supportive of the project. thank you. >> welcome, mr. wu, for your first presentation. thank you very much. i am of two minds. while i greatly appreciate the ability to take an oversized lot and intensify development, we are basically putting two regularly shaped large buildings in length into an environment where all building forms are more or less new forms that leave random patterns of open space and patterns to be enjoyed by neighbors. the comment i'm making is not in support of protecting views, but also in support of not challenging a random plan of

individual buildings. so i hear the last commenter speaking to that. these buildings are intensifying development and they are also quite relentless relative to the setting they're in. again, i am of two mindsets and i would like to hear other commissioners. particularly if you look at drawing a.1.0, which is the overall site plan. >> clerk: there is a member of the public wishing to speak. should we afford them that opportunity? >> this is stacy --

>> clerk: i'm sorry, we don't allow commenters two bites of the apple. if the commissioners have questions of you, they might call on you. commissioners, you may continue your deliberations. do i hear a motion, anyone? >> i wanted to say i too am in favor of this project. i think we need to work hard to encourage family housing in the city and i, for one, have always been troubled by the definition of two bedrooms. so i am glad to see some options where family options include four bedrooms.

i recognize that that includes f.a.r. >> is that a motion? >> yes, move to approve. >> seconded. >> i just would like to question commissioner moore on -- because i appearing support this project as well. what i'm trying to get from you is i think -- i do understand [indiscernible] -- it looks like

it's going to be four bedrooms. i think that also for me, we should try to confirm the staff recommendations -- >> are you asking me a question? >> yes, commissioner moore. >> there is a level of the effects of larger family housing grouping of two buildings outweighs my criticism and in

the end residential design guidelines are in the eye of the beholder. we have all different kinds of ways of looking at it and to me it's important to always look at context. however, the benefit of the larger-family units of which we have two here outweighs my hesitation of the manufacturing. i'm in support of the building and i second the motion. >> clerk: if there is nothing further, there is a motion accepted to approve this. [ roll call ] . >> clerk: so moved. that motion concludes unanimously and concludes your agenda today.

you got some of the time back this week. enjoy the rest of the afternoon and we'll see you next week. [♪♪♪]

>> (roll call) item 3, announcement of sound producing devices during the meeting. we have no announcement since we are in a virtual meeting. approval of minutes from april 6th, 2021, meeting. >> chair borden: item 4, approval of minutes.

directors, are there any additions or changes to the minutes before opening up to public comment? for members of the public, i'll have the board secretary read the number so you can comment. this is time to comment only on item number 4, approval of minutes from the april 6th, 2021, regular meeting. >> the phone number to use is 888-808-6929, the access code is 9961164. to address the board dial one then zero. >> chair borden: moderator, can you let us know if there are commenters on the line related to item 4, approval of the minutes from april 6th, 2021. >> you have one question remaining. >> chair borden: okay, first speaker? hello?

>> hi, i'm a caller, but i want to speak to the topics for today that you have on the agenda. maybe you're thinking i'm waiting to speak. and i'm not. >> chair borden: great. you can be on the line and just press one, zero when you're ready to speak. there are item numbers next to each topic. based on what you want to speak to, at those times, we'll call the item and have discussion, a presentation by staff and then that's your opportunity to dial in to make your comments. >> do you know what time you'll get to the -- >> chair borden: what i will say considering it is second to last item on the agenda, i would say

you probably have a couple of hours. what you could do, have the meeting on in the background while doing something else and since it is item number i believe 14, the item number always shows. when you look at the screen, even if you're not listening, at the bottom of the screen is a blue bar that shows the item number. it will likely be two hours. >> okay. i'm not watching the meeting, i could call back in an hour and be safe? >> chair borden: absolutely. i would be shocked if were were there in an hour. i would be thrilled but you're definitely safe. >> i appreciate your time. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. any additional callers who want to speak to item number 4,

specifically our april 6th meeting minutes. >> you have zero questions remaining. >> chair borden: public comment is closed. do i have a motion from the board? >> so moved. >> second. >> chair borden: great. secretary silva, can you call the roll? >> clerk: (roll call) the minutes are approved. item number 5, communications. >> chair borden: thank you for all of those who have commented in advance, as you know, we are still dealing with the covid-19 health emergency making our meetings virtual. for those who sent in comments, either by e-mail or by voice

mail in advance, we thank you for that. if you haven't had a chance to comment and would like to comment, you can send us an e-mail or call us in advance. it is ideal that you call before our meeting day, as the morning before, people are prepping and finishing up other work before dedicating the rest of the afternoon to the meeting. we use technology that allows us to have these meetings. that is not seamless, the video and sfgov tv and phone line are three separate systems. that being the case, things are not always aligned and we may lose you along the way. if that happens, we won't continue the meeting without the input. worse case, if we move on, we will accept comment if you tried to call in and had

complications. so thank you very much if your patience during this time. i want to thank all the members of staff so dedicated behind the scenes making the meeting happen and all the staff members quietly listening for any time they may need to chime in. with that, i'll turn it over to the board secretary. >> clerk: this meeting is being televised. for those watching the livestream, there's a time lag between the meeting and what is being said. if you want to comment on an item, call the phone line when the item is called. the phone number is 888-808-6929, the access code is 9961164. to address the board, press one and zero when the board is called. make sure you mute any tvs, radios or computers when you call in.

item 6, introduction of new or unfinished business by board members. >> chair borden: director hinze? >> commissioner hinze: i have two things, now that we have the item about the speed limit in the tenderloin about a month ago now and last week -- i believe partially the size went up and i'm wondering if potentially in a few months or so, in the context of the work and plans for moving forward, i'm wondering if follow up hearing might be on the impacts of the speed limit reduction as well as some follow up on enforcement.

the other thing i know there's been some publicity around the connect sf and i'm wondering if the board might be interested in a later date. i know they have been doing a lot of virtual town halls as of late. in fact there's one tomorrow. those are my two things. >> chair borden: staff, we think it's fairly easy to -- i think what the tenderloin speed limit will probably take some time to see how it is affecting before we have a report. in terms of connect sf, the board got a presentation on this before. i'm sure we can -- director,

let us know when you think it is a good time to bring that back to us based upon the input you received. >> will do. we have good milestones coming up. >> chair borden: great. director yekutiel. >> commissioner yekutiel: thank you chair borden. i wanted to request regular briefings from the individuals in charge of the better market street project along with their counterpart in dpw, given it is such a large project and it requires excellent coordination between the two departments. i think it might be a benefit to have a regular update on this project to the board with your permission. the specifics on how often and when it should start i leave to you and the agency. it would be good to get updates

on the budget and how coordination is going, how the timeline looks and any other issues that might be coming up that might require board attention. >> chair borden: thank you. >> commissioner yekutiel: i don't know if we need to take a vote or if you like the idea or -- >> chair borden: i think it's not necessarily a full presentation or report, just something you provide in your director's report. is that simple enough for you to do? >> yes, we can also have public works do a brief presentation if the board would like this. is being run by the department of public works not the mta, although we are a strong partner. >> commissioner yekutiel: yeah, it would be -- >> chair borden: i was going to say particular milestone or timeline things that would make sense to bring the head of the

dpw here. >> yeah, i'll talk with my team and figure out when would be the most timely moment. it may be fairly soon since we need to make critical decisions about start date of the project relative to recovery, including impacts on for example the f-line service. >> commissioner yekutiel: just to be clear -- sorry chair borden. >> chair borden: go ahead. >> commissioner yekutiel: i don't want to create a lot of extra work for staff. just a regular check-in from the directors or dpw. i don't want to overly burden the staff with formal presentations. >> chair borden: great. thank you. i think everybody is interested generally in an update.

great. does that conclude your comments? >> commissioner yekutiel: yes, thank you. >> chair borden: great. director eaken. >> vice chair eaken: thank you. sorry. yeah, so i just wanted to let my colleagues know that director brinkman and i last weekend joined a number of community advocates in district 10 and joined by supervisor walton to explore a north south connected protected bike route through district 10 and i forwarded along all the materials to director mcguire and the staff, but i wanted to flag a particular request coming from the community for a focus on several streets. improvements to form really nice north south route and there's been amazing improvements made along cargo way that i encourage

you to check out. there's good progress towards that route but really key gaps. i wanted to flag that for the team. supervisor walton has flagged that district 10 lacks some of the infrastructure that other parts of the city enjoy. i had time exploring that in partnership with some of the community advocates and wanted to raise that up for the staff and the board. >> chair borden: thank you. director heminger. >> commissioner heminger: thank you madam chair. two quick ones. the first, if i could ask the staff if it's possible to arrange a tour of the subway before we turn the lights back on, i think in mid may. i think i would be interested in it and other directors as well. secondly, you know, i sometimes refer to myself as the grandfather of the clipper card

program in addition to an adorable little girl in florida, and i'm pleased to announce that clipper card has a new baby sister called -- she lives on your iphone. and so this has gotten quite a bit of press the last few days but i wanted to mention it to you personally. this is a pretty big milestone for the program, i think the android version is around the corner and we're looking forward to a lot more customers when we get out of this crazy pandemic. thank you madam chair. >> chair borden: and i say congratulations on that. i was so impressed. my wallet all of a sudden had a notification that you can put your clipper card on your iphone. that is very exciting. with that proactive effort, i think more people will do that.

kudos to you and doing that. director lai. >> commissioner lai: thank you, chair. so i am interested in -- i'm assuming that staff is working very hard on continuing to evaluate how all of our temporary measures have been performing and so this topic might potentially already have a report back or maybe built into multiple items in the future. but particularly, i'm interested in some sort of a response on mta's own assessment as to how we are fairing across multiple modes, including slow streets with the intersection of schools and school reopenings. right now as we all know, schools are currently partially

reopened for certain grades and classes, but it is a great insight into how things might be in the future, particularly given that the school board has made a stated commitment to return to in person learning next year. for those of us who may have forgotten when the school year ends and begins, typically it ends in june and starts again sometime in late august. so i am i guess asking if there might be interested or if not across the mta board then perhaps separately. staff if we can get an understanding of how we're serving the full population over the next two months, april, may and a little into june and seeing how we can better prepare ourselves going into the next school academic year. thank you.

>> chair borden: great. director tomlin, i know it's a little complicated because not all the schools are open. is this a topic others are interested in. and tell me how easy it is for you to ascertain. i can imagine the future is easier than the current state. >> this is a fairly easy presentation to put together. we have a whole team dedicated to school transportation and i'm sure they would be happy to present their work and i'll cover a bit of this in my director's report. >> commissioner hinze: i would also be interested in a follow-up. >> chair borden: great. it sounds like you are intending to do that.

are there additional commissioner comments or unfinished business items at this time? seeing none, we will open to public comment, public comment on the introduction of new or unfinished business by board members just discussed among us here on the board. >> commissioner yekutiel: real quick i wanted to say publicly happy birthday to you. that's new business right there. >> chair borden: thank you. moderator, any callers on the line? >> you have two questions remaining. >> chair borden: great. first caller, can you please proceed? >> hello, hayden miller. good afternoon. i want to say happy birthday as well to chair borden. i just realized that. anyways -- the other thing i wanted to talk about, clipper on your phone. i think this is a big step forward and i think it needs to

be promoted. i did some beta testing for it with some exceptions but hopefully it's been resolved. i think promoting this as an alternative to especially the people who would stand in line at the kiosk for the cable car tickets. i think this would be a big improvement. i really look forward to it and hopefully it can be promoted and i'm interested to see how this works along side muni mobile.

>> i too have set up the clipper app for my phone and i hope to use it soon when i get back on the system. and certainly promotion is important but that shouldn't be the end of it. with smart phone penetration around the world increasing and the fact that it's people of low income are able to get free marked phones, i think they should come for us to be a system that operates entirely on clipper both using phones and the plastic cards. not everybody has a phone.

i ask that you not be afraid to embrace these changes as we still sell our lottery scratch off tickets or passes and if you lose them or get messed up, they're no good. we have better in our hands right now. thank you director heminger for bringing this out. i ask that you as an agency be willing to do the work and embrace it. >> chair borden: moderator, any additional callers on the line? >> you have one question remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker, please. >> hello commissioners. i wanted to address the statement about return to in person learning at school. in particular with reference to

the line currently delivering a shortened route. that route misses six schools. i think it should be a priority to restore school hour service. >> chair borden: thank you. moderator, any additional callers on the line? >> you have one question remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> hi, i just wanted to thank the team for their work on the clipper integration on iphone, it's worked great. just wanted to echo the appreciations there. and on the director's request for market street, it would be great to hear an update as part of the board update any possibilities of bringing back

some of the more ambitious goals that were pulled back because of budget concerns that may now be able to be implemented once again now that the federal funding has come in. thank you. >> you have zero questions remaining. >> chair borden: we will close public comment and move on to the next item. >> clerk: item 7 director's report. >> chair borden: sorry, i jumped ahead. sorry director. >> thank you chair borden. >> chair borden: we were talking about clipper and you and i jumped ahead.

i was so excited. go ahead director. >> thank you chair borden. as always, we'll start with vision zero and in the last reporting period, we had two fatalities both on april 7th. the 1 was a driveer of a vehicle who we believe experienced a medical event while driving and as a result, accelerated down the hill, the driver collided with one occupied vehicle and five parked unoccupied vehicles and the other folks involved in the incident were fine. the driver himself did die as a result of the crash. also on april 7th, we had a pedestrian struck by a motorcyclist at fillmore and golden gate. the pedestrian later died.

the rapid response team is investigating if any additional improvements are warranted. next i want to talk about golden gate park which i'm sure you have heard about on the news. let me bring up a slide to help with this. this is not working. can you see the sign now? okay. early in the pandemic, in collaboration with the recreation parks department, we helped rec park extend the sunday closure of eastern jfk drive to seven days a week.

we also worked with the recreation and parks department to extend a mostly car-free path via some existing car free streets, overlook, middle and a portion of the westernest part of mlk drive to create a car-free space to the beach. this extended via the great highway all the way to the zoo. as a result of this, there is no a mostly continuous, mostly car-free path from the ferry building via howard and folsom. and to eastern jfk and western overlook and middle mlk, one of the most popular facilities created in a temporary basis during covid.

