because they're still in test mode we advise customers to use audio announcements but our goal is to have the signs displaying reliable information by next year. it will be a great step forward in the quality of information we give subway passengers. some other good news, the northern california chapter of the officials named the public agency of the year. it's an award received at the holiday dinner and scholarship award dinner in oakland. it brings together individuals and organizations who make outstanding contributions in transportation and further the goal of supporting minority youth who wish to enter transportation careers. in the last 13 years the group's awarded nearly $250,000 to students of color. it's an organization some have been instrumental in. some former awardees are now

employed in professional roles at bart and other transportation employers. finally, the fourth annual winter walk on stockton street begins this saturday november 25 and will continue through monday january 1. this year to activate the plaza we'll be working in partnership with off the grid and will have two open-aired beer and wine gardens and holiday-themed photo opportunities. last year 750,000 people attended the winter walk. for more information about it visit the union square website visitunionsquaresf.com and if you're interested in extending it it will be open to 11:30 every night through new year's eve. that concludes my report. >> thank you for the updates,

much appreciated. the winter walk i know how popular that is every year. i go down a lot and it's fun to see everybody enjoying the space. i know it's been discussion what the street will look like once the construction is done on the subway. i wonder if we can get an update on how to use that space. there was talk of having a bus/pedestrian only and having a convertible space to continue to do things like the winter walk. in light of the discussion we had around north beach it seems there is public appetite for space like that if we can simply find good spaces i think it would be a big benefit to the area. the compto award is fantastic. i went online and looked at the work they do. it's a great organization. congratulations to the entire agency for getting that award. directors, any questions or commence for mr. mcguire.

thank you, let's move on. >> the clerk: madame share -- chair, we have members of the public. brian and jody mederos. would you like to set a time. >> two minutes. >> i'm the executive director of the san francisco bicycle coalition. after yet another fatality on san francisco streets this one on slope boulevard on halloween, the san francisco bicycle coalition wrote to demand immediate action to halt the bloodshed and another who died in the middle of the day was 78 years old. another killed halloween night was 47. the deaths follow of another who was hit and fell on baker streets. david was 90. tragically, this list goes on.

the response to the recent spate of fatal collisions asked to deliver the leadership needed to meet the goals. having appointed the members of the board and having written the board last week requesting leadership on moving san francisco towards mission zero the mayor is looking to you to set the tone. not only the mayor but our 10,000 plus members and members of the public at large are looking to the board and demonstrate your unwavering commitment to achieve flag goal. unfortunately i've noticed a troubling trend in recent discussions when public safety is at issue. increasingly the board has entertained the argument that parking should be breaking newsed against the loss of lives. and when the safety improvement project requires this the city does a grave disservice inviting watered down safety improvements

by worrying about the loss of an against the community. we'll be watching closely how the board chooses to lead on the charge of eliminating serious injuries and fatalities and our work is to work together as partners to improve safety for everyone who uses the san francisco streets. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> the clerk: jodie medderos. >> good afternoon. my name is jodie medderos and the new executive director of walk san francisco. we appreciate the board commitment to vision zero. we know this agency bears the front of vision zero. it's a very serious public health and transportation safety crisis. the letter from the mayor the asks he makes from the board are a great start to accelerating a pace of vision zero. we realistically need concrete

actions that is timely and measurable and need your leadership to make sure it's visualized. here's the steps we recommend to champion the mayor's asks. resolve bureaucratic obstacles and vital vision zero objects including 11th street, the embarcadero, townsend and the upper market safety improvement project. all unanimously approved by this board. we recommend this board ask the mta staff for regular reports on delayed vision zero projects. this will bring the reason for delays to the open so they can be addressed. the mayor also asked the mta to implement near-term improvements on vision zero projects with a start date beyond one. we can ask the staff to develop a list of the projects by end of this year including a time line for the improvements to go in the ground. the mayor asked the mta and

other agencies to develop a rapid response team. again, you can ask us for regular updates and also deliver improvements to these locations within a specific time frame. ideally one month from each death. your renewed commission to vision zero and prioritize safety above all else is the only way we'll reach zero. we're counting on you. thank you very much. >> thank you very much for bringing that up. i was remiss in not discussing the rapid response task force after he talked about it and we're going to be anxiously awaiting what that will look like, how it will work and how we can all help speed up these projects because we do all agree with you that any loss of life on our streets is absolutely preventible and tragic and i think this board recently in the last few meetings has really shown itself to be fully commit to vision zero and recommitted ourselves to that goal.

