she is still close. i talked to them all the time. we share the same campaign manager. i have great confidence in what she did. that means i have great hope that she actually pulls this thing out. we will only know that in a week or two. both sides are prepared. >> [inaudible] >> i have never liked it. you know that. i cannot explain it. how do you measure it? when i ran for mayor, i said, i don't know what will happen to me. you said, it is all done. i was lucky. if i had 49% of the vote, i might of lost the election. it is strange. i cannot figure it out. it is not a knock to the winner.

when you cannot explain something, and even the people who put together -- it is easy. you ask them to questions and it embarrasses them. you know it is not a positive sign. i will admit this. i did the rank choice thing. i went, same person, same person, same person, and they said i could not do that. this is the incumbent mayor person who ran himself. i had forgotten. half of them are ranked choice. half or not. why are to the judges ranked choice? i doone, on -- can i do one, one, one? will that hurt the candidate? make it easier and more transparent. we are making it a little harder. there are people working on that right now. trust me. i am open to it. i was open to a legal challenge.

that was processed unsuccessfully. you know, it is not just because of oakland. even in local supervisor races, people are wondering what is happening. it is confusing. i don't know that is a good thing. i think you should make it less confusing. >> [inaudible] >> that is another thing. now you get into district elections. when i ran for supervisor, it took a 110,000 votes to get elected. that gave me a sense of responsibility to the city. now you can get 2000 votes for the same job. i get paid $30,000, and then i get paid $100,000. it is something i have always been concerned about. every other city has district, but no other city is the small. their districts in l.a. county

bigger than the city and county of san francisco. this is a city of neighborhoods. we were all connected. we have 11 supervisors when there was a homicidal inbayview. now you have one. it has proven itself, district elections. there is a more ideological reason to support it. addirv -- you add irv, and you have someone elected with a couple of thousand votes. i am a little uneasy about all of it. i think i told you guys this. i have drafted legislation. it is on my desk right now. i will hand it to someone if they want to carry it and go a different way. there are two options for changing.

old irv we just dusted off. these questions we raised a number of years ago when we were concerned about it are now coming home to roost. this could dramatically change the mayor's race next year and dramatically change the face of politics in the east bay and here in a way that might be unintended. >> [inaudible] >> what i said -- i hate to say it again. i promised myself not to talk about this. i said enough. the city is going to be fine matter who is in it. i think it will work itself out. it seems to be working. it is working itself out. >> [inaudible] >> no, i can't. i could, but i'm not. >> [inaudible]

>> yeah. yeah. >> [inaudible] >> there is no limitation to what you can do with the money. you can hire your best friend and pay them 50 grand per month and take the public money, and it is legal. that is time and budget deficits. it is a tough pill to swallow. i support public financing reform nationally. i understand it probably better than most. >> [inaudible] >> you know, let's see how it fleshes out. we have not seen that in the past. you saw some supervisors use it.

this is all just -- i am the guy that is leaving. talk to the people coming in. they have more to say. not yet. i know. i will just get in trouble. i want friends. i don't need enemies. i hate having opinions. director beach: present. director brinkman: present. >> director heinicke is

expected. chairperson nolan: i would like to welcome the acting executive director on behalf of mr. ford. >> please be an fis that the use of cell phones or any similar sound-producing electronic devices are to habited at the meeting. anyone who has won going off may be asked to leave the meeting. please be advised that phones set on vibrate cause microphone interference. the board respectfully requests the beset in the off position. chairperson nolan: is there a motion to approve the minutes of the last meeting? all in favor say aye. >> there are no communications at this time. chairperson nolan: i would like mr. rowe him to give us a brief report on the cable car operator who was severely attacked.

mr. rohan, if you would? >> on sunday, november 14, at approximately 8:00 p.m., police were called to the 1300 block of mason court in assault on a cable car operators. the victim was an employee for 12 years and still is an employee. the agent was being transported to san francisco general hospital. at the time the incident happened, the cable car was stopped, which in to go out of service for repair, and there were no customers on the cable car. the operator was approached, with multiple stab wounds causing life-threatening injuries. after investigation and insistence from witnesses on the scene, officers were able to apprehend a suspect. staff visited the operator in the hospital yesterday and report his medical condition is stable.

