something like a 70% increase in productivity. she is now turning her sights to the parking and traffic enforcement and while i do not want to set her up and promised 70% increase of productivity, we have preliminary- -- preliminarily identified working with the control officers and kesse are you -- seiu on how they are employed and how they are used to manage traffic. we will see in this coming fiscal year before it starts, some improvements in that regard. we recognize it as a shortcoming and recognize one of the reasons mta was put together in the first place was the use parking and traffic management to help muni flow better and i do not think we have realized the benefits of that to date. supervisor chu: thank you. i would love to hear an update as we go forward. >> i would be happy to.

back to the slide. what we're trying to achieve in this expenditure plan, are reductions to streamline and make ourselves more efficient but also investments to make transit first work to improve safety and establish accountability for the department. these are things that i believe will start moving us in the right direction. a little bit more specifically, just for those who have not already read through and memorized our strategic plan. a few targets that we have concluded in the plan are listed here. we have a 10% reduction goal for each fiscal cycle. in crime and workplace injuries and collisions. that is all modes, bike, taxi, a car, bus, train. this service go we are aiming

for is what we call bunches and gaps and for the first fiscal cycle, the idea -- the goal is to eliminate them for 25% of the ridership. this would start on the most heavily traveled lines. bunches are vehicles that come within two minutes of each other and gaps are vehicles that are off by more than five minutes of their scheduled time. while we will continue to measure on-time performance, it is a requirement in the charter and it is the one that is publicly reported each quarter. what that is measuring is our performance relative to a schedule, a schedule that nobody knows exists. it is not meaningful as what people feel when you are star -- standing at the bus stop and you're waiting and you see two buses come, the first being overly crowded and the other is

empty. this measure is made to better reflect what people actually see and experience in terms of riding the in the service. a big part of this will improve the minutes of the equipment so it does not have breakdowns which in turn create some of the gaps which lead to the bunching we sail . -- that we see along the line. the big overarching transit first policy goal in the plan is to achieve at the end of the six-years -- six years a 50% improvement in the uses. 50% of the trips in san francisco are by private automobile. our goal is to drive that down to 50 being the muni means. improving taxi service,

eliminate bunches and gaps, work towards structural budget gaps -- causing structural budget gaps. in the 39 years since the transit first policy has been in place, we have not moved the dial on this measure. i do not know that we have good data. most people's sense -- people's sense is we have not shifted modes. that is a significant and ambitious goal for the plan and agency in the city. finally as i mentioned, one of the goals in our plan is to close the structural budget gaps and this proposed -- or the expenditure plan and what i will be proposing to the board next week is a step in that direction. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor kim. supervisor kim: thank you. i wanted to go back to your previous item. about reducing collisions and

injuries. we talked about how we can reduce injuries for -- that is a huge -- reduce injuries for our employees. that is a futures -- huge expense for the city. [inaudible] >> in terms of the muni side, i am proposed -- proposing some enhanced safety staffing. these are the specialists who are evaluating every mini accident or collision that we have. every collision that we have, to determine the cause, whether it was avoidable or not. more importantly to start using the data and the trends to see what is driving these collisions. initial data shows that i think it is right turns, hit -- a huge percentage of our accidents

or collisions by muni vehicles are right turns. it could be refresher training for operators, it could be evaluating how mairs our position. we're trying to drill down and understand the roots of what is causing these collisions and that is something of this city staff will help with. in regard to pedestrians and bicycles, we're working closely with the police department as well as some of the other stakeholder groups, the pedestrian safety advisory committee, the bike coalition, a senior action network, walk sf. to do some of the similar work, to better use data so we understand where the problems are. the department of public health has been extremely helpful as the co-lead in the pedestrian safety task force. there is a few dimensions there. there is education and physical engineering changes. that we can make in terms of

education, we have been working with some of those partners as well as the da's office in terms of diversion programs and other educational approaches. with some of the funding we got from proposition d, brand and mohammed were talking about, we have the ability to start implementing bike and pedestrian safety projects that in the past we have had not as much funding for. same with the things in our traffic calming program. what we're trying to generally slow traffic around the city, we were two-thirds of the way of implementing a 50 mile an hour zone and speed limit zounds add to murder schools around the city, that should be done before the start of the next school year. and generally tough trying to improve the project delivery of

our programs. now that we have somebody coming in, we can get those projects delivered efficiently. very big focus area the sf mta board was delivered in identifying safety as the no. 1 priority in the plan. the final thing that we are doing is we're working with the police department and the mayor's office on try to identify funding for hand-held units for the traffic co. so that's -- so that when they are dealing with an accident, that the data goes right in electronically and immediately goes back to our traffic engineers. right now there's a big lag between what is happening on the streets and that data getting back to our folks to identify where we might have a problem intersection or an area that may be just with signage or light sitting change or more capital

