base-line year. and as we move forward on an annual basis, we will be looking at how these metrics are performing against that baseline. with the goal of improving and having an upward trajectory for the service. this is an example of some of the data and just a few of the sample neighborhoods. this is just a subset of the sheet that we will be producing. and we will be unpacking this when we present it to the public. i imagine something like this would be an appendix, but we would identify the key and meaningful issues. what we do plan to do is compare the service categories, sorry, the routes to their service categories. when you look at a route like the 44 and crowding, and compare how crowded to our

other grid routes, across the system. or when we look at a route like the 1-california, we will look at it compared to other rapid routes to see how it's performing. the travel time analysis will be tailored to each neighborhood. this is an example of the travel time analysis in the bayview. how long it takes to good to the local grocery store or college. and do you have to make transfers. and we include the walk time and waiting time and transit time. and also how long does it take per mile. with the acknowledgment it may take longer to get from the outer neighborhood to downtown or mission to downtown.

but through direction in traffic and more direct routing and reliable transfers to reduce the travel times. here's an example of how we would use that data. this chart here is a box plot. it shows different percentiles for data. i show this to show sometimes the average doesn't show the full picture. if we look at the 44 from 7-8 a.m., that is a period that we get a lot of complaints about. the 50% percentile is full, 55 people on the bus is full. but when you get to the 75 percentile, it's very full. and on the 44 from 7 a.m. to 8

a.m., particularly from bay shore to park system, this is a route identified for more service planned as part of the fall service increase. another route that has come up from the analysis is 910. it has higher service gaps. the cp fast-track project you approved in march will provide more protection in traffic, and for people accessing the freeway on crowded days is affecting the bus. and then the last route i wanted to talk about, and again these

are just example strategies, but what you would expect to see in the overall strategy, a lot of crowdi inin ining was identifiet on the 30 but the 8-x. one reason for that we had to pull off articulated buses because they were so old and were past their useful life. but we are excited that we already have underway the development of new 60-foot bus and the stockton corridor is the priority for that. and significantly reduce crowding. all of this work i think will allow for a meaningful and ongoing dialogue with our customers about how we can improve service in their neighborhoods. we plan to conduct outreach

tailored to each neighborhoods. in some cases it may be open house, in other cases it may be focus groups or meetings with community groups. director ramos i think brought up an interesting suggestion to try to identify community based organizations that can help with the outreach and bring new voices to the table. the equity strategy not only provides i think a tool for identifying needs. but it also provides accountability opportunity to the people that use our service and need our service the most. that's why it would be developed in advance of the budget cycle. we would look likely bring it to

you in january and to the ta board. and on the off year when there wasn't a budget, we would bring it in the same january time period for you to review the performance and see how the strategies you approved in the previous year led to improvements in the service. the overall cycle would be that monitoring would begin in the summer/fall of year 1. we would conduct the outreach, bring the work to you in january. sometime soon after that, you would adopt the equity strategy. so in advance of the budget. in the following year we would again collect data, monitor against the baseline and report out in january. that's the conclusion of my presentation. i did want to also let you know that the cac did endorse this

work when i presented it to them last thursday. and we are also excited about the opportunity to put more of a lens on these types of issues. >> thank you. members of the board, questions or comments? >> i just had a question. so i have a question, i may be just confusing things at this point. first of all, thank you for a good presentation. would this equity analysis or would this help us or address in any way of the concerns of the ballot measures, or is this a completely separate deal? >> i think you will hear, i wouldn't presume to speak for any of them. this work was kind of born out

of charter amendment that supervisor avalos introduced. there were quite a few charter things. and core of it was the equity issue. and what julie and her team have done is work together to develop a framework of doing the analysis to make sure that we are meeting those equity needs, i think that meets the spirit of that charter amendment. i think there may be dinnefferes of opinion is how to operationalize it and the teeth and accountability measures, and what we propose and what julie articulate in her presentation, i think regardless of what happens in november, how things move forward. this is something that i believe

will be beneficial to the agency going forward. we will obviously have a lot more means to address inequities to the extent that we have the funds that the november measures would bring forth. in terms of a timing of a charter amendment, it seems that there is probably consensus within the executive branch that putting one on this november would not help the measures get passed. whether or not one comes later, we would like to see one come later. we would work with the coalition to incorporate the spirit of the equity issues they have raised. but we are proposing to put this forward regardless. and i think it will be a good thing for the agency. i think it will be a good thing for the public. and i am sure that you will hear remarks from the coalition group

themselves. >> this seems more focused on the operation side and then coalition to address the capital side? >> if i could to what director reiskin was addressing. the way that i understand, there are two pieces of an equity analysis. one is on the muni service, and that's been a large part of our discussion with the coalition, how we comprehensively evaluate the quality of service that is being provided to particular communities. there is a separate consideration around, in terms of the global investment that we are proposing to make with $1.5 billion that can be achieved through this program. does that global package actually meet equity goals. that's a separate analysis that i should have a good, solid draft in the next week or so.