it has been a tough year in san francisco especially recently. we all feel it and take it to heart. once again, i will personally recommit myself to that vision zero goal and we will focus on safety over everything else. thank you both. next speaker, please. >> the clerk: madame chair, that's the last speaker who turned in a speaker card on this matter except -- one. >> mr. mahmoud. >> thank you, directors. your talking about vision zero and i've been listening to the issue a long time. driving on the city streets i mentioned it's nearly impossible to see at nighttime where the pedestrian ends up coming in at the cross intersection. because your lighting is so poor, so poor, so poor. i mean, how can we control that situation? why don't gou to led lights. we heard you intend to but why not buy a couple thousand bulbs

and start changing them immediately. vision zero is not complete without that kind of thing. thank you. >> thank you. do i have any more public commenters on the director's report? yes, sir, please stand up and approach the podium. okay. no? okay. thank you. seeing none. public comment is closed. >> the clerk: item eight the council report i do not see a chair here so we'll move to item nine general public comment. it's time for members of the public to address the board under jurisdiction of the mta board of directors but not on the agenda. we have two speaker cards. >> sleexcellent. two minutes. >> i bought my medallion for $250,000.

that was in july in 2017. i used live in palmdale because the rent is $1300 i went to gilroy to live and the rent $2,800. because the rent is high i [indiscernible] after that i go back to the bank and they took my medallion away. after paying $145,000. i sandy over there she said we are going to throw you out.

she wanted to throw me out of the bank because i don't pay three months. i put my name in the medallion list but because when i change my status in 1998 they said my last name was different here in the passport. when i changed it they said you have to buy again because you are not. she said born in california. we changed it to the new passport. they said here in that time i had to apply again. >> thank you. i'm sorry, your time is up. do you think we can make sure

that he has a good contact at san francisco credit union. perhaps it would help to unravel the situation with the missed payments on the loan. thank you very much. >> i want to say something, please. >> i'm sorry. you're time is up. we need to give everybody the same amount of time or it's unfair. i'm sorry. >> the clerk: the next speaker. >> tomorrow i'm going -- i don't have money to pay the rent. >> i'm sorry, sir, your time is up. >> the clerk: you need to sit down. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> the clerk: tariq mahmoud and the last person to turn in a speaker card under this item. >> thank you. i'm a taxi driver. i have a question about a sign to put on the cabs to take the people for $30 from city to sfo. the first day i put the sign one of the people, mr. peters, standing on the sign looking at the people on the bus stop and

said it's a violation of the code so and so. i told you in the last meeting that yellow has 200 cabs with that sign for two years and they're not in violation but i am in violation. this is the way you are running the taxi industry. coming to that, 400 cabs are moving in the city which are legally required to have the top light connect with the meter but 400 cabs have a different meter not connect with the top light. a very serious incident happened one cab was driving his light was on but the customer in the cab. the customer in the cab somebody flagged him and said i want your cab he said i have a customer and he said your light is on. he said it's a switch system and not automatic. the customer on the street pulled the gun on te driver. he has to see if there's a customer already in the cab. can you not shut down this 40

400-meter tonight? otherwise if he was killed you're liable because you listened to this from me ten times and you didn't do it and it was going to be killed that day. you are totally liable and shut down fly wheel company and this is super serious and you're destroying taxi. thank you. >> thank you. do i have any public comment? seeing none public comment is closed and we'll move on. >> the clerk: madame chair you're at your consent calendar considered to be routine unless a member of the board or public wants an item severed or discussed separately. i've not received any notices. >> do i have a motion to consent the calendar.

