have or just to remind you, we wouldn't be creating any -- we would be creating an incentive for people on clipper, not penalizing those who aren't on it under this proposal. someone had talked about what if we went up to $2.50, that would go beyond the indexing plan and that's not what i would recommend. but the concern about clipper accessibility to get one in the first place and reload, that's a legitimate one. if we were to do this, we would do another big outreach push in terms of trying to get clipper cards into people's hands the way we did a couple of years ago when we were eliminating the paper passes so we would do that at least to get them in people's hands and it's the reloading that's the challenge. >> thank you. >> lee. >> yeah, i'm in favor of the free muni for youth for 18.

i'm also in favor of the low income and people with disabilities, free muni. i'm looking at the overtime and seeing if there's ways -- this is not to take away the men and women in our transit group because i think they work hard for their money but the question becomes are we managing it the best way we can and are there ways to reduce some of that so we can fund other things so that's my biggest issue right now. >> i don't think -- i don't sense any support for the $6 for the f-line. >> what we put on the table was an increase for the f-line cash flow and the $3 for five or six. people ran with the six number to support against it which was

successful. and just to clarify like the cable car, if we had done this, anybody with a, there would be no impact to. so any regular rider, there's no impact. we didn't include that recommendation and i don't plan to forward that. but i'm hearing reduced revenue and we don't have a balanced budget. there's going to be trade-offs to get to balance in the next two weeks. >> well taken on the f-line. >> director heinike. >> increasing the senior and discount fair to the 50 percent limit and that had a revenue stream associated with that and i discussed that early, but the proposal of

that is not just as a revenue increaser. the idea i had was we would use the revenue increase from that proposal to then offset in my view an expansion of the lifeline or use that revenue to somehow better open the system to low income people across the board. i'm in favor more if we're going to use revenue to expand excess to doing it on an income basis or age and we asked the question if we were to increase it to 50 percent on youth -- excuse me on senior and disability, how much will that enable us to extend the lifeline program, i would be in favor of that. in addition just responding to this line item which i appreciate sanally calculating and getting it to us, my proposal is not just for revenue increase, but a revenue used to

open up to income equality system. indexing for cash, i think we should index the cash fare and not reduce that. i still believe that maybe we should look at a system of indexing greater $2.50, for the round number that $2.50. we could have the discounted single use there if it's still used by some, not just to clipper card holders, but with fare. if someone twos to our vending opinion and buying a single trip, they should get the same discount as a clipper card as long as it's pre-populated, pre-paid, they should get the discount. the incentive should come --

the disincentive is come to those feeding dollar bills into the machine and slowing the process down. for indexing, i'm a strong proponents of following it, and not deviating and unless there's a policy reason and we talked about that on the cash, i'm okay at looking at going beyond indexing for the meters, the meters that director lee talked about because you're bringing the price in line for what you would pay for the parking meter. i don't believe we should go beyond indexing on the fees charged to contractor. this city is in a mode where we're promoting jobs and our local contractors provide both of those things and now is not the time to hit them with extra fees and those should is stand on the index and nothing else. on market street, i should start by

saying thank you director risken, and popedreo and i heard we would receive something and we have. i appreciate you sticking to your deadline and i'm supportive of the initial proposal and i'll stress the point initial because i hope that's what this is. i'm very weary of the admonition to kill a reform is with a big reform and i don't want anyone to feel my view is this is enough. this is a start and you've shown us how much work has to go into this to get it done and you wanted to start it right but this is a start. and i'm comment on mr. popedre whose presentation was helpful. you

look at the map. that's the red line. this isn't an issue of transit effectiveness, although it's important, this is an issue of life and death and it's an issue of transit for our taxis. i was happy to hear you that our taxis are using market street. that's apart of the vision that i have. what mr. popedre, told us a small number of vehicles are causing the -- a small number of private vehicles are causing the problems and the small number of vehicles, that's probably not their best route anyway. so you take that data with the safety issues, with the transit issues and the taxi issues and the bike issues, i think the goal is to get private vehicles on market street. this could be our west coast broadway. if new york they've shut down broadway down for a couple of blocks and they

call broadway the east coast market street. i view this as a start and a good one and your maps shows how intra kit this is. i love talking to goggle maps. so let me just close by saying two things, thank you. this is a very good start and i'll fully support it. this is the start. we need to look at full closure of market street, all the way down to the fairy building if we can for private vehicles to bicyclist and taxi and transit vehicles can have the same experience i have riding under groud which is right away with clear way. >> this is great. i love going last. what he said. i agree with a lot of what everyone said, really. i support the

extending -- the muni fare used to 18 and focusing on free muni for low income and seniors and those with disabilities. i wanted to comment on having an overall policy goal and focusing on income level and the ability to pay verses category. with effect to this current budget, it's great to focus on these categories. i want to say that i agree with that policy wise, but this is where we need to start. and i don't have much to add other than what my fellow directors covered. and i'm happy about the market street. and -- one thing on sunday enforcement in terms of signage and notice to our folks if we're going to continue with