it has not been without controversy. as a result of that, there was a working group convened that started back in i believe it was january or february. they will issue a report in may and it is handed off to the recreation parks department with us supporting. we have now developed a fairly detailed work scope to take the work of the working group and conduct additional detailed analysis, including a really detailed traffic analysis that includes the impacts not only of what has happened in golden gate park but also on the great highway for traffic throughout the west side in the north south and east west direction get a better understanding of the pinch points and what are the

things we can do to mitigate the traffic in order to capture some of the safety benefits of the closures without making congestion worse on the west side. very importantly, we'll be supporting rec park and detailed in park and park adjacent improvements. this will include very importantly, disabled parking improvements that we have started working with rec park on and we hope to continue implementing. the improves to disabled people's access to golden gate park are necessary regardless of what happens with the future of jfk. we want to help accelerate the improvements and we'll look at the variety of different curb management strategies. we know the parking and access concerns in golden gate park have a lot more to do with absence of parking management than lack of parking supply. thinking of golden gate park as

a small university campus that needs management to make sure that all can easily access golden gate park by all modes of transportation, including people living farther away from golden gate park. we'll look at improvements to the shuttle and making it easier to get across the park. we're looking at bike share and scooter share. and a lot of small and potentially large transit enhancements including service frequency improvements and stop improvements at the park.

we will work with stakeholders to finalize the scope and we'll be presenting that to key stakeholders to the board and ultimately to the san francisco board of supervisors who are ultimately responsible for decisions about what the future of jfk will be in golden gate

park. great highway, we have been collaborating in a similar way. along great highway, hosting a series of district 4 mobility study town halls, including one that concluded recently on march 27th. staff have been collecting feedback and doing additional analysis on concept designs, including keeping it the way it is, turning it back to the way it was before and using the highways in different ways and different configurations, including different times of day. they're doing the initial analysis and evaluation and will be presenting that to a variety of stakeholders shortly and then again handing the study analysis and next steps off to the recreation and parks department who owns the great highway and

sfmta who needs to address a whole lot of actual and potential negative impacts of the current configuration. currently the sfmta are working with their peers on a detailed scope of work to conduct an analysis for the entire west side road network. how do we make the whole west side work and acknowledge there are interesting bottlenecks in the west side, including golden gate park itself but also at the south end of the west side, slope and skyline.

we are continuing to collect data and monitor the effectiveness of all of the traffic measures to make sure spill over traffic from great highway is not causing undo congestion or safety problems in the outermost avenues. and finally we have been putting together a west side traffic study communications framework and shortly launching a web page that will be the kind of one stop shop for all of the complex work that is occurring in both the sunset and richmond districts, including all of our transit projects we have been working on there as well. next i wanted to give you a quick update on central subway.

as you all know, the contractor did claim they had met substantial completion at their agreed upon date of march 31st last month and now our team has been conducting a detailed assessment to make sure they really in fact did complete all of their work. we're currently working on a punch list of items that don't necessarily meet our standard. we have put together a rail activation team that is working on site every day in order to accept or reject construction elements as well as test the facilities that have been completed. so we've already accepted the radio system, we're working this week on the automatic train control system. we have also created a big fake mock up train that has done a test run through the tunnel to check all of the clearances and we have discovered a couple of places that railings need

adjustment to make sure nothing is in the way of the dynamic envelope of the trains. this is a lot cheaper to send a plywood mock up train through for the test. we will keep you posted on when the first light rail test train is ready to run through the tunnel, it should be in the next few weeks and opportunities for getting into the tunnel and seeing some of the spectacular stations and the remarkable collection of art work installed throughout the project. next up, i'm going to go back to my slides to talk about school reopening. as you all know, we had expected schools to reopen much sooner than they actually did. and so early on in our transit service restoration work, we had already been anticipating

schools returning and the tough decisions we made about which lines we could afford to bring back and which ones we could not. so, we have been particularly strategic in making sure that really critical key school routes like 29 sunset were among the lines we brought back first and we have continued to invest on frequency improvements on those lines. we know precovid, they got extremely crowded and we have been busy as schools have reopened visiting every single elementary school site to refresh loading zones and other safety improvements. we have redeployed all of our school crossing guards covering 17 schools. we have also been deploying parking control officers to areas where schools are

reopening that are near places that are part of our vision zero network. we have been using muni transit ambassadors to help kids on school buses. we have also been working with safe route program in order to deliver materials and programs to each of the elementary schools in order to help parents and children figure out the best ways to safely walk, bike or take muni or ride in parent-run car pools in order to get to school. i do want to point out that bike and roll to school week is may 10th through 14th. we'll be partnering with the san francisco bike coalition and the san francisco unified school district in order to deliver additional programming on safe walking and biking to school, including taking advantage of our slow streets. we want to remind i think all of you on the board know this, for some listeners we want to remind

you all that slow streets are perfectly appropriate for picking up and dropping off school kids, cars are allowed on slow streets. school buses are allowed on slow streets. slow streets are something designed to reduce and eliminate high volume and high speed through traffic and create a safe place for kids to be able to walk and bike, whether it is going to school or neighborhood commercial district. we want to remind everyone of the muni -- free muni program for low income youth. eligibility is based upon gross family income being at or below 100% of the median. that is the end of my director's report. >> chair borden: we'll have a few questions from directors and then get to public comment.

it looks like director hinze was the first. >> commissioner hinze: i just had i think three questions in total. one of them, i have heard from community that they would like a comprehensive study that takes into account the impacts of both the golden gate park closure and the great highway closure on the west side. it sounded like from your report, director, that that's already sort of in the works. >> that's exactly right. the traffic patterns are interrelated north, south, east and west. we have to consider the impacts of the current closures and what we can do to mitigate that and what happens if we change the

configuration. we'll work on that in the coming months. >> commissioner hinze: and the next thing is, i think you have seen all the comments from the disability community of those folks who are car dependent about the closure and lack of access for those in the disability community. i know the accessibility team has been active there and i'll be talking to them later in the week. >> those are arguably the most important constituents. we want to make sure we prioritize access to golden gate park for those who have fewest access and that starts with those with disabilities.

we are working to make a variety of changes to ada parking in the park and making sure folks with disabilities can park right in front of the key destinations, particularly in the eastern part of the park. and we're working with them on additional substantial improvements to ada parking and accessibility. stay tuned on that. >> commissioner hinze: great. and then just for school reopenings. i'm assuming you'll be monitoring the crowding on the heavy school oriented buses and i'm curious, if you see more crowding, do we have capacity to add buses on those particular routes or would that be a not at this time thing. >> i think we'll continue to

monitor demand throughout the system. we're expecting travel demand to be changing rapidly over the next year, just as it did during covid. we monitor our ridership patterns in real time every week and we're constantly making regular aadjustments. during covid it was to meet the social distancing standards. soon we will no longer need to do social distancing but demand will be coming back significantly and likely coming back in random ways. so we'll pay attention to the way that schools will drive travel patterns and also the ways in which downtown coming back or major institutions like the universities. we're in contact with all of those major institutions and trying to understand how exactly they'll bring back on campus

activities. we know from san francisco state, they don't expect to go straight to 100% on campus activity even in the fall. so we're prepared to do whatever we can to rebalance the system, knowing we only have between 70-85% of pre-covid service hours available. we'll deliver those as best we can. >> commissioner hinze: thank you. >> chair borden: director lai. >> commissioner lai: thank you chair borden. i'll start with jfk and great highway. thank you for the report. really appreciate the data driven technical evaluation approach. just curious if we have an idea of the level of review this project will trigger on the jfk side. >> we have included the review as part of the work scope. the level would depend really on

what the preferred alternative is. one of the things i want to emphasize, for both jfk and great highway, i personally believe that the current configuration is unacceptable. but i would also say the previous configuration is unacceptable as well. we are interested in both projects and trying to find the best combination of improvements that maximizes safety and our climate goals, that maximizes our equity goals, particularly recognizing that low income people of color on the east side of san francisco have the hardest time accessing the resources. and at the same time, optimizing the flow of transportation for all modes of transportation, particularly those modes that serve those with the fewest of choices. we'll look at changes and adjustments and tweaks knowing that both projects, that the question should not be a binary.

is it the way it was before or now. >> commissioner lai: it sounds like you have confirmed we'll study project alternatives as part of the effort. >> yes. >> commissioner lai: great, i can't wait to see what the alternatives will be. >> it will be an interesting hybrid alternative that will end up winning the day given the large array of constituents that have a strong interest in both corridors. >> commissioner lai: and i think one of the most interesting things about reading or looking

at it is on the comparisons that essentially the information comparisons you get out of comparing different alternatives, so i think even in that it will be very informative for the public and as well as for the agency and trying to figure out what serves our city best. interesting that you were telling us about the mock train, that sounds really curious. we do that on the private sector side where we build modules of mock-ups. what do you do with the mock-up after you're done with the testing? >> it's just a big plywood box. it gets disassembled. >> commissioner lai: okay. and then to a more serious question about the school reopening -- thank you, that was a thoughtful pro active approach. i think just tagging along as a follow up to my new business

question, you know, some of the challenges with the school reopening is the fact that as you stated, it is going to change the pattern of transit, partly because peak hours have changed, the days are no longer the way it used to be in pre-pandemic situations. i don't know what they'll be in the next academic year and wanting to make sure we are preparing the city for this new dynamic and what the new school needs may be, including where the gaps are. although i appreciate that you're sending materials out in advance and doing all of the stuff that is very necessary in nuts and bolts. my concern has always been around how do we accurately assess the gaps. it's easy to observe and survey the people who the system is working for but it is hard to understand where it is not working, or i would say

historically it's harder to figure out where it's not working. one of the metrics i feel we have tried to use is the number of pass-ups. i have a bit of concern about because it is kind of self reported and doesn't necessarily reflect the challenges that families might be experiencing. if not today, if you don't have a prepared response to that, i would like to see in the future, report back as to how to more accurately assess the challenges that families are facing, particularly, we basically redesigned the transit network here which probably means that more families will have to use transfers, which it is what it is. but to understand the impact of their lifestyle, i think is important for essentially the health and vibrancy of the transit network. thank you. >> one thing i will say is that

we're getting prepared to bring on some consultants to help us evaluate different approaches for transit recovery. for example, to what degree should we bring back all of these relatively low frequency lines that run parallel and that will vary a lot depending where we are in geography.

we use the extraordinary data in sf champ, travel the band model run by the sfcta, they can tell us using robust data what are the corridors underserved and where it just takes forever to take transit and nobody does and instead they're stuck doing something more expensive. that information really helps us figure out what lines should we test. it helped us to really understand the critical importance of the 29 and why we have continued to strive to invest in the 29, including really trying to bring back a 29 rapid to serve those diagonal trips in san francisco that we may have otherwise missed.

so that's a brief answer to a complex question. we'll be coming back to you with more information in the coming months as we talk about transit recovery. >> chair borden: does that complete your questions director lai? great. director heminger. >> commissioner heminger: thank you. back to golden gate park for a minute. i'm not sure i heard you say out loud what i think you mean, which is while all this study and analysis is going on, the status quo condition of jfk continues. is that correct? >> yes. so, what we're currently proposing is to continue doing a detailed study and at the same time, implement easy mitigations, for example fixing the disabled plaquard parking. keep eastern jfk closed to cars

and keep the westerly path that runs the overlook and middle mlk connected to great highway. in part because all of the changes have been extraordinarily popular. including increased visitation from the southeast part of san francisco. >> commissioner heminger: it looks like the emergency could be ended before the analysis is completed. does that change your answer? is there something that somebody has to do to extend this? >> yes, what we're proposing is go through a bit of a public process but in the coming months, develop a work scope that would be approved by you

all, the rec park commission and board of supervisors that would authorize a pilot during which jfk would remain closed to cars while we continued testing some mitigations and completing the study. at the end of the study period, we would then go back to the mta board, rec park commission and board of supervisors for selection of and approval of whatever the recommended configuration was. so the pilot would extend the closure beyond the end of the emergency declaration. >> commissioner heminger: thank you. >> chair borden: any other additional questions or comments from board members? seeing none, we'll move to public comment. this is the time for the public to comment on the director's report and any of the comments made by board members. if you call the line and you want to speak specifically to

this item, press one, zero. moderator, are there callers on the line? >> you have six questions remaining. >> chair borden: first caller. >> can you hear me? >> chair borden: yes, we can. >> hi. that was not coming from my end, right? the sound? >> chair borden: i don't know. i hope not. >> that was weird. i hope no. hayden miller. just wanted to talk about a few things on the director's report. first, i would encourage you guys to look back at the recording of the youth commission meeting that happened last night where the youth commission voted all but one commissioner to support the continued closure.

but they had good points about how we can make the park more accessible for people who live far away and for people with disabilities to keep the space that is safe for kids, you know, to be out there, learning how to ride a bike and not having to stress about all the cars that are going to run them over. school reopening, i think it's great there have been investments but if you thought schools were reopening last august, it would have been really underprepared. i hope there's more preparation this coming august so we are actually prepared and that a lot more service is brought back. it is ridiculous we have a 29 line running every 10 minutes but stops every single block along sunset. it doesn't need to stop every single block. we need to make quick changes.

it is great if a rapid is coming in the future, maybe in a few years but we can get improvements on the grounds tomorrow. let's rip out some of the stops. but i think -- >> 30 seconds. >> there's more short term improvements that can be made to make the system better for when schools reopen this summer without high cost or long project times or anything. and look at stuff like uri street that has been very successful. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you mr. miller. next speaker, please. >> you have six questions remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker. >> thank you chair borden and members. i have been to golden gate park a number of times from end to end, it's a place i enjoy, i advocate for a car-free golden

gate park because i maintain to you that when i go to golden gate park, i have one option, and that option is meaning. i do not have a car. i haven't had a car for 12 years. and i actually travel to golden gate park longer than anyone in the city of san francisco because i come from oakland which requires a bus to a train to muni. i'm a person of disabilities as i have mentioned before with the reduced fare clipper card. the more cars you introduce to a space, the more of a likelihood that people can get hit by cars. i ask that you not forget that in san francisco there was once a plan to build freeways through golden gate park and to reopen the park to cars is like trying

to resurrect a freeway plan. i can understand why some might want more cars. cars burn gasoline and san francisco gets fuel tax, but i think the people are more important. i have used the zion national park shuttle that takes me all over zion national park. certainly power transit access must be ensured throughout all parks. those vehicles are definitely should be included in access. we should not open the park to cars because to get hit by a car comes at my expense. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker please. >> you have six questions remaining. you have five questions remaining. you have four questions

remaining. you have three questions remaining. you have two questions remaining. you have one question remaining. (please stand by...)

it for those people watching, we're having issues with the phone lines. we're still on item number 7, the director's report. we have public comment ongoing. given the phone line is causing problems, we have temporarily taken it down with hopes to rebridge the line, so we're still on item number 7, the directors' report and we hope to rebridge the line soon.

you will be notified when the speaker is ready for your question. to withdraw your question, press 1, then 0. you may now... >> chair borden: i'm just waiting confirmation when we're ready to go. >> chair borden: thank you.

for this question and answer session, press star, 7, 2. your... press 1, then 0. each question will be asked in the order it was received. you have four questions remaining. >> great, so we're returning to comment on the director's report, which is item number 7. director's report was given by director tumlin. if you're calling in to speak for this item, press 1, 0. first speaker on the line, please. >> can you hear me now? >> yes, we can. >> it's david pilpel. that sound thing, that wasn't me, i didn't do it. i had nothing to do with it.