do i have a motion? second? the consent calendar is approved. >> the clerk: you're onto your regular agenda. item 11, presentation and discussion regarding the human rights commission creating an equitable city for everyone framework. ms. dorrin. >> thank you. director of taxis and access able -- accessible services. it's a treat for us to have our presenter here to present to us. mrs. davis is the executive director of the san francisco human rights commission, hrc and will be presenting on the city-wide equity work and zoom in on racial equity. director davis served as an hrc commissioner between 2011 and 2016. prior to joining hrc, she was executive director the community had -- community-based

organization collective and she oversaw mo magic a collaborative of non-profit organizations addressing challenges facing low-income children, youth and families in the areas of income development, community health and violation prevention. magic zone which provides wrap-around services to k-12 students in the hutch community center which provides community-building services and workforce development opportunities to neighborhood residents. during director davis' impact she forged private and public sector partnerships to provide critical health and social services to historically underserved communities across san francisco. director davis has demonstrated her commitment to san francisco residents by serving on the sfpd fair and impartial policing and fillmore community benefits

district and the redevelopment agencies western edition citizen's advisory committee. she supported the mfta community-based transportation plan as mo magic facilitated community engagement with the fillmore neighborhoods. director davis developed the engineering for equity program to ensure city services and resources are leveraged to achieve equitable outcomes for all. the program works to advise city departments on how to eliminate disparities in public service and ensure community involvement in the full range of government decisions. sfmk is fortunate to work with director davis in multiple areas including the equity strategy, our poets public outreach and engagement team strategy and government alliance on race and equity which is a year-long in depth training mta had for participants in 2017 and the

process is underway to establish the 2018 cohort. and our diversity and inclusion strategy as part of our strategy plan goal four creating a workplace that delivers outstanding service, we're developing an inclusion strategy with a training component and support for sfmta's cohort and activity. under director davis, hrcs work helps provide a framework, tools and expertise. thank you director davis for your outstanding work in this area and presenting today on hrcs strategy and racial equity work. >> thank you. >> commissioner: welcome direct er davis and the work you've done for the people of san francisco. >> thank you for the opportunity. i'll try to move quickly through

this. it's been a pleasure to work with the staff at mta. it's been awesome. we've had an opportunity to engage with different departments within the office and are excited for the participants that have been through to see what they're going to do within the agency. i'll say one of the things just sitting and listening that struck me and one reason we do the work is it becomes difficult to balance the decisions with an agency this size and sometimes the people that come to the meetings aren't always the most -- negatively impacted by your decisions. coming from community work and it's been my passion and desire to see how those folks who are usually the people that don't

realize the decisions are being made here and the decisions are made and they impact them and make sure they get included in the voices of what's happening. those are sometimes the people pushed out of the city because they didn't know what was going on. and basically one thing we're charged with is to think of what equity means in terms of city services in the work and how we're advancing equity. one of the strategic plans or goals for the city is to be equitable and inclusive and diverse and thinking about what that means. sometimes when we have these conversations around equity it's uncomfortable because it means we need to support people and sometimes they don't need to be supported and that's an unfortunate truth and we're trying to balance and deal with

that and making people more comfortable around the challenging coverings on who's in san francisco, who has a voice in san francisco and who is cherished in terms of being a resident of san francisco cisco. i have some copies of the tools we've develop we can share. it's just a strategy and framework. we encourage depends to use what's best for them but we want people to think and talk about it and not afraid to have the conversation. really asking individuals to think about what equity means to them and how we advance that. this is one of my favorite quotes so just to be thinking about the legacy we're leaving or how we're supporting the needs of the most vulnerable and helpless in our city. these are the shared definition

