support -- strengthen the agency and support the employees to make any of this happened. we have an objective to improve internal communication, to make the workplace environment more collaborative and innovative, and inclusive. to improve accountability of our employees. this plan will serve as foundation of accountability for the entire organization, down to individuals. finally, to improve partnerships with the stakeholders who rely on us and on whom we rely. that is a nut shell of the strategic plan, in large part as you saw it before. we took your feedback and that of others, which made it a better plan. we have a resolution for your consideration that would adopt the plan. with that, i would be happy to take any questions. chairperson nolan: members of

the board? >> in the deliberations, there were creative people. i assume there were controversies about what should wind up in here? are there any in particular that you would care to talk about? maybe would not care to talk about them, but are there any? executive director reiskin: there was a lot of feedback, not all of which we were able to incorporate. the controversy -- tim want to jump in. some had to do with the level of the specificity, and whether we wanted to get more specific and be more explicit in terms of cycling and pedestrian goals. that was one area i would say was somewhat controversial. we are trying in this plan to set the frame and not pick the winners. i think there were definitely differences of opinion on that.

there were differences of opinion in the order of the goals. we ended up sticking safety first, making sure people feel safe on the system. everything else is secondary. other people thought transit first should be first, or the organization should be first. there was slight disagreement. i think we kept the plan at a high enough level where it did not really beg all the tough policy questions that implementing the plan will. you may be said it in your written remarks on the plan. it is going to be to the mta management and board to back implementation of the plan. there will be things we will do that we will be bringing to you, i imagine, under the framework of this plan, that will not be popular and that will be controversial. it would want to achieve what we

want to, we need to support that direction, even though not everybody may like it when it is first brought forward. i do not know if tim wants to add anything in terms of controversial issues. >> there were no controversies. [laughter] chairperson nolan: thank you. i assumed with creative people like you have here, sometimes there are differences of opinion, which is fine. to me, the high-level thing is exactly what is strategic plan ought to be, the goals. anything else? thank you. we have a speaker? >> yes. bob has expressed a desire to address the board on this matter. chairperson nolan: good afternoon. happy new year. >> i am bob planthold.

i wanted to come to positively make a statement of support and request that you endorse this. it is not just the content i agree with and support. it is also the process by which this was made. that process itself generates respect and credibility. there was a widespread outrage through stakeholder workshops and interviews. that inclusiveness and diversity was helpful. the waste of responded as facilitators was also refreshen -- the way staff responded as facilitators was also refresh ing. they listened to what we said. the process was hopeful. the content i agree with. this is well written and understandable. that is helpful for the general public. i thought it worth saying that. there are people who really read this and say yes. chairperson nolan: thank you.

good afternoon. >> good afternoon. herbert weiner, a former member of rescue muni. the strategic objectives are commendable, but you left one important thing out. the expansion of resources to meet changing needs. part of the psychology of the mta is to make do with what resources you have and not ask for more. we need more drivers. we need more buses. this should be part of the strategic plan. this is left out. one example of this is the transit effectiveness project. it really neglect the needs of the elderly, sick, and chronically ill and physically vulnerable. this strategic plan have to address this.

right now, what you are trying to do is get the most buses on the most utilized runs, but you are leaving many people who are very needy in the lurch. this plan has to address that. i mean, i certainly -- i take real issue with the objectives. you have to start expanding reasonably. this is very important. if you want to make this a transit first city and have people use cars less, you have to expand these resources. chairperson nolan: would anyone else care to address the board on this? seeing no one, we have a resolution before us. >> motion to approve, with great pleasure. i know the board has put a lot of time into this, but that is nothing compared to staff. we appreciate the hard work on a great plan. our silence on the board recognizes the hard work we have done and you have done, and is

not dismiss a of it. i know a lot of work has gone into this. i appreciate it. that is a long ocean. >> i will second with one sentence. we had a detailed discussion at our retreat. it is obvious you listened carefully to us, and i appreciate that. along the same lines as director brinkman, my quiet does not suggest this pleasure. quite the contrary. chairperson nolan: all in favor? the ayes have it. a member of this board a few years ago -- this built upon worksheet and the committee did. thank you. >> item 13, approving the 20 year capital plan. no one has expressed interest in addressing you on this matter. chairperson nolan: mr.

papandreou, you have been dying to talk to us. >> i appreciate that. good afternoon, board and director. i am going to present fairly quickly the 20 year capital plan. some of its key components and its relationship to other documents. what you have before you is in the appendix, a list of our 20 year unconstrained needs. this is an unconstrained need, not a physically-constrained need. it is what we would need in the next 20 years to make our system work more effectively. we also have determined that through this new process we have developed, called the transportation capital committed, it allows the different divisional entities within the mta to have a voice in developing the process.

