>> i was here and i know the sign has been approved so i'm not here to opposed it but there was a lot of consequences and i i you need to be made aware of. the first is, as i said last week, you have to block section of two-way stop signs and all of a sudden you put in a four-way stop sign. i know you have the tab on the bottom but a lot of people don't notice that. how will you alert the subsequent blocks that these are still two way. you've got these yellow cross traffic does not top sign. the other thing is it's a steep incline and my survey of three bikes were coming down at very quick speed. i don't think the stop sign will make them stop. even though you have two 10-foot red zones on the south side, i mean, i'm sorry, on the west

side of that street, that were put in a couple years ago to clear obstructions coming up. you d don't have any on the eastside. now that you have pedestrians, children, they think it's top sign they'll run out and a bike will jam into them and something will happen. but not just a red zone up there. not just a 10-foot red zone. you need a toll way with red zone. as you did two blocks away at vienna and avalon, and because as it is right now, you already got that red zone and every day, in fact today coming to this meeting, in broad daylight there was a guy parked across the red zone and into the handicapped zone. your meter maids don't know it's dangerous because they don't enforce it unless someone calls and we don't call. so that's why it's a dangerous intersection. thank you, very much. >> thank you. next speaker please.

>> thank you. i am the name of the god. we have been seeing in this city of san francisco that drivers are suffering very badly. they don't make more than $10 an hour. it has been hurting them very bad. through the sfmta and s.f.o. these people have caused troubles for all the drivers. very good drivers. they're very nice people. they have a clean heart. i have brought this issue to the new proposal for $7 million. that $4.7 million is good because i fight for it and i got it so that goes to all the drivers. that is very good. that is the point which i was trying. now we got it. that money goes to all the drivers. that's nice. the new proposal i'm giving to you guys, that $4.7 million

should be given to the driver in a manner for the business, not to put the money i put in their pocket tomorrow they go buy chocolate and that money is finished. that's not a good way. my father is in iran and i have been working his shop until i finish mien inger ook degree. this is not a business to give the money to them and say go buy chocolate and tomorrow do $4.7 million is gone. the right way is to give the money to the taxi drivers and let them borrow $12,500 and return it back in four months. after four months, they return the money and the money is still there. so they can have their own car, they can buy their own car and their own insurance, and they can buy every other thing which is needed as as independent. so that is where every cab driver making over $1,000 on us every single month so we escape

giving money to the cab company anymore. we don't want the cab company in this city anymore because they are making more than $1,000 on us. >> thank you. >> thank you very much for your time. >> tarik mabude. >> good afternoon, directors. taxi driver. so taxi medallion was sold and they came back to the federal credit union. more are still on the way every month, 10 or 12 medallion is because they're not refinancing anymore. similar to that, s medallion issued to the drivers with 30 years working drivers, and sfmt started taking back the medallions, they're collected half of them back and the remaining will be back to sfmta. that is creating a crunch of the

medallion in the market and these drivers will be forced to pay $100 get fees to the cab companies to drive their cars. and just make $100, $40, $30 a day. that is causing a lot of families in extreme troubles so you should look into that s. medallion with 30-year-old drivers although it's free but you want to make money. and sfmta is throwing out their 8,000 cities medallion for $700 a month. that is unfair. that game of collecting money for user medallion should go away and there should be free medallion back into the system for the future. but history now on forever. must only new taxi stand on the taxi stand must go and half taxi

when the sign is and behind than is all uber and lift signs. so we have no parking there and location where the public is coming out, 9 9% public is coming out and our parking is on the third street side so we've got zero customers at the conventions. >> thank you. >> next speaker please. >> daniel followed by mark gre grewburg. >> hello. i'm daniel and i'm a san francisco native. i've lived in my current apartment for 20 years. i really just want to express outrage, which i'm not alone in this if you ask within the community, which i have done. you will find that 98% of the people are just fed up with these tech buses and the selling out of our city and the corporatization of what was a beautiful diverse rich city. the destruction of the mission, the increase of gents ra indication, we live in the mitchell ice cream building. the mitchells have expressed

