the transit effectiveness project, which i mentioned which is really looking at restructuring and improving muni service, is recommending pretty significant increase in muni service. any of you who know who ride muni, a lot of our lines are crowded. there is a lot more demand for muni service than we have currently service plan to deliver. so, tep proposes 10% increase in muni service. so, more service, particularly on the routes that carry the most people. but i think of the 75 or so muni routes that tep proposes some increased frequency on about 60 of them. so, it's almost a system wide increase focused on the most heavily traveled routes. but pretty significant bump up in muni service proposed to reduce crowding to make it a faster and more efficient to move through the city, which also would make it a more attractive means to travel for more trips for more people.

so, of course, that comes at a pretty significant cost. just the service increase would more than consume those buses i showed in the baseline budget. so, then quickly moving on to the capital budget, the capital budget as well we're making kind of one-time invests in assets to bring them into a state of good repair. that's the core priority of our budget, to make sure that our kind of mission critical assets, which are the bus he and the trains and the rails and the overhead wires and the signals and switches, making sure that those are in a state of good repair. that alone carries a price tag of about $250 million a year. we have about, i think it's $12 billion worth of assets. so, we need to be investing in this level just to keep those cora sets in a state of good repair. ~ core assets other priority is safe and complete streets. i mentioned at the start the focus on bike and pedestrian safety, that really safety for

all road users, those investments we need to make or can make to make the -- to redesign the streets to make them safer for all road users, that's a priority in this capital budget. and then the third -- and this relates back to the tep. there are changes that we can make in the public right-of-way to make muni work better through the streets, dedicated lanes to muni, building out sidewalks so that the buses don't have to pull over to pick up passengerseses and then fight their way into traffic. put intion signals in some places where muni vehicle have to stop and tying the muni vehicleses to those signals so they get a green light ~. that's another category of investment. state of good repair which is really investing in the system that we have today, safety, and then enhancements to the system that will help the system work better. so, this is what the revenues and expenditures look like in the capital budget.

kind of a big picture, you can see we get a pretty good chunk of our revenues from the federal government when it comes to the capital side of our budget. on the local side, we do have the half cent sales tax dedicated for transportation here in san francisco. we at the mta are the largest recipient of those funds. there's a few other local sources, including our own mta revenue bonds that i referenced and we get a little bit of money from the state, too. you can see how this breaks down in terms of uses. the central subway is federally funded program that as i think everybody knows is expanding the t third service up through the most densely populated part of the city. there's a chunk that go to streets, chunk that go to -- that's called transit optimization which is really making those changes in the right-of-way making muni work better. and then again the core, these are five-year numbers. this is the five-year crp

number, 3 billion over five years. the core of that is state of good repair, that $250 million a year, we need to continually invest to bring the system into good condition. but the good news is that from the last time we did this exercise, the five-year picture is looking better. where it's going up from 2-1/2 to over 3, the central subway portion is actually shrinking a little bit because that project is underway and we've already expended some of the funding there. but you can see a lot more room for investment in fleet. you've already seen 100 new buses hit the streets over the course of this five-year period. almost the entire balance of the bus fleet, another 700 buses we believe will have the funds to replace. so, we should have a whole new muni fleet by the end of this five-year period, which is free. and then considerably more money, almost a tripling with

regard to streets, safety improvements for bikes and pedestrians, as well as a little bit more money for the optimization that's making the improvements in the streets for transit. and one of the things that's driving that big bump up is what's shown here as ptf over on the right side. these are based on the recommendations that the mayor's transportation task force that he convened last year. what that task force recommended after looking at the state of transportation in san francisco was about nearly $3 billion of new local revenues, primarily focused on state of good repair and enhancing bike, pedestrian, and transit access in the city through a few different mechanisms. two general operation bonds, the license fee back up where it was before it was cut about 6 or 7 years ago, as well as an

