much deployed equip out in -- equipment out in the field. some of the limitations is the system architecture was really designed flate -- in the late 90s and so we want to lay er in new technologies. an executive committee that mr. reiskinstit cits on and steering committee and long-range committee to look at uroptions moving forward. i think i will just stop there and take questions or turn this back over to mr. reiskin for the status. >> director reiskin do you want to add anything? >> i will just add as carol said, i have been

participating and meeting with my peers from the larger transit systems in the bay area and smaller ones in discussion about the present and future of clipper, probably for the last year and a half or so. and i think the presentations kind of laid out there is a lot of great things that clipper provides today, and it's an amenity that i think many of our riders really value and appreciate, especially when it's working for them. there are some limitations as one of the last slides showed in terms of the technology, in terms of contract that we have. so we're very eager to be working across the region and with the mtc on what that next generation is, and looks like, and it is good. i think as carol said, that we are not on the leading edge now; that there is a lot of experience developing across the country and we're learning from the good and not so good

as well and hoping to come out of it with a much better, more modern and flexible customer experience with lower costs, with better consistency across the region. and we're also looking at governance about how the program is managed in region? right now it's a contract between single entity that pretty much manages the entire clipper system and mtc and operators such as muney are only engaged through an interagency mou, which puts a little distance between us and the interfaces with our customers. so there is a lot of discussions across the region, not only looking atle the system, but mappinging it going forward as a region? in terms of layering of technologis that carol mentioned we're looking at working with mtc at pilot something different things such as mobile ticketing, which certainly would be the part of any next generation system to get experience with it sooner.

we're also looking at opportunitis with third-party equipment, so we're not looked into the current sole source proprietary program, another thing that will help inform [ inaudible ] [ inaudible ] the next phase. it's a pretty big deal to transit to a fare system and we're working what others are doing and working to the 2019 date to throw the [spw-euplt/] switch and have another system in place. >> anybody to address the board? [ inaudible ] >> mr. mr. chairman. >> what mtc has been doing which has been great is going around to all of the major transit agencies to give all the boards and public an

update. [ inaudible ]

>> good afternoon, jay primus to discuss the project with you. pardon me one moment. that is better. but before anything else, i want to take a moment to acknowledge that something like sfpark doesn't happen without the energy, the heart and passion of many people, only some of whom you sigh here and i'm truly representing work of an incredible team that delivered the sfpark pilot. i also want to take a moment to remind anyone in the audience would doesn't know what the pilot actually means to quickly summarize what they include. sfpark in a nutshell was a federally-funded demonstration of a new approach to managing parking that used better information, and responsive pricing to make it easier to park.

that was the bottom line and single focus. that included finally making it easier to pay, either with meters that take credit cards and debit cards or pay by phone and meters throughout the city. that was complimented by longer time limits moving from one or two hours to either four limits or no time limit at all. to make it easy to quickly find a space we used demand hm responsive pricing to make one's experience as a d-ray there was almost a space available on the block, most of the time. that was the target. we followed the same approach to pricing at the mta garages with one addition, that was an off-peak discount that meant if you entered or exited a garage after a peak time you could get a discount up to $2 for a total discount of $4. so offering our customers a powerful

option, and rather than asking people to pay a peak-period surge charge, we offered an off-peak discount. another core element of the pilot was parking sensors and pretty incredible new technology. and major installation of a hockey-puck shaped device sensing and communicating continuously 24/7 for years whether or not a space was occupied. an incredibly rich dataset and one before that was never available and the cool thing about that is that the data came to us in realtime. we turned around and provided that into a realtime data feeds and free apps that we made available to our customers and what other to developers of apps to get that data out there, so others could help us

distribute it and maxize social benefit that. is exactly what happened. many apps were developed using this. so that high-tech element of f parc was complimented by the low-tech and there is no way to measure this, but possibly one of the most cost effective things that we did in the project, hundreds of way finding signs that you see, which you see on the left. directing people, even san franciscos who lived here a long time, to get them matched up with a parking space and off the roads as quickly as possible. underlying all of this was an investment in a powerful data management system, which didn't just enable a thorough evaluation of the sfpark pilot, but was woven into our day-to-day operations with rate changes, contract management, ad hoc analyses, a true instance of smart cities using