over and over you are damage their business. they've been there since the 50s, you are showing great disrespect. you put a bus stop that has 61 buses smoking into my window every morning. we can't stand it. our neighbors can't stand it. our neighbors had to put up a fence so you cannot enjoy the only private accessible garden in the whole city pretty much. we used to all enjoy. that people got their ice scream and enjoy the garden. can't anymore. he can't rent his apartments because the buss are shaking his building. we have disabled people there. we have elderly there. this is a neighborhood. we're sick and tired of you selling out our public roads for private corporate gain and this is a feeling that is reiterated by everyone i've spoken with in the community. i sat down withal, and francesca, they accepted my offer to have a peaceful cup of coffee. jeff sheehy is nowhere to be found. they broke up the meeting into two things. things they cannot do and will not do. i'd like you to do something. we have a situation there's that

is intenable, i cannot live in my apartment anymore. it's awful. and you are just going to have to make a change. with brokenheart sf.com we're looking for a sub system and encourage these young 23-year-olds to ride their bikes, have the companies pay into our public system, pay into electric bicycles, lick means the transportation and get them out from our front doors because we cannot stand it anymore. no joke. thank you. >> next speaker. >> mark grewburg and he is the last person who turned in a speak are card under this topic. >> thank you, again. i just wanted to continue and finish some remarks i was making under the director's report. this is with infrastructure with the condition of the streets. i've been driving a cab here in san francisco now for 35 years and i have never seen the streets of this city in worse shape. it is simply awful.

i'm not only talking about those places like vanness let's say where you have a huge construction project that maybe some of that is to be expected. it's all over the city. i know this is not your direct responsibility, but it certainly is something that you must be concerned about because muni obvious obviously uses these streets and from the city's point of you, this may be categorized under the idea of the third maintenance but it's continue the third maintenance for a can be driver that's seeing their cab shot to pieces because they have to go over these roads and these bumps and these pot holes every single day. it must be occurring with muni also. and with reference to what the last speaker just said, large vehicles such as muni bus and such as google buses we know

have a di disproportionate effet on the streets, on the condition of the streets. on the wear and tear on the roadways. i would question whether the city is getting their money's worth from these fees these companies are paying on these google buses owing not only to the other kinds of disruptions that they're causing, but also to the wear and tearing on the streets. >> thank you. >> that's the last person. anymore public comment on the director's report. public comment is closed. we'll move on. >> you are moving to your consent calender these are routine unless a member of the public or a member of the board wishes to have an item severed and surrendered separately you have received a request item 10.5 regarding the mileage limit of next severed from your consent calender but no other item has been severed. >> ok. >> so do i have a motion could

approve consent calender minus 10-point a. >> second. >> all in favor aye. >> opposed. >> hearing none. the consent calender -10.5 is passed and let's hear from the public. >> 10.5 amended transportation code division to extend the mileage limit of vehicles use is taxis from 375,000 miles to 425,000 miles. one member of the public has asked this be severed. tarik mamood. >> good afternoon, to increase the mileage to 425,000. it used to be 300,000 a long time ago. in yellow cab 500 cab company, there were on average, 200 to 220,000 when the cab will be stopped that moved into a spare by time it hit 250,000, cab will be abolished and not reach

300,000 miles, to keep it good quality of this cost. then the mileage was increased and now it's 375,000, which mr. malcolm heinicke last time said it should be increased to 400,000. that is 100% wrong. first of all, 2,000 cabs moving in the city out of 2,000 cabs there are 300 cabs sitting in yellow right now, which are already abolished and the name and numbers taken out. they're hardly 250,000 miles. so i like to say the same issues. people don't want to drive a car, which is more than 300,000 miles and the roads of san francisco especially terrible. so based on that, going to 425, why? the person who has been 100 get

fees is still paying $100 get fees and big cab companies. what is not much used car the wrong idea. the thing is, when one cab is taken out by one driver today, the next day another driver, the next day another driver, it is the same cab up to 300,000 miles goes to the 10 different hand, maybe not double but still going to different hand. 425 will be a disastrously bad car on the road for public and for the driver to pay 100. he should be paying $60, $70 and it's ok, not otherwise. >> mark grewburg. >> yes, mark in support of the change to 425,000 miles. it's true that the mileage has been increased over the years and there has not been any