additional half cent sales tax increase. those together will generate about $3 billion and the first few steps of that were recommended by the mayor at the state of the city speech this year. and that will be a 500 million dollars general obligation bond and increase in the vehicle license fee this november on the ballot. here are some of the thing that, if these measures make it to the ballot and are approved, that we would be able to do. it's not just replacing the buses and trains, but increasing capacity. so, in some cases going from 46 buses to to 60 foot buses, increasing the number of buses ~ and light rail vehicles, improving the investments in the right-of-way so muni can work better as it travels through it. that can increase travel times 20% in some cases. it will provide significant funding for other muni infrastructure, and

particularly for bike and pedestrian safety measures that we all know are so urgently needed. and it will enable us to leverage regional funds. the region has already come forward and said, san francisco, if you -- if the voters approve these measures, we will match in part what is with anticipated cap and trade and state funds that will be coming through the region ~. they're saying we will direct those to san francisco if san franciscans step forward. so, huge opportunity for us to really move the needle on the investments that we need to make to make the transportation system safer and more reliable and effective. so, pretty exciting, great leadership by the mayor pulling together the city family just like he did to address pension reform and housing reform and business tax reform to really address transportation infrastructure. so, where we're going from here, this is our final public meeting. there is still opportunity to provide comments through our

website, through e-mail, through twitter. but from here we go to a first kind of rough proposed budget next friday, march 14th at the mta board. we'll also at that meeting be hearing about the service changes recommended by the transit effectiveness project. two weeks later, those service changes will be before the board for approval on march 28th. this says pbd. i think that's also a 9:00 a.m. meeting on the 28th. from there, on april 1st, at a regular tuesday board meeting of the mta board will be their first opportunity to vote on the proposed budget. and that will be based on the feedback we've gotten through this process and based on feedback for whatever we end up proposing on march 14th. if they can't come to agreement on the first or if they have other questions, they have a second opportunity on april 15th. if they can't come to agreement then, we will have to schedule another meeting because the charter requires us to complete

and submit a budget to city hall by may 1st. and then the board of supervisors has an opportunity to review during the course of may, june and july at which point we would have our budget in place for the next two fiscal years. so, i'd like a little bit more time than i should have. i'll end there and the rest of the time is yours. i welcome questions, feedback, comments. we are streaming this with sfgov-tv, and i should thank sfgov-tv for supporting these events. i want to thank all the mta staff who have been supporting these events. so, there is a microphone that we would prefer you to use. if you don't want to, you can shout and i'll repeat your question. but so the folks who might be watching remotely can hear you, we'd like you to use the mic and the floor is yours. i'm bob plant hold. i do have a question about two revenue measures ~, but you also raised the topic and answer feedback on the possibility of a separate

surcharge for express buses. i just want to call your attention to 20 years ago, then supervisor tom shea pushed through some fare change measures that included surcharge for express buses. it also eliminated transfers. there was a dramatic decrease in revenue and rider ship. look at that history from 20 some years ago when there was a surcharge, even muni staff said then that the muni was an integrated system and that expresses weren't necessarily separate from, on top of as a luxury service, okay. i want people to know we heard thursday mta is now planning to pay about $20 to cab drivers to pick up people with disabilities because there are so few ramp taxis out there. i read that there's a calculation that would cost several million dollars that's new extra money contemplated

from this surcharge. at the same time, we hear the mayor wants to end sunday parking charges for the meters. staff would not answer my question. they said ask you, is this a recommendation? and here's what's bother some. that amount of foregone revenue is comparable to what's going to be needed to pay the surcharge to cab drivers. we haven't heard anything about this other than the mayor wants to figuratively give people a break. there's a pro christian bias in that. sunday is the sabbath for many christians, but those who are muslims, jews, hindus, seventh day baptist, seventh-day adventist have a different sabbath. they're not getting a break. has muni looked at what it might cost to defend a lawsuit if you decide to forego parking meter revenue? and when we're talking about

