is go to hurt the public and hurt the service on the streets. i am really concerned about this taking its time and not being taken care of in a timely manner. >> i wanted you to look at the data sheet on the head of security and enforcements. there are mistakes in the cumulative totals for year to date, 2010. this is added wrong. this is a different base for every district except for richmond. if you look at the numbers, the results are even better. the central year to date is not 44, it is 49 using the numbers on the streets. forepeak, 57, not 52.

for mission, 48, not 47. for park, 32, not 29. in tenderloin, 9, not 8. there are some mistakes that you have to question could there be typos in any individual column? how did so many errors get in here? it looks good and the numbers that i said would be even better but this needs to be corrected to be reliable. >> ok, thank you. >> in light of that last comment, we will double check these numbers to make sure that we get back to you. in terms of the question about taxi enforcement, i believe that he gave you a report which is regarding the taxi enforcement.

we will update you quarterly on tax enforcement issues. >> and presentation and discussion regarding the implementation strategy. >> it is my pleasure to bring before you and effectiveness project implementation plan. we had a meeting with our policy group and it was to sit down and discuss what has occurred since you adopted the plan in 2008. what are some of the actions that have been taken? to lay out a road map with the actual budgeting or lay down of some of the projects that will be implemented over the next few years to truly breach in some

life to this plan. i have to point out -- to truly breeze then -- to truly breathe in some life into this plan. we were much better off when we had the -- completed in the fall of 2008. we relied upon the information to guide our decisions in that timeframe. going forward, we are looking at how we can enhance the service with this information. i will turn it over for a power point presentation. >> i am the service planning

manager in our transit division. this is really intended to be an implementation strategy. this is a document that is going to help guide our work going forward. many of you on the board were intimately involved in the development of the transportation project. for some of our newer board members, this was joined the sponsored by the mta and the comptroller's office. and through that partnership, we were able to tackle this work in a really database approach. this is the first system-wide study any generation. we tried to understand where are the customers try to come and go, who are potential customers that we are not appealing to in our current state, how can we make our operations designed

better serve the end user? through that work, we conducted extensive market research. we did a few interesting things. the first thing that we did was consumer research. let me tell you what products we have and delivered to you. what are you looking for an transportation service? what we heard it is reliability and travel time were the most important features to our customers and would-be customers from people are making travel decisions around san francisco. we also look at travel patterns. we looked at where people were starting and ending their trips throughout san francisco and trying to understand what market transit was serving well like getting people into the downtown core and what would be serving better proof we have identified a real opportunity to increase

ridership and service between the neighborhoods, not having quick choices to be able to get from -- to city college. the second thing we did was a service assessment where we looked at all of the routes, how many people were getting on and off of the bus at every stop. one of the key findings that came out was that you have corridors like mission, of erie, judah? we are caring about 70% on these routes? if we improve the travel times and reliability, they have an opportunity to touch the majority of our customers. we first developed proposals to

restructure the service in february of 2008 and then we conducted an extensive outreach process as well as employees or other policy makers. we have heard a lot of feedback and the change is that we are bringing them to this board. where we left this was in october of 2008 and a task force of the board which provided input into specific route proposals.

this is like the 14th mission, these are caring the majority of our customers providing quick service. the local network are like to 21 -- and the 24, they combined with the rapid network to create a grid. this is really a lot of customers in san francisco to get where they are going. this is really our goal to make service as efficient as possible. the community connectors are those that go into our affiliate neighborhoods. people can get where they are going either by going through the park station or in some cases, the caltrans station?

this is like the ball park shuttles. they fill in the markets and complement our service all around. since the planning process, we have accomplished a tremendous amount of work. most significantly, this service restructuring that to place in december of 2009. many of the proposals that were originally identified have already been implemented through that work. i know that the last meeting that you had where john haley presented an overview, you had asked for very specific examples of how this has influenced our planning and our transportation policies but i wanted to take a moment to walk you through really how this has changed the entire culture of how we do transit planning within san francisco. in addition to significantly in

forming the changes as well as the subsequent changes in may and september, we also have had an opportunity to redo all of our schedules. one of the findings of the transit effectiveness project was that we have under sourced key management positions including our scheduling department. we had fewer schedulers than transit, a system about 1/3 of our size. since we have implemented this, we have increased the number of schedule as we have had and provided them state-of-the-art training so that they can really use the running time data that we were collecting to create better schedules and more efficient schedules. as part of the changes, we adjusted a running time as 60% of our weekday schedule and we make refinements and reiteration still our service. we have reduced the amount of

stand by hours so that the amount of service that we are delivering is maximized and we have a more efficient schedule than we did when we started this process. on the supervision side, we have developed an absenteeism policy that helped to make sure that our operators come to work each day and that we're minimizing the amount of this service that we face. we have developed a line management center. now, that was what came out of the transit effectiveness project. you have this date -- great data source. this can be used as a supervision tool to make sure that you are not having early departures, to make sure that you are managing gaps in service. we have been using this to manage our rail service and we have started to use it on the bus as well.