>> chair borden: i don't know [laughter]. >> really, i didn't. okay. seriously, on the director's report, please post the director's report slide presentation on the website for today's meeting and in the future so i don't have to keep saying that. i disagree with the earlier comment about reducing stop spacing on sunset boulevard, those are long blocks and it's not easy to walk along sunset, it's not a regular paved path. it's hard on the feet. and to the other comment about traveling from oakland to golden gate park, it's even longer trip from las vegas. otherwise, i've got nothing else on the director's report. more later, thanks. >> chair borden: thank you. >> you have six questions remaining. you have five questions remaining.

>> chair borden: okay, so i think we need to -- i'm not sure what is going on with the at&t line, but there seems to be some sort of situation. i'm not sure we can -- the solution is to keep re-bridging. i don't know what the options are. secretary and anybody else behind the scenes have a good suggestion how to proceed? >> we're going to -- do you want us to try again? we are going to do a call to our i.t. to see what -- to figure out what might be happening there. if we could perhaps take a recess and i could try to figure that out. >> chair borden: great, we'll take a five-minute recess. so why don't we just say until 2 -- how long, 10 minutes? i don't know how long we'll need. >> perhaps 10 minutes sounds

good. >> chair borden: why don't we >>chair borden: you were watching earlier a sling that was the report director tumlin gave sue weare still on items seven and if you'd like to make a comment , please call 888 398 2342. access code 864-7385 and press 1, zero so you can get into the queue. are there anycolors on the line ? >> you have one question remaining. >> first caller please. >>caller: i already talked, i just wanted to make sure it was working . >>chair borden: thank you mister miller for lettingus

know it works . next speaker please. >> you have zero questions remaining. >>chair borden: we will get another 3 minutes for people to call in because the number has changed and we did have anumber of people on the line before . i don't know if that was accurate based on what happened with our system in respect to people who weretrying to call in or who were disconnected , we were holding on our public commenton item number seven, directors report . the new phone number is is 888 398 342, access code 342735 and if youwant to speak on this item number seven , please rest 1, zero to get intothe queue .

...

>> you have four questions remaining. >> first caller, please. >> hi, good afternoon.

i actually was trying to call in on the other public comment after the director's report. and i did have a later public comment so i'll combine all of that right now. i think there is probably a lot of people who were trying to get in, so hopefully you give them an opportunity. i wanted to just comment on the fact that for those of us who have families in san francisco, san francisco is becoming harder and harder to live in for a number of reasons. obviously, there are, you know, reasons that don't have to do with sfmta, but sfmta please stop making it so hard for families here. i use golden gate park every day. i run in the park every day. during the week -- i have pictures. i can send them to you. i'd be happy to. golden gate park is barely used during the week. it is used a little bit. i'll give you that, but it's not

so overwhelming even now with the pandemic sort of still in play. it is not overwhelming that people could not use the sidewalk. so i urge that if you want to keep golden gate park free on the weekends. i'm a consumer of the park on foot, i'm not speaking as a driver. but seeing the congestion on the rest of the streets in my neighborhood, it's frustrating you're taking away one of the main courses of traffic and moving traffic from east to west in the city. the great highway, same thing. keep it closed on the weekend, but keep it open during the week. it's 100% just more cost and more control. very easily now you could say, we're going to leave it closed on the weekends and open during

the week. this does not require a lot of study. make the other improvements as well. add more ability for ada that is great. and i just wanted to comment in public comment on each of the proposing on presidio, that is ridiculous -- [bell ringing] >> sorry, you're -- your time is up and that item is later on the calendar. thank you. moderator, next caller, please. >> you have nine questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, again, board members. kaiden miller. just wanted to take a moment here to talk about the fact that recently i believe capacity limit on the bus increased. i was talking about this for a long time at the start of the pandemic about how overcrowded the buses are. and i have to say i was a little

bit upset when you guys announced this change last weekend on twitter at first, but i think ultimately it's the right move as more people get vaccinated to try to reduce the amount of passup. but the critical thing is making sure that when we're reaching these new higher capacities, that we actually are not picking up more people because, one, it's in violation of the health order when we do that. and, two, it's discouraging people from returning to transit. you already see all the people if you go look at the twitter replies, they all complain and they all have photos, especially on the l. bus, which i guess will be better when the subway reopen, but it's just -- people are concerned about their -- about crowding on the buses as they're returning, even if it's not the science tumlin talks about the covid theater, wiping down the buses in between every

single run. if we're going to do that, why not keep doing the distancing? the distancing takes away a lot less of the service than pulling in and out every single bus is. we could have another 20% service if we were doing relief by my estimate. and minimizing those pass-ups through doing that instead of steering people away from transit. if you want to get rid of the covid theater, if that's what you want to call it, you have to get rid of it all and not just what is going to impact the customers. even if it impacts the agency. maybe you don't want to do that, but i think it's only fair. >> you have nine questions remaining. next speaker, please. >> can you hear me now? >> yes, mr. pilpel. >> so, david pilpel.

so i'm confused is the new phone number that i called the number to use for the rest of this meeting? >> yes. >> okay. so my ears hurt from listening to that screeching noise for 45 minutes on and off. the screen shows that we're now on item 9. are we actually on 9 or are we still on 7 or 8? i'm very confused. >> chair borden: we're actually on 9, but we'll accommodate comments on 7. we did not have a report for number 8. >> got it. and hopefully you'll find a way to reach people on the phone without computer or tv access, because they may be waiting and not know about the new number. so can i get my two minutes for item 9? >> yes, please. >> so, item 9. so today's agenda had too many items to begin with and we just

had an hour delay, if you could continue any nonurgent matters. several items today involve contracts and agreements, but there is no consistent contract name and number scheme. some are 2021 -- whatever. there is no numbering scheme. so that part is a little confusing. as transit service increases, we should be safe and secure observing safety and distancing protocols. and whatever other requirements apply and not just rush into changing from six feet to something else or other changes. i would like to know the status of the taraval project.

that's a records request. and i used to get the -- that's all i have on item 9. >> moderator, are there additional callers on the line? >> you have seven questions remaining. >> hi i live and work in district 2 and i'm member of ca san francisco. i'm calling in support of the report by supervisor preston and haney to start a three-month pilot program for free muni. i support free muni because i take muni regularly and pay for it, but you know, many evidence

shows that more people would take muni if it was cheaper. that's always what happens when it's free muni. and with more people taking muni, that would reduce traffic and improve time and services. many cities have already made transit-free like fresno. oregon also made public transportation free and ridership increased a lot. the pandemic has hurt low-income folks in the city who have lost their jobs and they have a ton of debt related to rent to electricity and various utilities. and so this is just an added burden and as the economy picks up again, it would be great to encourage people to use muni bikes, making it free. and abolishing fares. you know would do that.

and it would also not cost that much and we would be able to reduce the cost of fare enforcement. thank you so much. hi, this is barry toronto. i didn't realize the phone number had changed so i'd like

to fecal first on item 7. >> we are accommodating that, not a problem. >> first, director report. regarding j.f.k. drive, as i said i do not take calls from golden gate park because it's too difficult to get there and take the risk that the passenger has left. or found other transportation by the time i get there because it could take as long as 20 minutes to get there depending on what part of the city i'm at. i know, if working with the taxi access and mobility service people, in order to allow us the same access as the 44 line. the 44, which a colleague of mine takes regularly, could take up to an hour and a half to get to golden gate park from the bayview. it would be best to allow taxi access for tourists. the previous caller mentioned

about taking the bus into the park. for this caller, certain people who have called in, if they qualify for the disabled program, the paratransit cart is available to them, which could be less expensive or same amount of money as taking a bus at this point. so i appreciate your comments, thank you. okay. so the next i'm going to do regular public comment if i could. >> yes. go ahead. we'll start your time. >> okay. so, i appreciate the program of the etc, but i think under the circumstances and the message we got on january 19, that you don't want us serving the seniors and disabled because it will cost us too much money to take the people and sir cue to us tus routes that the planners

have suggested we take, makes it very discouraging. i'm unhappy with how we're being treated. considering we provide a valuable service for seniors and disabled for less than minimum wage. i'm still not making minimum wage at this point on city runs. in order to make the money, i have to work the airport. and i think you need to arrange to allow the k-cabs to work the airport as well, because business has been slowly picking up at the airport. and to get more drivers out there on the street. and more medallion holders who are longtime drivers and experienced drivers to be able to get out there and do the work with having access to the airport as well. you need to bring back the previous priority system. and allow the k-cabs to participate. thank you for your time. the m.t.a. is working on a

marketing plan and we look forward to working with the staff to get this as soon as possible. >> chair borden: thank you so much. >> you have six questions remaining. >> thank you. first, i hear this tidbit about allowing higher capacity on the buses. i'm in support of that, but yet i can't find anything about it on the website. so i wear a mask and everyone should wear masks when they ride buses. i think, therefore, we can have more safety on bus, because bus capacity should not be arbitrary, but it should be founded in science. and i wish that we would use science-based protocols in our business of moving people because i am concerned about

pass-ups and the possibility that passing up could be used as a discrimination against riders. especially riders that don't meet the definition. i believe in the importance of distancing, but it must not come at the expense of people left in the street. enough about that. communications as i said is very, very important because it's really hard trying to make my way through a whole bunch of tweets here. and again, i ask for muni that is inclusive. you know, sometimes i wonder about a muni that doesn't really know what to do with me when i appear on the scene. i think muni should be for everybody and do not establish definitions, should have the same welcome on muni as everybody else. reduced fare must not mean

reduced service and no one should be pushed or trapped. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have six questions remaining. >> hi, good afternoon, board members. my name is har lowe. i live in district 7. i'm a member of the d.s.a. san francisco and i'm calling to support the free muni proposal by supervisors preston and haney for a three-month pilot program. i grew up in the city taking muni and i would really appreciate the freedom that it would provide to me and all other riders in the city to get where we need to go in a sustainable way, without burning through fares that are falling disproportionately on middle class people. this would put us on a path to a

stronger recovery. the average muni required could safe on fares and this would go to the local economy and small businesses. it would help to encourage to take transit, those who have the option to drive choose transit. right now people are making decisions if they return to work, are they going to drive or take transit. this would encourage a lot of people to choose sustainable commute and help us address the climate crisis. i would also like to mention that without the need for fare enforce. we wouldn't have the risk of racially targeted fare enforcement. and this would help us to divest from policing. i would just urge you to support this three-month pilot program as the first step to a future

where we have safe and sustainable travel for everyone. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have six questions remaining. >> hi, directors. my name is parker day. i started the people for better market street, grassroots campaign for equitable safe and better market street project. i wanted to call and voice my concerns about, i wanted to voice the concerns people are having around sfmta calling for increased policing on mid market. while it's important to keep it, law enforcement cannot be on the answer. instead it should be on things that don't increase policing and armed enforcement. that's all for my comment. thank you. >> thank you.

next speaker, please. >> you have five questions remaining. >> hi. i'm not sure if i can comment on 13? >> no, we're actually on 9, public comment. so call in 30 more minutes. but if you're able to put us in the background, you'll see the item numbers along the screen. >> thank you, sorry. >> not a problem. thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have four questions remaining. >> hi, this is jay. can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> oh, great, thank you so much. glad your technical issues are resolved. i'm just calling to ask that a future agenda item for a future meeting be the return of the bay area outreach and adapt

recreation program and the return to golden gate park. that was a fixture on saturdays seasonally over the past few years. i don't think it got enough support before. i understand they're not going to return until june this year. in the meantime, i also have seen and heard there are really great adaptive scooter solutions available through the currently permitted mobility operator, like scoot line and the other one -- sorry, i forgot. but i guess my ask is that we really kind of elevate the adaptive mobility solutions that let all san franciscans of all abilities enjoy j.f.k. drive in the park, just like everybody else. it would be great when plans come out, they put it on the

agenda. >> thank you for your input. next speaker, please. >> you have four questions remaining. >> hi. my name is richard. i was speaking on item 7 and i don't know if you heard my comments or not. but briefly, i really enjoyed hearing the director's report about j.f.k. i was on sandy's committee and we came up with some really good recommendations and i hope they're going to implement all of them. one thing, you know, i went to a meeting last night and there seems to be this culture of divide. and one thing, you know, golden gate park has to be for everybody and i would suggest between standing and ace avenue that we divide it half for cars and half for bicycles so people

can go to the conservatory, people could have entrance to the park. and the other thing is the garage. i don't know how much you know about it, but it's a privately funded garage. and they really can't reduce it because they have to pay off the bond. so maybe if the city took over the garage, paying off the bond, maybe they could have flexibility with the rates there. i live in the western part of the richmond, i was excited about doing the study of the western district transportation and you know looking at it and working with the v.a. hospital so their employees don't have to drive so much south from the city. maybe they could set up a shuttle service here. so i was very excited to what i heard the director say today. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you.