information to make smarter and smarter decisions and consistent request sfmta's movement in this direction. so that is what the pilot included and what you see here are the seven pilot areas covering about 25% of the city's metered spaces and 13 of our 19 garages. what you don't see on the map are two control areas the inner richmond and union street, where we did the same level of data collection, but none of the policy or technology changes. part of the sfmta rispontto gather an unprecedented amount of data to enable a truly rigorous evaluation of the project, both by our team, as well as an independent federal evaluation team, whose report will be released this fall. this slide gives a highlight of the schedule, and it's a little hard to read.

but the highlights are the funding was -- it was announced that we received the funding in fall of 2007. we didn't actually have the funding in hand to spend until the summer of 2009; which meant we were running as fast as we can to launch the project in 2011 and did our rate change in the summer of 2011 and we continued rate changes through today, but with the formal two-year data collection period through 201. this summary presentation is a distillation of the present. the full report is 150 pages or so, available online. it is lessons learned, as well as a separate technical it guide to help save other cities time and money as they pursue smarter parking management. all of this was designed to

help other cities learn from our experience and improve on it. so after that, to jump into the evaluation itself. demand responsive pricing was at the heart of the project, a natural place to start is how did we effect rates? and many people were concerned at the beginning of the project that sfpark would be an excuse for the sfmta to simply raise rates and even in the context of an increasing population and booming economy, we saw that on average we lowered on-street rates by 4%. and hourly rates at garages by about 12%. and what you see here is an average rate at meters of $2.58, but that represents an average of sf metered hours, 30% our meters hours are $1 an hour or less and 17% are $0.25 an hour and at other end of the

spectrum, $6 an hour. of course we changed rates to make it easier to park, to find a parking space and the core measure of that is the amount of time that it was hard to find a space and how much we reduced that metric. what we saw in control areas was that the amount of time that occupancy was 90% or more, increased by 50% over the pilot period, while many pilot areas it went down by 16%. on pilot blocks where payment compliance was high, it went down almost half by 45%. we showed both results both the pilot on average, as well as the high-performing, high complying [tpwhro-bgz/] pilot area because in many areas this is an evaluation of demand-responsive pricing and if there is a block say with a lot of parking permits or disabled placards, we couldn't expect pricing to work very well. conversely on blocks where coincidentally, month after month after month, lots of

people paid, that is where we would expect to see the biggest benefit for demand-responsive parking and we see it's more dramatic in high payment-compliance areas. another way to look at the effectiveness of pricing is just where utilization. not just making it easier to find a park space, but reducing times that spaces are empty. we aggressively lowered rates and dramatically increased the time of success, dived of occupancy as 60-00% on those blocks most of the time. in control areas there was almost no change during the pilot program, but in pilot areas 31% increase of the time we achieved that goal and a doubling of that in the high-payment compliance areas. we focused exclusively -- there is that primarily focus on making it easier to find a space, because that is what we

expected the other benefits to flow from, and the secondary benefits that you see here. the reminders of the slides cover each of those in turn. first, for our driver experience. we hoped and expected that by making it easy to pay and lengthening time limits we would give few parking-related meter citations and we saw a 23% decrease in areas and this is great news for our customers and great news for our parking control officer. it's a very difficult job and there is plenty of work for them to do in the important role of making the transportation system better. that means more time available for enforcing double park, sidewalk parking or directing traffic for special events. and by making it easier to find a parking space, we expected to reduce circling and that is also what we saw.