obvious change or difference or deterioration in the safety of vehicles and the public. and the fact there needs to be some limited granted. a well maintained vehicle will absorb far more miles than a poorly maintained vehicle will and maintenance is done by cab companies on a regular basis because this is the basis of the business. keeping vehicles in good condition and keeping them on the street and keeping them on safe condition is the business they are in and therefore cab companies are attentive to this. we have hundreds upon hundreds of cabs owned and operated by individual drivers and this

increase in the mileage will give them, maybe another six months of use out of this vehicle, which is supremely important to someone who is barely, if at all, making a living at this point. so i would just urge you to support this. it's a modest increase. maybe a little over 10% on the mileage. this is something that is going to be helpful to both individual cab drivers who own their own cabs and to taxi companies. so please support it. thank you. >> thank you mr. grewburg. do i have any questions or a motion to approve 10.5? >> i'm just going to say i'm supportive of this motion. i would just say that i think the bigger thing from a customer standpoint is how the interior of the cab appears. i think that -- the streets are bumpy and you have the same problem if you are in a car or on a bus in that regard, but i

think the biggest difference is just because it has 400,000 miles, doesn't mean it has to look that way on the inside. that's one the reasons that people often make other choices about how they ride. so just want to say i support this, move it forward but also say that to the taxi companies or to the drivers, keep your interior cab nice if you want people to not know your car has been on the road for 400,000 miles. >> thank you. good point. do i have a second. >> and all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed hearing number item 10.5 is approved. i want to know in the consent calender, 10.6, there may have been people who chose not to speak. this was a manning the companies code regarding residential parking issued educational institutions. this came up during the discussion around the extension of the r.p.p. zones in bernal heights last meeting, the meeting before. it was a particular request of vice-chair heinicke we make

those r.p.p.s available to the educational institutions. i know he is not here to call it out so i'll just say that that was passed. is there anybody planning on speaking in favor of that? no. someone there. thank you, very much. public comment was closed because that was on the consent calender just wanted to call it out to everybody. now consent calender is complete. we'll move on to regular. >> thank you, madam chair, item 11 presentation regarding the fiscal please stanphysical

... some good progress in terms of street safety. particularly because your adoption of vision zero in 2014 and that is obviously something we want to continue to be a trend so we can get to zero by 2024. muni service is at its highest levels ever. 70% is not where we strive to be but it is the best we've has since the agency was created and that's a good trend which is joined by the fact that we have increasing share of trips taken in san francisco by sustainable modes of transportation, something that we'll have to do more of to reasonably accommodate growth coming to the city. and the flip-side of all that, is that greenhouse gas emissions are dropping in the city. though the transportation's share of the greenhouse gas

emissions are growing because the buildings have been doing more than their share. you'll note in the upper right, transit is a small part of the pie. so it's really the cars and trucks in the city that are among the biggest drivers now of greenhouse gas emissions in san francisco. in terms of the economy, the city continues to grow pretty significantly just in this strategic plan cycle. we've added nearly 50,000 people to the city, and for the near term, the growth is continuing. we're lower now than what economists say is the lowest that we can get. so we're essentially at full employment as economists would measure it. and what that means, as the

economy grows, we need to attract more people into the city to work because we've run out of people here in the city it do the work. you see the nonresident growth in terms of jobs in san francisco has been growing over the years, so it's more people coming into the city, more people needing to get around the city. and as i reminded you last time, and i think the city economist did as well, we are in -- coming close to unprecedented length of post recession growth as part of the recovery. i did attend and hear economists speak last week, nobody is currently forecasting recession. everyone seems to generally think that current conditions, while they won't grow as fast will continue to grow for the next three years, but everyone who -- all the economist when they're talking about the region and the state point to this same

data point we're -- this is a very long expansion and it can't last forever. so then, bringing this down to our level here at the mta, the big picture of the starting point is that our revenues are flat. whereas our expenditures are growing, the flat revenues despite the fact that the city's general fund continues to grow and we just got the 6-month report numbers last week, that showed additional $13 million in general fund revenue to the mta, beyond what was anticipated, which is good news. other of our revenue, such as parking revenue and transit revenues are flat at best and we'll show you that, but meanwhile, our expenditures continue to increase. this is historically where we've been. you can see the growth of the budget. and what we need is for the blue line to stay above the red line,