we are thankful for that. the agency is outraged that something like this would happen to one of our operators. it appears meaningless to us. and we are continuing to work with the sfpd, because it continues to be under investigation, and we will aid and support in whatever way possible. chairperson nolan: outrageous is certainly the word for an attack on this person, doing the best for the city of san francisco and our agency. we appreciate the initiative is improving somewhat. any other communications? >> item 6, communications by board members. chairperson nolan: received in our package this week a wonderful report on pedestrian safety here in san francisco and new york city and other jurisdictions. it is part of our responsibility as members of this board to be concerned about the plan for pedestrian safety. i think that report serves to

add four attention, and in particular about steps we can take in the future as we go forward to increase the safety factor for pedestrians. do members have any questions or comments about that? >> i completely agree with you. i think would be a great thing. we are doing a great job so far, but we have so many pedestrians, and there is a good advocacy group, but it is difficult to get people to self identified as pedestrians, unlike identifying as cyclists are even drivers. there is a lot we can do including lowering speed limits to mature and the interaction between pedestrians and cars are good. >> there was a pedestrian summit here about two years ago that was excellent. it is part of our responsibility. members can ask mr. rohan if we could have a presentation here, to bring the report back for greater dissemination to the

public, and a particular thing director brinkman is talking about, lowering speed limits in certain areas. >> absolutely >> item 7 -- the executive director's report. >> thank you. good afternoon, chairman and directors. acting on behalf of mr. ford today, i will be presenting the executive director's report. the first item on the report -- this week the "chronicle "ran an article about the central subway and its funding shortfall of $37 million. for the most part, the article was on target. there are points of clarification i would like to make and bring to your attention sir you can understand the progress the program has seen over the last year. the funding shortfalls in the early stages of major capital programs of this type are a normal occurrence.

two years ago, the funding gap for the central subway program was six under $50 million. staff has been working diligently with our funding partners to seek additional sources of funding and to date has been very successful in reducing the gap from six under $50 million to the $137 million that was in the -- from $650 million to the $137 million that was in the report. we were briefed on the agency progress in closing the funding gap, and our plans in seeking new funding sources going forward. i understand what resulted from that meeting is we are going to go back to them at their next meeting to communicate to the committee more detail about our plans in the future. this year's new start financial plan, he took a new approach to the vision and has plans to fully fund all capital initiatives for the agency over

the 20-year period. this is in reference to the article saying we have a drop dead date of february. february is the new submission date for the new lease of middle of the financial plan. when we made the initial submission with the new starts program this year, upon reviewing the submission our partners advised that our approach was very aggressive and was much more than what was necessary based on the criteria for a new start some battles. staff is now preparing to revise financial plans of metal based on the mta's -- a financial plan submittal based on the mta's guidelines. in the coming months, we are confident the funding gap will be addressed to begin major construction and schedules.

i see deborah johnson here. the next item -- the november 2 election has brought many changes at the local, state, and federal levels that will have an impact on transportation interests. i would like to ask deborah johnson, the director of administration, taxis, and services to provide you with an update of the legislative changes. [unintelligible]

>> the ballot measures i am referencing were changes to proposition 22, which basically is the prohibition on field tax revenue being loaned it to the general fund. as you know, over the last three years, we along with other jurisdictions around the state have suffered a dramatic loss due to those funds being report predicted at the behest of the legislature -- being repossessed at the beseehest ofe legislature. this would prohibit that. another ballot measure, proposition 26, to amend the california constitution. it requires any change causing a taxpayer to pay a higher tax to be passed by a two-thirds vote by the legislature. relative to proposition 22 m 26, there is some ambiguity associated with both of them,

because they have both been passed. we are analyzing the impact. wheat in the city and county of san francisco are doing that. -- we in the city and county of san francisco are doing that. where will keep you apprised as we learn more details. we wanted to share that with you. as i am sure you are aware, we still have not been made aware of the results of the supervisor and district races, to be confirmed by the board of elections. we are still in a state of ambiguity, but we will keep you apprised. i am sure you will hear from various media outlets. we anticipate coming back in the generic term for and with our legislative program. we will be able to place that out more. with that, i would be happy to entertain any questions if you have any.

chairperson nolan: when can we expect to have a report back on what proposition 26 can do to us? >> we are members of the california transit association. i represent the executive agency on the executive committee. our government relations manager is vice chair. we are working in concert with them. we have upcoming conference calls. i would say it would be safe to say probably in the january timeframe we could provide you with more in-depth when information about the application.

chairperson nolan: we have moved over 803,000 passengers for baseball games during the giants baseball season. our transit and traffic efforts continued through the chairmanship and world series games and the championship parade. i would like to ask john haley, director of transit, to provide a snapshot of the season service including the championship games and the parade. >> thank you. mr. chairman, members of the board, we have to organizations taking people to different events that culminated on

november 3. our long season got us to the playoffs. in a different way, perhaps, we were able to build on a regular season plan and meet the extraordinary demands, and participate actively in the celebration that took place on november 3. we did have a plan for the regular game season. we had extra service every day. i want to point out to the board we expanded the service, both in terms of extra rail service and extra staffing during both the division playoffs, the league championship, and the world series. i also want to point out the one major element that we operated under, if you will, or operating axiom. we will not impact our regular service. we will be able to meet the giants demands at the same time we hit our usual service.