we used to have separate capital planning process, and now we have one for all the different modes of the agency. while that may not be very interesting, it is pretty huge for where the agency is going. on the actual transportation capital programs themselves, we worked on a new way of looking at how we are going to look at our project. we have structured it in a way that has major progress categories. it has been quite an effective tool to help us organize how we look at our project and how we organize them now. certain projects will fall under multiple categories, as they do underfunding, but we need organization which allows us to get to these pieces. these are criteria we developed by looking at the existing policies in san francisco, but also regional, state, and

federal government. we asked the team to waive those criteria. -- weigh those criteria. we have better ways to integrate the project and meet the needs of the better streets plan and other elements that have come forward. what used to be stand-alone projects, rail or pedestrian projects, now have the opportunity to be more multi- modal and integrated. we expect to see cost and time savings, getting better at using our resources. the capital planning context, as i was mentioning, is the process of integrating the various and you will see there, the director just presented the strategic plan. these longer-range plans help the other plants, and more specifically, the capital plan

itself really gives us the universe of projects that will happen over the next 20 years, and then the capital improvement program that will come back to you, this is our work plan. these are our priorities. more recent than that is the capital budget. the next two years, we are going to build x. we promised to build x. we have the resources to build what we say we are going to build, so over the next month, we will come back to you to approve the various components men made up to the ultimate approval of the budget. just to give you some

background, when we are looking at the project and 20 years ahead, this was a state of good repair. the state of good repair also ties into reliability and to safety and helping to keep out costs. so it is a fairly large buckets, and then there were other categories for security and the end enhancements and expansion. i will talk about that. in summary, the project itself has a 183 actual projects. in total, we and somewhere in the order of 1000 projects that the agency is agreeing to do. it will be really busy.

we have a lot of things to do. the capital needs bimotor, when you look at it from a motor oil perspective, -- the capital needs by mode, when you look at it from day -- a modal perspective, we have basically done a rough order of magnitude analysis and found we need about $24 billion to meet our capital program needs between now and 2030. obviously, this is a wish list. after the process, we have to figure out what we have.

and the idea is to look at strategically expand in the corridors that we need to. we also will be experiencing a latent demand. also, there will be an impact on capacity. and this one we have done more in detail because of the relationship and of the projects we have been working on. the majority of our work is really making sure our actual transit fleet system is working to the best that they can. we also have a need for the other facility components, including parking and traffic, but beat primary is the system. -- but the primary is the system. this is very important to us, so we are working closely with state and regional and other

partners to make sure that this does not impinge on what we have. and then there is the central subway. there are other corridors that we're working on. doing better that we have, they will be instrumental, focusing on the networks there are the projects we have been talking about. and that is in a nutshell. we are looking to complete and

there are the funding opportunities that we expect to see, and then to get this ready for the two-year budget. i gave you a very high-level presentation, and i would be happy to answer any questions. i would be remiss not to introduce the people have been instrumental in gathering the information. it is quite a challenge so i want to thank them. chairman nolan: thank you. this is the easy part here. we do not have to worry about money. >> that is right. chairmon nolan -- chairman nolan: thank you. any members of the public? secretary boomer: no.

chairman nolan: any further discussion? all in favor, say aye. next item. secretary boomer: item i4. >> i am with the affairs. with us is the advocacy program, which we use as a free market for our advocacy at all levels, including federal, in the coming years. a lot of this is assuming in predicting what is going to happen. we cannot necessarily anticipate every issue, so this is a free- market that happens us -- that helps us to beat able. we do not do this in a vacuum,

ever. we work closely with the entire cities family and the board of supervisors, our colleagues at the county transportation authority, and then on up. i think you will see in this program a new component involving regional advocacy. and we also work closely with our congressional delegation as part of the city family. in terms of local legislative priorities, i think a lot of this will unfold in the coming year, and this will keep them apprised with all of the activities. we will make sure that this is oriented to the activities of the sfmta. these are general priorities, typical priorities. and it is a very busy front. we are constantly taking items

to the board of supervisors for approval, and the executive team is very involved in that, as well. so the items that are listed here are most what would be familiar to you. any activity associated with the subway, sf park, and things at the local level. i think what we decided this year was to look at the work that the regional effort entails. i know some of you have anticipated at that level other capacities, but i think it is important to realize the coordination that goes on. we have two representatives from the city, and we are working closely with them as well as the mayor's office and the board and our staff to make sure that our interests are represented at that level. the issues that come up at this

level are high-speed rail, called tran's -- caltrans and the future of this as well as an advocacy for programs that will come up at the regional level. also, as tim mentioned, there is the regional sustainable communities strategy. that is something that drives all of the way down to me -- to the cip level. this is relative to san francisco's interest, said these the kinds of things he decided to include in the program this year as well as bicycle and advocacy. how can we do more in the interests of san francisco as it relates to the priorities of the region going forward. this is the second year of the session, which is dominated fundamentally by the state's budget situation. i think we will not see a different tenor this year. i think our position will be primarily one of defense.