the initial protections for the next two years because the revenues are growing not as fast as expenditures, as the blue line is below the red line. that's the gap we have to close. this just gives you a zoom-in on some of those of our own revenue sources. you can see that the fares are down. that's in part due to the free muni programs that we have authorized over the years. our other parking related and other fees are largely flat at best. so when you put that together, our projections for the next two years on the revenue expenditure side we were initially looking at $43 million two-year shortfall we needed to close. this is just a little context of kind of where that baseline comes from. on the revenue side, it assumes all of the indexing of the fees,

fares and fines per board policy. there are some funds that come in that flow through the operating budget for capital use such as prop b, the population baseline as well as development fees and state cap-and-trade funds. we are assuming that the sb-1 funds that i referred to earlier will be there. we have made other assumptions you can see here in terms of the revenue side, including the continuation of free fares. we're going to walk through fare proposals. one thing that i don't think i mentioned last time and we're not currently showing, we have received requests from a couple of members of the board of education that we consider expanding our free muni for youth program to all youth, not just low or moderate income youth. what this budget assumes is continuation of the free budget

fare programs as they are. what really drives the expenditure numbers are that we have already negotiated 3% increase in the first fiscal year of this 2-year budget. and we're using 3.4% number in the second year based on numbers that we get from the controllers office. so those, as well as the pension numbers and the other indexing that lays on top of that for nonpersonal services is what drives our expenditure growth. so since we first developed that $43 million baseline, there have been some adjustments that we have been able to make. one is the general fund baseline. the 9-month report i believe will come out in march and we may get further, hopefully further good news from the general fund. but we'll continue to update the general fund projections that we get from the city. but we've been able to do so

since we created our first baseline. there are some changes, such as the change we made with the stockton garage that impacts the revenue and the expenditure side. and there is -- we've just incorporated other more current estimates on revenue and expenditures than we had when we first created the baseline. that's brought the projected shortfall down to just shy of $31 million. we need to close the $31 until million gap, but there is other stuff we would like to or need to do. one is to integrate the muni service equity strategy into our service programs and i think we'll have another slide on that. but this is per board policy that we implement whatever comes out of the the process. there are a number of service changes we're poised to make, such as the opening of the

central subway in december of 2019. the expansion of the rail fleet. we should have 24 in service by the summer. and 68 through the end of this two-year budget cycle. we have a new bus division that we'll be opening up this summer to address the expansion and the bus fleet in the bus service we're putting in place over the last two years. we will need to continue to invest in maintenance and modernizing the maintenance practices. and as we've talked about before, continuing to train our workforce as the demands on the workforce change as technology and other factors come into play. so depending on how you look at that, it's on order of $60 million a year of things we'd like to do on the transit side that are not included in the baseline. just to spend a minute on this. you'll recall the muni equity

strategy charged us to look at these eight neighborhoods, look at their transit service relative to the system-wide average and where we saw deficiencys to make changes. that process is currently under way. we'll come to the board next month with the recommendations from the muni strategy as per the board policy and will need to incorporate those and make space for those into the budget. i did want to note for you, that our fund balance remains healthy. we have a policy that we keep 10% of the operating budget in reserve, which is getting toward $110 million. our current projected balance is nearly double that. we did that dip down you see in the last year, was because i recommended and you authorized

expenditure of fund balance dollars for onetime needs. but it still leaves us in a pretty healthy position and that's $13 million of good news we have on the general fund, just 13 million thadz goes into the fund balance because we don't have the authority to spend those funds. you can expect that we will again be proposing some strategic use of fund balance for onetime purposes but still leaving us with a healthy reserve and above the 10% reserve requirement. so i guess i just hinted on the first thing on the revenue side, we've not yet assumed any use of fund balance. so that's one tool we have in the kit. and any other new or increased revenue that we've not captured is still out there. as i said, when the general fund report comes out next month there could be more good news on

their projections for the next two years in terms of amount of general fund we have available that there are other items at play that could positively or negatively impact us as well. on the expenditure side, aside from the transit issues that we discussed that are not in the baseline, there are a number of different items here we have not fully incorporated that we will either need to incorporate or need to make changes. i won't go through all these, but these are the things that as we get closer to getting better numbers on what our needs are going to, internally and from other agencies, these are going to impact the gap that we have to close. so, we will be looking at fund balance. as possibly part of the solution. for example, right now, we take some ongoing operating dollars