that became a challenge, if for no other reason than with the differences in time. all of the games came in the playoffs and the world series during the beginning of the rush hour. again, we worked -- our plan built off the regular season plan over the course of 82 games. we added extra staff, added extra vehicles throughout the rest of them. one point on this one -- i apologize for jumping into the middle -- is that during the world series and the playoffs we had a longer serve as window. the ballpark was in fact a destination for people. we carried a lot of people earlier. they stayed later. they participated in the celebration. we were able to do that. as we move to the world series,

the effort -- the city itself became part of the showcase as well as the team at ball games. the only point i want to highlight on this particular presentation, on this slide, is that despite the timing of the game, despite the timing of a system that is at capacity on any particular day, we were able to deliver the same amount of regular scheduled service while handling the giants crowds. again, extraordinary effort, as mr. rohan said, from everybody on the staff to be out there working and to celebrate. the night of november 1 is, once again, an extraordinary performance by the men and women of this organization, albeit in a little bit of a bittersweet role. that night, we demonstrated that not only could we carry a lot of

people, but that we were able to absorber incredible stress on the system caused by what i would describe as some individual act of spontaneous celebration that got out of control. i am pleased to say that we had operators who stayed with vehicles, people who worked all night because trains became trapped and could not move, to make sure we have seamless rush- hour the next day. we had extraordinary acts of professionalism. and i think the organization stood tall in the middle of all this. the key part of that was we were both able to meet the rush hour the next day, but absorber all this safely. there were no major or serious incidents or injuries other than a lot of vandalism that occurred in the system. that position us two days later for the parade and -- that

positioned us two days later for the parade. as an organization, all of us together -- i think the benefit of having a relationship we had with service staff of the giants over the course of the year is where were able to anticipate, to the extent anybody could, what would happen on wednesday, november 3. we did have our plan in place. we did have people in service out there early. we in effect land rush hour service on the rail system and the entire day. pretty good service that day. no major incidents or delays. we also coordinated well with all of our colleagues in the city in the service plan. all in all, we were able to support the celebration that occurred that day, which for many people was worth 50 plus years of waiting. that is just a quick snapshot. we did carry a record number of

people for a day. which typically carry approaching 700,000. that day, 900,000, with no serious incidents or accidents. a quick tally in terms of the hit it had on our operating budget, if you will, of about $500,000. that includes extra service in some of the issues related to the parade and the vandalism on the night the giants won it all. finally, all in all, we are very proud that this organization -- the men and women that delivered during this very difficult time -- and are pleased to a been part of what was a lifelong celebration. we are ready to be here next year standing in front of you and do it all again. >> earlier, we have asked for a report about how the trial taxi

stands on third street went. we all got a memo about this recently, but i am happy to say the received some use by taxes. we believe with improved publicity they can be made permanent, possibly. to do that, will have a public hearing on this sometime very shortly. it was a good experiment and i look forward to the public hearing. anything else? >> thank you. that concludes my report. >> no one from the public has interest in addressing you on any item in the executive director's report. item eight, advisory council report, i do not see mr. murphy here today. item nine -- public comment. members of the public may address the board of directors on matters within the board's jurisdiction that are not on today's calendar. where will start with herbert -- we will start with herbert

weiner. would you like a two-minute? >> herbert weiner. i am in an awkward position because this statement involves mr. ford, who is not here. i will make the statement in absentia, and if you wish i will repeat it when mr. ford is present at the next meeting. in 1932, mascot pictures corp's produced something titled "the hurricane express." in the film, using trickery and disguise, someone attempts to destroy the illinois railroad and is more elite defeated. under the wheel, an organization of stakeholders with service cutbacks, higher fares, and managerial blundering of the san francisco municipal transit authority who. it prison since the annual -- we

present the annual wrecker o award to mr. ford. he would have undoubtedly taught him with wise counsel, guaranteeing him success in his district commission. as he watches this d.v.d., we are certain he will see a reflection of himself. "under the wheel," november 16, 2010. here is a copy of the dvd. chairperson nolan: thank you. >> ann marie hodgson, followed by charles rathbone. >> as a recent resident to san francisco i knew i would experience inevitable parking tickets.

this is not a complaint. after doing some research about the parking middle unofficial rules, i find they are incredibly hard to fight and given out very liberally because of that fact. it makes sense for sfmta. it means increase revenue for the city. i hope in coming and giving this, not to complain, but to suggest the board discussed different policies for handling of parking tickets, or more broadly how it does business. this -- is this a message san francisco wants to send to citizens and visitors? it makes sense. give up tickets as many as possible since it is hard to get them overturned and we can fill our budget. i am sure you're saying this guy is complaining because he got a few parking tickets and should have parked more prudently. i have a current news article showing the budget crisis in sfmta, which i know you are all aware of already -- it seems

that every year is worse than before. the solution the board has come up with -- increased parking fees and the volume of tickets handed out. in 2013, is this really the proper solution? my proposed solution is to stop putting increased costs on citizens and visitors. instead of increasing revenue, reduce the amount of expenses to offset the deficit. the budget is $775 million, about $50 million coming from parking alone. please try to reduce your budget instead of placing the costs on a tax system. >> , charles rathbone of followed by dave siner. >> i speak on behalf of luxor cab company to raise a concern over the expense of the training class for a new taxi driver