next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is sheila stuart. i live in the inner richmond and i am most concerned about the traffic from the northern part of the city, the southern part if you live in the western end. which means if there are to be h.o.v. lanes on presidio, and i see there is wisdom there, could we not get the great highway reopened? on presidio there are signs flashing, great highway closed, use alternate routes. there aren't really alternate routes. i tried to go around the lake. chain of lakes is bumper to bumper. none of this is news to you, i know. i'm putting in a plea, in all of this could we consider that some of us with families, i have two families here and i'm older and we all live in this area and

going north to south is a nightmare. thank you for listening. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have one question remaining. >> hi, i would like to echo some of the previous speakers comments around making it easier in the city for families, rather than harder. i actually grew up in san francisco. i'm not sure anyone on this board can claim that. maybe like a tenth of you can. but during the pandemic, the m.t.a., which mostly run the buses, has used the pandemic as a way to make these changes on the streets that is making life difficult for parents. and we've struggled a lot this year. i don't know if you know we're

also struggling with the san francisco unified school district and there is a recall effort going on. i would suggest that you also remember that you're in an office where you're supposed to serve the entire public, not just the agendas of certain groups. you know, i don't know what is going on with the city. i don't really understand the decisions that are being made, but i can tell you that every day i wake up thinking what are the governors of this city, the people that govern going to do today to make our hives harder? -- lives harder? i don't see you making improvements. i see you making an agenda that is anti-car and not really thinking about people who need to use cars to transport their families and elderly people around. i mean, yeah, so the buses are important, too, but the buses aren't safe for children. you know, we have all these

issues as a state beyond just the city. we need -- and the m.t.a. can be part of the solution or they can be part of the problem. i think you need to get perspective beyond the chair that you're in right now and think about how you can help people more than you are. >> are there any additional callers on the line? >> you have zero questions remaining. >> chair borden: with that, we'll close public comment. i just want to note for people who are calling in, or just tuning in right now, or looking at an old phone number. for commenting on each item, the number is 1-888-398-2342. the access code is 8647385. when you want to speak it's 1, 0. we're going to be moving to the regular calendar, but before we do so, out of respect, i didn't want to interrupt before, as

many people know there was a historic verdict in the derek chauvin trial and for many it was obviously a very bittersweet victory and a terrible situation in which the world watched someone die after eight minutes and 46 seconds of being held down to the ground pleading for help. and the law enforcement that is meant to protect us was not interested in protecting this life. and i think for too long that has been a problem in a crisis in this country. as we talk about transit projects and whatever we talk about, the discrimination that continues in this country and the inability for us to see bigger than ourselves sometimes is complicate and difficult. we have a rise in anti-asian, pitting people against each

other. society treating different classes of people differently. we have to get to place where everyone feels like justice and equity is meant for them. not just for a few, not for just the privileged, but everyone. i wanted to acknowledge that because i know it's emotionally charged for many of us, for who spent time watching the video, paying attention to the trial and oh, my god, do i have to fear being stopped by police for something? that's a fear i have never faced. as an african-american woman i have that fear. when a cop pulls me over, i act as nice. it shouldn't be you have to act a certain way or be a certain way to survive a traffic stop. this is something to think about in this world when people readily use privilege when it's the time. when people are happy to say, hey, we're white people, you're

not supposed to be stopping us. people say there is no privilege, but easily acknowledge it when there is an opportunity to do so. i think if we can all realize that and when we're talking about whether it's transit issues or issues in terms of equity and life, we have to acknowledge there are inherent privileges that some people have, that some people drive their cars and some people ride the bus. there is all kinds of ways that privilege cuts. what is the challenge for us as a board, it's a body that is focusing on that issue, to remember that in all the decisions we make, how are we helping the people most disenfranchised get to where they need to go? how does that system work for them? these are the people who can't afford a ride share or taxi. they can't afford a car. anyway, i wanted to say this in light of the decision today and it fact that i know it's weighing heavy on many people's hearts.

we need to get on to the business which is the consent calendar. >> that places you on the consent calendar. if you wish to address the board, press 1 and 0 to be added to the queue. if speaking, identify the number you're speaking to. these items are routine and will be voted on by a single vote unless a member of the board wishes to consider it separatelily. 10.1, requesting the control tory allot funds and draw warrants against such funds available or will be available in payment of the following claims. item b, re-nita woods, filed on january 7, 2019 for $15,000. c, morales for $42,000. 10.2, making environmental review findings and approving

parking and traffic modifications. item 10.3, authorizing the director execute contract number sfmta 2021-03, parking meter maintenance agreement with ips group for services and parts support for single-space parking meters in an amount not to exceed $9.5 million and for a term not to exceed three years with an optional one-year extension. item 10.4, authorizing the director to execute contract number sfmta 202104 parking pay station maintenance agreement with mackay meters in an amount not to exceed $1.4 million and for a term not to exceed three years with optional one year extension. item 10.5, authorizing the director to execute the second amendment to contract number sfmta 2014-13 agreement for advertising on sfmta vehicles and other property with

intersection media to reduce the annual payments from march 1, through june 30, to exercise the second five year option to extend the contract and enter into any amendments or modifications to reduce the minimum annual guarantee in the event that sfmta reduces the number of transit vehicles in its fleet. item 10.6, authorizing the director it execute amendment number 3. grant and cooperative agreement between the metropolitan transportation commission and the city and county of san francisco to retroactively extend the term of the agreement to november 2, 2024, change staffing assignments, add budgetary changes and modify the payment schedule with no change to the overall grant amount. item 10.7, authorizing the director to execute amendment number 4 to contract number cs149. professional program management and construction management services for the central subway project with central subway

partnership to extend the term of the contract for 14 months without change to the contract amount. and making environmental review findings. item 10.8, authorizing the director to approve a program of projects to execute required certifications and assurances, including amendments to such documents with the california department of transportation for all transit projects funded by the low carbon transit operation program for fiscal year 2020-21. authorizing the sfmta to comply with all conditions set forth in the certifications, regulations and guidelines and making environmental review findings. 10.9, authorizing the director to execute muni metro skim king street substation upgrade with dmz builders. resulting from suspension of the contract field work due to pg&e delay for total contract amount

not to exceed $12.8 million and to extend the contract term by 360 days for a total of 725 days to substantial completion. item 10.10, adopting a records retention and destruction policy and schedule of records dated april 20, 2021 that cass phis the departmental records and establishes a schedule for retention and destruction of records. that concludes the consent calendar. >> chair borden: great, why don't we go to public comment first and then go to directors. for people who would like to comment on any of the numbered items on section 10 of our calendar, which there are many, 10.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. this is the time to comment. you can call the number 1-888-398-2342. access code, 8647385. if you want to get into the queue, press 1-0.

moderator, are there any -- >> you have three questions remaining. >> first speaker, please. >> yes, hi. good afternoon. this is barry. i wanted to first say that the words chair borden said were really great and very touching. and you should have heard the supervisors also comment on the verdict as well. so, thank you for the nice words. i wanted to comment on 10.2. i and j., it's eliminating toe away lane on kearny street when making a left turn. i'm wondering if there is a big enough pocket. because during the commute hours there are two left turn lanes which allows enough room for the bus to make a left turn to sutter street. i'm very concerned that taking that away is going to create huge congestion all the way down

third street, because of the traffic during the commute hours on third street. and on kearny as well. so i think you're making a huge mistake by getting rid of this tow away lane unless you're making a huge left turn pocket so there are two left turn lanes on sutter street. i didn't see anything on the engineering hearing calendars about this item in the last month. so, thank you very much for your time. i hope you reconsider. >> thank you, mr. toronto. next speaker, please. >> okay, so i wanted to pull items 10.3, 10.4, 10.6 and 10.10

for separate consideration. thanks. >> chair borden: thank you. as you know, the way we work, we can have separate discussions on those, but we still might vote on them as a block, but we'll take separate discussions on those. thank you. >> good afternoon again. i wanted to thank chair borden for her words. it's important right now. on the consent calendar, first of all, i wanted to speak in support of 10.2a, the muni operators who provide sustainable transportation services to the city of san francisco and easier times to park. i know a lot of operators around metro east, all the divisions on third street with the parking

meters and restrictions, they've been getting tickets while driving the bus. it's kind of messed up. and then on 10.5, i think we should approve this because clear channel got a discount and i think the service they provide is a lot worse than the service we get from intersection, so i think we can give them a discount as well and extend the contract. on 10.10, i don't have anything to say in terms of the actual records retention policy, but i would say in general, if it makes financial sense for the agency to start charging for certain records that are very expensive, such as surveillance video, but also through the mail, because i get sent a disk that costs like $4 in postage every time. if the m.t.a. is allowed to recover the costs for the people collecting the records, they should. the other thing is making

records more accessible, so you don't have to send a disk in the mail and send a mp4 or something along those lines. >> council member: thank you, mr. miller. next speaker. >> you have one question remaining. >> good afternoon. this is peter strauss. this is what a lot of us spend our time on, but i'm commenting on 10.10, the records retention policy. i'm commenting as a student in muni history and as the coauthor of the people's railway. and then writing the chapters on the history of metro, that would have been impossible without access to 20 and 30-year-old records, so i'm concerned about how these are retained. i think the guidelines are too short in terms of even some of

the -- allowing even staff to understand the history of how we got to where they are. you know what they say about learning from history. with respect to the reference of the administrative code, i'm glad that is there, but i'd like to see it expanded. also, to note that -- to be more specific about what types of items muni records are of historic al value. and also to note that there are other organizations that may be interested in records, even after the city archivist has had her chance to select, such as the western railway museum which has an archive, the california historical society, et cetera. and i think digitizing paper records should be addressed in the document. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you, mr. strauss. next speaker, please.

>> you have zero questions remaining. >> chair borden: so with that, we'll close public comment and then, secretary, i guess -- we definitely the items that mr. pilpel specifically identified, perhaps we can address those as well as the records request item. so let's start with -- i forget the numbers. did you happen to write them down, secretary? >> i had 10.3, 10.6, 10.10. those are the three that i have. >> chair borden: great. board members have questions on these particular items, too? no. okay. maybe staff can just give a little overview of what the item does just for that purpose.

>> hi, chair borden. this is tom maguire from the street division. i would like to call on our parking director about items 10.3 and 4. those are the meter maintenance extension. >> chair borden: great. >> i'm ted graph, the parking director for the m.t.a. i'll keep it short. items 10.3 and.4 represent new maintenance agreements for the current meter infrastructure. these contracts will allow our contractors, ips and to support the time on a material basis as we deploy our new hardware. most notably, they provide support for the demand responsive rate policies, supply spare parts. the details are listed in the calendar item, however the most notable are the management system fees, credit card

transaction fees and spare parts, key readers, coin validaters as well as replacement batteries. these will bridge the gap to the new meter procurement and collecting revenue of $58 million per year. the pending procurement for the new meter tracking for your consideration, may of 2021, so next month. the new will include updated features such as 5g, long life battery, improved ease of maintenance and standard five-year manufacturing warranty. all this will support the m.t.a.'s policies moving forward toward technology allowing parkers to pay by license plate and allowing seamless transaction for short and long-term parking sessions. happy to follow up with additional questions.

i also have lorraine and lexie on the phone that can answer questions as well. >> chair borden: these all take the tippa card? >> no, currently not. >> so that's our next iteration of the next contracts, right? >> it is something we can look into, yes. >> chair borden: [laughter]. >> it does require a change on the clipper side and there is cost to integrating it, but we can look into doing that and bring it forth for your consideration. >> 10.4, that was -- if i'm understanding, they have the next contract, but thinks the end of this contract they're staying on for, but they'll be starting a new iteration of a contract. am i saying that correctly? >> you got the gist. 10.3 is for ips and 10.4 is for

the multi-space mackay meters. >> chair borden: maybe you want to say this is the current contractor, but this is the end of contract, but starting a new contract. >> the contract will be bringing for your consideration will include one of the current contractors, mackay. they were successful in winning the r.f.p. for the single space and multi-space contract. so, yes, the contract we'll bring back in may will have mackay listed for your consideration. >> chair borden: great. 10.6? what was the next one? i can't remember the other one. >> yes. item 10.6. >> chair borden: can you talk

about the staffing budget changes. tom, i think jane wang is on the line. >> okay. >> 10.7. >> 10.6 is the agreement with m.t.c. the retroactively extend staffing changes, payment schedules, but no change to the grants. most people may not know what this is for, can you explain that briefly, or someone? >> jane, do you want to cover that? >> yeah, i can do that. good afternoon, chair borden. i'm with the central subway program. i'm seeking approval to extend the term for contract 1312, grant and cooperative agreement between the metropolitan transportation commission for procuring designated automatic fare collection equipment.

we wish to extend the term to match the end date of the grant that funds this work. the contract amount is the same. it's essentially making administrative revisions. >> chair borden: great. thank you. directors, any questions there? >> go ahead, director eaken. >> vice chair eaken: thank you. this is back on 10.3, 10.4. the sum, especially for 10.3 is a substantial -- i think it's close to $10 million. and so i just had a question for staff, which is it sounded like from the last meeting with the r.p.p. program, we're going to sort of the more future-proof license plate technology which just seems like we won't have to have as much maintenance with that approach.