and put them in the capital budget to use as reserves. so one thing we might do, rather than direct those dollars to the capital budget, use fund balance for the onetime needs in the capital budget and keep the operating funds in the operating budget. likewise, the population based general fund baseline increase that prop b created is a source that has been fully going capital, but given that the biggest drivers of the gap in our budget is due to the increase service that we need to provide because of the growing population, it seems like potentially an apt use of the funds that are driven by population growth to direct those to ongoing muni service needs. on the expenditure side, i've already asked the divisions to identify ways they can trim their budgets without actually

reducing staff. so we have a number of puzzles there and the transit division, the largest part of the budget, has come up with a number of different ways they might be able to better use the funds allocated or redirect some of the things, rather than buying parts that sit on a shelf, redirect those fund through better inventory and maintenance management. i do want to flag. i talked about the june ballot in the director report, but on the november ballot will be a measure that will repeal senate bill 1 for us that's $27 million a year on the operating budget side. somebody made comment about the condition of the streets, $23 million a year for street paving goes to public works from sb 1 as well as direct capital funds we get and other funds that we can compete for. so if -- we're assuming that

sb-1 is not repealed and it's passed, that's our assumption in the budget, that is a risk that would change what we're programming these funds for if the funds go away. there are potential risks. the biggest one is the economy. it's a risk that we would have to manage once the budget is under way as we would an sb-1 repeal or whatever we end up negotiating with our labor partners for that second year for which we have just place holder amounts right now. so we walked through a number of proposed fare policy changes. these would be deviations from the standard indexing. and so i've asked again our revenue manager diana hammonds

to update you on the thinking and answer questions about the proposals that you all raised back in january. >> good afternoon. members of the board, as director mentioned, a lot of the information will be familiar to you from the budget workshop, but we'll go more in depth on some of the items. just a reminder of the pricing of the fares. there should be goals that we look at in addition to just generating revenue. what we're looking at is incentivizing transit ridership, prepayment, promoting equity. i just wanted to remind everyone that there is a title 6 equity analysis done in conjunction with fare increases so that will come at a later date.

on the next slide, this is just a reminder of the great work that has been done over the last five years, really making the sfmta a leader across the country in terms of providing low income access to transit service by reducing many of our fares, providing free muni for seniors, people with disabilities, youth. and on the other side of that, we also have tried to equalize our fares for folks who are not low-income, so we've done that through establishing discounts for all non-free muni customers. maybe didn't achieve the goals that we hoped for. and on the single fare increases we talked about where we are seeing movement, eliminating the

cash transactions, have an update on that information. i think the packet may include that. we're seeing progress over the last six months. that is encouraging and we're recommending consideration of holding that discount for clipper and muni mobile customers and increasing that differential. and then in terms of monthly passes, as i mentioned, the a-pass is where we've seen some transition of customers away from the product which provides a great service of options for customers within the city to use bart instead of muni. as noted, 28% drop in sales over the last five years which is pretty significant. so we are a couple of options, establishing a dollar amount as a cap, maybe a percentage at a cap. another option could be a dollar

amount with a percentage increase on that. this shows, if you have a percentage, it's going to grow at a high are rate, we may be in the same place we are right now at some point. and then the next slide responds to questions. i believe director borden, you may have asked what the pass members are doing right now? we don't want to put policies in place that push people out of the prepayment options. this shows that most of our customers are kind of within a 25-36 area. the folks who may not be using maybe as many trips as you think there is, some convenience that comes with purchasing the monthly pass and you don't have to think about it. that could be one reason. and then if you look at the numbers there, so currently what our pass is priced at is the

equivalent of 30 trips. 15 round trips a month. our indexing proposal for the monthly passes would bring that to 31 and then back down to 29. but the overall majority of the customers take more than 36 trips. we've looked at the numbers for the last five years and don't see within the ranges where we've been, that there is really any transition of customers. once you get kind of above the 36-40, we might see that, but i think we're in a safe place right now. on the visitor passports and cable cars, last time we brought to you a proposal that would have the significant reduction shown on the muni mobile and clipper side. what we're showing is alternative here is potentially having that discount also for the in person sales, so again,