pedestrian safety and bicycle safety and improved roadway safety, the mayor is saying there is so much extra money coming in from sunday parking because of the tickets people get from not paying the meters. so, the mayor wants to reward drivers for not paying attention, for not reading the sign. he wants to reward people for being oblivious. that seems counter intuitive to pedestrian safety. does staff plan to make the recommendation about sunday parking, meter charges, and where will you get the money for the taxi surcharge to help pick up people with disabilities? and also, do you plan to put aside money for a lawsuit about relyerctiontionv us bias if the board passes what the mayor wants? ~ religious bias >> some good questions. with regard -- i don't believe that the incentive payments that we're offering to taxi

drivers would result in the volumes that you're talking about, but it's something that we believe, given the revenues that we get from the taxi system, that we can support. with regard to sunday parking, the board of directors adopted the enforcement of meters on sundays two years ago because, as opposed to when parking meters first went in in the '50s and '0s, sundays now are a day of commercial activity, similar to saturdays. ~ '60s it was meant to facilitate availability of parking, support commercial activity. that does now happen on sundays, as well as to reduce congestion of people spending their time circling the streets looking for parking spaces. based on our analysis, the availability has indeed increased as a result of sunday parking enforcement so it's been effective in achieving that policy. with regard to the legal

analysis of religious discrimination, we have not undertaken that analysis. we did have previously no meter enforcement on sundays. it's something that i suppose we could look into. in terms of what i'm going to recommend to the board, i haven't decided yet. i have a couple of days before i need to do that. i have talked with the mayor a little bit about this to try to understand where he's coming from. i've talked to the board members. i imagine that we may have some discussion about that on march 14th, but it' an issue -- i think the policy justification for it have been validated, but i also understand people don't like it. so, those are things that we have to balance. good morning. first of all, thank you for your presentation. i came here with a very grave concern, which you may have already addressed. i took an unpaid day off of

work to come here. so, it may be addressed, but i think it's about the big increase on the f line. and the reason i still want to read my brief statement is because i think the fact that that proposal even got into the budget indicates there's some insensitivity about people in my situation. so, i would like to read my situation. i'm a senior who supplement my social security income with a job in oakland four days a week. i depend on the f line to save me the 2, 4 mile round trip walk to bart which is too much for me on a regular basis as well as unsafe at night. increasing the fare by -- well, the proposal is as much as 800%, would create a financial hardship for me as well as affecting my safety due to the fact that i don't get off bart until after dark and currently count on being able to catch

the f line to adjacent embarcadaro station and take that to pier 23. an 800% increase would cost me $192 per month, not including bart fees and would create a threat to my current life-style. so, i did want to make this statement, which mean the total cost -- and i know that proposal will probably not go through, but the total cost would be $230.40 a month for me to do a four-day job from san francisco to oakland. and, so, i just really wanted to make the point -- and you said it's not going to happen. i think whoever made this proposal should be aware of what a dire consequence it has on people like me, and that's what i wanted to tell my story on behalf of myself and everybody else ~ who is in similar situation. i'm at lombard and sampson. the 10 line is gone so there's no options. >> i understand.

i agree with you on a lot of feedback on that. and your circumstance, for example, $24 a month, you'd have a fast pass that would give you unlimited access to the f and other muni service. that would not be impacted if we were to raise the single cash fare. but i've heard from a lot of people they don't get fast passes but they do use the f line for their regular transit and that's why -- the fast pass would be available at the bart station? where would i get the fast pass? >> you can get the fast pass online or at the bart station on a clipper card. okay. >> that might be a good option for you anyway. so i don't have to worry, then. >> right. thank you. one thing i've noticed in your budget is there's no addition to the size of the muni fleet. it remains the same. true, vehicleseses are being

replaced, but the size of the fleet will not grow. now, to me this appears to be unrealistic because the population of the city has grown. also, the demand has grown. and i would have nothing against a trends it effective heness project if, one, they would, you know, okay, you can put street vehicle on the most heavily used route, but serve the neighborhoods. don't take away the buses from the neighborhoods. those are desperately needed. and one of the real questions of the transit effectiveness project is accessibility to transportation. when people have to walk blocks to catch a bus ~ and many of the population of the city is elderly, the disabled, some are sevely ill, this poses a hardship. and the transit effectiveness project does not recognize it. also the budget does not recognize this. so, the thing about it is i

