the second quarter

service standards between october and december 2010. and as is tradition, we always begin with on-time performance. it increased. the charter mandated goal was 85%. there were several areas. moving on from on-time performance, based on vehicle and operator availability, during the second quarter, service hours increase slightly to 96.9%. the chartered mandated goal is different. on a division by division basis,

performance raised -- ranged -- nice, and will focus on mean distance for bus and rail. for a rubber tire fleets, over the past three quarters, it has been inching up between failures. there was one strong division which achieved more between failures, which is the strongest performance in over eight quarters. the portrait wrote -- protrero was the worst. we always try to focus on things that are mandated, and there are a couple of things, as well as complaints.

the continued to turn in a strong performance. there was an improvement in the second quarter, and the goal was 90%. also, a percentage of has this report. we are still over the goal. and then i would like to point out the number of m.u.d. complaints dropped from nearly 6000 -- the number of muni complaints. those are both great signs. that concludes my brief, 935- minute presentation. chairman nolan: madam clerk --

director lee? director lee: we have the results for the fourth quarter -- first quarter. we get the report another quarter. we miss the target. that is six months we have lost. is the data available on the basis so we can see it? going into the next quarter, the month that pops up, are we doing anything differently to try to do anything to improve our performance, where do we just wait for three months to go by, and then we find out, so the question is, can we get this information on a monthly basis. >> on-time performance, specifically, and we're actually going through to look at the

monthly or quarterly basis to have a better indication. we hope to have that done within the next two or three months, and we hope to come to this body been some suggestions for the on-time performance reporting. director lee: so we are saying we do not have that? >> it is on on-time performance. >> travis does accurate data collection. john may have a different answer for you. i think john would say he probably watches it every hour, but -- >> thank you. in terms of the information on the system, , with some of what you heard in the previous

presentations, we have got a real time information on the system. we put out a delete ", which we would be happy to suggest couple of formats on a weekly basis that would give you a snapshot of performance of the system in terms of delays and service, if that would help you gauge where we are. at the same time, the on-time performance, in the way we measure it, it is with a combination of visual observations and automatic passenger counters, and this is taking a look at some of the things we want to do to improve our on-time performance. and there is some of the routes.

there is the lowest performing one, and there is a range of why. i mentioned this a couple of weeks ago. on a monthly basis, we're going to do a performance audit, which we will take another look at the schedule, the on-time performance, the open runs, and some of the incidences at the locations, it turns, how many, and those kinds of things come back on a route by run bases with a recovery plan, but in answer to your question, i would be happy to provide a report to fill in the numbers, and we can pretty much customize it to get whatever information you need. >> if the chair would not mind, note we could have that at the meeting to see where we stand, and notify the board members if we are not trending in the right

direction instead of waiting. >> i am happy to do that. as i said, we are data rich in terms of especially some of the investments we have made in technology. we can analyze and use this to give you a snapshot of where we are. director lee: i'd like to see something proactive instead of reactive. director oka: why are we doing that? >> he was just seconding director lee's comments. chairman nolan: director

heinicke? director heinicke: i have a two- part question. why is it down, and are you confident it will go back up in the next quarter or two? >> why is it down? let me start with the first part of the question. part of it is what we mentioned, in what we mentioned in this particular quarter, there was a 29% drop, et and part of this is what we described. there are three categories of routes. and one was circuitous and does not have a chance. it makes a number of stops, and it shows upper -- up.

we hold it intentionally to connect with four or five routes that run at night. another one is the express. in this particular corner that was measured, we wait for the train to take people in this particular quarter. almost 60% of the time, so that is going to reflect it. the other one i wanted to point out, because it reflects the on- time performance on the rail system is the kt line. it is the longest, and one of the reasons it is hardest to keep on time, because it has no flexibility once you leave. there is no switch