the hume rights commission has put forward and has shared with the different depend heads in terms of what equity and community and how we can have a shared language and definition for the words moving forward. full and equal access to opportunities, power and resources so all people may thrive and prosper regardless of demographics. it shouldn't be where you live or what neighborhood you're in should not dictate what life you'll have in the city. unfortunately sometimes when we think of certain neighborhoods we think of their income and what their opportunities will be and equity says it shouldn't matter where you live or what bus you catch or how you get to work we should all have equal opportunity and we're trying to work towards that and community of stakeholders across san francisco diverse neighborhoods

impacted by policy. so i'm just going to go through now the five areas of the framework so the first one is assess conditions and that is basically what some of the participants in the alliance for equity are doing. it's the idea of thinking about the impact of our discussions, looking at the communities that are impacted, and thinking what voices should be in there and should be heard. the second one is the other day i was thinking about the negative impact. how it's going to be impacted by the decisions you make. will they be negative and will they be disproportionate to a community of folks who will be most impacted. so when you do the assessment of conditions thinking about that. and consider the potential unintended consequences. a lot of times when we make decisions about where -- this is

again just sharing something that's come up in community for me and where we think about where bicycle racks will be or remove parking spaces we don't identify the unintended consequences like in front of senior housing and now the seniors have to think about where it is they'll be dropped off or how they'll get their groceries delivered and things like that. it's thinking about the unintended consequences of the work we do. the next is build bridges which i'm grateful we've been able to do with staff in terms of how outreach and engagement happens and ladders with moves ideas and thoughts up. people get to share the perception of their impact on systems policies and who are the partners you're working with. sometimes people don't feel they're partners in the work and how we change that to expand who has access to even this meeting and the board of directors.

the next one is cultivate collaboration. how the departments work together and how non-profits and city agencies work together and how we build that. the last one is consider impact. after we've done all of that how do we go back and think about the impact about the decisions we have made will have on communities and depends and policies. so that is the quick and dirty of the framework itself. my colleague, zoe poke has been working on it on the reliance for racial equity is a year-long cohort. this year there were 14 departments and that participated and the meetings talked about the impact of our government decisions on equity

specifically around racial equity and what that looks like which can be a very heated discussion here in san francisco as many people feel like they are being pushed out of the city. some feel like it's by design. it's about those conversations and how we consider the impact of our work moving forward. so we have been charged with work the different departments to think about how they think specifically around racial equity by and large around equity and how we develop our policies. and my interest is directly around community engagement and those voices and how we make sure that the folks who don't even know this meeting is happening understand the role of the body and how we figure a way for them to engage. another issue is a lot of people feel like even if they engage it won't make a difference in their day to day life and that's also another concern so thinking about as we develop these

policies and as the commissions and boards and different meetings are happening and decisions are being made about what's best for certain populations of folks they don't actually feel the benefit of the decisions being made and so really looking as we do the work how we decrease the negative impact of our policies and our systems and decision making. and we increase the power of community voice and te way it actually looks when we leave this room. really grateful for the opportunity to stand before you and share a little bit about the work. looking forward to engaging deeper with the staff and looking for ways to engage with the board of directors as well. >> thank you director davis. as you said this is important work to do and it can be

uncomfortable and can be heated. you did say agencies across the city are participating in these discussions. i think this board has been quite proud of the equity work that we've done around our transit lines. so it's going to be interesting to us to see how do we dive down deeper on that and what is the next thing we can expect to hear back from about this work? what should we be looking for from staff in terms of updating us on the agency's participation in this work? >> well, i would really encourage you all to up vit the four people who participated in the government alliance for racial equity to come and share their experiences in participating in that cohort over the year. and then i would also -- the way we've been asking the par tis pants is to continue the work is to develop some strategies or ways to engage with their

agency. the way we've seen that happen in other place they actually have an ongoing -- and i think you an equity bench here, but to actually empower the people who have already gone through the process to either lead speaker series or hold workshops. the idea is they become trainers and so they've gone through a year-long training. we ask they have an opportunity to come and train additional staff and to share some of the work they've done with this body. >> good, thank you. director borden and director ub -- rubke. >> when will we see the recommendations or findings from the lessons learned? >> it's great to have expertise to partner with hrc and we're really using a lot of the tools and training and bringing in the members.