think more money is needed for the municipal raid way. this is a transit first city, after all. ~ railway this should be the top priority. unfortunately when cuts are made, it's always transit first. >> thank you. so, i agree, i think we do need more muni service and there's really three ways, at least which we're proposing to achieve that. one is by continuing to invest in the maintenance of the system so that at any given time we have more buses and trains out in the street as opposed to in the shop. that alone creates more muni service. second, the tep as i mentioned is recommending a 10% service increase, that's with the existing fleet. it's running more frequency, in some cases enabled by physical changes in the streets, that allow the bus he to make their trip and the trains to make their trip more quickly so they

can circle back and they can provide more service with the same fleet. and then also as i mention and perhaps i wasn't clear, with the ballot measures proposed for november, that would also allow us to increase the fleet, not just the number of buses, in some cases he aside, moving from 40 to 60 buses he ~. so, three different dimensions thereby which we would actually be increasing the service to keep up with population growth, as you mentioned. also, we feel like there's probably a lot of latent demand out there. if muni was more reliable and a better choice, that more people today, even if not a single person new came to san francisco, more people would ride muni if they felt it was a good way for them to get around. and then with regard to the stops, i understand that stops spacing is a very sensitive issue. the tep recommendations, even if they were fully accepted, would maintain something like 97% of the existing bus stops. and right now we have probably

the densest provision of bus stops of any city in the country. something like 97% of residents are in two block of the muni stop. what we're proposing in the tep maintain 7% of though, and even of those 3% that are left as we go through the community process for each specific line, we would likely or may add some stops back as we did during the [speaker not understood]. so, i agree with your points. we need more transit service. we need to be sensitive on stop spacing and we need to remember that we're a transit first city. please don't hurt the neighborhoods or they'll physically fail. well, since we're getting google to pay for some of our programs, maybe they should be on the mta board. what do you think? >> i'd rather just have their money. okay, yes. [laughter] safety has been highlighted in your presentation. however, we still don't have an

independent transit security system for the muni. now, i keep on hearing the myth that the police department are involved, but i don't think anybody really believes they're going to provide the safety necessary. i know a little about this because i was a transit operator for over 30-year. if you get on some lines, there is no way people are going to feel safe ~. that's just pure and simple, and i operated buses. i op rap ited in the mission, the mission, nighttime. there are people who are riding these buses who have absolutely no respect for the rules or anything ~. if people are boarding through the back door, this is what i've seen, gasoline, pit bull without a muzzle, people eating, bringing cans of beer. when they get on the bus for many people, it's trash back there. people leaving their trash, eating on the bus, spilling food on the seat. it makes us look terrible for visitors. now, if there were dedicated police force, which i know is

expensive and i don't think it's ever going to happen, maybe some of these people could be cited and maybe the word would get around that the muni is not a free for all for your indulgent life-style. >> yeah, thank you. i think the security on the muni buses, including for the operators themselves, is definitely an issue that we've been focusing on. we did in the last budget increase the number of fare inspectors as well as the number of ambassadors, the muni transit assistance program. and nor recently we've been working with the police department to change how they deploy the resources on the buses. we've been using -- it's basically a surge model when there's been a lot more police presence on the buses since about october, november. and as a result, we've seen incidence of theft and robbery really plummet in the last couple of months. so, i agree with you. i think there's a lot of bad behaviors on the vehicles that we need to address. we're trying through a number of different paths of people and different kinds of uniform

having more of a presence on the vehicleses to try to address that. i think some of it is also some behavioral change we need to work at as well because we're never going to have enough uniformed presence to be on every vehicle all the time. so, i think we need to change the tone and the feel of being on a muni bus. and part of it, part of the structural deficit i talked about is having enough car cleaners to keep the vehicle clean so when you walk on the bus it's a clean and inviting environment and not one that might be conducive to eating and littering and the rest that contribute to that atmosphere that you're talking about. seldom is there a better mitigating factor for behavior than getting cited. i think an operator what new -- if he or she pulled up to 16th and mission or van ness and market or major transit areas if there were going to be security people there, if they had a problem, they could call those people over and that person could be removed from