it's another option to look at. we really do want to encourage prepayment on this area. so be looking for direction from you folks on this. what this new alternative shows is using that cash fare differential model for the single trips as the basis for those, that's why you see a little bit of a difference there. we are looking at these fares in terms of how we think the customers are using the passes. maybe not assuming that people in one day are taking cable car trims and three or four muni trips, but pricing them at a rate that makes them a benefit for people to use. one of the questions that did come up on the visitor passport was the idea of a family pass. we did find that at least on our muni mobile side that 98% of folks are purchasing three or less passes. and also, with the significant

change we're proposing, there is actually a discount already embedded in what we're proposing because it would lower one-day passport from 92 to $48 for a family of four. so at this point, you know, the discounts are pretty significant even if we still do the single products. again, we talked about introducing the low-income single ride fare that is under discussion in the regional level. this would allow the existing lifeline customers to have the option of using single ride discounts instead of what we have now which is a monthly pass. it can be difficult for people to come up with the money at one time, so having single rides does benefit a larger percentage of customers. this is at the regional level.

we're hopeful that this will be an option. and looking at maybe 12-18 months that something like this would be implemented. and then something new that we want to try out, we have heard a lot from the cac and other stakeholders, about having a one-day pass that would not only does it make it more attractive of a product to folks who may not ride enough to use a monthly pass, but also if you already paid for that pass and maybe you're taking a third trip, you'll go ahead and use muni instead of other options because it's already paid. what we were looking at here is what is the right pricing for it? there was a question also that came up bebudget workshop, will we be losing money if we price it at a certain point? but what we found is 98% of the

customers are using two or less trips on clipper with their purchasing single rides. so we feel still that between the 2-2-and-a-half multiplier that would be a good place for that. a couple of things we didn't talk about was bulk sales discount, this goes to the point of prepaid fares. right now we have third party vendors, we have a commission, 75 cents for every item they sell. it's on consignment and there is a lot of account management, but we also have large tour groups and other conventions or things like that that call us and ask us, what kind of discount, if they want to buy a thousand tickets and we don't have a process for discounting that. and i think that would be a huge benefit because it's easier to do one transaction, have them distribute them instead of having folks wait in line at our kiosk.

this would go a long way in helping with the prepayment. the next one is the institutional pass program which you may be familiar as the class pass. that is the model where it exists right now. basically it's a revenue neutral model where you take the population, figure out how many people are riding muni and distribute the cost out across everyone. the requirement is that everyone has to pay. an example of this is the expansion to sf state which is probably, it is our biggest program to date. we have 30,000 students that participate, they pay this fee as part of their registration. although there is an assumption that some folks won't use it, there is the hope that if they have it paid, they'll decide to use it. and so what we're looking at going forward is that instead of having a very strict monthly rate that we're able to work with different institutions, organizations, maybe even

special events to use that model and to be able toll have that flexibility to enter into agreement with them. again, this is just a summary of the options that we've talked about. and then the next... page, we have questions. i answered some of them in the presentation, but just highlight some of the other ones someone had asked. we have about half of the monthly pass holders. half of the trips are made by monthly pass holders. it does detail how many rides we're assuming for the pricing, it makes a little more sense in terms of what the customers are doing. then there was questions about working with hotels and other organizations to build that cost in.

and there are relationship there was are built definitely have talked with communications and they're looking at expanding that role. it's not kind of the target group we've worked a lot with, so hopeful that those relationships will continue to grow. again, i answered the question about that already. low-income single ride fares, we have a great system in place to process low-income eligibility, partner with the human services agency. so that's not a problem. in terms of fiscal sponsor, a question that came up, i think we probably all could understand that it's not something that could be depended on, it would take a very significant effort to try to keep culminating that and it's not guaranteed so that could lead to a sizeable gap in the budget if it didn't come through. so not something that our agency