intensive thing work. there is a solution -- there is a solution, getting hand-helds into the hands of officers, it is a relatively small investment that will have a pretty big payback. supervisor kim: i appreciate the use of the data we have been trying to facilitate more data coming in so we can prevent increases, if we know that there are areas that are prone are certain types of activities that facility that happening. the first time i heard we have been collecting data on what causes -- with pedestrians and others that are sharing the streets. i am glad to see we are collecting data and acting on it. i appreciate that work. thank you. >> definitely i and all aspects of the operation, trying to go to -- in all aspects of the operation, trying to implement data, going to a comsat process.

karl rove just for eliminating the bunches and gaps, is that identifying specific efforts? >> what we are proposing to start trying to focus on is the busiest lines that get us the more bang for the black. to the extent we can improve reliability on those lines, we can do so and benefit the greatest amount of people and from there, we will work our way through. the 25% is the goal for the first fiscal cycle and it extends subsequent to fiscal cycles of the plan. supervisor kim: i would love to hear what mta is doing to achieve the reduction in crime offline. >> i will note since you gave me entree, we do have one part of our operation we believe has

been fairly effective has been a grant funded unit of one sergeant and eight officers, this is the plainclothes unit that has been working on the muni system, that has been successful in making arrests of pickpockets and other types of crime that we see on muni. the grant funding for that unit and at the end of this fiscal year and as of yet, we do not have a backfill or sustainable funding. we're talking with the police -- with the police department and the mayor's unit in terms of reducing crime on muni. crime is down on muni. in all categories except larceny, which is largely related to theft electronic devices. if you get on muni, 90% of the people are immersed in their devices and it leads to inattention and it is making them vulnerable to that type of

crime. overall, crime is down on muni. supervisor chu: thank you. >> even after -- given where our revenues are and our expenditures or after the cuts we made but also the investments on proposing it, it has left us with a little bit of a gap relative to an $800 million budget. it is not huge but it is fairly sizable for us to close. it was last projected at a little under $20 million in the last fiscal year and $34 million in the second fiscal year. so our options are either to reduce revenues, increase revenues to reduce expenditures, or do both. on the expenditure side, i have done what i think you can do up to this point in terms of identifying ways to reduce expenditures. so what is left are either making reductions in service

which we really would rather not do and would work against some of our strategic plan goals that could be reducing muni service, by increasing the frequency, shortening the hours, or eliminating bus lines, or it can be reducing our street maintenance and it would take longer to clean graffiti off the sign or to get striping redone in the crosswalk. these are things that we really do not want to do. the other area, a potential area for expenditure reduction is in labor savings. the unions representing about half of our employees have open contracts right now that we are currently, along with the city, negotiating. the transit workers union, they are in contracts for the next two years through the next fiscal years but all the rest of the contracts are open. seiu local 21, the machinists

that represent half of our employees, those contracts are open so we are negotiating with the city and to the extent that we can secure concessions, or cost savings that would help close our gap. supervisor avalos: all along these lines of reductions we could make in the budget, what work has been done to try and lower the amount of work orders? it is a big hot topic over the years. i know that we have been still maintaining a high level. $6.65 million a year around their. what efforts have been done to constrain that work orders leaving the department? >> for the most part, work orders are a vehicle used to purchase services from city departments -- we used to purchase services from city

departments. -- by city hall essentially. we are paying an allocation of general service or we are paying for a specific level of service that we need. so for us to reduce work orders, there would either need to be a change in the city's allocation methodology which would have likely adverse general fund impact or we would have to purchase our services a different way or perform them ourselves. generally we are buying services from another agency. it is within their core competency to provide them, not ours. if we did not pay dpw to do some of the cleaning that we pay them to do, we could either do it ourselves or we could outsource it. we would still have those costs. the one i would say -- supervisor avalos: does that

fluctuate depending on the kind of work to do to defend the mta, how does that -- >> the bulk of the city attorney work order amount is the amount we're paying out in claims. i am working are starting to work with the comptroller's office, the office of risk management and the city attorney's office to see how if there is a risk management approach we can take to reduce our claims. the majority, i think it might be two-thirds of the city attorney's work order is going, flowing out through litigation. the way to address that is to figure out what are the things that are generating the claims in the first place and then working to reduce those things from happening. baring, adjusting how we do our financing between departments, that could be one area that based on practices and change in how you do your work could have