the equipment. i think we can't depend on the police department. we have to have a dedicated service under the police department that is only for the muni. that's it in my opinion. thank you. >> thank you. hi, my name is cathy. i've been a disabled passenger for over 30 years. to quote my brother passenger, the rewards for obliviousness include that the 27 bryant line is being condensed into the 12 folsom line. the potrero buses are being condensed into the san bruno. that's a polite way of saying lines on bryant and potrero are being cut. the 26 valencia is long gone. as a resident, sometimes [speaker not understood] doorway in the mission. seniors and disabled, it's a tear identifying experience to be on a really crowded bus.

~ terrifying if you cut the bryant line claiming you're condensing it for efficiency, you've already cut the 26 valencia, if you cut the potrero bus he, all the buses in the neighborhoods where working class, poverty class seniorses and disabled are trying to live and work, people's elbows in your neck, back packses in your ribs. you climb over the wheelchairs to get to your seat. it's a terrifying experience for disabled people on the currently overcrowded lines. if you cut the lines in the working class, poverty class neighborhoods even further, currently you have to do at least two transfers to get from one part of the city to the other. if you have to do long walkses and long waits and continue to ~ -- if you continue to cut or condense, you're living in disney land. you're not oblivious, you're

delusional. seniors and disabled and students, other people on fixed, limited incomes, you can't condense the bryant into the folsom. it means cutting buses on bryant. you can't condense the bus he on potrero into the 9 san bruno. it means cutting buses in those areas. the valencia bus is already gone. it's a terrifying experience for seniors and disableds to climb over wheelchairs, to have elbows in their neck, back packs in their faces. the drivers should not have to be policed for violent behavior. the little guys in the lime green vest, if your transfer is expired by three minutes, there is $106 fine. but if somebody has knives or guns or other violent behavior, you can't find security. there are 7 people at the bus stop will charge you a

citation, charge you a fine if your clipper pass doesn't have carbon it because most people that i've talked to don't understand that if you put money on the bart card, it doesn't put money on the muni card. most seniorses and many disableds still don't understand how clipper work. so, if you condense -- in other words, cut lines on brightv and valencia and potrero, that means two or three transfers instead of one or two transfers. ~ bryant and these lines are already overcrowded. >> so, we've gotten a lot of feedback on those particular proposals. and -- [multiple voices] >> so, this is it why we go through a public process so that we can explain kind of the thinking, but we can get feedback and we've gotten a lot along the lines of what you said. there is no [speaker not understood]. you're oblivious, you're delusional. >> well, i appreciate that feedback. it will help us to do better as we finalize these

recommendations and bring them to our board. thank you for a public forum where you brief and you give a sheet. oh. my name is shirley johnson and i live in the mission and we've heard a lot about really busy buses, crowded buses, latent demand for buses and i ride a bike and there are a lot of people just like me that ride a bike, and we would like to not take the seats for the buses that people need. and people look at me and say, wow, you ride a bike all over the city. aren't you afraid? and i'm very experienced and, yes, sometimes i'm afraid, but there are a lot of people who would ride more if they felt safer and that would free up placeseses on the buses. there is latent demand for bike. i know there is. so, i would encourage you to increase safety for bicycles, pedestrians as well, of course, and bicycles and pedestrians are very, very clean. we don't create any pollution. we're very, very clean.

and also the buses, frankly, are slower than riding a bike. so, those who are able to ride a bike, if they felt safer, they would get out of the bus, get their back packs out of people's faces and ride a bike. i used to live in holland. the policy is they make it easier to bike somewhere than to drive somewhere. they do that by putting a lot of one way streets, ballards in the street. if we look at that, to try to get people out of transit and into biking and into walking, that would be much better he. i would encourage you to increase your bicycle safety and bicycle funding. thank you. >> yeah, thank you. and you make a great point. every person on a bike is one less person on the bus or worse, in a car taking up space on the street or parking space from someone who really needs it. so, we seed that the more people we can get on bikes is very complementary to the transit first policy. and part of how