is focused on. i think the rest of the questions were answered already in the presentation. >> thank you. director, would you like to go on with the rest of the presentation, or like me to pause for board input on the fares? >> why don't we finish up with at least the cable cars, just responding to the last part of the fare conversation and then it would good if the board had questions. >> excellent, let's do that then. >> during the budget workshop we heard loud and clear from all of you you're very interested in our agency moving toward a place where we eliminate the cash from the cable car. internal stakeholders, transit communication, revenue, we have got together and feel like this is something we can do. laying out a timeline for this. hopeful for maybe an early fall 2019 rollout. it will take a significant

commitment. primarily on the communications side, so working to develop budget, resource. what that would look like. really enhancing our relationships with the tourism industry and hotels. these are the important things to make sure folks know what the rules are before they get here. so we felt pretty confident about that. we're going to continue to meet. and that will be our goal. 18, 24 months to get something in place. >> chairman brinkman: thank you, i think that is wonderful. i think we did hear that clearly from the board that moving toward cashless cable cars would be something we would definitely all support. i want to just pause here so we can go through these. if we flip back to page 37 where we have the fare change options all laid out. i think it might be a good opportunity for board members to just share what they're feeling about some of the options. who would like to start us off?

>> director ramos: if i could just -- >> no problem. i'll go ahead and get started on these. i think miss hammonds said all of the options look good. i'm in favor of all of these. option 1, again, we talked about this at our break, the cash fare differential, totally in support of that one. option 2-a and b, to limit the premium. i am supportive of that. it's interesting, i do wonder you showed that the number of people buying the m-pass which allows people to use bart in addition to muni, if i have that correct? or is the other way around? a pass uses part, m-pass doesn't. the number of people buying the pass is going down.

i know of so many people who commute in that bart corridor to take bart instead of muni and i'm wondering in our improvements on the 14 line are helping those people feel less impacted by that and feeling like they're not willing to spend the money on bart. i know that's your commute corridor director borden, to not spent the money on bart and move to the 14-r line. this might be a question that we could answer later, what is the increase we're seeing on the 14-r since putting in the red transit lanes? >> i don't know, but we're definitely seeing increase in ridership. but the decline and the use of the a-pass has been happening over the course of five years. on the some 14, so we think it has something to do with the price. >> it would be interesting if we could correct that or make it less onerous to buy the a-pass.

are they going to stay on the 14-r? the fare differential for visitor passports, i like that one, i am in support of that. i think that kind of does tie in with the cable car as well, if we can get people buying their fare media in advance. i think that's a good one. low-income single ride, option 4, i'm very much in support of that one. i think that is something again that we heard from the board at the retreat that most board members did seem to be in favor of that. option 5 a-b, new day pass without cable car. that would be great. i know when i bought passports for visiting relatives, i was disappointed when visiting relatives did not ride the cable car because i felt like i was paying for the cable car and they didn't get out there and ride it. in a situation like that, a day pass could be good or the change of the passport rate.

10% discount for bulk purchases, tickets and passports, again, great, anything we can do to encourage people to buy all of the fare media advance and get it sorted out, understand how the payment works, that's great one. as well as option 7, expand the use of the institutional pass models to other groups and organizations. anything we can do to get people buying them in advance. just trotting right on board without delaying the buses while they're figuring out how to pay is a fabulous thing. >> director ramos: thank you, madame chair. i agree with everything that you recommended. a couple of things that i would point out, still have questions about or concerns. the first one is around option 1, increasing the cash fare differential to 50 cents for cash fares and as excited as i am of that prospect, i think

it's important for us to also compliment that with -- complement that with improving the way that the customers have access to clipper cards or the awareness how to reload a clipper card. in the work that i do, i'm learning that even when people get clipper cards for free, essentially, there is very little reloading of the cards, simply because it's not practical for a lot of us to reload them. so i was really excited about this prospect just a few weeks ago, but looking at data recently that is showing well, actually, we're not seeing a whole lot of people reloading them as much as they could be. i think there is a disconnect there we need to address before we go further. although i feel like it could be so valuable if we can do it, saving us time and money if we can get people paying with clipper cards. i do like also option 3 a lot

for the visitors, however, because i think that most folks, if you're visiting you're probably can afford those types of fare differentials for sure. i think also option 4, i've heard more and more call for this. i am wondering how viable that is and how much it pertains -- how much it would depend on this new dosage of funding from arm 3 for clipper, what they call c-2, or clipper 2.0 at all if any. >> this would be a pre-c-2 change. >> excellent. >> so we can do this with our existing clipper? >> good news. thank you. and then i think for me also i'm really excited at the prospect of option 7.