we brought them to our senior management team meetings to conduct a training using the specific tool. so we're doing a racial equity analysis on specific projects and in terms of the big picture, we are -- as i mentioned, developing a diversity inclusion strategy and that will be folded into our strategic plan. so when we have the board workshop in january, expect to hear more about the strategic plan in this work that will be part of our strategic plan goals. we also are building in implicit bias training and we've trained about 90 senior managers already in implicit bias. we partnered with dhr and donte king to conduct the training. we're developing a plan to roll that training out to more forward-facing or public-facing staffing groups. there's a whole lot happening in this area.

and again with the training that the ger cohort went through a year-long training so very in depth and thorough and we're cascading that out through the agency through the senior management team and our diversity inclusion strategy and again building it right into our strategic plan. and to mention the ongoing work in this area. a lot of it's not new as we mentioned. there's a muni equity strategy. there's the fair programs that we have that are equity programs. there's a lot of work and work we're newly embracing. >> and after the strategic plan next year we would see staff reports. there would be a specific call-out for equity and metrics related to that. >> we actually -- somebody just

made that discussion at our last senior management team. we want to make sure we build up the conversation so that when we're all using the same language and i like in the presentation there's the common definitions and that's something we're working on and that we have training so that it's not just a "check the box" so we're intending to do that along with training and support and partnership. >> how will we go about the metrics? i remember when i was on the planning commission we started doing -- when we wanted to approve of a housing project we would say where we were on the metric and then it broke down to the different categories of affordability. it was very tangible because we could see how we were progressing against what the goal was for the city and then like where we were on each aspect of the goal.

i know that's a very hard thing to do but if we can come up with like five for whatever it is and then be able to see that i think -- because obviously there's going to be times when there's trade-offs or we feel there are trade-offs based upon what communities might feel they want and need and what this board might feel. i think to have some sort of baseline of what those five or three or whatever they are that we kind of agree upon we can do in our workshop in january. i think that would be most effective because i think people know we have an equity strategy and then every time we have a project like for example the red line on mission street, a lot of people people like even though we felt like it was very rooted we made the improvements the community at large did not feel that way. i don't know that had we had better metrics to judge how we were measuring that maybe perhaps at least we could show

better the rationale in how we thought that would improve things. >> through the equity tool there's a specific set of questions one asks. using the tool, the metrics would come out of the tool. >> i would say, yes, there are some questions listed in the toolkit we shared and it's part of the process of assessing the conditions and understanding what it is ahead of time of what you want in terms of the strategy and if it's moving busses quicker or people in the community getting a certain benefit i think that's the piece you have to ask in terms of the intention. i'll use as an example free muni for youth and what we found happening which was great to modify with muni is during the summer, a lot of the summer camps were saying, yes, we know there's free muni for youth but when we have 20 students or 40 students we need to get on the bus, going through the process of trying to get everybody to go

get their free muni pass became a burden and parents got skeptical about why people were asking for their information. it made it harder for folks to access the free academy of sciences and the museums. what we were able to work out with muni was to say here are passes for programs serving certain populations of folks. it's not just about making muni accessible for all youth but make sure youth were getting to museums and the different sites during the summer. that was a very different thing to measure in terms of that. going back and now saying we know we gave out this many passes to this many organizers that serve this many kids from this population. i think that's the other piece around constantly going back and what is the intent from the beginning. >> i appreciate that. i think this is a bigger question we all need to ask as an agency. i think we're -- it's like mcdonald where we're the fries

people we only focus on the fries but we don't operate in isolation. the transportation is an infrastructure for everything else that happens in the city so we can't always solely focus on that being the total intent. obviously it's intent to get people around. sometimes we have to look at the bigger picture of what else is going on and who is being impacted and what the community's concerns are because ultimately it's greatest when it moves faster and better but if all the people we thought weren't going to benefit from it aren't around to take advantage it's like the issue of neighborhood improve and the people who lived in there first lived with terrible conditions and always wanted the neighborhood better but didn't want the expense so how do we balance those things. >> i'll add to that, the other thing is the history. a lot of times to your point, people feel you're only coming in to fix up for other people. they're like this isn't for me