so i just wonder, not an expert in this at all, but it seems to make so much sense. why aren't we just transitioning all of our parking space enforcement to this license plate technology which is so much more flexible and lowering maintenance and staffing costs? >> i'll take that question. yeah, that is our intention, director. that's what the contract with the new meters you'll be seeing in may, those will allow customers to play by plate and never have to physically interact with a meter. 10.3 and 10.4 are just to keep the existing meters we have on the street working until we can complete the replacement of all 28,000 parking spaces with the new meters that we're to be buying starting this fall. so these are just service contracts to keep the existing plan going while we bring in the new meters that allow people to pay by plate, allow enforcement

and allow lots of new forms of payment to be accepted. >> and i'll just add to that, that we're moving toward more of that technology. there is more of a 50-50 split, which currently is 90-10, might be 80-20, single space versus multi-space, we're moving more in that direction for the pay by plate tt. >> chair borden: great. then we -- i know we have people who have questions on 10.9. so why don't we start on those, because the next one people have questions on are 10.10. we'll go to director heminger. >> director heminger: i wanted to ask our attorney whether we're exploring our legal options to recover some or all of the cost of this item from pg&e? >> yes, thank you, director hemminger, deputy city attorney,

yes, we are working with staff on potential recovery. >> director heminger: that's the answer i wanted to hear. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. >> director lai: do you have something else? did you want to add something? >> i was going to say i could briefly address 10.10, but i didn't realize director lai had a comment. >> no problem. >> director lai: so i'm going to vote for this. i don't have an issue voting for it, but i want to just on the record comment that this is -- in this case it wasn't the fault of the contractor for the delay. it's really because of issues arising from pg&e's delays that came from effectively them not stepping up as a partner and not being strategic with basically

raising their concerns at appropriate times and instead moving the goal posts far too late in the game. this is exactly the type of things that results in public waste. this is not the only time that pg&e -- i guess their lack of partnership has delayed public projects with m.t.a. and other city agencies. there is a larger problem here. so i don't have to concern with 10.9 per se, but i am glad and relieved to hear on the legal side we are pursuing our remedies that way. but this is also a great reminder for our agency that, you know, i don't always have a choice with people that -- agencies that we have to work with, and when they are not strategic, we have to be even that much more diligent and strategic in mitigating their essentially failure to be

leaders. so -- and i understand that we have future hearings planned on essentially assessing how we could deliver our projects better. and i've already voiced that the pg&e issue is a real and consistent one that we have to continue to deal with and i hope we will include that in the presentation in the future. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you, director lai. anything additional that people had on 10.9 before we go to 10.10? okay, great. we'll discuss 10.10. i know mr. strauss pointed out issues around the guidelines being -- city archivists, historical value, but maybe you could overview what is required in this statement from our

standpoint. >> sure, absolutely. and unfortunately, former secretary roberta boomer worked long and hard on this policy and was not able to stay at the meeting long enough to present to you. but a record retention policy is required by our administrative code to have both the record detention and destruction policy. so this policy of the sfmta has not been updated since 2002. so some of the main changes are to recognize that the taxi commission is now part of the m.t.a. to include more direction on e-mail guidance. and to make other updates to reflect the organization of the agency. so it does cover all documents regardless of their physical form or characteristics. and it would allow retaining documents for historical purposes. i would need to look into all of

the provisions, but i think that obviously, the archivist is able to review and if the m.t.a. wanted to allow other entities, such as those mentioned by the public commenters to have that process, that could be permitted. i don't know if there are other questions i didn't get to. >> chair borden: i think that's correct. i just also want to make a point of clarification. the way we've been running our consent calendar, we haven't been breaking out items. we've been taking everything at once and taking comment at once. i want to make sure that is what you say -- that's how it's handled and i want to make sure that is consistent with what we're doing. >> yes, probably, i'm not sure if that was clear to the public commenter who requested this item to come off consent as he did not make any specific

comments on these items. they may want to give that person a chance to comment today, but if you make that clear at the beginning, that one opportunity for public comment is that, that satisfies the requirement. >> chair borden: great. so that point, mr. pilpel, if you are on the line, and would like to speak specifically to your grievances with the items pulled, i did announce at the beginning of the item we have called everything as one, but out of respect for your pulling them off the calendar without a statement as to why, i did not know if you wanted to comment. so, mr. pilpel, if you're on the line, call 1-888-398-2342, 8647385. and press 1, 0 to speak.

moderator, is there a caller on the line? >> you have one question remaining. >> can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> great. david pilpel again. i'm sorry, reading from the calendar on page 3 under consent calendar it still has the standard verbiage, no separate discussion unless a member of the board or public requests in which event it will be considered as a separate item. so i read that to mean considered as a separate item, including separate public comment. so if you're going to change your practice, then you need to change that verbiage. so i will speak briefly on the items that i pulled, 10.3, 10.4, 10.6 and 10.10. i understand that i should be able to have two minutes on each of those. i think i'm only going to need two minutes on item 10.10.

and so i'll handle the others quickly. so 10.3 and 10.4, taking those together, my question or comment was can any of that work be performed by in-house staff? is a civil service commission or prop j. approval needed in as you have as it's maintenance work on parking meters and pay station infrastructure, which i thought was normally done by city employees. and i also noted that the 10.4 agreement is with a firm based in canada. it's one thing to ask for jobs in the city or in the bayview or in california, but i thought it odd we're doing work with a firm based in canada that does not appear to have a u.s.-based office. and hopefully, we can avoid that in the future. if they're a sole source, i understand, but maybe in the next round we won't be doing business with them anymore.

10.6, the agenda item description does not refer to the central subway project. i had to find that in the detail of the item. i'm wondering if that was a brown act issue. and not just the m.t.c. generally. and following from that, i'm wondering if director heminger can participate in this item since he previously had something to do with m.t.c. and then finally, this will be my two minutes on 10.10. it's a long document. i don't believe it's urgent. i would ask you to continue this to a future meeting. the schedule mentioned several people no longer on staff, including candace sue, riskin and boomer and the update should at least be current as of today. pages 57 to 66 on sustainable streets and page 139 marked

privilege and confidential which is odd. there is no reference to is cot or task records. several provisions are included twice making it confusing to read and understand the new policy and schedule. records must be kept for ceqa purposes, documents, e-mails and text. i would cite smith versus san jose and golden door properties versus superior court. ceqa attorneys can weigh in on that. maybe other documents are missing as well. i would need more time to review. it's not urgent. i have not reviewed regarding other technology record retention periods. i agree with the comments made by peter strauss regarding retention and use of historical records. to conclude, i would ask you to continue that to a future meeting. thank you for hearing me. thank you very much. >> chair borden: with that,

we'll close public comment. on that item, so, so i see director lai has a question. >> director lai: thank you, chair. could staff just quickly address item 10.10 on essentially references in the document for staff members -- like the contact staff members that are no longer with the agency. i assume that might be okay because we have other directories and more current information all over our website to provide that information to the public, right? >> yes, director lai, deputy city attorney, susan knowles. yes, this record retention policy has been in process for years and probably even if it were current right now would be outdated in several weeks for

any specific staff content. i don't think that makes it inadequate and as long as the contact information is also out there, that should be sufficient. >> chair borden: are there any other questions or comments about this or any other items on the consent calendar? or is there a motion? is there an item you want to sever, let me know. otherwise, make whatever motion you'd like. >> i'd like to motion to approve the full consent calendar. >> second. >> second. >> chair borden: great. so, secretary, can you call the roll. >> yes on the motion to approve the consent calendar, chair borden. >> chair borden: aye. >> vice chair eaken: aye. >> director heminger: aye. >> director hinze: aye. >> director lai: aye.

>> commissioner yekutiel: aye. the consent calendar is approved 6-0. and places you on the regular calendar. item 11. presentation and discussion regarding the sfmta budget and financial status. >> chair borden: great. we can't hear you, jonathan. you're muted. >> thank you. you always hit that button twice accidentally. chair borden, directors, jonathan, acting chief financial officer. i have a presentation that i'm bringing up now. we're going to do things a little bit differently, our budget manager will be presenting with me and we'll be doing a back-and-forth as we go through the presentation today. i well get us started. just update the board, so this is our normal monthly updates. we'll have good news to give you

today, plus a couple of updates that are the board requested at your march meeting. we provided you an update, just quick highlights of what we'll cover today. so both are the regular mobility data that we look at, the ridership data, and our revenue data is showing that things are coming back. transit revenues were up and parking revenues were up and we'll give you a deep dive into that. however, i do want to be clear that they are still at historic lows and we're running the agency on a significant amount of one-time funds. we will recommend again a 15% service increase into next fiscal year, which i do believe begins in may with our reopening of the rail system. we are also going to recommend that this be reviewed in february 2022. we'll provide you with data and metrics on how to measure the

financial performance in that period so you'll have the ability to make a decision at that time. and we'll cover the data that we will be regularly reporting to you over the next couple of months. that said, this is not good. okay, here we go. thinks a regular mobility data we've been showing since the beginning of the pandemic. just quickly want to cover, you can see the impact of the second wave of the pandemic. that's in the period just around the end of october. you'll see the decline in the deep blue line which is transit ridership and destinations within san francisco, but see around january, the curve changed. this is the same transit data, but compared to other cities globally. you see the deep cuts and curves. those are other global agencies when they see uptick in covid

cases they do an immediate shutdown. so that case specifically you'll see in the case of auckland. you see taiwan here as a piece that we use for ridership restoration, so our hope to get back to that level of transit ridership, but we're -- >> this meeting will soon be disconnected unless there is one authenticated user present. to join from the phone, you must provide a valid extension and p.i.n. >> i did not -- >> sorry for that interruption. i'm looking into that right now. >> thank you. where we are now and data showing we're hitting our prior peak month on transit ridership which is another good sign. month over month we're seeing the data move in the right direction. this is the data we look at specific loads. we use the apple mobility data, a little bit of a different source that looks at modal

choice. you will see in the february and march period we saw increases in traveling across all the modes. i think walking was one that kind of excited us the most. you'll see driving is almost back to pre-pandemic levels. and you will see consistent -- again, we look at different data sources but this is showing the same trend upward with regard to transit choice. so all good metrics. >> good afternoon, tim borden. happy birthday. so in reviewing the third quarter of the fiscal year 21, this month shows january, what we projected in january. going to the next month in february, you see that we are projecting that we'll have a balanced budget. in january and february we started adjusting our revenue down. when we get to march and the more recent data going along with what was mentioned earlier,

in march we see the pick. in march we saw the highest fare month of the fiscal year. we also saw the highest parking and fee month for the fiscal year. so we started adjusting slightly the revenue estimates up. what that means is that also means that we anticipate using less of the federal relief this fiscal year. and it points to more positive signs. i think we're optimistic that fare and fee revenue have increased recently. and you'll have to see data, but that is on the next slide. just in terms of the more recent trends. >> so here we wanted to show a deeper drive into the fare revenues. the march data surprised us. on the ridership and the fare revenues, cash fares were up just over -- i want to that i they were up about 20%, which kind of surprised us. that could be due to the warm weather. it could be due to a lot more people getting vaccinated and

moving around the city, about you this is a very positive trend for us. -- but this is a positive tend for us. this amount beat our last peak month. you recall when we said peak month, that's the maximum amount of revenue we expect to generate in one month. this beats our peak month. we didn't expect to get to these levels for at least another couple of months. when you look at january, february you see we were hoping to get to march numbers by the end of the fiscal year. but we got to those numbers in march. for the first time since the pandemic we're increasing our revenue projection. and we have systematically been updating them lower as you can see the trend. but for the first time we'll be adjusting upward. i want to remind the board and the public, you can see where we are compared to where we were at our pre-pandemic level, but again the ridership is increasing month over month, week over week.

and our fare revenue is increasing month over month and week over week. the trend is good. it's showing that our ridership is coming back and san franciscans are willing to pay the fare to use the transit system. >> so getting into the parking, sign and fee side. parking fines and fees have also saw a really good month in march. i would say notably, or parking meter revenue, which is the second light blue line from the top, that line in particular, that bar in particular saw 20% month over month increase which is a very positive sign given that it shows what you're seeing with the mobility data in terms of people driving more in san francisco and paying more in terms of parking meter revenue. i should also note that meter revenue in particular was $4.1 million. in a typical pre-pandemic baseline month which is the next chart, parking meter revenue, pre-pandemic levels are $5 million. we're getting close -- again,

cautiously optimistic, but parking fines and fees more so than fares are getting back up to what we saw before the pandemic happen. optimistic in terms of the projections. to the next slide, director lai asked about what it costs sfmta to bring back additional 15% of service and then after that, the 15% service to get back to pre-pandemic service levels. this chart is in response to that question from last month. so looking what it cost to bring back 15% of service, we need to look what it costs to deliver the different services by mode. a lot of the services are delivered with rubber tire fleet. however, light rail service or street cars and cable cars do cost the agency more in terms of the cost. it costs us to deliver that service. the next column after that is the subsidy that sfmta pays to

deliver that service. if you take the fares, you can calculate what the annual subsidy is for the different modes. the most important thing to note is it costs sfmta more to deliver the service that is turned off right now, in terms of the light rail, cable cars, street cars. >> so getting into the 15% figure that was brought up last month, we estimate that it cost the agency about $74 million to bring back the first 15% of service. again, that has to do with the modes we're bringing back in term of the cable cars, historics and street cars. using that same data we estimate what it takes to bring back the next 15% of service which we estimate to be slightly more. that has to do again with the modes of service we're bringing back. it will cost more in terms of labor that the transit operators we have will probably cost more in terms of overtime. the next 15% of service will

happen after we have increases for labor. to summarize, $74 million to bring back the first 15%. anticipate the next 15% to get back up to pre-pandemic, will cost $85 million. this is based on data from pre-pandemic 19 levels. >> when we looked at our fare revenues after this month's data and then looking at our trends and models, as the board knows, we'd been reducing our fare estimates for the first half of the fiscal year. we always assumed the worst case and this was in the december period what the agency would collect in transit fares through all of fiscal year 22. so that would start in july of 2021 and end in june of 2022. when we went out to the market to sell revenue bonds during the late winter at the beginning of

the calendar year, in the january and february period, for the purposes of our financial statement, and our official statements for the purposes of revenue bond debt finance, we had to revise our estimate, really sharpen our pencils and come up with what we thought was the most realistic scenario and that was $45 million. on the high end, we budgeted and we know we're not going to hit budgeted levels. we budgeted $188.8 million in fare revenue in fiscal year 2022. this happened just about a year ago when we were finalizing the budget with the expectation that we would have seen a recovery from the pandemic by the beginning of this calendar year. unfortunately, there was a second wave. you saw what that impact had, we were essentially starting over in the revenue recovery, but again, in march of 2021, the actuals of that month -- and we'll see where april and may are -- resulted in having to increase our projections.

so we do plug the ridership into a model, we plug in the actuals of fare revenue and it results in various projections. the model is showing we could get as high at $81.6 million. -- $86.1 million. we'll have to wait to see. we're being optimistic about the data. we have to give it a couple of months before we make official changes or changes in the expenditure policies based on these numbers. we also went through the process of updating our state of good repair numbers for the 2020 period. there is a couple of significant changes i do want to point out to the board. you will get an update on our complete 2020 state of good repair report this summer. we're finalizing it now. this is the preliminary data. we did go through and we do every couple of years look at the cost of the assets

themselves based on actual bids in the public market and those replacement costs. we're showing that our total assets, the total assets that the m.t.a. owns has a value of 188.8 million. it does not reflect the subway. we will go through the process next year. but the overall static that we look at to manage the trends is the term score, which is a score of the average useful life of all of the assets, whether things are in backlog or new or usable in the system. so that score does continue to decline. it will decline to 3.15 as we go into fiscal year 22. the percentage of assets in backlog -- they might still be functional, but technically, they're beyond their useful life, is now 28.8%. and those assets and backlog have a value of $3.85 billion.