an impact in increasing safety. >> we do not have enough data. in order to know what that goal could be and quite often, and unfortunately, like other city departments, we are an easy target. we're making payouts just in lieu of litigation costs. there are some claims that are hard to defend against if people are going to make them. there are many liability costs that we're generating because of our actions. overtime would be able to drive the down that number. it is a goal to do that. i do not have a numerical goal for that in mind. perhaps it is myth or perhaps it is reality. there is an understanding that

when i guess it was prop b -- a that was passed, the -- when we created a set aside, the next year the work orders increase. could you see if that is your understanding of whether it is true or not? and there are parts of the city services, police department provide support for muni, part of it has been under the police department budget and the other does the work order that is paid for by the mta. wonder if we can call department services and move forward to how we can find muni with budget and fully fund muni and the department -- police department from a separate pot of money as well. >> to the first part of the question with regard to what happened after prop a passed,

like understanding is there were a number of different things happening. a big one is the economy crashed. one thing that happens, some of the formulas for how the work orders were allocated at changed to minimize the impact on the general fund or to directly allocate costs, that was a result of some of the increase to the mta's work order. there were other things that happened. mta started paying for its real estate once it moved into one south van ness to work order to real-estate versus a rent line item. all the sudden we went up by something like $5 million for the real estate. our real estate costs went down. they shifted into the work order line item. i think there are other examples like that. i think at one point, the proposed work order budget was something up around $80 million. there were reductions made to

get it down to the old level it is today. the one exception to what i have been talking about is the one youris the portion that goes toe police department your eg. i cannot speak to the history and when it was funded by the police department, but that is a policy decision that it would be funded by the transportation department. git is a clear legitimate expene that should be paid. the traffic enforcement has been a policy called. i do not think there is disputes that we need five service.

it is a matter of who pays for it, and if it were up to our budget it would be an $9 million and addition of your your -- $9 million ad edition. that is not something we can unilaterally decide to pay. get it is the city's decision triggered >> -- it is a city decision. good >> we keep those in the department for the service, so we get a more clear discussion of how our work orders are gonedone, so when we are payingr motorcycles, i think about is a good idea to have separate for the future. >> we would welcome to the general fund assumption of the responsibility but recognize its house of 100 plus million dollar

gap. >> this work issue has come oup. there are opportunities to reduce the work order on two levels. you reduce your work order amount for the departments. on the other side, does the department really have the opportunity to reduce thrown expenses to correspond, and what that often means, are we willing to go forward with layoffs and ordered to do that, so that is a legitimate question about his work order. it is not like saying, i am not going to buy tape or gas. it is something that is harder to reduce, the question about

the city attorney work order is very appealing. that does not have a negative impact in terms of people. xbox we would like to bring back down. -- >> that is something we would like to bring down. if we could reduce those that would be a good thing. >> the city attorney is to do a lot of work. the hourly rates the city

attorney in charge thoses is lor than we would need to do, so if we cut the work order, you needed start confessing judgment on everything, or it would have to hire an outside law firm at a higher hourly rate. >> which we are prohibited from doing. i think it would end up being more expensive, so i do appreciate the explanation. i do agree the work order is unique, and i appreciate the discussion, but a lot of these are straightforward services.

>> that is what we have to look out on the expenditure side, so the other side is looking out revenues. there is a long thing the city has considered in the past. i lead a panel to try to identify, to a police shorten list -- to at least shorten the list, so here are some things that have come in. i will highlight a few. with regard to parking

citations, the state has imposed a couple of fees on top, so to the extent we do not pass those through, and we are basically paying themselves -- paying them ourselves. we would pass those through, which would add money to the cost of any parking citation. another idea has been to extend the hours during which we enforce parking meters into the evening or on sundays. both have a fair amount of courage -- no amount of commercial activity. -- both have a fair amount of commercial activity. from getting folks off the street parking, we think these

have policy and operational merit. they also generate revenue. there are some areas of the city where there is commercial activity where we do not have managed parkading. we think there is an opportunity where an additional readers would bring parking benefit along with a little revenue. the board of supervisors adopted resolutions supporting free muni for youth. the revenue impact of doing so would be roughly $8 million a year. if we were to limit 5 someway such as for low income newsyout it would be $4 million of

impact. it is a relatively small percentage of the budget, about 1%, and those advocating for this have identified some revenue sources said could help offset our revenue loss. we have some reduce funding. supervisor campos has been working on funds that could find to enable us to reduce or eliminate fair for youth. state funding for yellow school buses have been declining and is projected to continue to decline.

this happens at a time when discount passes went from $10 to $20 during just the course of a few years, so putting those together has created this drives, but it does have some potential impact that may be offset by regional funds. >> the proposal, what you think the chances are of it actually going away after two years? >> if it is rhetorical, does that mean i do not have to answer it? if we were to make muni very cheap or free for the whole population, for us to jump it stack up from zero or five, it would be 25 ivan