so they feel it's the beginning of the push out and how do you make sure folks understand it is for them and how do you make sure they contribute ideas to make sure it's not about displacing a community of people. >> director rubke did you have a comment or question? >> for this work it's great. perhaps this is do come but i was wondering if through the work you have feedback for us as directors on this board to improve the public engagement? are there tangible things we could be doing better as board members as far as engaging the public so you could provide input into the decision making do show up. >> i think it's a hard question because it's about -- i know you have so many areas to focus on so being very intentional about -- sometimes it seems like i'm always mindful because people feel like you may be

being critical. it's hard to balance and i get that. i think one of the things i think is important when you make decisions about bus stops or bus lanes you try to get to the people that are going to be directly impacted or know more about it. for instance, i know this was a bus stop moved in a certain neighborhood which didn't seem like a big deal but it increased the amount of elders being robbed and young people being assaulted. that one block made the difference. the people that knew about that block weren't at the meetings. they didn't get the notices and didn't understand. when we think about equity and the ambulance of balance of that we have to be more intentional of who's here. who's in the place. that requires an extra layer of work which sometimes becomes difficult because everybody's

community is in the space but maybe they're not the community to be the most negatively impacted by the decision you make. >> thank you, direct davis. director ramos. >> thank you for presenting, dr. davis and for your great work. it's nice to see a fellow san francisco state alum at the helm a ship. i really wanted to make sure we were build ong the -- building on the lessons from our peers and give credit to where credit's due and the city of oakland and there's a place of equity and a woman is providing training for staff and depending on the point is what indicator you want to have. what i'm getting from this is

that if we start out and are intentional about equity from the very beginning and think about what is an equitable outcome going to look like from the beginning and make sure we have indicators in place to get us to the metric we're shooting for we'll be on the right track. i think it's important to start every project from that perspective and think about what is a successful equitable outcome look like. and not just according to us, but according to people impacted by the decisions we make. i appreciate the model and i'll look forward to more of this kind of thing. i have to admit i was deeply impressed and still feel like we raised the bar on the outreach on the western addition and community-based transportation plan done there and the engagement of the community

collective impact and mo magic and what have you. the city is taking batches much programmers and managerers and -- managers and running them through the difference between bias and how can we recognize that and nip it in the bud in our project as we're working on. i think there's a lot to learn from each other. i'd encourage us to be in contact. >> that's what the ger cohort participants -- they attended the workshops this was one a month in oakland and one a month at the hrc with our deputy director. i will say this to the point around the western addition engagement, the staff that were

assigned to that did an amazing job of engaging with community who were very up with -- upset and angry and folks don't always understand okay, this is just about transportation. if you come into a community to talk about the challenges and the issues facing the community they want to hear about the lighting and pot holes. they don't want to hear it's not your job. they want you to make sure before you come in your place you've done your due diligence to make sure whatever the issues are you have the contact of the person. they did a good job of fielding questions that weren't necessarily about transportation but quality of life. people didn't want it hear about

the bus stop if they weren't talking about the lighting on the street ahead. that's important in how we talk about being intentional with equity and to the point of the framework cultivate collaboration and understand the impact of your decision on another agency and how to make sure to bring them in. >> i was working with honda division and looked for revision leadership roles to be more sense stiff to raise and gender and sexual equity. it was a good program because it's called the lamp program. it took mentors who are basically white in the corporation and reach out to younger people, women of color and people of color to move up the leadership rank within the

company. we need to do that and get supervisors to reach out to young talent that may be people of color with potential and other categories we support to bring them into the management of a company or in this case an agency. the other thing i've been impressed by is the wellness to look at the balanced view of the parking issue and what impact does it have. we're not against bicycle safety but we are for having a balanced approach for people who are also served by whatever services this agency provides. i appreciate your comments and your work. >> thank you. i will say the create ladders is another one that's special to me because we talk about differs if i and opportunity but we don't always are intentional about developing the pathways or helping people move up the