this is self-reported people that the amount of time it took them to find a parks space, asking 1500 people before and then again, during and after, how long did it track a you to find a space today in the pilot areas? going from 11.5 minutes to before sfpark to 6.5 minutes after. so saving people on average 5 minutes, which is a dramatic improvement in quality of life. while about 1-minute decrease in control areas. and that is great news, because that means less traffic and congestion from people circling around looking for parking in our neighborhoods. that is estimated and expressed here in terms of vehicle miles traveled and we represented 2500 fewer miles per day in our pilot areas by making it easier to find a space and that means less greenhouse gas emissions. we estimate that just by

multiplying the reduction of vmt by the average emissions profile of the bay area fleet. and see here, an estimated decrease of 2 metric tons in our pilot areas per week day because of sfpark. we also expecteded that by making it easier to park, we would decrease double parking and that is exactly what we saw the incidents of double parking went down by 22% in pilot areas, compared to 5% decrease in control areas and this is great news for drivers cyclists and muni driver and also measurably improved muni's speed. summarized here, we separated out the blocks where we saw less double blocking muni's speed increased by 2.%. so

it's a significant improvement and very supportive of our goals to make muni faster and more reliable. we also expected that making it easier to park and changing that perception, not just the reality, but the perception it was easy, convenient to to park in san francisco would support the economic vitality of our commercial areas, and the data that you see here -- the blue line is sales tax receipt, growth-year. and dramatic increase in pilot area burb we're hesitant to attribute that increase to sfpark. a lot of things are happening in the city, but we think it standers to reason this would have supported the economic vitality and competitiveness of our neighborhood. we don't have the afterdoubt for safety, but we think that criminaling by distracted drivers probably means fewer

collisions with pedestrians are, cyclists and other cars. those are the results of the pilot project, as you know during this time, mta took other steps with marking management, including adding new meters in 2011, about 1500 new metered spaces in [stp*-rb/] parc and non-sfpark areas and sundays. the two bars on the right in gray, summarize the results of the sfpark pilots, the high performing blocks and on the lefted, the dramatic and stark improvements in available from either adding new meters or metering on sundays. to translate the far bar on the left, on blocks we added new meters, parking vacuate it was almost 100%, 90% of the time, but after adding meters down to

15%. as far as next step we're working on disseminating the information to other cities and [speaker not understood] and before i end, i want to also thank the board for your support for this project. it seems like it was just yesterday, but it was actually in the fall of 2008; that we brought a specific proposal for sfpark and your support for this has been county of throughout. so thank you for that. and i'm happy to take any questions. >> thank you, excellent report >> questions or comments? >> yes. like the equipment out there, i find it easy to use, but i'm getting comments that some of the smart meters are cumbersome

in the fact is it supposed to default? >> not necessarily. two questions there as far as the user-interface at meters and then our default amount it asks you to pay. on the first question, as you know we're replacing meters citywide and we're in the process of that and the meters that we used in the pilot areas will also be upgraded. those were in our opinion, the easiest meters to use on the market and that was another important criteria in the rfp for the meters go out, so there is significant improvement and bigger screens and slight improvements to the user-interface. so we think it's moving in the right direction. as far as the default amount, that is a really detailed question that we had to think through. especially with the different kinds of payments, is we picked the default amount, i think it's for two hours' of park -- not for the maximum. that is adjustable remotely and it's something that we could

tweak if desired, but we went for two hours, an average parking session. >> i think it's great out there with the ease for the customer's use. the other thing that i would like to ask you, i'm starting to see them in the yellow zones, but was that part of your test also is to look at how the yellow zoned meters were being used? >> in what sense? >> in terms of occupancy? was it ever thought of adjusting payment levels for the amount of time someone sat at a yellow zone? >> the metered commercial yellow zones were included. all infrastructures so we can change rates independent of the general meters parking. it's not something had a we did in pilot, but it's something that we can do going forward. >> thank you, that is all i have. >> director brinkman. >> thank you, mr. primus, this

was great and i see a lot of your sfpark team and i want to say thank you to all of you. i know how much work it has been and amazing amounts data to look at. i think it's really important to emphasize what this is going to do not just for san francisco, but to other cities and to you your point when you started out, that was really a huge part of what we were trying to do and why we got this government grant to show other cities how we can manage parking and it seems like it's a huge win for everybody. not just for car drivers, but for businesss and getting cars parked more quickly. i think some some would argue to take the money and add more parking, but i think this data shows that if we don't properly price parking we can never have enough. so when it was cheap, there was never enough. there was never any empty spaces and this is actually freeing up