another critical component to making our services run faster and more reliably is prioritizing transit within our congested right of way. the travel time reduction proposals are key to making that work happened. there are also complementary. as we have been working on. -- these are also complementary projects that we have been working on. -- will create a dedicated lane for transit and this is another example. on the infrastructure and vehicle reliability side, we have restructured or read prioritize our capital program to focus on the state of good repair work. -- read prior diced -- prioritizeed our capital program

to focus on the state of good repair work. we have been improving our distance between failures. we have become dated-oriented on how we do our day-to-day work. initially, we have done automatic passenger counters. we have found that it was very hard to get the largest sample size that we wanted so we increase it to 30% of our vehicles and we developed a very specific plan. over the course of a week, we were able to sample almost every trip within the system. this has helped the plan but also in other ways. when we were doing the shelter, the shelter contractor used the automatic passenger information to figure out places to put advertising.

the implementation strategy that i will review was developed by our consultant team with comptroller's office support. this also had executive level review and incorporates changes that have occurred since the planning process. the goal which will guide this came out of the planning process. this includes reliability, reducing travel times, improving customer experience. we are developing and continuing to develop relationships when the community, our customers,

and employees, and delivering cost-effective service. we really want to stretch our resources as much as possible. this includes performance metrics tied to each of these goals so that we can monitor our progress. the implementations strategy includes four categories of initiatives. the travel time reduction proposals on our rapid network, service changes, other capital investments that are supported and long-term studies and plans that will inform the decisions moving forward, particularly as we prepare for some of the long- term growth that is expected. it also includes a very detailed schedule of when we hope to deliver each of these items, cost estimates, and potential funding sources. this includes a description of the environmental review process. the organizational structure

that we have put in place to deliver this work that we think will be critical to continued acceptable implementation. the travel time reduction proposals i think are one of the most exciting aspects of the transit effectiveness project because they have the opportunity to reduce our travel time anywhere from 10-30% and also have the potential to increase the amount of service that we're able to deliver to our customers are making us more efficient. by saving vehicles on our route, we are able to reinvest those in other areas where we need service. the transit effectiveness and the travel time reduction proposals are going to be the focus of the debates as to move forward. they are in some ways probably

the most controversial as we look at things like providing more transit priorities through bus stop consolidation, changing parking, and things like that. the travel time reduction proposal includes several elements. they include a stop optimization, not bus stops. several recommendations to reduce the amount of funds by replacing stop signs and signals on our rail network. then, and some of the more complex projects, we are recommending dedicated lanes either for stretches for a block where the blast might be getting particularly backed up in an area where they need to provide transit priority. these would be coupled with about a $500,000 per mile

investment in the customer experience. this would be things that are supportive of the travel time improvements, particularly ticket vending machines. by purchasing your ticket before you get on the bus, you reduce the overall amount of time that we spend at each stop, a better sign it can also help the customers know where they should get on the bus and that is something that i see every day. customers not known me where to line up for the vehicle. -- not knowing where to line up for the vehicle. this will also include the dashing improvements. if we are talking about moving a stop, we might look at improving our crosswalk to support that change or if we are talking about consolidating, perhaps there is an opportunity to add by cracks or a park to help make that change more appealing to the community. in developing the travel time

reduction proposal, we have divided the city up into about 25 segments. the reason for that is that although there is only a discrete number of routes, the changed character as they traveled through the city. mission street has been divided into three segments because of the street grid and the type of service changes quite significantly. there is a downtown segment, the segment in the intermission and as well as the admission. -- the segment in the inner mission and outer mission. we have looked at the effectiveness measure, how much where we saving per customer in terms of travel time. also, cost effectiveness. how effective was the savings for the time? we identified 11 segments that

we think should be prioritized and implemented by fiscal year 15. they would include routes like the bay shore, san bruno, 19th avenue, stockton, with the remaining being implemented between fiscal years 6920. there are projects that are not addressed in the proposal because we have larger agency efforts working on them which includes market street, a jury, of van ness -- ger -- geary and van ness. we have really had an opportunity to reduce travel time across the rapid network. the service improvements are the second largest set of initiatives that the

implementation strategy addresses. these would occur over a key the state budget cycles. we estimate now that the changes would represent about a 5-10% increase in operating dollars. the reason that this is an increase in service hours and not budget neutral have to do with all of this service reductions that we saved since the original proposals were developed. the frequency changes are flexible enough that they could be modified based on the resources we have. for example, while the plan calls for the 22 fell more to improve, if there was less available, we could have a seven minute headway. -- while the plan calls for the 22 philmore to improve.

in the implementation strategy, we also had updated all of the route proposals to account for the changes that have already occurred. for example, the original proposal has the nine -- starting at 24th street. when we did a disservice restructuring in december and we looked at more recent data, we saw that there was potential to provide limited service. connecting visitation valley through the mission and into downtown, that has been very successful so we will continue that rather than the initial proposal which had a much shorter service. another example would be the proposed j terminating at sf

state. we were able to develop a proposal to do something very similar. the capital expense would be covered by the developer. we have tried to reflect that change as well. in the last set of capital initiatives focused on things that support the service changes which includes accessible rail platforms. we are recommending an increase in about five except will rail platform is based on feedback we heard-five acceptable -- 5 acceptable rail platforms based on feedback we received. we will also be investing in terminal and transfer points to

support the changes. an example would be the 28 l will no longer go to the golden gate transit. we would have an improved transfer point. finally, the overhead wire expansion work. the changes that affect the trawling net work requires some overhead wire changes. -- the changes that affect the trolly network. an opportunity to do that is to build a bypass wires so that the -- bus can pass the local. finally, the strategy includes 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 community outreach in addition to this debate and the tep