low speeds. our system is a perfect candidate, we believe, operation, for all your boarding for that reason. -- all the work boarding and for that reason. what we are talking about is not just as most cities in north america have than all door boarding for light rail, we already have that. we would be the first city in north america to do a complete systemwide all door boarding. our current system, we talked a lot about this. it is confusing to writers and operators. -- riders and operators. the success we have with clipper and the percentage of people

buying prepaid fare instruments, the fact we have klipper devices on both doors of our vehicles, we are continuing to improve the reliability of those, but at the same time, it positions us well to move from our current, bifurcated fair system to a different approach. there are the advantages. first and foremost, customer convenience. it would speed up boarding time and do the other things we talked about. in terms of what the concept is, what we talked about and kicked around internally was the idea of a pilot -- should we first start with a couple of lines rather than go to the whole system. when we took a look, the potential for customer confusion and what is an all door boarding the un and what is

not, put us on the premise that if we're to go forward, it would be a system-wide initiative. we've got the rail system, we are talking about extending it to the rest of the system and figuring out a way to deal with those customers who would want to pay a single cash fare with a percentage getting less and less. this is the crux of what we need to look at as we go forward. first and foremost, for this to be successful, we have to get prepaid fare instruments in people's hands. how do we do that? a combination of ticket machines on the streets, deals with vendors, walgreen's, whoever, to do those things or even cashier's to kickstart the program. that is a major issue. the second one is the most important -- to figure out the optimal deployment sand -- deployment plan for the fair inspectors. what's the right number? how many do we need?

what is the right policy level? what percentage of riders do we want to see by which line? i think you know from some of the studies done, you know the percentage we have of riders who are checked. what is the right number to give us the assurance that while all door boarding is a well managed that we are minimizing risk to revenue and increasing the experience to the customer, identifying the operating capital cost, if we need additional fare machines, what they going to cost? where we put them? operating costs, the costs of additional inspectors, additional cashiers, and the cost to maintain additional equipment.

the fourth one is very important. one thing you have all told us from your own experience writing this system -- riding the system is explaining it to the public. the reason we have confusion right now is we still have, even with the advent of clipper, a a number of 25 or 26 different possible affairs of all kinds. we have a confusing system. -- possible fares at all times. if you do go all door boarding to -- if you do go to all door boarding, you're subject to inspection. on rail, there is still some confusion. also, that people understand where they are and what we are asking of them and what the expectations are and finally,

the other issue on how to best handle the cash that will be left and remaining. the next several slides are steps that are necessary, no matter what the plan, to make sure the machines are up and reliable, that people understand them and we encourage people to use the rear door when we have that and they begin to turn the message around from a negative to a positive. if we go in this direction, require new sign edge to replace what we have there are a number of ideas we talked about, building on what we have an extended afford to get the message out and educate people. it is important we work with the operators to get the consistency. right now, they bear the brunt of the burden. they do excellent job sorting out how a variety of issues, so we want to make sure we are

clear and explain to them and walk them through the process and set up a way to validate what we are going forward with. there are some ways we will measure it. we look at the revenue, some travel times and evaluated. finally, this is the crux of what we are looking at. we are proposing to do this and come back at a later date with a plan to move forward as we identify the issues like the cost and the deployment of the tfi forces and our public information campaign. >> thank you. one issue that has been raised, and not sure it came from the youth commission, is about hiring more transit inspectors and being a dance that because

their allegation is they tend to go after minorities and undocumented. that is the only objection i have heard about that. do you have any response? >> it's a separate issue but is raised in context of this. >> we are certainly well aware of it. i will let mr. mason see if he wants to add anything. but what he has pledged to do is look at not just what the right number is, but what percentage of riders do we want to touch. the times and the specifics are all very important. >> that's one of the concerns. when people felt it was targeting certain areas of town -- >> i think john is understating

his eagerness to see this happen. as a guy who is responsible for making muni run faster, there is no bigger proponent. i share that. i see how the current policy impact the operation and he did put customer convenience as the number one benefit of this. had the issue of how to do this at the right level of education and enforcement is the difficult part. it does dovetail with the idea of the fast pass and if we are going to change the policy on that, it may do away with some of this issue, but there have been complaints and allegations

about our enforcement. we certainly cannot go to all door boarding without a good education and enforcement process. what we don't want to do as we try to speed the system is unwittingly sends a message that muni is free on the buses. if we don't have the right education enforcement and communication in place, that's the message we send. if there is any hesitation between where we are today and flipping the switch and saying we're going forward on all door boarding, it is going through it that. as mr. murphy said, people have a full understanding that proof of payment is required and a reasonable expectation that they are subject to enforcement, that's the balance we have to draw within the context where some people are concerned about our enforcement already as it is. >> we may need considerable