parking probably better than building garages. i think that we had from mr. res kin that cell phone payments had gone up, because i know people felt that was confusing in the beginning. have we seen that go on? >> it's continued to go up. i don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but it's growing consistently over time. >> good. i am looking forward to hearing how we'll take what we learned for the rest of the cities because i think it's the huge takeaway pore me on this. there is so much that we need to do with the on-street car share spots. it's so emotional and there is still a lot of distrust and confusion not om among our citizens, but people who come in from the city from everywhere else and look for parking on a thursday, or friday or saturday evening to go to dinner or any time of the

week. so i think there is still so much work that we need to do, but this gives me so much hope we can make it better for everyone. thank you all so much, all of the sfpark team back there. i really appreciate it. >> one of my pet peeves is the whole thing about the bagged meters and what we charge. can you help us identify what is the proper rate to charge for a certain area, if someone is just going to occupy a high occupancy meter and not just charge $7 metro entire day? >> one of the wonderful things about the new meters there is a much more granular level of data collected pore every payment session -- for every parking session. with that data and historickal data from sensor we is k see what occupancy and on a typical day, during any given period of time, we ski what the actual revenue for the meters would be. that would be one thing to

inform what the right price might be for special events. >> thank you. >> thank you again and join director brinkman in thanking the entire group and look forward to going forward >> when do you think director reiskin we can expect on how we'll expand this sfpark approach and what is that going to look like? i know nobody has answers and i'm not a parking expert, but it would be nice to have some sort of timeframe about we expect to hear about that? >> i think later this year, sometime in the fall we'll come back with recommendations for next steps. >> good. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> item 14. >> actually, just so you know, there is no member of the public who indicated an interest in addressing you on this item. item 14 authorizing the director to execute a gift and license agreement with david

wiggins and jay primus for the donation of a new transit map for the muni system. >> do you want a gift? >> i think you will do. i think will you hear we're pretty excitedf about the new map. >> good afternoon. >> hi, good afternoon. julie kirsch baum operations and scheduling manager. i apologize that i'll a little more sultry than usual. [laughter ] [laughter ] i'm very excited to be talking about the map and presenting what is one component of the muni forward program, that you heard about at the beginning of this metering. meeting. this is a great map for

residents and tourists and it's being donated by david wiggins and jay primus in his second role as a cartographer. it's been a labor of love for them, working on this map for over ten years. david wiggins is a professional cartographer, working at britannica andrand mcnaley and currently working at expedia and partnered with jay, who has been working on transportation for over 1 years -- 12 years and approached david and said these are things that i don't think that the industry is doing. why i am excited about it, it helps visualize the service hierarchy that we have been talking about over the last several years that came out of the tep planning process. and what that means in a

nutshell is that at a glance customers can see where there is more service and where there is less service? which is a really important thing to communicate, when we're trying to drive people to our premium routes. some of the design features overall, i think you will notice that the map feels a lot less cluttered. so my staff's first reaction was what is missing? actually this map conveys a lot more information, but just in use something sophisticated design techniques. it uses color for starters. the red is reserved for the premium service. it's our muni red and the best service that we are offering on the rail and on the limited-stop bus of these routes come every ten minutes or better and they are really providing a premium experience. there is some other more subtle features.

the text is presented in title case for the street names rather that in all caps for our current map and it's left-justified. so you can in one glance quickly identify the street name that you are looking for. the street names itselfs the most important transit streets are bigger and the less important streets are smaller. we have also in this map they have changed the contrast. so it has a gray background with a white street grid, which is softer and easier on the eye. as i said, it is a pedestrian map that shows all of the streets and staircases throughout the city and labels most of them -- not everybody and then it uses symbols for things, like, libraries, our book symbol, a school is a little box with a flag on it

and it uses symbols to communicate information as well. over a week in may, david wiggins came down and spent his vacation with us and he incorporate staff input. and we finalized the design. over the next few months he is going to be finishing the map and the layout for production. we're also issuing an rrp that will come to you -- or maybe not -- for on-call cart graphy to support future map changes and at that time we're going to be adding the bicycle network to the retail version of this, so you'll have transit and pedestrian on the one side and bike network on the other. we'll also be using the launch of the map as an opportunity to consider a few new route name