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 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.