outrage to the use commission. no one is being targeted. no one except fare evaders. no particular group or anyone. >> i support this. we need to speed up the system. anyone who has ever sat on a bus with 50 people on a while three people dig through their change purse and everyone is kept waiting knows this is a system that needs to change. i would suggest the problems are problems of perception rather than problems of reality. the issue that tom just raised can be addressed simply by explaining up front and in detail how we will handle enforcement. i have every confidence the three of you will not put in a plan that unfairly target certain groups based on impermissible categories.

if we explain -- if we go to lengths to dispel any misperceptions of how we're doing it. there is the other end of the spectrum. muni is encouraging the people we see cheating entering through the back door. it is a matter of months, not years, before there is another letter to the editor saying if many would stop people from boarding on the back door, it could close its budget gap. that is not true, but that is the perception of our fare- paying riders. they are paying their fair share and others are not. i would want to explain how we're going to have a robust

fare evasion enforcement program and why we're doing this. it does occur to me through the discussion we have some empirical data. we have rear-door boarding on muni trains at service level. have we look to see because folks are allowed to board in the outlying area through the back door, that has led to greater fare evasion? have we look at that issue? >> there was an analysis that the unit did two years ago that look that fare evasion -- look at fare evasion. it was lower on the rail lines but that is where the greatest deployment of the transit fare inspectors is.

i do not know -- that is apples to apples. there is differences in enforcement for the rail line. some of it is controlled area. will we do know is that boarding and fair transaction process takes a lot of time. i think the folks were evading fares would be evading fares by going through the back door and doing so. i think you're right. being very clear and explicit about how we're going to enforce what will be important. more importantly there is an opportunity through better education and better deployment

of the fair inspectors to reduce through this process, to reduce fare evasion. the numbers are pretty high. someone who appearpays my fair,s frustrating when you see people who it appears are not paying. we need to get the win-win trade where we unable -- enable all- door boarding. so we reduce the overal fare evasion. >> i agree with what you have said. i would say at the same time we're announcing and implementing this policy, we should be articulating a clear policy. i think it will address the misperceptions or perhaps correct perceptions on either side of the spectrum i have described. and then showing my eagerness, my question is this.

how far out do you think we are to a situation where we could have mandatory prepayment of affairs? to take the cash out of the system? >> maybe some exemptions for the f line. let's say that the holidays -- the rush hours, get yourself a prepaid fare instrument or you cannot write that line. >> one of the biggest issues is what to do with transfers. if part of the discussion will be the implementation, transfers and all fares on clipper, that could reduce the cash. i would say 12% to 15% pay by cash regularly. we -- there is a lot of prepaid

fare media. >> 12% to 15% are paying. how much of the boarding time and attention are they taking? it is more than their fair share. in addition to saying you have to follow our rules, i am not saying we have to do this in conjunction with back door boarding. we need to look at some point we need to ask you to prepay and make that easier to speed that up. >> that is part of the proposal to enhance the prepaid opportunities. there is -- we have gotten the low hanging fruit. there may be more to be had. there are some folks who will be harder to reach and folks who even if it makes financial sense for them to get a fast pass, do not necessarily have the cash flow to do so.

having options more at retail outlets, once we have those machines, we're much better positioned to go into any kind of restrictions on cash fair or render them unnecessary. >> i support this and getting rid of cash fares. what kind of time are we looking at a to figure out the implementation schedule for all- door boarding? >> through the chair, the question i was expecting. i think in the best case we could do something as soon as the next calendar year. to the extent we identify we have a budget needs to make this

happen such as more transit fare inspectors or ticket vending machines or other costs, we may need to build that into the budget process. we have not budgeted any expenditures for this in the current budget. that puts this in a window of the first half of next fiscal year. we certainly would like to do something sooner rather than later. i do not want to promise something we cannot deliver. >> as a possible to estimate or ballpark the dollar savings that we could anticipate by speeding up the buses and reducing time? >> every minute is millions of dollars, mr. strassner's. >> budgeting around that estimate would be dicey.