so now we'll go to our favorite slides on structural deficit. >> yeah, so we decided to take another cut at how we show the structural deficit slide on the operating side. you see the blue bars here represent the usage of sfmta's one-time funds to address our expenditure needs on the operating budget. you see here in f.y.21, 22, 223, 24, the blue bars represent the one-time funds that are plugging into the budget and deliver the ongoing service we need to deliver. the point here is we cannot sustain the agency with one-time funds. 2024, the federal lease runs out, the use of fund balance, we anticipate that runs out by 2024. so it's a thing, it's a different cut at the structural deficit. but the point here is it's something we can't sustain. 2024 we need to make a decision

in terms of what we do to address this structural deficit and the one-time funds running out, especially federally. so this slide is a pretty new slide. hot off the press. first time we're showing it. this slide represents what we're saying is the capital structural deficit. taking what jonathan mentioned earlier in the five-year period of the c.i.p., this says we have $611 million in assets that we need to replace during the period. we just don't have enough revenue to replace the assets that we own in the five-year period. one thing to note, this is actually much lower than a normal five-year period. sfmta just went through a major fleet replacement, so that replacement and the repairs we would typically need during a five-year period aren't shown here. this is the first time we're trying to show what it takes on the capital side in order to

address the repair during this five-year period. >> this gets our recommendation on how to enter fiscal year 22 and at least halfway through the fiscal year. i'm not going to run through all of these objectives again. we did show them last month, but again we want to have a restoration of service. we do want to focus on one-time investments that we will not guarantee, continuous expenditures into fiscal year 23. we did hear from the board in the spring that you did want us to restore some dollars to the streets capital program which did not receive any of the revenue bonds. we will continue to work with our partners throughout corridors in san francisco and our commercial partners on the implementation using parking. and we will continue to monitor and part of what tim and i are trying to do is give you data metrics to look at month-over-month to see what the direction looks like in a consistent way. so this is a proposed

expenditure plan for fiscal year 2022. again, it is not our expectation that we would spend to our full budget. we will use a significant one-time funds to keep the agency running next year. so we recommend a large component, 44.5% of those expenditures be one-time in nature. and again, not be guaranteed to continue into fiscal year 23 and 24 and beyond. so this will be up for consideration with the board about a year from now when you consider the two-year budget for fiscal years 23 and 24. the most significant thing here is the service increase, so that $71 million that we discussed to allow the agency to begin the process of restoring transit service in the city. so we did something a little bit different. i'm going step-by-step on the decisions and milestones for the board upcoming over the next 12 months. so april, 2021, is right now. february 2022 is when we should

do a deep dive and see where we stand based on a couple of months of data. and then april 2022, the board will have to adopt a budget for fiscal years 23 and 24. so where we are now, our current estimate of year-end expenditures for fiscal year 21 is about $1.124 billion. again, there is still one quarter left, but the current estimates based on expenditures assume this is what we will spend. i will remind the board, we're going to have expenditure savings this year. the agency did a very good job continuing to provide service during the pandemic at a reduced cost. we are recommending at this point that you can add about $74 million of additional ongoing expenditures. so our current revenue projection show that this additional expenditure decision at this time can be sustained by the agency's enterprise and other revenues. so, the growth pattern shows we

can suspending at this level. we're also recommending one-time expenditures, $60 million, again, not to be guaranteed to be included in the fiscal year 23 budget. in february, assuming the expenses and kind of the baseline, the budget becomes $1.233 billion. this is kind of where we start. we'll see where the year ends. but we do want to give you a sense of where we might go. at that point, in the february period, the board can decide to add the additional 15% of service. again, we do want to see where our revenues are going and what they will look like. we will continue to report to you on a regular basis on the direction and trend, but at that point in time, we're recommending that based on the data, you could make a decision to add that additional service back in the second part of the fiscal year 22, which then would carry on into fiscal year 23. we have this thing called the

shadow budget. that is simply the budget that we start the base from. and so that would be $1.269 billion, so we will start from that base and consider all the additional expenditures that we've added one time or ongoing in that period. which leaves a maximum budget for fiscal year 23 of $1.353 billion. this assumes that you add all the service back and this does assume the structural deficit that tim just showed you in the fiscal year 23 period, that, again, would be covered to some extent by one-time federal fund. so this is the schedule and the calendar and kind of milestone and the basis of our recommendation to you. >> cip. >> sorry, i'm on mute. so getting back real quick to

the discussion about the cip. there is a gap. this breaks down the gap between the cip program. you see there is needs in the program. and those could potentially be addressed if we're able to be success with the geobond we're doing through the city, but again, we definitely made a sizeable gap within the cip and that is breakdown how that looks. >> we do want to start measuring this on a regular basis. the board will recall and there is plenty of media on the recent audit that the controller's office did on project delivery, especially around the transit project. and one of the recommendations in that audit is that we use the elements of data to prioritize capital investments. in the last year, cip, we did a lot of work using the state of good repair tt data we have to make project decisions.

so we want to continuously report on that and our gaps and how we're doing. we also want to take the next step of using those investments and seeing what savings can be realized both through efficiencies with investment, with capital improvement and savings with regard to maintenance and operation if we make those one-time investments. we want to take the state of good repair need, we want to take the investment, we want to look at the cost benefit of that and consider that data when making prioritization decision about projects. this is an interim process, but we want to keep the board informed on this. just quickly, there was a question from the board about additional federal stimulus. i'm not going to call it federal relief. president biden has proposed his american jobs plan. we're closely monitoring the update of the 10-year transportation bill. currently we look at invest

which was proposed in the house in 2020 as the baseline. with regard to the american jobs plan specifically there are lots of ideas, so we're taking those dollar amount buckets for policy priorities and we're plugging them in to the specific legislated programs that are in invested. and we're working a lobbyist and our government affairs team. we're developing packages to take to washington d.c. to aggressively go after these dollars. so focus areas include fleet electrification and the infrastructure, so the board has been updated on the situation with the facilities, being able to electrify our transit fleet. we're all aware of the issues around cable car structure and we have put forward already to washington d.c. and sacramento various packages around vision zero and major corridor projects such as fulsome. we're proposing changes in

regulatory and legislative requirements to allow federal funds to be better used on vision zero quick-build projects. and of course there is always a heavy focus on state of good repair with regard to our facilities, subway renewal and our traffic signals. so, this kind of leads to this slide, which is a dashboard. the staff would like to develop for the board. so all the data that we showed you today are specific metrics that we want to continuously monitor over the next few months. so we'll provide the board updates on these metrics. it should be a goal of the agency overall, the first three metrics have to do with the sustainability of our finances. it is in my opinion inappropriate to run the agency having one-third of our regular operations be based on one-time

dollars. so we've set target goals we think are realistic based on our various models and revenue possibilities. they'll see the target goal on the right. we would like to reduce the use of one-time funds. the m.t.a. always uses one-time funds as part of the budget. that is not unusual, but we need to bring it to a reasonable level. those are set for fiscal year, 22, 23, 24. we showed you the state of good repair data and how much of that we're meeting in the current five-year cip cycle, we're meeting 68 .5%. that is good. we want to meet a target goal of 80%. there are different needs and different periods of time. most of the time we talk to the public about what the need is over a 20 and 30 year horizon, that's a $400 million you often hear about, how do we keep the backlog from growing? but i think this board, director lai, wanted us to look at

targeted periods, so we'll continue to do that and set a goal around that. we would like to focus on investments that increase our term score. we have been able to do in the past so we should target specific investments that again will reduce the age of the assets and hopefully reduce the cost to run the assets and maintain them. fare recovery is another level we're looking at. so we're looking at the trend. you see where we are now. we're hoping that we can get to a peak month in february of $9 million, so that would be about a recovery of 54.9%. you see where we are with parking, we're currently at 70.8%, hopefully get to 92%. but what we're hoping is this gives you a barometer you can look towards and feel comfortable with adding more ongoing service and ongoing costs to the agency over the coming months. so, tim and i when we get there, happy to take feedback on these

goals if you'd like them changed or have questions on them. the other follow-up, director eaken did ask about the follow-up on board actions and requests. this has to do with the follow-up actions from our board workshop. you will see a lot of the items related to vision zero. we anticipate bringing back in the summer as we're in the process of developing the new two-year vision zero action plan. the updated slow streets did occur at the last board meeting. that was a pretty significant update. shared spaces is supposed to come to the m.t.a. board in may. it may not be the 4th, but i should you anticipate it coming forward to you in the month of may. on the restoration of transit service, transit director july kirchbaum did a significant update on restoring service. [please stand by] [please stand by]

we're working on our 20-year capital plan so it's beyond our state of good repair for those enhancements and expansions to the transportation system in san francisco and we are working on fair policy ak and he is affordability and you should expect an update around august on this particular issue. we'll do the same with parking policy and managements. i know that director hemminger is asking questions about m.t.a.'s role as the parking authority. we are working on that and various on development of our parking infrastructure and we will be ready for an update in august and then, the board, in

total, access to look at our funding needs and those opportunities and to match those real needs to possible revenue measures. we are getting a lot of data right now in the next two months and we'll have some very exciting stuff to share with the board on where san francisco is on those things and what those rights are. rights are. we're doing robust outreach to get thoughts in that area and in august we'll report back on that. so, as usual, that was a lot. and we are happy to take any questions you have. >> thank you for that very thorough report and bringing back all the items that directors had brought up overtime. directors, why don't i first take public comment and see if there are any commenters on the line. again, for those people, calling in for the public comment,

please note the number is not the number that was printed on the agenda originally it's a new number which is 888-398-2342. the access code is 864 7385 and if you want to be in the queue for this item specifically, which is item number 11, presentation discussion of the sfmta budget and financial status, now is the time to press 10 so you with speak. are there any callers on the line? >> you have two questions remaining. >> first question, please. >> caller: thank you, chair. she and her for the record. it's a good report and doesn't surprise me people will come back to transportation, especially with the subway reopening and i'm a little

concerned about pass fares and cash fares but where does it fit in fares paid with clipper cards so i think it has to be broken down a bit. i think certainly as we look toward our next budget, that we need to consider strongly in the next we have to find ways to fund muni besides fares. fares can dis purport atly effect those of lesser and modest means like myself, and certainly in order to collect ma fare we can we have to do it in the most efficient way and.

because as i said, i want option to get to golden gate park is muni. there's more one time revenue coming and i don't think there's anything wrong with one-time revenue and agencies go after it. it's time for us to fund our system and the city owns the system so city should foot the bill. thank you. >> thank you. intention speaker, please. >> you have two questions remaining.

>> caller: david pillpal again. on item 11. first question, how do you charge for parking with park let's and shared spaces in neighbourhood commercial is how do you charge for transit while avoiding contact encouraging use of transit and keeping social distance and it seems like we've got some issues in conflict. this staff have an estimate of providing free muni as supervisor preston has suggested and i'm sure there are issues with doing that temporarily, long-term, et cetera. aggregated by mode, the ntd cost per hour for 2019 as reported on slide 13 is over $200 and that will come back and the next item on transit service and that

including direct, indirection and overhead cost and revenues by item including gross and net revenues so for example, what we take in at the fair box is gross but what we spend on fair collection and reducing that to a net revenue amount. i have not been a supporter of free muni for all historically but. >> you have two questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> hi. this is patricia voy. i have several comments to make. number one is on the increase in the parking revenue i just went

to a 30-minute metre and paid $h it would be $3.50 and now i'm wondering what -- how are you handling these issues? number two, coming up to shared spaces and which i am in favour of park let's provided that people follow the rules and it seems the sfmta and the applicants come in i'm not checking into verifying information and from certain people who are breaking the rules and i shall be writing a report on this and a new issue came up of expenditures and it boggled my mind.

you've and my question is, are you losing revenue by doing work that is not necessarily needed and is redundant and it's something you should check into. if you want to increase money, please bring back 43 ma sonic and because we have 100 senior citizens that they're being denied the right to go anywhere because that's their only bus line and we would appreciate it if if you would bring it back. so, that's my comment of the day. >> next speaker, please. >> you have two questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, again, board

members, hayden miller. i wanted to talk about a few things in terms of the agency's finances. fun times. the first thing is getting more people and briefly and it was at the last meeting and and 1/2 people do not pay so if there is fare issues preventing people from paying we need to expand programmes like the lifeline pass to make it more affordability and promote these programmes better and i don't think that making muni free for everybody is a good policy especially if muni is struggling right now until we can store

100% of service. when we have a free service that is not more useful, it's going to be crowded, it's not going to encourage ridership at all it's going to be a mess. so we need to restore 100% of service before we can even look at things like free muni and eligibility and thank you, mr. miller, next speaker. please. >> you have one question remaining. next speaker.