citations and enforcement on sundays, i think it's important that we communicate as clearly and openly as possible with our visitors and the people who park on the streets on sunday because if i'm not used to paying on sunday, i'm not going to look at the meter matter what the meter says. that's something we need to look into if we do continue enforcement on sunday. that's all i have. >> thank you. >> thank you ladies and gentlemen, very thoughtful comments and my colleagues. risken did you want to add something >> it clarifies many things on the revenue side. you didn't address the expenditure sides, so we have a gap to close. the main things that we're weighing here are how much we want to continue the work that you did last time in closing the structural gap meaning adding

more maintenance, mechanics and adding more transit car cleaners and adding more signal electricians, that's one kind of -- adding more communication staff, funding, enhance technology, the other thing that is really the biggest item is the transit service increase and we'll hear a length in the next couple of items about that. just to -- since this is the most significant thing we're contemplating the tep will call for a ten percent increase based on the discussion and you'll hear this on the next items, it could be a 12 percent increase. there's a limit to our capacity to ramp up, so even if we wanted to do ten or 12 this next coming year, i don't think we'll need to. we need time to bring

on the additional support and that's the main thing we have to dial on the expenditure side and that's what we'll be weighing in the next two weeks as we try to -- not try to, but as we develop a balance budget for you for april first. >> the next time we're here on april first will be -- you're sending a proposed budget for our adoption on the 1st or the 15th of april. >> that's correct. >> if we can't -- if you don't have consensus on april first, be have another opportunity on april 15th. if for some which we don't want to happen, you can't come to a consensus, we'll have a special meeting for the end of the month because we need a budget hall by may 1st. >> keep us informed our your issues. likely, the actual proposal would be out a week before

pretty much, right. >> yeah. >> it will be out in as much advance ahead of time beyond the stat tory requirement so we can give you time to explore the trade-off, so is we'll work to get a balance and get a proposal out for review. >> can i ask one question. may i? >> yes. >> i don't know whether this is better directed to our cfo or director, what is your opinion on whether we should spend the reserve money beyond the reserve limit? so in other words, we have a reserve above the reserve policy, should we tap into that money or should we favor having a bigger reserve than the reserve policy states. >> a ten percent reserve policy is adequate. i wouldn't recommend spending below that like we were forced to do during the

recession. making use of that, our cfo pointed out, you could say it's one time funding, but i could argue it's not. and there are a number of one time needs that we have within our operating budget so gives me comfort that spending down those funds and maintaining our ten percent board policy level is a reasonable thing to do given the needs we have. >> as the person who watches that reserve carefully, i'll agree with that. >> thank you very much. >> we'll call the next item and go to the transit effectiveness. >> item 11 with regard it the system wide passenger service. >> we have more interest in the tep. >> more folks for that. let's move to that one and come back. >> one thought is we could call the items together. the work

of the this informs the tep, so we could do presentations and have public comment on both, but either way i think it's fine to something to consider. >> okay. i guess we could call on both. very brief presentations on both of items because a lot of people want to talk it us. >> we want to be brief and concise as possible. >> as she's setting that up, the passenger survey, there's a lot of very quantitative and very interesting information that we've never had or seen before that i think is very -- it's important for the board and the public to have in mind as their looking at the tep service increases and one of the public speakers spoke about equity and how we're serving those who have the greatest need and those are the most transit dependent and i think that the survey results will show you how the tep does that

to a greater extend even than we thought previously. >> you rather start with the customer survey. >> i think that would make sense. >> who is doing that? >> good morning. >> good morning, operations planning and scheduling manager. i'm excited to be addressing you today. we're reaching a major mile stone in the transit effectiveness project and a mile stone in this customer survey. the customer survey was completed last spring over two months and we surveyed 22,000 of our customers while riding the system. to get a better understand of their demographic and answer the questions you're gravelling with today. >> going onto slide three, i think the really positive message that came out of the survey was that over half of our customers rated this service as good or excellent.

while we had still had a quarter of our customers saying fair or poor or unknown, it gives an indication that people are using the service and appreciative of the service and if we make these changes we can get closer to a high majority of our customers finding the service to be a high quality experience. >> looking at our customers, 2/3 of our customers ride the system everyday but we have customers that ride it once or a month or a few times a month and that's why muni is meaningful to san francisco, even if it's not your primary way to get around, maybe you use it when it's raining and you can't use your bike or maybe you use it when you're going to a show and you don't want to park your car. interesting enough, the survey showed that more than half of

our trips are not commute trips which is why as we talk in the transit effectiveness project about the importance of connecting neighborhoods, it bares out in the data because 60 percent of trips are other than places to working, getting people to doctors appoints and friends and it's an all day and not just a commute system. the survey confirmed that our services are critical to low income customers. as you may recall to our title six work, someone makes less than 6 percent. for a family of 4, that's $47,000 and about 30 of our resident according to the census fall into that category. but over 50 percent of our riders fall into that category. it

reinforces that this increase and new vehicle and it makes an impact to the equity needs in this city. >> san francisco has riders across every income group, and that's again why it's such an important service to our city. but a quarter of our riders are making less than $15,000 as household. so it's important that these folks who don't have access to automobiles have access to a high quality vehicle. 16 percent said they

