7:00. we do have people that work and get off at 9:00, at 10:00, 12:00 at night. we are not serving them properly because we are concentrating too much on the a.m. and p.m. when we need to look at the overall. only then we can see we are doing the right thing. thank you for listening. >> anyone else care to address the board? >> item 12, presentation and discussion regarding the central subway project. >> i do not have a formal presentation. this was meant to be included on the director's report, but given the size of the central subway project and it's important to the system, i thought it was important to stand alone. i want to update the board of

where it is and how it's going just to keep you current and make sure any concerns from the board we can bring back to the project. the big picture is there were two sets of relocation utility contracts. south of market is almost complete. in union square, we have been working closely with the union square association and other merchants. it is largely done trade largest chunk will be done before the holiday -- the holiday moratorium. there'll be little work after january, but the lion's share has been done. given the magnitude of the work and disruptions in one of our busiest commercial areas in the city and the fact that commercial businesses there are largely satisfied with how it is going is a great testament to the team.

the design work on the three stations and the systems which will connect all of those stations, they are about 90% complete. those will be wrapping up soon and we will be putting those out for construction bids mostly next calendar year, 2012. the big contract, of course, was approved for the tunnel at $233 million. we have executed that contract and will soon be issuing our first notice to proceed to the contractor. there will be a number of notices to proceed. but the first one is coming soon. from a design and construction perspective, everything is moving forward. in terms of funding, we recently received $20 million of additional federal money toward the project.

obviously, the big chunk of funding will come through the full grant agreement which we have been working with the federal transit administration on and we will be submitting our formal application soon. in terms of design construction funding, everything is moving forward as scheduled. there has been some recent discussion, public discussion about the project. there was a civil grand jury report. we did provide a response and if we have not shared that with you, we will make sure you have a copy that goes point by point to address what were some incomplete, incorrect, or out dated issues that we were able to address. there has been discussion in the media we have -- that others, including the fta administrator

has been able to demonstrate that many years of planning and a high threshold of analysis and fiscal sustainability, this project has successfully cleared at the federal level. the project is moving forward and everything at this point is within budget, which also has a healthy contingent seat and the schedule is one we're meeting at this time and i would be happy to answer any questions and entertain thoughts on the frequency would like updates on the project. >> we were in washington in the spring and we were meeting with the administrator. i did not see the article but he

was talking about several issues he had. but he has been satisfied we responded to those. is that correct? >> he submitted a letter to the editor of the wall street journal. >> i would like to see that. >> one of the issues was the safety thing. that has been addressed already. thank you. anybody else? >> is there a member of the public who wishes to speak on this matter? >> sorry to risk losing my credit before this board, but i cannot look at this project with such rosy colored grasses. -- rosy colored glasses. a couple of the supervisors originally supported this

project and they now see the light and see it's going to be a bad project. a couple -- the grand jury report talking about the overall problems. you guys have to realize, i would say slow down because we don't know what the feds are going to do. some republican may say the billion dollars is better spent on projects that really will provide service. i did the calculations correctly to show there is no run you can take on the subway that will be faster than the bus. that is in actual time. in perceives time, it is much worse. all of this was left out of the eir. it befuddles everybody. this is my first chance to try to explain this and it took me a long time. they looked ahead to what would happen in 2030 and put immense

ingestion on it and said that it affects the bus. but more recently, on the embarcadero, not too far away, they say there are no changes we can expect in 2013. we have a whole city working every possible method to reduce congestion on the surface. we cannot accept something that increases best time by 70% will increase part-time by over 100%. we are going to take steps to see that does not happen and you will be paying for two systems -- one on the surface and one below. $16 million every year you do not have and have to cry for more money. [tone] let's go slow and don't wait for more capital. >> anybody else? thank you very much. next item. >> item 13, a discussion

regarding the all door boarding program. >> the director brought this to our attention in a big way recently. >> thank you. from a service perspective, over the next several months, we will ask you to deal with a lot of important topics, but in terms of the way we run our business on a day-to-day basis on a policy perspective, none is more important than this one. you recognize that and ask as to come and give you an overview of

all door boarding. what we want to do is provide you with an update and talk about both the path forward, issues we need to address and resolve as we go forward and, as you heard, both from mr. murphy and others, there is a tremendous amount of interest and support for this. it goes without saying that if, in all our research, whether individual studies like market street or more broad, comprehen the transit effectiveness program, the single biggest impediment to speeding up the system is the fair transaction. at your request, what we are proposing -- i will go quickly. i don't know based on your knowledge that we need to talk about why we think is important. obviously, what we just said. in terms of the point on this one is the third bullet down.

i at this and understand what we are proposing to do here is we talk a lot about the uniqueness of our system. high usage, frequent stops, very 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 ab