>> i hear the tv in the back. >> right. moderator, maybe just go to the next line and see if there's someone else. >> you have zero questions remain. >> with that we'll close public comment and open up to commissioner comments on this item. i see that directour hemminger was first. >> i do, that's not a truck in my background. johnathan, i'm not in the swing with your two-year budget cycle. so right now, which budget are we living under? is this the 2020 budget? >> we are currently in fiscal year 2021 and we're entering fiscal year 2022 and the board adopted a budget for both of those last june. >> so the next budget we would

adopt would be for '23 and 24 in april. >> yes. >> that's when we have to come to grips with the federal money i think you mentioned we were seeking change in federal law to allow more federal money to be spent on quick build projects. i would not associate the federal government with quick anything. and if i were you, i would keep the federal money off the big projects and put it on the big ones which take a long time and cost a lot anyway and use local money to build the local projects because remember, the federal rule book was designed for the interstate highway system and it's just dramatic

case of overkill for most kinds of projects that we're doing on our streets. and the last question, jeff, i think is maybe for you, because i think johnathan's last slide mentioned getting a report to this board on fare policy in august and we've got this chatter about free muni in the summer and it seems sort of like everybody is talking about free muni except for this board. and i just wanted to quiz you on what your strategies and timetable is for getting that issue before us. >> so, we're not currently prioritizing free muni programmes we're focused on recovery. at the same time, certain members of the board of supervisors think that free muni is more important than full

service. we're providing information about the unintentional negative consequences or utility of a free muni pilot programme might be this summer. we're moving forward with budget recommendations as have been presented to you just now by our c.f.o. if you would like to owe pine on a -- and have you make a statement or resolution on that topic. >> and, look, i'm not necessarily asking for that i'm really asking for your advice because i don't want to get in the wave a strategy that you are laying out with the board of supervisors, but i do think that this is sort of been a fairly fact-free debate so far and it

would be, it would probably be helpful for this board to weigh in at some point. >> i might adjust a couple of facts in the evidence, as you heard them today, in this presentation and from the public in public testimony. one, the trend is looking good as of this month and we're seeing more vaccinations out there and so we are seeing our fair revenues recover and we're seeing them recover at about the same pace ridership which is good which could lead you to question is the fare really a barrier to accessing the system and you did hear about fare evasion and period and the beginning of the pandemic and we were not enforcing our fair policy and we started that again in june and it takes time for the ridership to get used to the

rules and it takes time to get it working and we're seeing the fruits of the labour and the work that we did in the beginning of this year so, i wouldn't want to set us up for a period where we're seeing this fantastic momentum and then all the sudden we're resetting everything with our ridership and the public as we're seeing momentum in use of the system so, those are the facts that we have now but as jeff said, we're continuing to do analysis on proposals as they come up. >> thank you, chair. great presentation and there's a lot to digest here as director hemminger said. i'm going to go back to the

earlier slides here and thank you so much for responding to all of our individual questions and really appreciate you on the continuity. i found the slide 13 in particular very -- it's very important to see, i guess, i knew that we have been subsidizing fares and heavily and it's really a transportation is a basic right from where i stand and it makes sense and i also found the staff provided some background additional calculations on the current subsidy on the average boarding

costs and comparing that between the pre pandemic subsidy to be very, very informative and could staff just like state for the public what you shared with us. >> that was tim's analysis. >> put that slide up again because it's important when you talk about the free muni conversation right now. happy to do that. and then tim can cover the information on the boardings. >> yes, johnathan is pulling it up. we shared with her the subsidy per trip as it is in march 2021 and currently, sfmta our revenue for boarding so the amount of revenue that we take around is about 32 cents per boarding and the cost for boarding is

$9.76 so the subsidy as of march of 2021 is $9.44 so by comparison -- >> can you pull up that slide. you are slowing a different slide. right, right. that is the right slide. so director lie asked us a question that i think she wanted to get on the record. it's not on this slide but it's similar to this slide, which is i think what she was referencing. >> i'll put it simply. so, i thought there was a slide. for some reason maybe i just read the report. >> it was put into that spread sheet of answers that's what you are visualizing so those numbers is not actually on this presentation but they should be on it because they're impactful

when you look at the percentage of the subsidy. sorry to put you on the spot like that. we do it by revenue hour of service, director lie asked the question, how much is it per boarding so as a writer gets on the vehicle, how much are we subsidizing the cost essentially the cost of that individual trip. >> pre bam in 2019, the revenue that we made was about 88 cents per trip and the cost of that was a little under $4, $3.83 so much has changed in this time of the pandemic. >> thank you. i just wanted to highlight that for the public because it means right now we're subsidizing about 97% of the cost of the

ride that's essentially -- it's very close to being essentially free to the public. i guess it's one of my thoughts. but continuing on that free muni conversation, which i do think because there seems to be public interest and i do think that we need to be part of conversation because we're the agency that has the fact and the agency that has the ability to analyze the facts and for me, a part of that discussion i don't feel like i have a comfortable level of understanding is whether or not there has actually already been demonstrated studies that prove that the cost of the fare is what is hurting our ridership. have we have we done that in past factors. >> they're well-known globally and there are many factors that

drive is travel behaviour and prices obviously one of them but the biggest factor is the quality of the service so is the service fast, frequent, and reliable. and people take it in droves and very low income people place a high value on their time and what we find from all the global experiments around free fears is they do tend to drive up ridership but don't decrease the number of people who are driving and driving is driven by convenience and so what free transit fares do is reduce the trips made by walking and biking as well as because they chose a cheaper, bigger house farther

away and the same factor occurs with transit and it's one of the reasons why, again, given our dire financial situation, we have been focused on trying to restore service and impresses that service in order to restore ridership. and fairs are a barrier to entry as always we want to direct our fare subsidy resource and fare reductions for the people that have the greatest financial needs. >> thank you for laying that out, jeff, i think one of your qualifiers and there is especially of interest to me which is how different income level folks respond to decisions and how sticky or elastic their price points are. i hope we can comment or have

educated responses to that because san francisco is not like any other place or at least i don't think so and we're very unique and our demographic spread is unique and i it's the level of analysis and i need more like detailed information about demographics and how it influences their behaviour choices but to further that a little bit, because i think it's still relevant to this presentation, on the slide, thank you for coming back with like round number that i can get my mind around, understanding how much it cost us to increase service and so just so i understand, so right now, we're anticipating continuing to sub da size and --

[please stand by] >> so we need to figure out the next 85% which seems that you've built into fiscal year '22 budget? >> well, we've given you a cost and we cannot guarantee we can sustain it and it gets to what jeff was talking about -- [please stand by]

it is a way that we track delivery. another thing that i want to introduce into the conversation is we -- part of why we're not going to be at 100% service hours is because right now we're at 30% ridership, and some of the service that we provide is exclusively to address crowding on lines, and once we go back to a pre-covid definition of how many people fit on the bus, we're gonna find that a lot of routes don't need the pre-covid service levels right away. i am confident that if we bring the service back slowly and deliberately building on our foundation and we provide a

really high quality reliable service that the ridership will come back, and it's going to come back stronger than ever, which is why we need to look to 2023 and 2024 to get not only to, you know, pre-covid levels but, you know, enhanced above pre-covid levels. but in the short term, something like the 38 geary is gonna still feel really frequent to customers whether it's running every, you know, five minutes or running every four minutes, and we make that adjustment based on what the ridership is on the line. so there is a portion of that last 15% that, you know, customers may feel in the form of -- do we introduce the 29 rapid or do we keep a lot of

parallel service that we had pre-covid? so there are going to be choices to be made, but i think a larger portion of that service isn't gonna be miss by customers until the ridership really starts to recover back to the historic levels that we've seen of, you know, 700,000, 750,000 boardings a day. >> okay, thank you, julie. i do have sort of a follow-up to that, but i will save it for the next item when you present. my last question for jonathan and timothy is that -- sorry. i'll go back to my notes here. so i think i heard jonathan perhaps mention that there might be exploration on the fare programs. did i mishear you? >> no, no, every budget cycle we

look at our fare policies and we take that to the board. again, as the director noted, we do not want affordability to be a barrier to accessing the system. the m.t.a. has never had that position, and we are continuously working on improving that, but we're doing it through multiple channels. one of them is technology, so you approve the customer information system contracts that included a lot of technology improvements for our customers. we're partnering with clipper, the clipper start program has begun here in san francisco and throughout the bay area region. we are looking at affordability and affordability programs with our fare policy, with the treasurer's office justice project. so that's happening right now, and all this work is coming together from all ends right now. when i put that august date, it was right before all this talk about free muni came up, but i think it will be at a very

mature state that we can have a conversation. usually for those of you who have been on the board for a long time we don't have that conversation until january or february, but next year is going to be really busy and i want to talk not just about the fare policy itself and the structure. i think chair board you brought it up, we should talk about the technology, the information we're giving the customers, what other services can we provide just beyond the transit pass itself, kind of all encompassing around mobility. that's what we're working on, and we do want to have that conversation, and affordability will definitely be part of that. >> yeah, so my question is really on the timing. is the affordability fare possible expansion i hope policy comes to us in august, are we trying to catch the 2022 -- no, 2023? >> yes, that would be -- typically you would approve the new fare policy as part of the fiscal year 23 budget. some of the technology improvements we can make right away. so one of the things we're looking at, i am not promising this because we are in a public

meeting, but we're definitely looking at something the board's been interested in for a very long time, and that's doing the accumulator pass, which i think really deals with we have very low-cost monthly passes, and even the lifeline pass. it's just people cannot afford to pay for that complete pass at the beginning of the month. so if we can provide them through technology the ability to pay the cash fare, kind of work their way up to that monthly pass, then the rest of their trips are free, and again, we're removing a barrier for them to get that product that we offer the public. so that's something that we might be able to do sooner. i am not promising that. i am saying that on the public record, but we are working towards that. >> great, thank you. thank you, chair. i'm done with my questions. >> the chair: thank you, director li. director hemsey? >> all right, i will make this very quick because jonathan is always comprehensive.

so the uptick in the revenue is obviously cause for optimism, and you referenced that you would obviously like to see a trend, so how many months do you need to see this go up by, and for how much before we actually make any sort of official proclamation? i'm just trying to get a sense of our timeline here. >> yeah, i would say right now -- kim and i got very excited when we saw the march data, and then we quickly stopped ourselves and said we shouldn't be over-exuberant. i would recommend to the board that we at least give it a quarter. the reason i say a quarter is also we will really start seeing the impact of the vaccines in the public and seeing how travel patterns and trips and choices will change in the city. we'll see how travel -- tim and i had a conversation today that we -- the march uptick might

have been the good weather or spring break. like, people came to san francisco to enjoy the city from california and the bay area. so we want to see a trend before we make any real decisions, so give it at least three months. >> all right. >> and as mentioned, i think the lesson learned we got was from december. we saw a similar re-tick and then things re-set. we need to be cautiously optimistic of how we manage our budget. >> and then we got the second wave. so we'll see what happens. and then i think my last item is just a request on the [indiscernible] conversation or the pilot. if staff could provide anything to board the analysis that was just mentioned earlier at the beginning of this conversation to the board of supervisors, i think that will be helpful for the board to see before we

officially opine on any stand either way. >> yeah, we can do that. >> thank you. are there any other questions from our board members before we move on to our next item? well, i do want to thank you for your very extensive and thorough report, even following up on the various items and giving us a sense of the time frame. really, you know, spelling out a really robust picture about where we are, where we can go and how we scale up service. and even just kind of that pricing out thing. it's very significant, so thank you so much for this great presentation, and i wish that you can go to the board of supervisors very soon and give them that presentation, include that chart we talked about. >> sure. thank you, chair. thank you, everyone.

>> that concludes that item. >> director, that places you on item no. 12, presentation and discussion regarding transit service, including a muni forward update. >> great, ms. kirschbalm? >> hi, everyone, i'm going to talk at the end to go over the performance trends, but i'm going to ask sean kennedy, our transit planning manager to give the first part of the presentation. we've been providing quarterly updates to the mta board on the progress of the muni forward program, and we feel that this is particularly timely because we've made a significant investment in temporary transit lanes and we're seeing some very good progress in how that work is performing. we will keep it brief because we know that we're very late in the agenda and have several items

left to go. but i think it's some of the toughest decisions that y'all have to make, and where you've been crucially supportive of the transit system is carving out space for reliable transit service, so i appreciate everything that sean and his team, as well as our streets partners do to deliver this program, and i will turn it over to sean. >> great. thank you. thank you, julie, and good afternoon or almost evening, directors. i hope to, like julie said, hope to cover this fairly quickly, but i do want to -- i will pause in a few spots because it really is overall fantastic news, and we're hoping to really let some of these great points sink in with you all as we talk about

further events in these projects and the next steps. so you want me to go over to muni forward update and construction update and then talk about our temporary emergency transit only lane progress and next steps before turning it back over to julie. and as noted, going to start with p muni forward update -- the muni forward update. next slide. now the pandemic has really shifted our focus, obviously, the last nine months, and i -- and so i wanted to take just a few slides to just talk through for a minute why muni forward was created in the first place and what we are trying to address with the program. this slide shows really in graphic form when congestion increases. operating costs go up, ridership goes down, and really an entire downward spiral is created.

so you know, muni forward was created to reverse that spiral, in simplest terms, and really to create and ensure a world-class transit system. and over the last four or five years we've been busy delivering projects that do just that, with leadership from this board we have legislated and built over 70 miles, 70 lane miles of transit priority projects, including 50 miles of transit-only lanes, 200 pedestrian -- 20 traffic signals and started four new transit lines, and i want to take a little bit of time on this next slide to let you kind of soak in some of these results. you know, the -- it's really amazing news. these projects are delivered results beyond expectations, and to set the scene, i mean,

pre-pandemic ridership was going down in every transit system in north america, really including muni, but we've kind of found the silver bullet, and it's not rocket science. obviously and jeff was kind of mentioning this in the previous item, but you know, you would use transit travel times and improve reliability and ridership goes up. and the bottom line is where we have done muni forward projects on our rapid network and we have implemented muni forward projects, ridership has increased, and it's increased by double digit numbers on top of a background of decreasing ridership system-wide. so we are really proud of these results, and we think that these results are going to be carrying forward into the future, and so i now want to talk through some more specifics on construction and where we're at on several muni forward projects in general. there's three projects right now that are currently under way.