don't have a vehicle. our survey is used by minority resident. our data was similar it the census data. 58 percent of san francisco self identify as a minority and that was very similar to what we found in the survey where we saw rider ship was 58 percent minority. the majority of our customers are between the ages of 18-24. this didn't focus on youth. it was done in spanish, chinese and in english. there were some folks under 18 surveyed but for the most part they were focusing on adult participants. 20 percent of our customers are over 55. this data gives us very interesting information on how

people are paying and how people are accessing it system. 74 percent of customers are walking, and 20 percent of those surveyed indicated they were transferring from a route. 65 were using fast passes and 43 of our total customers and 22 using clipper cash. we had 22 percent of our customers paying with hard cash. that was higher among low income customers and 26 percent for example of customers in-house holds under $15,000 verses an average of 22. >> moving forward, we used this date it in a number of important ways. we're going to use it for our service monitor. this was brought to you last fall and it will come to you annually to

make sure our minority routes are performing in an equity manner verses non minority and non income routes. we've been working with avalos and advocates to understand how we can use this on board survey data to evaluate the quality of service by neighborhood and to really make sure and to try to understand how some of the key challenges facing different neighborhoods are improving year over year. we plan to bring that to you this fall as well. and incorporate into our ongoing work. the issue is different by neighborhood. for example, in china town, the key issue is crowding. and customers really struggling to get on crowded vehicles. it the bay view the key issue is travel time and having to transfer to make routes, so investments for example, that improve connections which is one of the key recommendations in the tp can

really help improve that. this data is also being used for the service equity analysis in the tp which will be included in your packet for march 28th. and findings confirm, over half of those investments will benefit minorities and low income customers. so just to summarize some of the key findings. over half of our customers don't have access to vehicles and 60 percent have low household income. and in san francisco is $70,000. work is under way to incorporate this to make service decisions and helping you to better understand how our services is performing overtime as well as being used to evaluate the equity of all of the

proposals that you're considering under the budget. that's the presentation. >> good. why don't we go to the next one and come back with questions and comments. >> as i said it is beginning, i'm thrilled to be here today to be talking about the possibility of implementing the transit effectiveness project and to share the key mild stones we've. the final rr for the tp has been published and be considered by the planning commission on march 27th. that's a critical piece of information for you to make a decision about the overall transit effectiveness project. we've also -- the tp as you're aware was identified by the mayor's task

force as a key funding priority. that $150 million if approved by the voters are allow for 40 miles of transit priority investments to get our buses really what director heinkin was talking about safer and a more rely ability experience. we've worked hard with staff to solidify our capital delivery approach, so to make sure if the voters do approve the project, we're ready with shovel ready projects to deliver. the key benefit, even if the bond doesn't pass, we will have a very appealing set of projects for potential regional state, and federal funders in the queue. a sub set of the tep project ha was put on a fast track. and those will also be presented to you for consideration on march 28th.

they are proposals where we have an opportunity to integrate into dpw repavement projects which gives us cost and design, but it makes sure that resident are not having to go through construction twice. those projects have had intensive outreach over the last weeks and months, and even our under going hearing as we speak. some improvements on the urving and 9th have a meeting today. i want it reach community consensus and support while still making sure that we're delivering the overall vision of the tep. why do we need the tep sf --

why do we need tep? >> the service is over crowded and stuck in traffic and the buses are not showing up on time which is what people expect with they ride our system. it's important because we're approaching a five year high and rider ship. our january number s the bus side showed for the first time we're out of the recession in terms of the impact on transit and the service is going to grow. investment likes the five limited where we increase service by 30 percent have been critical to eliminating pass ups and attracting customers out of their car. the tep has three key sections and the first is the policy framework and how they're structure and the second is the service increase itself and the third is the capital

that i spoke about earlier. the service policy framework builds on our strengths today. they're residential areas within a quarter mile of service that maintain 18 hours of service across the city. and that we provide basic access so that even in our neighborhoods weeshgs providing -- even in our neighborhoods, we're providing 18 minutes of services. if we're making trade-offs for transit that we're doing it on the routes that has the heaviest ridership and when we're making decisions on how to make a community route, we're not comparing it to the 28 gary, but comparing how it's performing in terms of other routes and passenger effectiveness and cost

effectiveness matrix. we also, in the transit effectiveness project are looking at stop consolidation. but it's important to highlight we're sticking with the key standard that most stops are within an 8th of a mile spacing and under the proposal, we're recommending maintaining 97 percent of our 3500 stops where we're looking at stop consolidation and working closely with neighborhoods and communities and making sure we hit other key land uses. this is the rapid network that has heaviest ridership. we want to make sure the service is direct and convenient as possible. that's complimented by the grid network or the local network and these two networks combine help create a system where people

can get to where they're going without making more than one transfer. some of these connect to regional hubs. the service increases overall, depending on how your dialogue around the budget is up to a ten percent increase in service. they're focused on redesigning routes and improving the efficiency of routes and expanding the limited routes so is people have a quicker choice on how they get around and focusing on routes where we have the most crowding. this map here and i should pause for a minute and thank all of the staff that have come together in the last couple of months to produce these graphics. it shows all of the routes where we're proposing increase frequenc