as you know, included in your program last year was the authorization that we deal with the camera program. this was an active, so we will consider that our victory in the session, but as director reiskin mentioned, we are able to make the case that state bond issues are important for some of the issues we have, including the central subway. the money is proposition one a and 1 d. we were successful this year, but the drum beat has to continue for san francisco to stay in the race. there are a number of statewide issues. we will see how far they get this year, but ceqa reform, there is statewide discussion about potential reform, whether it is thresholds for small-scale projects to do these or other

forms of sea " reform which might be of interest -- and other forms of ceqa reform. there is a powerful funding agreement, which we hope is imminent, that we do not take anything for granted, and we hopefully will be getting good news from the government said on the agreement for that central subway project. the other big policy issue will be transportation reauthorization. there is the current federal law that has been extended nine times now. the last extension takes us through march of 2012, and in an election year, i think it is going to be hard for the administration and congress to come up with new funding mechanisms that will allow for

the level of investment that interests are expressing the need for, and so we will watch that. we will be involved in that. we do have a direct stake in the program, but that is the other sort of situation that we see at the federal level, so that is a quick overview on the program, and i am happy to answer any questions that you may have. chairman nolan: thank you. we had intended that they would be a presentation on caltrans -- caltrain, but we decided to postpone that, and that will be back. thank you. director heinicke? director heinicke: this report was very well done. thank you.

there is the vehicle license issue, which i do not see in this, and i want to know whether you feel you do not have enough direction, whether the senator and others are not pushing the issue, but this is something that is noticeably absent, and i wanted to see if that was purposeful. >> not so purposeful other than it has been vetoed four times in a row. i do not have any signal yet from senator leno. he has been staunch. he has been a defender of the concept of a local option, and if it would be helpful, we could certainly include that. director heinicke: it is not going to be pursued, then it is not worth your effort. chairman nolan: thank you.

secretay boomer: yes, mr. chairman, you do have a member of the public to wishes to address you. >> i am bob. i wanted to suggest that some of the remarks that i made earlier seem not to have been addressed. there also needs to be sometimes a defensive look at some actions, the negative legislation that the state legislature can put forward, so in the past two years, there have been successful veto measures. they would have made injury is more likely. it did not come before the state legislation committee. i met with the mayor in april, and he mentioned possibly having a city lobbyist work on this. nothing happened. there were things that were

negative that were passed, and i and various other groups were passed to get it vetoed, but you cannot count on us individually to do your work. watch out for the weasel actions. especially ab909. it started out as an educational measure, and then for process, it became a traffic fine a lessening measure. so it may not show up on an initial screen, but someone needs to carefully monitor all of this stuff to find out the factors that come in. that is what is missing here, the negative, the harm that can come from measures that can affect a red light cameras enforcement and levels that can deter dangerous driving. it is too late to amend it, maybe staff can give directions in an appropriate way to watch out for this that we do not have a third veto fight next year. chairman nolan: ok, members of

the board, we have a resolution before us. director bridges: i move. chairman nolan: drvonfr -- seconded by director oka. ok. next item. secretay boomer: item 15, the clipper card. chairman nolan: good afternoon. >> i am with the sfmta finance

division, and i am here to update you on the clipper card program. the commission began the development of a payments system, regularly named translink and most recently changed to "clipper." this requires coordination between transit operators. it is also intended to streamline customer payments and transfers between agencies. this will review the implementation, the regional and local level, as well as the performance of the new clipper integrated fair -- fare gate, and we will also touch on next steps for the program.

but transitions across all participating agencies, as well as the estimated percentage of passenger boarding that are currently using clipper as the payment. this is as of 2011. sfmta met its transition calls with our monthly pass customers. major transition for bart and another occurred just a few days ago on december 31, and they are expected to complete their milestones by the end of june. at that time, all eight of the participating agencies will have met the deadline. this next graph demonstrates the tremendous growth in the we did boardings related to clipper. they have increased by more than 50%, from to under 93,000 in december 2010 to 572,000 in november of this year.