one being the -- and it's kind of been put into two segments, the west part of the sunset is now done, or will actually be completed in the may to june time frame, so is almost done. it's been under construction for about nine months. and then the segment from sunset to west portal is due to get notice to proceed for construction in the summer time frame. similarly on the 22, on 16 street, east of potrero, that work has been completed and the 22 is using this infrastructure to deliver service to mission bay which, you know, might sound like a no-brainer, but this project has been on the books for 10 plus years and super excited to finally get this in the ground and get the service going out to mission bay. the one on west should begin construction in the start of the new year. and then lastly on 19th avenue,

this construction project is also kind of cut up into segments. currently work is happening between noriega and lincoln. right now contractors are working on utilities, sewer and water, but once that work is done they will then repave and install the transit improvements projects on top of that. so muni forward, as we kind of talked about, is really meant to drastically improve transit, create a world class transit system. and as you just saw as we walked through the construction, projects under construction kind of we've been really basing this project on a holistic kind of corridor outlook, but we've seen through the temporary emergency transit lane program that improvement under a quick-build approach can get some amazing results, and so we're really holding these petals under the muni forward umbrella, and so as

we move to the next slide, i just want to talk about -- shift gears a little bit and talk about these results and processes. so as you know, this board approved the tetl program in june of 2020 with the idea that temporary lanes would be removed within 120 days after the end of the emergency order. this map shows kind of our transit priority program as a whole, including the tetl work, and so now i want to take the next four slides and talk through in more detail four specific tetls that have been implemented and where we're getting some results to report. the first one of those is mission street from 11th to 3rd. it was implemented in the fall, and pretty exciting results. you know, although traffic has increased by 20% since this project was initially implemented, you know, transit

speeds are holding steady and really have not increased. they've increased 1 or 2% since the summer. so really excited about this project is delivering. we're hoping to return to this board in the june time frame with a permanent project to complement this tetl work. second and kind of similarly, along geary, the speeds have been maintained for transit. transit speeds are being maintained even though, you know, traffic congestion is coming back to the level it was in the pre-pandemic time frame, and about 70% of the corridor is now under a dedicated transit lane. so very exciting work there, and this next slide just shows a picture of a boarding island on 20th and geary, and just shows the temporary nature there, but as you can see, this works just

as good as a normal bulb. so the next corridor, 7 and 8 street, that was implemented in october, and seeing some impressive time savings, about 15% travel time savings through this segment, and so we really leveraged this improvement and have moved the 27 bryant off of 5th street over to 7th and 8th as an example of a location where we consolidated services, take advantage of improvements along the temporary transit line. and then kind of lastly, to address a key bottleneck on 4th street, we made changes to the 4th street bridge in january and since that time have seen about a 60% reduction in transit delay between the bridge and king, in those four blocks, and we are about two and a half times less likely to get stopped at a red

light at 4th and barry. we are going to continue to monitor traffic in this part of the city and can make changes in the future, but right now we're really happy with the results of this project and like i said we'll continue monitoring to make changes if needed. so looking forward, today our last two temporary transit emergency projects coming forward to this board for decision, one is the one california, which will be coming next on the agenda, and then hov project that we've been working with caltrance is right after the one california. we'll be shifting where it makes sense and we will bring those projects forward to you. as i mentioned, i think downtown mission will be the first to come before this body for a

decision. so next steps for the muni forward program, what does all this mean for muni forward in general? so first off, may 15 will be putting back the entire subway into service. the kt will be extended to west portal and then down ocean to ballboa park. niment, the n will start its full alignment going from the beach to 6th and king. and additional the f line will be returning to service going the whole length from castro all the way up to fisherman's wharf. and on the rubber tire side, we are going to be implementing a kind of hybrid 36-52 line that will connect forest hill and glen park together through the hills there and serve a number of grocery stores as well. we only have enough resources to do one shift for that service

right now, but are hoping by the time covid restrictions are relaxed and august rolls around we can make more of improvement to those alignments. so looking to the future, muni forward in general, it's on the capital side. we're doing a full gamut of transit priority projects, including corridor projects, like the temporary transit lane projects and muni forward in general. but we'll also be advancing our spot improvement work that we had just started right before the pandemic hit, and we will be getting that project and that program back up and running shortly. on the service side, we're hoping to expand our rapid network. most notably and in the near term it will be projects around the 29r, working with the community to see how that would work and where the best places for that service would be.

and then, you know, as we talk about the rapid network, and as we kind of move to muni forward 2.0, we're really aiming to provide a service double a experience with the idea of easing travel along the backbone of our system, where you're in the subway or if you're on the street, a relatively smooth, reliable and frequent service that's the backbone of our system as we look to come out of this pandemic time period. this map really shows where we're planning to go in the next several years as we try to implement that vision, and you know, it's just a map of our current thinking and where we're going to be prioritizing these projects and advancing them in the next several years. of course it's a point in time and may change as we kind of move priorities around and

things, but this is what we're thinking now, and really excited to bring these projects in front of this body as we move forward. and i guess with that, i will turn that over to our director of transportation for the rest of the presentation. >> well, sean is a tough act to follow and i'll go very briefly through the metrics, but part of why we're seeing really strong metrics is directly related to the investments that we're making, both in protecting the bus through the built environment and then also all the care and dedication that staff is doing to deliver the service, in particular as we continue in this scary time to really be so grateful for our operators and our car cleaners and our mechanics, all the staff that have worked throughout the pandemic to deliver service. next slide.

we are seeing ridership highs. we pass a kind of an important covid milestone of 200,000 daily riders. that's a little less than 30% of our pre-covid ridership. next slide. but we still have a long way to go to build up back to our regular ridership. i believe this data here is looking at our bus ridership. if you fold the rail ridership on top of that, it's closer to 700,000 pre-covid. the reason that i was really focusing last -- during jonathan's presentation on the relationship between ridership and service is because i know that it's really easy to latch on to a number, 85%, and why isn't it 100% and why isn't it

120%, and you know, those are important policy conversations for us to be having, but we also want to continue to ground the service plan in ridership and in the needs of our customers, and that's why we're also focusing on other key metrics, like access to transit. we currently have about 90% of households that are within a short block of transit. we define that as a quarter mile, which is two to three blocks, depending on where you are in the system, and by august we will see that number increase to 98% of households. as you know, our ridership restoration has also been very equity driven, so while we're only -- we're at 90% city-wide, in our muni equity neighborhoods we're -- we now have 100% of households within a short walk of transit.

next slide. we've also continued to show strong headway adherence through the bulk of the pandemic, especially given that we're in the process of hiring almost 100 supervisors. i'm very pleased to see that this number is high and stable. on our rapid routes we have very few gaps in service, hovering around 100%, and system-wide the routes that we're managing on a headway we're seeing upwards of 80 to 85% headway adherence. i do expect that number to continue to trend up, particularly by the end of the year when we have the supervision in place and we're able to more proactively manage the service. next. we've seen as the ridership has increased we have seen an uptick

in crowding. we're not at our kind of highest number of crowded trips that we were in the fall, and this number will go down a little bit because we have increased our capacity a little bit by going down to three feet spacing. but i do anticipate our crowding to also improve in may 15 when we implement the next schedule, which has increased service through our most crowded areas on routes like the 22 and the 14 rapid and the 8 bayshore, which continued to be highlighted as routes with very high passenger activity. next. also continuing through covid to see very high maintenance trends. we have stayed above our target of 12,000 miles between

breakdowns throughout the covid period. the reason you're seeing that kind of up and down seesawing is that when you have very few breakdowns, even a variability of, you know, one or two can create a lot of changes. so that's why we're really focused on just staying above that 12,000 target. next. and lastly, covid specific metric that we're tracking is the mask compliance. this, along with vaccinations, are the key to keeping our operators safe, our workforce safe, and our customers safe. so even as we work with the department of public health to increase capacity of our vehicles as appropriate based on health science and their

feedback, we will continue to be focused on mask use as we continue through this pandemic. i believe that's the last slide. thank you. you can pull the presentation down and both sean and i are happy to answer any questions the board has. >> thank you, and i think what i'm going to do first, since we've had so many -- public, that i'm going to open it to public comment first. so that's public comment on our transit update report, item no. 12, which is an update on muni forward. the phone number is 888-398-2342, access code 864-7385, and if you would like to speak and get into the queue, press 1-0. so moderators, are there any callers on the line? [please stand by]

-- allocations, outlay, and rest of it. but the aim should be public transportation first. this is supposed to be a transit first city, not a transit cursed city. and, unfortunately, public transportation is taking a back seat. now this is obviously shown by

the buses that are available for riders. the one california line is really understaffed. buses get switched back and it's a long wait to get the bus. and it's probably worse for other lines. so we have to make public transportation its first priority. and the -- >> 30 seconds. >> caller: the bicyclists should be willing to make sacrifices too, like paying for parking and even paying for a license. this would increase revenue for m.t.a. and the two bicyclists on the board should advocate strongly for this. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you, mr. wiener, next caller, please >> you have five questions

remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker. >> caller: thank you, thank you, chair borden, and the members. good report. i'm pleased that we're going to open the subway, because i plan to use it. i've used it before. life without a subway isn't hard. imagine new york city without a subway. not fun. i am concerned about crowding and we have to minimize pass-ups, because pass-ups, it destroys a person's faith in the system and it opens up the door for discrimination so we need to make sure that we're not passing people up. we exist to lift people up, not leave them behind. i think that we can do better because i wonder why we're only aiming for 12,000 miles distance between failures when the new york city subway has an average

mean distance between failures of over 100,000 miles. so we have to ask ourselves what are they doing in new york that we're not doing here? because i think that we need to strive to do the best we can. i admit my bias for new york. i grew up in that system. it is a system steeped in legend and history and tradition. i think that we have to perform at the highest level. certainly, bringing back bus service -- >> 10 seconds. >> caller: i am encouraged about bringing back the f line and i do support the work on the l. tower, especially the building of the a.d.a. ramps. i believe that every transit stop in san francisco needs to be a.d.a. accessible because the way that we help people is through inclusion and full

participation and that work should never stop. no one should be left behind or pushed to the track. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you, mr. prioux. next speaker, please. >> you have five questions remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker. >> caller: can you hear me now? >> chair borden: yes, we can, mr. filtel. >> caller: okay, so we're on item 12, so here's my comments. so aggregated by mode the cost per hour is over $200, if you complayer to slide 13 from the previous item it's at least $227 per hour as of 2019 and that can be sub-divided further by mode and division. today's transit service restoration plan, the presentation that i heard is different than the last version that i heard. this version, among other things, threw out, and does not have a portal for k riders.

that's good. but i can't follow the rest of the slide and understand the overall restoration plan so i'm requesting right now for someone to mail me the written plan in its current iteration so that i can understand it. it sounds like some muni lines will still not be restored. the 21, the 57, 66, others, and staff continues to resist full restoration. in fact, director tumlin mentioned earlier that he wants to engage a consultant to explore -- sounds to me like rationalize -- not operating the 21, and instead provide more service on the 5. that's not serving his valley and the 21. finally, staff appears to be picking and choosing -- >> 0 seconds. >> caller: to pursue the transit effective project and the muni forward projects on lines they like and ignore the rest of us.

so it's highly selective. and this is not a process that people were assured of with the t.e.p. outreach more than 10 years ago. thanks very much. >> chair borden: thank you, mr. filpon. next speaker, please. >> you have five questions remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker. >> caller: hello, good afternoon, or good evening, board members. stephen miller. i wanted to first say that i'm really in support of some of the quick build projects that have been implemented during covid such as the geary project. and other projects such as mission would be great if there was actual enforcement to keep cars, especially cars that are parked, because it's not the cars that are moving that create large issues in the transit lanes. those are few and far between. but those that are stopped and the bus has to merge out, which

is especially a problem along mission street throughout the mission district and in downtown. it's terrible how slow the buses are. the other thing they wanted to say i that i think that it's great that the k.t. will be running the entire line like it did prior to covid. and i think that the l bus should run like the m bus and not go all the way downtown because it's not necessary to have a million buss going busesg downtown and have people transfer to the subway and you can have higher quality service on the outer part of the line while maintaining good service to the downtown through the subway. and the other thing that i wanted to talk about is the little map through the corridors and when they'll get transit priority improvements. they won't get improvements such as the 30 line until 2026 when these are to be quick build improvements is ridiculous. >> 30 seconds.

>> caller: we shouldn't have to wait another six years to improve a bus line that currently travels at a speed close to five miles per hour throughout its entire route. so there needs to be more holistic plan to look at the lines going very slow. the last thing they want to see is that we're seeing the ridership prior to covid on the rapid line, so it's important to bring back the lines like the 5r and the 28r that are currently suspended. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have five questions remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker, please. >> caller: hi, good evening board directors, happy birthday chair borden. thank you so much for your comments earlier on the chauvin verdict. as we said in our letter we're very excited to see this report and see the management and the hiring of the transit supervisors and excited for the tunnel process and for improve minutes in the transit service.

we're excited to see this map and the vision of routes protected from delays and the expansion of the rapid network across the city and into communities that have not been well served. as director tumlin mentioned, having service that is fast and frequent and reliable is what attracts people to public transit and serves the people dependent on it much better. these improvements deliver that service. and they have the potential to bring muni service closer to our vision of the 30 by 30 network, connecting across the city with frequent reliable service that travels end-to-end by 2030. our biggest concern is that these projects are slated to roll out much too slowly. if we want to meet our climate goal, vision zero goals, equity goals and mobility goals, we need to get improvements out to riders as quickly as possible. unfortunately, many of these projects have been considered but not acted upon for years. delays of outreach and implementation cost riders and sfmta and san francisco precious time and money.

we urge to you move with quick build pilot projects, other ways to speed up, so that we aren't as hayden miller mentioned talking about the 30 stockton in five years from now. we need to deliver those improvements as close to today as possible. thank you so much. >> five seconds. >> clerk: thanks, miss carter. next speaker, please. >> you have four questions remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker. >> caller: hi, this is patricia hoye. i have some questions to ask shawn kennedy. number one, is why -- since we have done a muni forward and it's not been very successful, why are we repaving again chesnut street that was already paved and then the muni forward plan which goes into the economics of your systems. number two, i have another question to ask.

has anybody studied after all of these plans come in how successful they are? and -- and has anybody ever taken into consideration senior citizens and particularly the pedestrian safety with senior citizens? i have been forced to buy a car because i can't work two or three blocks, and i'm seeing more and more seniors buying cars because they can't get to their services. i would like to have some answers and shawn you can write me a letter with these answers if you like, but you can answer them now. >> chair borden: thank you, miss hoye. next speaker, please. >> you have three questions remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker. >> caller: yes, hi, this is barry toronto. i think that david changed his name, can you hear me now?

sorry. anyway, part of this report should include the role that parking control officers and parking enforcement plays in the transit service. and how the changes to transit is helping so that transit is not impeded by unnecessarily and illy parked cars that slow down transit. i think that it's important to look at that. and also to look at the dangers that bus drivers face as part of that. because there have been threats to bus drivers' lives. and also important that they shouldn't be forced to go into opposing traffic lanes in order to continue on their routes. the -- in the mission district, that mission corridor, can be atrocious at times by the

illegal parking and the double parking. and the staffing in the evening hours, and the parking control officers is virtually nil. there's hardly any out there and on weekends as well. so that needs to be included. to look at the numbers at the transit levels and the number of citations issued for violations that impede transit service. thank you very much. >> chair borden: thank you, mr. toronto. next speaker, please. >> you have two questions remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker. >> caller: hello, my name is raul monoto and i currently live in district 7, kind of 7 or 11 for the past four years. i appreciate the work that y'all have been doing in the past year, 2020, and contributing to making, like, muni forward and trying to make muni -- especially the transportation