and to the service considerations and where capital investments are distributed geographically and how much of those overlay with low income and high minority, etc., and to make sure from that perspective we are meeting equity objectives. >> thanks. >> and to clarify one point to your last comment. the remedies that might come out of any particular equity analysis is not limited to service or operating budget. if you look at examples on potrero avenue and those to be funded from the general obligation bond. to be able to take the 44 to make a 60-foot, those would be revenues from the vehicle

license fee. and even a service increase to the extent that our vehicles are operating, going longer between breakdowns or spend are more time on the road than the shops. that's right there is a de facto service increase that could address some of these issues. there is very much relationship and the remedies to address inequities could directly funded by the measures in november. >> great, that's helpful. another question. you touched on it earlier and concepts and the crowding issue. and we know this is a problem for all of our customers, and it's especially for people with disabilities, and my directors can get on a crowded bus better than can i -- than i can.

in the data is it feasible to measure people with disabilities left because they can't physically get on the because because of the crowding? >> i appreciate you bringing up this point. because i think there is a lot of discussion about walk access for people with disabilities. but the impact that people with disabilities experience on-time performance and crowding problems, i think sometimes doesn't get as much attention. but during the trends effectiveness project when we surveyed customers with disabilities and spoke to other groups. reliability and crowding and getting a seat whether at the stop or on a vehicle were the top three issues. we don't have a way short of

sending our very few traffic checkers out to monitor stops. to know, to quantify the impacts. but we do know that when our buses are more than say 85% full, that we start to face those issues. and that's why from a scheduling perspective our goal isn't to have every bus 100% full. it's to have enough room that folks can get on that if the buses do get bunched together. we have flexibility and redundancy in the system. >> thank you. >> thank you, great presentation. i think this is not only incredibly important. but i think some questions that you asked the director can help clarify. this is another step our journey

to do what we want to do, which is to help the people that really need our service. and this is another step to get to it. we started looking at the fares that we charge. and whether we should charge the same fare for a low-income student than for a high-income student. this gets us to the equity and the capital investments that hopefully we can make, can be made the most appropriately. i guess the next step on this is going to be as i think, i think nicole from walk sf brought up addressing the fact that as we address this money, it's addressed in complete streets to give all modes equal safe access to our streets. and again back to director reiskin, and all passengers. and i look for this to bear good results and target the money

that we will have to spend on capital and operations. i am happy to support this and interested in the public. >> commissioner ramos. >> yes, thank you everyone for your great work this. i appreciate you the report back that you are working with these folks almost weekly, they think is critical. this speaks a lot to what was said about building awareness of how service works and why we make changes and what have you. and it will help us build the cases for the change that we propose in the future. i am especially excited about this idea of looking at travel time for folks. i think that's a critical

make-or-break decision that people choose whether or not to stay on transit. if you have no other choice, it can be really miserable. we need -- i mean long rides can be really miserable. and especially when we have people that are dependent upon our service. moving so slowly, it gets to a level that i feel it's inequitable in terms of putting value on people's time. when you compare the service like the 49 or 38, and you look at what the travel time might be for other service and less crowded corridors. i feel there is tremendous room for improvement and i feel this will help us see that and act on it. and to act on it in partnership with these group residens. i think for all of this and look forward to what we can look for

the in the future and i thank you for the groups and working with you. and i hope you continue to be respectful of that, because a lot is housing and organizations. and a lot is helping their members to understand our system better and the rationale behind the decisions that we make. thank you very much. >> i thought it was an excellent report and the -- and this is the right thing to do. i want to compliment. >> we have members of the public. >> herbert weiner. >> mta is to be commended for initiating the muni equity

strategy for low income and minority groups in order to implement service improvements. this constitutes a sound foundation for access for service for all riders, which includes low income and minority groups. while proposed to select six to eight neighborhoods for evaluation, the transit project should include all neighborhoods, because service is crucial in the city. one issue is accessibility, passengers shouldn't have to walk long distances for public transit and this certainly applies to elderly and those disabilitied and the mentally ill. and this should be identified by mta and the project to propose

quarter-mile walking distance to stop. because the railway is a public service, every member of the service should benefit. some members are neglected, as the project favors northeast and business sections of the city. while these other lighter areas should not disregarded in the transportation. they should be required to consider the city as a whole, because believe transportation is for everyone, democracy should be on public transportation. i commend the mta to improve the 44, because i waited for the 44 through the dark of night, it happened years ago but it was awful. >> bob allen.