ladder so i appreciate hearing and seeing that as well. >> director: thank you. it was a good discussion. it reminds us the conto award brings different voices in the transportation world and allows us to broaden the work we can do and the smart people that we have in the agency and now coming from different backgrounds. thank you very much for the presentation and you made a subject that you're right, can be daunting and difficult to address. i feel more hopeful about it knowing what we're doing as a city and agency so thank you very much for that. >> thank you all for your time. >> director: do we have any public comment? >> the clerk: yes, madame chair, mr. wiener. >> director: two minutes.

>> mr. wiener, san francisco state alumni. my time is running out. i like what is presented by director davis. i'd like to submit my own comment. now, you talk about equity. transportation should be accessible to everyone. it should be a right for everyone. this is not the case right now. what this board does is believes in identity politics. the groups that get up and testify before you in support of your program are the groups you support. it's a reciprocal relationship and the public is left out of it. what happens is it works in the community. like for instance, in outer richmond there were many

non-english speaking foreign immigrants denied service. the same thing applies to the parking spaces in the bay view. what happens is when you do trade-offs you're trading off one group of individuals against other individuals. that's basically what it is. unfortunately the definition of politics for this board is the politics of compromise is the art of comprising people. so i really believe in equitable service for everyone especially it has impact on people who are minorities, who are disadvantaged, who are physically frail. so basically i support this and would like to expand on it somewhat. these are my own sentiments. they do not represent those of director davis. i don't want to compromise her

testimony. so thank you. >> director: thank you, mr. wiener. any other public comment on this item? no? seeing none public comment is closed. let's move on. >> the clerk: item 12 discussion regarding 2017 smta customer satisfaction survey. >> good afternoon, chair brinkman and i'm the marketing manager for the sfmta. we're pleased to share the results of the 2017 muni customer satisfaction survey. this say survey we conduct annually to measure and track our service as a whole. we conduct this survey consistently to assess muni's value to our customers. using this tracking tool we're able to see our progress over time and measure the impacts of change have been implemented to improvement service. ib

in 2016 we reached the largest satisfaction numbers. over the last two years we've continued to implement the changes and we rolled out more than 200 new busses into our fleet. i'm pleased to report the investments into our system, thanks to your support, are working. satisfaction continues to be high. here to present the survey results is john canapari. the agency is a full-service marketing research firm in san francisco. they've been in business more than 45 years and certified as an lba and worked with the mta including on the travel decision survey presented at a recent board meeting as well as on-board demographic survey and boarding study, transit effectiveness project and more. they also worked with other clients private and public sector including the san francisco airport, university of california, bart, caltrain and

others. i'll now turn it over to present the actual findings and we'll look forward to hearing your questions after the presentation. >> director: thank you, mrs. smith. mr. canapari. >> thank you, christen. i appreciate being able to present the filings. i have presented before and i'm looking forward to presenting again. i won't spend a lot of time on our firm. we're a local firm here in san francisco. we specialize in customer research such as the one i'll be presenting to you. it's a little bit of a background on how we did the study. there's additional information that will be available in a full report provided to sfmta and available to all board members as well. first a little bit of a background. it's a telephone survey conducted in san francisco among residents. we used the hybrid sample with

cell phone numbers. the of interviews was 553. that is an adequate sample size for a study of this kind. it's on par or larger than other city surveys you see. the folks we spoke to were muni users. to qualify for the survey, you would have said you used muni within the past six months. we ask specific questions about muni service. so as i present the key findings keep in mind we're talking to muni users and people familiar with the service. as far as a margin of error on the 553 sample sizes, plus or minus 4.1%. and we made efforts to be as inclusive as possible on the study including multiple call-backs at different times and weekday evenings and weekends and conducted the survey in multiple language. we conducted it in-house using our own professional inview --

interviewers who have conducted this type of survey before and now i'll move too the findings. one of the if he questions we asked on the survey was how often you ride muni. what you see on the chart is a representation of the survey respondents. you have a lot of folks who are very regular users. people who use muni five or more days a week and on down the line. we did represent regular users of muni everyday riders and people who don't use it as frequently. but everybody used it at least once in the past six months. here again you'll have multiple purpose people use muni for. the slide represent the primary use of muni. we tried for one response. no surprise, commute to work or work-related business represents over half of the type of trips people take as primary usage.