you all might recall when every time the commuter shuttles come up and we have people that are organized here, calling for more employee based programs to do more to get employers to provide passes to their workers or clients, whatever capacity. i love the san francisco state model and if we can replicate that with more institutions and employers, we would be in a really good way. i deeply appreciate staff for putting all together these options and thank you for responding to all of our questions. i think we have a lot to think about. i'll hold my comments for now on that. >> director rubke? >> director rubke: i agree with what is said. i would highlight our need as an agency to educate the public why prepayment institutional passes,

cashless systems are so important for us and then, as far as safety for everyone involved. efficiency for transit. and all that. i don't know if we can get the press to focus on that. i know there was press about the cable car, maybe not so positive. if we could harness that and make it educational to people understand why we're moving forward with these policies, that would be important. but i don't have any helpful suggestions beyond that right now. >> chairman brinkman: director borden? >> director borden: i agree with the differential issue and if people are not reloading their cards, they lose them, misplace them and you don't want to have a lot of money on a card. i found a clipper card i lost a year ago, under some things i hadn't seen. i was disappointed. you know, that might be part of the reason. i know there is a registration

process, but for some people that might be onerous. so unless preferring option 1, i think option 2, going back to somebody who takes every day muni and bart, i think that a lot of people live where they could walk to bart and if the pass -- a-pass were a differential that wasn't so advantageous, they would use both systems, therefore they would buy our pass as well. but i think sometimes people will just walk to avoid paying for the muni bus. they perceive upgrade of charge on the fare. anything we can do to create parity. a lot of people i think are in that same situation. making the differential less so people choose the a-pass is a good idea.

i'm fine with the fare differential. we can work with the travel sites and stuff to help publicize that. and we have many of them located here in san francisco. so i think if we can help push that, that would help us, because it's like the gift card, people buy things they don't use. let's do that. but you still get the money, so let's do that. institutional pass is something i heard a lot about out talking to students. one of the concerns, we can do more of that across the bay area. that would be phenomenal and i'm supportive of that 100%. like the day pass idea as well. i think that also helps people who have the choice between commuting between muni and bart, maybe they do it less frequently, so an a-pass wouldn't make a sense, but if they're taking bart into the city, and then take multiple trips on muni before they head

back. and then the discount for a bulk pass, that's a great idea. >> chairman brinkman: director hsu? >> director hsu: i'm supportive of all of these. thank you for laying them out. i had one question on option 5. it looks like the data you're showing suggests this would be a net add in revenue and not a net loss, right? so that almost seems like a no-brainer in that case? >> i don't know that we'd want to -- with a lot of these things, you may lose some people and gain others. so i think we're looking at this really as a revenue neutral model, finding what the right price is. >> director hsu: what would be the calculus in deciding whether it's 2, or 2.5? i did see some cities go two and some do a little more. >> i think part of it is how

much you feel on the end will you increase ridership on one and maybe lose on the other. part of it, when it's something new like that, it's best guesswork. but doing this on muni mobile will allow us to figure out what the best rate is. and again, part of it is what we can't really quantify is getting folks to use muni during the non-peak hours otherwise they may be taking trips using yaubls or something else because -- automobiles, because they have that product in their hand already. >> director hsu: it seems that they buy it for convenience and they may not make the extra trip, but if you have the convenience, you can take the second trip and that's a win-win for everybody. >> director torres: have you provided outreach to high

schools and colleges within our areas to educate them about what the options mean for them? >> i'm sorry, could you clarify? >> are agents out to high schools and colleges and what might work better for them as students? >> we haven't done outreach yet on these particular proposals, but over time there has been a lot of outreach, particularly when free muni came in. there was a lot of outreach in the high school level and that was when we extended up to 18 and that was based on feedback we got from high school students. over the years, there has been outreach to college students and that is how -- >> maybe i need outreach because all the options are very confusing to me. i don't know what are going to be best. number 2, which is going to be best to keep up our revenue stream. one of the things that appealed to me was the fam