>> i want to start again commending the leadership for how much time they spend, director and lisa, and it's a lot of times in the busy schedules for the framework. and supervisor avalos, and their staff. and this is a top analysis, i want to acknowledge all. it will really tie together current service conditions and connect those with funding and resources. and include the equality and that the community will understand what the fixes look at the local level. i want to address concerns about someone we didn't include. we did a service analysis and didn't look at issues around disabled rider, and separate

analysis for (inaudible). and we need to have conversations of how to go forward and fold those issues in the analysis. that is something that we want to consider going forward. but a really great partnership, i hope, that shows the board that we are not just here when we are unhappy about something. but there is a long, continued engagement around this issue with a lot of meetings and times. and to pick up what director reiskin said, i think is there a question of how this fits in a longer strategy. i was disappointed not from the board, getting into a crunch of what is on the ballot and not. mta has provided much the leadership working with the community groups. we need you to work with the rest of the executive branch to get folks i think in rooms and have these conversations. so we can get things on the ballot to get you the resources

to address what the inequity analysis finds. >> next speaker. >> phil chin. >> chairman nolan, members of the board, director reiskin, phil chin from chinatown project. we strongly support the equity strategy, and a think a lot of community organizations and nonprofits were involved in the discussions with julie and her staff, will probably not continue talking about those ballot measures if not for the inclusion of an equity strategy. so i urge you to adopt it and to pass this item, thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> rosa chin.

>> hi. my name is rosa, and i am a d-3 resident and i go to school at university of san francisco, and i support the equity analysis as well. because every day i try to take the 10 or the 12 to get to school, but sometimes it doesn't show up or it's late. and when it's late, it turns out that there is a lot of people trying to get on the bus as well. because they are trying to get to financial district for work, so it turns out i can't get on the bus in the end. that resorts to me running down the hill to catch the 30, 45 or 8-x on stockton. and when that happens, sometimes there is a lot of overcrowding there as well. and sometimes i have to force my way on the bus, and that's a lot of work, and in the end usually -- most of the time i on time for school, but sometimes i am late because of the bus.

sometimes i have to walk all the way to downtown to take the 5. because the bus is too overcrowded. and i believe with the equity analysis we can figure out what to improve, to help improve chinatown and the low-income community. >> i would ask that the audience refrain from talking while others are speaking. >> mrs. savet, i believe that the director's comments are directed to you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, angelina lou. i think we are excited to be here having this conversation about equity with sfmta. all of this process is to have this conversation as a stronger

system for the city. i appreciate the escasteps that staff is taking. and how it captures the specific needs. we know that the transit experience looks and feels different for folks in different pockets of the city. whether the on-time performance and gap analysis, that should be tailored for each neighborhood, that's excellent. and the segment data offers a new layer of data that wouldn't be captured and the disparities we have heard from folks and this equity codeifies that data. and ultimately the equity analysis is good policy, because we want city guided to the needs that are greatest.

and the strategies to remedy those. we believe that the analysis tells a story with real-time data and this it will be a pivotal step to guide an equitable step in our city. >> thank you. >> jerald brown. >> i am here with power, and i will briefly echo what is said. we are really happy with this, and the work of the mta and is the staff, and julie, we put out a report that we brought to you a while back on the next justice. and on that we did more of a focused profile looking at these exact same lines. and the data that is collected and the travel time review the exact issues completely correlate between what our

members and riders talked about. it's an excellent paradigm and model of how equity may look different on different lines. the 30 and 40, and the 54 with a long wait time. and it's completely reflected here. and i like the approach, this is going to be released in january, and integrated of how we are using our resources. one of our core policy recommendations is reproducing more data so we better understand what is happening. we are excited that this is moving forward and fully support it. and how it relates to the charter member, our assessment we think that all of these measures will strengthen the funding measures on the ballot. because it gives us something to go back and talk to the

communities and address this, and how it fits in the funding strategy before this. we commend this work and looking forward to working with you moving forward. >> thank you. next speaker. >> howard strasener. >> good afternoon, directors. it's essential to your job that you provide equal service to people, and those of lower needs. but i have to remind you and i worked with julie when i worked on the tap-cac a thousand years ago. and one thing they presented in this booklet that 20% of people that ride muni is people of need. and that number is before you again. you don't want to be perceived as that transit service that doesn't provide for people. but you want to perceived as a

transit that provides for all. and but fix the 30 and fix the 42 and goes through lines of means. and you want to work on the 46, and those are people of means and you want to take care of them and expect their vote. while you judge and the feds will judge you and you judge yourself of how well you are doing with people with no means. your actual performance as a muni board, do you get that 20% up, the 20% of people of means. does it get to 21 or 22? that doesn't mean you are not serving the people without means. but that you have a means over all. and that's your job, and i have