but people use it for a variety of reasons. we spoke to multiple respondents. we asked how you usually pay your muni fare. we broke it more than we had in past years. in the past we just had clipper as one groupings. in 2017 we broke it out between the pass and monthly pass. adding those two you have 56%. one thing to call on the slide is cash at 27%. when you compare that sto 2016 it's down slightly. it was at 29% last year. 27%. not a big difference there in terms of the different types of fare payment as well as the rest of the options there. we also asked among riders who used cash as their primary

method why. far and away it's do you prefer to pay cash as i ride. over 50% said that. there's actionable things on the list and things more difficult. the first one is tough. i just prefer to pay cash. you look at the others, cash transfer say better value. don't have access to a card. there's other reasons where you may take action on that. the first one's a tough one. and we did a tracking study that's been going on many years now. this particular question i think

was added six, seven years ago. the yes percentage is down. it was 62% in 2015 and 67% in 2017. that's a significant reason. one could have to do with staff consolidation and things muni's doing. it's still a large majority. close to 60% but it has dropped. we see those over 65 are less

likely to ride. so less than a majority. significantly less. the other rider group that's much less likely to agree with the question as far as walking is those who indicate a disability. in that case it's just about a third. 34% will say yes to the question and 56% say no. and the real value of the study is looking at where things have changed. so and the key question is overall satisfaction. how would you rate muni's

service would you say excellent, good, only fair or poor? here if you add the excellent and good together which is pretty common in research, 70% say excellent or good. the other side of that, only fair or poor is 29%. so the 70% is a very strong number. that's in terms of a positive satisfaction rating. comparing that to years looking at it at 2016 the 70% that are satisfied adding the excellent or good is the same as what was achieved in 2016 so that number is consistent with 2016. you have 8% that said poor versus 5% in 2016. that's something to watch. is it a large difference, no. it's 3% and we'll look at how

things look at the bottom end. there's a higher share 8% versus previous years. the tracking i've been talking about. with those it's going back to 2001, the same question, overall satisfaction question. the 70% achieved in 2017 looking at that versus 70%, also achieved in 2016. okay. so when i say the numbers are strong if you look at the trim chart you can see going back to 2010 it's been a steady increase in the overall satisfaction through 2016 and then this year it's still at the 70%. it's still an all-time high since we've been looking at this. again i don't want to over emphasize the negative because it's a positive message but it's something to keep an eye on. this is the same question the

overall satisfaction question broken out by different groups, folks, riders who participated in the survey. so when usage of muni looking at the first column there shows the excelle excellent/good percentage in how often people ride. the regular riders, 67% excellent or good and the people who ride less often than five days a week. in that particular one you see regular riders are not quite as satisfied as people who don't ride as often. this is not a surprise. do a lot of transit research. and customer surveys on many transit systems and it's not a surprise you're regular riders aren't less satisfied. you don't want it to be a big difference but those are the folks who see your system maybe a lot and the knicks and -- nicks and bumps more closely. the next is by service line type. we're seeing a big difference there. the first two rows are regular

bus lines and rapid bus lines. they're at 76% excellent or good. to the rapid rail line, 60%. there's a big difference. there's potential reasons. one is just in terms of the busses you're getting a lot in terms of what they're seeing versus rail which they are coming through you have different types of riders who use the service. looking at for example, income level among rapid rail lines, they are have a higher income when you compare those to bus riders including the rapid bus riders. so their options or choices -- they have more choices and so that also can come to play in terms of difference there's but that's a pretty big difference. they're still 60%. they're still rating