i think john had a slide on evaluation trade want to evaluate this. there has been a lot of data. the next presentation is on tep. every mile an hour savings. >> i wanted to make sure it is not fully about customer convenience. not only about speeding up the transit. it is about saving us money and saving operating costs. >> i would suggest we take these two issues that were suggested and be as productive as possible. identifying groups that feels this way. people who are talking about cheaters. that could be op-ed pieces and the kind of thing. there are groups representing certain communities. we have heard from them before. approaching them and trying to do something.

also hearing their concerns first hand. >commissioner oka: i know for a fact if i don't have to reach in my pockets to get money out to pay the fair, it makes it easier. the clipper card has made it much easier for me to do with boarding. even though this -- [unintelligible] everybody is going to have to, i think the instruments that people with disabilities and others with dexterity problems,

handling small coins and that kind of thing, we would make it easier by making it faster for people aboard -- who board. there are some ideas on that, too. i would support going to a no cash eventually. commissioner ramos: thank you for following up on this and bringing us this today. i know there are a few people, some advocates who have been pushing on this for a while. i have been pushing on this, dreaming about it every time i see or sitting on a bus waiting for folks to single file to the front door. and to help people realize what this might mean -- and now

imagine the kind of restriction being put on our buses. and something that we have the power to lift. just like that. i do not see what would be so confusing. what the concern from the cac was in regards to what to do. you have to have paid a fair. it is not that confusing. when you get on any of the cars, you do not need the citation. you are on the approval of payments on. it is not the confusing. with respect to ticket vending machines, we have mobile ticket vending machines on every single one of our coaches, that is where we can pay if we do not have approved payment to get onto the back doors. i do not think we have the

luxury to delay this anymore than we have to. we're constantly being burdened with shortcomings in terms of meeting our budget and attracting and increasing more revenue. this is one way i feel we can save so much more money. the folks that we're concerned about, the scofflaws that are cheating the system, whether or not there is a perfect payment system in placer not, there will continue to cheat the system. we're held hostage on account of a few folks. there are some folks that might be nervous or paranoid that someone is not paying their fair. that would be up to the inspectors to work out. i want to emphasize the urgency on this. i think we are burning money. it is the same kind of i feel the delays we have when our packed buses are forced to sit in traffic and not have dedicated lanes.

even if they are not permanent. if there are dedicated lanes that are not being enforced or if are -- they are not temporary. we do not have the luxury of waiting and working through to the perfect and sacrificing the good as a result. if we can move forward as fast as we can. i would appreciate it and the riders would. thank you. >> we do have members of the public. >> i would ask if somebody could put slide 13, the one that is on the powerpoint on the screen for the viewing audience. that illustrates the safety concern i have sent to you folks year after year after year after

year. it is the same safety concern that is not mentioned in this report. the same safety concern that not one of the impact upon. take a look at that picture. there is to very unusual things about it. first, the report says you are going to put signage telling people, let's everybody get off before you get on a back door. that is not happening. there are signs saying, do not get on the back door. you have a communication reliability problem. second, and worse, it is the issue that the director raised. the buses at the curb. when it is not at the curb, the rear doors are higher of the payment. -- off the pavement. i was at a major retirement home. i had to take the second.

the front door that kneeled, when you do not have the buses pulling in to the curb and it is higher, there is a greater chance that someone will slip and fall. when you're out passengers pushing on into the back door while others are getting out, you have an injury problem. previous times, have set this, even your counsel took note. -- previous times when i have said this, even your council tosel took note. do not do this until you know you will get compliance. >> howard strassner, howard wong, robert boden. >> i can support the generality

of all door boarding as fast as possible and smoothly as possible. one of the things that came up, why do we have a differential for cash fair. i am glad this discussion we have had more from all door boarding 20 cash and complete clipper cards. if the cash fair became instant of $2 you had to pay three or $4, everybody would find out where to get their clipper card. everybody. you do the same thing for seniors, we would find the clipper card dispensary and it would not have to put so many machines in. the hotels would tell people, if we have one in the lobby, you go down to the walgreens or there is one where you get off the airport. there will be a clipper card and you had better get it. it will cost extra.

every gstr system -- fare system would be on the card. that would be part of your clipper card. i am happy that it morphed into this. doesn't assure you the need for well-designed buses? even now if disabled folks need the bus that nails, they will go in the front. the rest of us can jump higher in the back. all this will work. this will take pr and a lot of discussion. the cash fair -- fare will cost

more. >> i got mixed up with the agenda items. i support the out -- all door boarding. also what was being mentioned about the curbside buses not pulling in to the curb. i live in a residential out of sunset. one aboard the bus especially when the hybrid buses when the rap deploys onto the street, many times i mentioned it to you guys. i am concerned about